The 2004 presidential election was stolen: Kennedy Jr. said in a 2006 Rolling Stone article he was “convinced” that voter fraud in the 2004 presidential election allowed former Republican President George W. Bush to steal the victory from Democrat John Kerry, but while a 2005 postmortem by the Democratic Party found a breakdown of the election system in Ohio, it found no evidence of fraud.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: The 2004 U.S. presidential election was stolen or rigged in favor of Republican candidate George W. Bush:
- In 2006, he published an article titled “Was the 2004 Election Stolen?” which questioned the results and suggested evidence of election irregularities and possible fraud in Ohio that favored Bush over Democrat John Kerry.
- He has cited statistics about vote discrepancies in Ohio, issues with electronic voting machines, voter suppression, and discrepancies between exit polls and final results as reasons to suspect the 2004 election was manipulated.
- Kennedy has specifically claimed Republicans engaged in voter suppression tactics aimed at minority groups who were more likely to vote Democrat in key swing states like Ohio.
- He contends there was political interference in vote counting and a lack of adequate investigation into alleged irregularities after the fact.
- In 2008 media appearances, Kennedy continued to argue that cheating and suppression distorted the 2004 election results.
- He suggested some of the issues in 2004 were worse than the controversial election between Bush and Al Gore in 2000.
- However, Kennedy acknowledges that providing definitive evidence of a stolen election is very difficult. But he remains suspicious of the 2004 result based on the alleged anomalies.
- Beyond Ohio, Kennedy pointed to then-Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, who he accused of using purged felon lists to suppress Democratic votes. Hood denied this.
- He suggested the Bush family historically engaged in “ballot-tampering” going back to the 1930s. Some historians argue this claim relied on questionable evidence.
Kennedy put forward a whistleblower named Clint Curtis who claimed he was asked by GOP operatives to design vote-rigging software. Curtis’ claims were later undermined during testimony. He has continued asserting that 2004 marked one of the most “blatant” abuses of democratic processes in U.S. history. But he could not convince Kerry to act on it.
In recent years, Kennedy has not focused as heavily on his 2004 stolen election theory. But he uses it to argue America’s elections lack sufficient safeguards for integrity and transparency. So while Kennedy stands by his assertions, they did not gain decisive proof or traction. The theories ultimately languished after peaking around 2006.
So in summary, yes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been a prominent voice accusing Republicans of stealing or rigging the 2004 presidential election to re-elect George W. Bush, though he admits concrete proof is elusive. He wrote and spoke extensively about this viewpoint in the mid-2000s.
What has been the response to Kennedy’s claims about the 2004 election?
- Many Republicans and Bush supporters have strongly denied his claims and argued there is no credible evidence of systematic election rigging. Some criticize his assertions as conspiracy theories.
- Some neutral analysts and fact-checkers have said Kennedy raised thought-provoking points but did not conclusively prove election fraud on a scale that could have changed the result.
- A few politicians like John Conyers supported investigating Kennedy’s allegations, but no official investigation occurred.
- Mainstream media coverage was initially muted, though some columns and shows interviewed Kennedy about his claims. Overall his allegations got limited national traction.
- Democrats were somewhat divided. Some echoed Kennedy’s concerns, while others did not want to undermine Bush’s victory or were focused on looking ahead to 2008. John Kerry declined to contest the result.
- There were calls from some activists and bloggers to investigate and contest the 2004 election, but no broad meaningful effort materialized.
- A 2007 statistical study concluded the election results were consistent with exit poll discrepancies and that allegations of fraud were likely false.
- Since around 2006, Kennedy’s claims have gotten diminishing attention. The controversy faded without definitive proof on either side, though it remains disputed in some circles.
So while his allegations gained Kennedy attention from 2004-2006, they did not gain widespread acceptance or credence. Critics say unproven fraud claims undermine democracy, while Kennedy maintains important questions remain.
- Some voting rights advocates and election integrity groups were sympathetic to Kennedy’s claims and used it to call attention to needed election reforms like paper trails for electronic voting. However, they were unable to provide hard evidence of systematic manipulation that altered the 2004 outcome.
