November 10th, 2006

Lieberman’s Opposition in 2000 and 2006 Received the EXACT Amount of Votes

CNN 2006 Connecticut Election Results — 448,077 votes

FEC 2000 Connecticut Election Results — 448,077 votes


Click these buttons to share this story:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Fark
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • TailRank
  • YahooMyWeb

Posted in Campaign News





21 Comment(s)

Leave a response »

  1. Very Suspicious Says :

    It would be interesting to see a comparison of the county by county breakout of the 2000 votes.  What are the statistical odds of this happening?  Hmmmm……….


  2. steve Says :

    Damn… you guys won the Senate and Congress.  What more than you want, money?  women?

    It’s a freaky chance number…   You’d have to consider how many people moved into the state, registered to vote, who moved out, who voted and who didn’t vote…


  3. Jersey McJones Says :

    I don’t know Steve - why would Lamont, who was running to the left of Leiberman, get the exact same number of votes as Leiberman’s Republican opponent in ‘00?  Just wierd.

    JMJ


  4. eyes wide shut Says :

    Hmmmm. 186,000 less votes this year. I realize this is an off year, but this was an extremely publicized race. How about we set the machines to stop counting Lamont votes at this #? Looks like someone screwed up. What say you Lamont?


  5. slick willy Says :

    The chances of this number coming up again are about the same as say 911 being the pick 3 for the lottery same day as the real 911, or say a year later too. Hmm


  6. IrishTim Says :

    Given the size of the vote! This is simply not possible - the same number - in the same constituency - for an anti-Democrat candidate - given that the winner last time was an anti - Democrat candidate as well - Looks as though someone just cut and pasted a file or ran the same algorithm -  American Corruption - you lot are in trouble major fucking league!


  7. Chris Says :

    There is something known as the random walk. Basically, starting at a value of 0, and randomly increasing or decreasing by 1 what is the chance you will ever get to -10, or -100, or 1000.

    The vote may not be pro-lamont as much as anti-liebermen. Maybe the same type of people hate him as before. Maybe 448,077 has a 2% chance of coming up, and 448,076 and 448,078 have 1% and the chances decrease around that magic number.

    That is how random sampling works after all…

    This isn’t evidence. Evidence would be an accusation of malfeasance on the part of the counting authority - whatever it may be in this situation.


  8. JohnO Says :

    Is there a paper trail, or all-electronic as in VA?


  9. james Says :

    Here’s the district-by-district breakdown for 2000: http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVIII/SOV00ussenate.htm

    Have at it people.


  10. james Says :

    Here’s the district-by-district breakdown for 2000: http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVIII/SOV00ussenate.htm.

    Have at it people.

     


  11. Jody Paulson Says :

    Why I’m not sure this is just a coincidence …

    In the 2002 election: “TEXAS REPUBLICANS DANNY SCHEEL, CARTER CASTEEL and JEFF WENTWORTH ALL RECIEVED EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF VOTES - 18,181″

    If computers can be programed to stop counting or add votes using a certain number, and you had superstitious, numerology-loving would-be vote cheaters out there, wouldn’t fraud be a good explanation for numbers like these?

    Flashback: Staged Election: Several Republicans Win by Exact Same Amount of Voteshttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/031104sameamount.htm


  12. Zampan0 Says :

    it is nearly impossible.  surely a statistician can figure it.  5 million to 1 maybe.  more likely, it is stupidity on the part of whoever fixed the vote.  this isralie shill had to stay in,  that’s all.


  13. Zampan0 Says :

    it is nearly statisically impossible.  he was tronced by his dem counterpart in the primary, he should have lost.  the isralie shill had to stay, it’s that simple.


  14. Evan Says :

    It’s actually nearly impossible that this won’t happen from time to time. Let’s presume that roughly the same number of people are opposed to Joe — say, give or take 20,000 votes. Then this would happen roughly once in 20,000 times. And given the number of elections in this country, the odds of this sort of thing NOT happening are extremely low. It’s odd that it happened to Joe, but you’ve got selection bias — you already know who it happened to, rather than surveying all the elections.

    It’s like the odds that two people in a room will share a birthday. The odds are that if you have something like 24 people in a room, two will share a birthday. BUT if you select one person, the odds that someone else will have that birthday are roughly 23 in 365.

    Example:;
    http://noca.leaver.org/birthday/index.html


  15. Evan Says :

    It’s actually nearly impossible that this won’t happen from time to time. Let’s presume that roughly the same number of people are opposed to Joe — say, give or take 20,000 votes. Then this would happen roughly once in 20,000 times. And given the number of elections in this country, the odds of this sort of thing NOT happening are extremely low. It’s odd that it happened to Joe, but you’ve got selection bias — you already know who it happened to, rather than surveying all the elections.

    It’s like the odds that two people in a room will share a birthday. The odds are that if you have something like 24 people in a room, two will share a birthday. BUT if you select one person, the odds that someone else will have that birthday are roughly 23 in 365.

    You could look it up.


  16. estrogen Says :

    its pretty obvious somethings fishy in CT. from these numbers it looks like CT. had less voters this time than in 2000. hmmm, so much for those record turnouts this time….

    it must be his birthday…


  17. Daniel Says :

    Since i heard the result i was suspicious of this result. It just didnt make sense, that for someone who was convincingly beaten in the primaries, because of his anti war stance. For him to come back and beat that same candidate, lamont, by such a relatively large number, just doesnt make much sense. That kind of swing makes no sense, outside of lamont being embroiled in some kinda public scandal, which didnt happen.


  18. Nina Stein Says :

    What is really bizarre is that 300,000 people who voted Republican last time  this time did not and seems instead to have voted for Lieberman. That is ridiculous! the change to independent should have divided the Democrat vote rather than decimated the republican vote. I wonder if the republican votes went via computer Gliche to deear Joe.


  19. Nina Stein Says :

    What is really bizarre is that 300,000 people who voted Republican last time  this time did not and seems instead to have voted for Lieberman. That is ridiculous! the change to independent should have divided the Democrat vote rather than decimated the republican vote. I wonder if the republican votes went via computer Gliche to deear Joe. http://www.teambio.org/wp-comments-post.php


  20. Kenster Says :

    It’s called a coincidence, people.  Geez.


  21. Voter Fraud Reports - Page 2 - Volconvo Debate Forums Says :

    […] Bring it On! Blog Archive Liebermans Opposition in 2000 and 2006 Received the EXACT Amount of Votes CNN 2006 Connecticut Election Results 448,077 votes FEC 2000 Connecticut Election Results 448,077 votes Check out some of these comments from the same site: Quote: […]



Leave a Reply

Note: if you are typing html tags into the comment area manually (i.e. not using the editor) please use the "toggle html source" option above.


Titanium Body Jewelry
Chevy Avalanche For Sale
Used Infiniti FX35
Used German Cars
Volvo Cars









Fish.Travel