do you think  federal  election 2000 and 2004 was  stole or rigged?
140201
YES YES and TES. 2000 and 2004 were rigged. They'll do it again in 2008. Its a shame that a Dick and a Bush runs the White House. GWB isn't even qualify to run his own life much less that of the USA. Thats right he not he does what his Daddy tells him. The Bush family and their "friends" killed JFK JR. by booby trapping (s) his plane. Get the Kennedys out of the picture and they have control. It won't, however, last forever :)
262273
I can't believe the winner got 95% of the vote.  That seems very unlikely. Its probbly fraudulent.
834997
Way too soon.  Some of them "predict" winners based on incomplete poll results from the eastern states.  This is an evident attempt by the liberal media  to influence the elections by activating certain voters in the western states, which come in later with their votes.  This was never more apparent than in the 2004 presidential election.  The practice should be outlawed.  No results should ever be reported until the last polls have closed in Alaska and Hawaii.
279695
Free and fair elections is the first criteria.  This is why Bush is not legitimate - stemming from his theft of the election in 2000.
1106538
It is Diebold. And Bush's cousin is not the owner. You were hoping that Americans were dumb enough to believe false urban legends you spread.\n\nSmart Americans also know that the Diebold machines were a small portion of the voting machines and devices used during either of the elections Bush was in, and were not able to swing an election.
1150308
Yes. Al Gore was cheated out of the presidency as was Kerry. Now they know how to rig the voting machines so there is no paper trail so they will win every time. It is disgusting.
694824
EXCELLENT QUESTION.I was wondering about the huge computer  vs paper ballot vote this election.Sounds like another election scam in the making
52700
Well, if you don't vote, then my vote is worth more, so I guess that's all right with me.  \n\nI don't believe the elections were rigged and stolen.
891084
If sending out poll watchers is cheating, then I guess they did. Perhaps the hackers got hacked this time?\n\nWhat gripes my bush is that all the crooks that were fired get huge pensions, free medical care etc. for life, at my expense.
941295
so votes could be  stolen?
874967
I think so. But if the GOP had squeaked out a victory all we would hear is the liberals talking about voter fraud.
736705
CNN is constantly televising the fact that the DIEBOLD machines are too easily manipulated. Democrats (not Republicans), tried to get a Bill in place so that paper ballots could also be used at polling places. To be funded by the Govt. The Republicans squashed it in Congress, overriding it with their majority vote.  The problem of the hanging chads was favored to be Democratic-favored-territory, not Republican, and yet Republicans won in many of those counties. Coincidence?? How about all the missing ballots or overseas absentee ballots that never got counted. Voter manipulation is one of the 14 signs of fascism. We now have about 12 out of 14 in the US. Next time, vote absentee ballot, for the paper trail. I suspect we will have major problems come election day. Then hopefully, something will be done before the 2008 General Election.