- Republican strategists suggested Democrats were just making excuses for losing in 2004 and pointed to Bush’s lead in the popular vote as contrary evidence. Some called the fraud claims offensive.
- A few politicians like Rep. Jerrold Nadler continued efforts to investigate alleged voting irregularities in Ohio beyond 2006, but no revelations of fraud emerged.
- Kennedy’s 2006 article making the claims was published in Rolling Stone and on Salon.com, giving it a platform but also opening him to criticisms of lacking rigor and proof in non-peer reviewed outlets.
- Theories persisted among some activists that Republicans had hacked vote tabulation, but state and federal courts rejected legal challenges claiming definitive evidence of vote count manipulation.
- Some of Kennedy’s points were echoed in the 2006 HBO documentary Hacking Democracy, but it didn’t change widespread opinion on the 2004 result.
- Polls showed most Americans continued to believe Bush’s 2004 victory was legitimate, despite Kennedy and others questioning it.
- In later years, Kennedy has focused more on general election integrity issues rather than re-litigating 2004 specifically.
So while provocative for a time, Kennedy’s stolen election claims did not gain widespread credence or durable impact. However, they did highlight real voting issues activists continue focusing on today.
What did John Kerry say about the 2004 presidential election conspiracy?
- Some voting rights advocates and election integrity groups were sympathetic to Kennedy’s claims and used it to call attention to needed election reforms like paper trails for electronic voting. However, they were unable to provide hard evidence of systematic manipulation that altered the 2004 outcome.
- Republican strategists suggested Democrats were just making excuses for losing in 2004 and pointed to Bush’s lead in the popular vote as contrary evidence. Some called the fraud claims offensive.
- A few politicians like Rep. Jerrold Nadler continued efforts to investigate alleged voting irregularities in Ohio beyond 2006, but no revelations of fraud emerged.
- Kennedy’s 2006 article making the claims was published in Rolling Stone and on Salon.com, giving it a platform but also opening him to criticisms of lacking rigor and proof in non-peer reviewed outlets.
- Theories persisted among some activists that Republicans had hacked vote tabulation, but state and federal courts rejected legal challenges claiming definitive evidence of vote count manipulation.
- Some of Kennedy’s points were echoed in the 2006 HBO documentary Hacking Democracy, but it didn’t change widespread opinion on the 2004 result.
- Polls showed most Americans continued to believe Bush’s 2004 victory was legitimate, despite Kennedy and others questioning it.
- In later years, Kennedy has focused more on general election integrity issues rather than re-litigating 2004 specifically.
So while provocative for a time, Kennedy’s stolen election claims did not gain widespread credence or durable impact. However, they did highlight real voting issues activists continue focusing on today.
Did President George Bush respond to RFK Jr’s allegations of conspiracy in the 2004 election?
George W. Bush himself did not make extensive public comments directly addressing the allegations that the 2004 election was rigged in his favor. However, his spokespeople and Republicans did respond:
In 2005, Bush White House spokesperson Scott McClellan dismissed claims of 2004 election fraud as “conspiracy theories” not supported by evidence. He asserted Bush’s victory was “confirmed by objective news sources.”
Bush’s campaign advisor Karen Hughes called allegations of rigging “offensive” and suggested Democrats were being sore losers. The Bush team maintained confidence in the certified election results.
Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman argued in 2005 that investigation requests were “silly” and there was “no credible evidence” of deliberate fraud that altered the outcome.
Bush’s Secretary of State during the 2004 election, Colin Powell, stated in 2005 he saw no significant issues of fraud raised after extensive examination of results.
In 2007, Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino reiterated the administration’s position that “no credible evidence” of significant wrongdoing was ever presented after multiple investigations.
When asked directly about claims of conspiracy in 2004, Bush typically gave vague responses about the importance of election integrity without affirming or denying specific allegations.
- Exit poll discrepancy: Some skeptics pointed to discrepancies between exit polls and actual results in Ohio and other key states as evidence of fraud. However, research suggests the exit polls were flawed.
- