LandShark's ZogbyPoll - It's Unanimous! Great News 4 Election Detection!

I came across this story while visiting the daily political blogs; yes I do read the other side to see what is out there. This was an interesting poll, granted it is not released to the media yet and hopefully it will be soon. I think it is very telling, and not exactly how they are reacting over on DU. First lets start out with the thread over on DU called

LandShark's Zogby Poll - It's Unanimous! Great News 4 Election Detection!

Landshark goes on and posts some of his thoughts on this, yes I would be excited too to get this response to a poll I commissioned.

“In democracy, 51% wins. So what is 92%???

92% political support would be something like domination. Annihilation of the purported opposition. A nearly irresistible political force.

So what is this force or principle that's on the side of election protection and election detection?

92% would be the percentage of likely voters in a Zogby telephone poll who answered a certain question the same way.... The poll was commissioned by Paul Lehto with partial support for the poll provided by Michael Collins and www.electionfraudnews.com, Democracy for New Hampshire, and other election detection patriots out there.

And what question did essentially all americans agree on??

Well, first a clue.

It doesn't matter more than a few percentage points whether you're black or white, hispanic or asian, republican or democrat or independent, catholic, protestant, jew, union or not, red state or blue state, very conservative or liberal, armed forces or nascar fan, walmart shopper or walmart boycotter, old or young, male or female, married or single, rich or poor. It just doesn't matter what demographic you're from because 86% is the lowest amount of support from any demographic and that's the youngsters 18-24 who're still in school (probably) and therefore "still learning."

So EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP SUPPORTS THIS PRINCIPLE BY A MINIMUM OF 86% AND AN AVERAGE OF 92%. And that includes a lotta people you don't agree with, too.

And the question involves voters having a choice of state laws regarding transparency of vote counting:”

This is great news; I mean who wouldn’t want to have transparent election results? I know I would love that, it would no more BS about someone stealing an election. Which never happened regardless of what the conspiracy theorists say, if there was a stolen election then how could every major media outlet in Florida 2000 come up with the same result 4 out of 5 times? The only time they got a win for Gore was when the counted the ballots that were outlawed by Florida law before the election took place. Try to share that with a moonbat though and you are sure to get a few choice swear words and “How stupid can you be”, of course it doesn’t matter that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, or other liberal biased news sources did the count, it only matter what the moonbat feels happened. God it is enough to get me pissed off again; anyway this poll that LandShark commissioned had some really interesting results.

“18. In some states, members of the public have the right to view the counting of votes and verify how that process is working. In other states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even if they would like to view the process. Which of the following two statements are you more likely to agree with – A or B?

Table 1.

Statement A: Citizens have the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes.
92%

Statement B: Citizens do not have the right to view and obtain information about how elections officials count votes.
6%

Neither/Not sure
2%

Most all likely voters (92%) agree that citizens have the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes (Statement A). Just 6% feel citizens do not have this right (Statement B).

Eighty-six percent or more of people within every demographic group agrees with Statement A. This includes overwhelming majorities of Democrats (93%), Republicans (87%), and independents (97%). Furthermore, no more than 10% of people in any sub-group – with the sole exception of 18-29 year-olds (13%) – agree more with Statement B.”

Like I said this is great news, of course I am concerned with the 6% that stated that Citizens do not have the right to view and obtain information about how the votes are counted. I think they are die hard liberals that are concerned they will not be able to get the illegal aliens and dead through the process. I know that Chicago might be a lot different if the Dead were unable to vote in their elections.

Now this is why I think this is not as good for the Democrats as the DU crowd is crowing about. 1) The Democrats are the ones that have problems voting, in every election controversy it happened in Democrat counties, with Democrat controlled board of election officials. In my entire life I have never seen such incompetence at anything and people so willing to pin it on someone else. Or they scream “WE ARE NOT GETTING OUR MESSAGE OUT!” I think they are getting the message out and the American people keep rejecting them. Time will tell if this is the case though and I think 2006 will be a good test to my theory. 2) With a transparent system, each voter getting a receipt if you will for their vote, we will not be able to have precincts reporting over 100% voting. This would have made it impossible for Washington State to elect the woman they have now if this was used in that election. 3) There could not be votes all of a sudden “found” when the Democrat candidate is found loosing the race. Like they did in Washington State in the recent Governor race, it would have had profound affects on the political scene in Washington.

All of these things lead me to believe that we will have more whining down the road form Democrats and the Liberals that wanted this in the first place. Remember it was the Democrats that wanted an electronic voting machine after the 2000 election because they couldn’t get their hanging and pregnant chads counted for their guy. The will claim the system is tainted or that the machines are spitting out the wrong name on the receipts when their guys and gals keep loosing national elections.