CNN 2006 Connecticut Election Results — 448,077 votes
FEC 2000 Connecticut Election Results — 448,077 votes
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Teddy Roosevelt
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- Bring it On! Radio
- Budget
- Campaign News
- China
- Current Affairs
- DailyFeatured
- Economics
- Education
- Environment
- Gay and Lesbian Rights
- General
- Global Warming
- Gonzo’s Grab Bag
- Health
- HERO
- Homeland Security
- IDIOT
- Immigration
- Impeachment
- Iraq War
- Israel
- Katrina
- Legal News
- Middle East
- Military
- Miscellaneous
- Music
- Patriot
- Police State
- Politics
- Poll Results
- Quickie
- Race
- Religion
- Right Wing Nut
- Science
- Stem-Cell Research
- Technology
- Television
- Terrorism
- Video and Animation
- Weblogs
- World News
Listen to Us Live
You are browsing...
- An archived entry
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Related Entries
- CT Senate Results
- Connecticut Senate Race
- Jesse Jackson Nails It
- Mark these words
- Tell Joe: Respect the Voters
Search our Site
Awards and Stuff
Disclaimer
- Bring It On is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments/diaries section. Read at your own risk.
Titanium Body Jewelry
Chevy Avalanche For Sale
Used Infiniti FX35
Used German Cars
Volvo Cars
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……….
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…
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
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?
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
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!
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.
Is there a paper trail, or all-electronic as in VA?
Here’s the district-by-district breakdown for 2000: http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVIII/SOV00ussenate.htm
Have at it people.
Here’s the district-by-district breakdown for 2000: http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVIII/SOV00ussenate.htm.
Have at it people.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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…
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.
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.
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
It’s called a coincidence, people. Geez.
[…] 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: […]