545012
By the way, you forgot the Democratic theft of the 2004 Washington gubernatiorial election (so ably documented at "SoundPolitics.com")\n\nYou suggested a large part of the reason in your opening: "the broadcasters. . .conspired. . . "  \n\nWell, I'm not too sure "conspired" is the right word, at least not for most of them.  (It really only take a few conspirators; the rest may be quite unwitting accomplices.)    The basic reason, I believe, is that the media simply has deep CONVICTIONS (or bias!) that it is not able to overcome (perhaps because they are not able/willing to recognize they ARE biased).\n\nLet's face it -- the Old Media is largely on the political left, whereas talk radio, for instance, is mainly on the right.  The PROBLEM is that talk radio, right bloggers, etc. ANNOUNCE their bias --'this is where we're coming from'.  But the liberal Old Media, by its very inability (refusal?) to simply admit IT is biased to the left, blinds itself to self-critique and correction.\n\nFor the Old Media it is extremely difficult to recognize and highlight fraud by the party they are overwhelmingly sold out to (not literally but in their personal convictions!) ... to admit that people who share their convictions COULD do such... it's too much for them.\n\nConsider also that there are leading Democrats who often go out of their way to leak, plant and spin stories in the sadly unsuspecting press, which rarely thinks to stop to question the motivation of those critcizing or accusing the right.   And the sheer constancy (in number and repetition) of ACCUSATIONS -- no matter how ill-founded-- can, over time, start giving people the impression (without any evidence!) that "there must be something to it".  The MSM is here both perpetrator and victim.  \n\nAgain, I DO hesitate to call MOST of this "conspiracy" -- I believe many in the media (and in the Democratic party as well) are quite sincere.  Before anything even happens, they are already so convinced that the Democrats are right, that Republicans not the Dems would SURELY be the ones to try to 'disenfranchise' voters that it makes them simply incapable of SEEING things happening under their very noses  (and if they are sometimes forced to admit it in this or that instance, they still operate from the deep CONVICTION [almost religious!] that this is an aberration, whereas the Republicans really are committed to using any means, fair or foul, to win... even when NO evidence of it can be discovered.\n\nCompounding this is the fact that much of the liberal media IS living in a "bubble" -- they are hardly exposed to anyone who thinks or sees things differently from them. (There is, in a sense, an advantage to being on the right -- you can hardly escape being hit with the spin of the left.  Many on the left can almost if not completely avoid being exposed to people of conviction on the right... so they simply do not understand them.) There is very little diversity, for instance, in their news rooms, no one to ask the key questions or point out the problems that are OBVIOUS to intelligent commentators on the right.\n\nAs evidence of this sort of deep conviction, note that other answers you are getting!  Generic accusations or repetition of charges that have been DIS-proven (e.g., many on the left still seem unaware of the major media recounts of Florida in early 2005 and how they showed Bush won on ANY reasonable recount method).  Are they lying?  Some perhaps.  But others are just SO convinced already (and so mad about it all!) that they are UNABLE to look at evidence that doesn't fit their convictions.\n\nI can think of TWO other reasons or contributing factors.\n\n1) Some of the examples of fraud you cite were SO baldfaced that it is a bit difficult to believe anyone would have tried them!   They SOUND like nutty conspiracy theories!  (And note that much of the media HAS refused to give much
1185065
Yes I did...and it was on a DIEBOLD...\nSo that means when my vote went in...\nit was changed to what the Republicans want...\nSuch a corrupt, shallow party....
645097
It was Bill Clinton, of course. Some people may not want to admit this, but the only reason why Bush became president in 2000 is because his dad's friends on the Supreme Court bench handed him the Oval Office.  Some may argue that Bush won fair and square in 2004, but there is evidence that election fraud may have taken place then, as well. However, since Kerry didn't contest the results, no one talked much about it. Thank you, Diebold!
209563
Yes, indeed, Kerry lost. The election was NOT stolen, nor was that in 2000.  I'm glad to see that most people before Terrence were reasonable about this.   \n\nFor those who agree with Terrence, please note that many people have looked into various claims of cheating and NONE was found.\n \nIn the case of 2000 election, for instance, if you followed the news stories in the months following the election -- about things like the newspaper consortium's own recount of Florida and the proceedings of the Civil Rights Commission, you would have seen that they turned up. . . NOTHING.\n\nSo, where is your EVIDENCE of a conspiracy?!  Or do you just "know" it?  Or did you 'hear someone say...' ?\n\nAs for the remarks about Ken Blackwell, offered with NO evidence, are simply slander.   (Yes, I know some folks disagreed with Blackwell's decisions in his capacity of Secretary of State, but they took him to court about his procedures BEFORE the election. . . and lost!  All of this is official public record  -- I read several of them online just before the election.)
758797
I voted on a diebold machine and felt it was safe and accurate.\n\nHowever, if someone really tried and knew what they were doing, fraud could be an issue with those machines. Better safeguards are needed in the future.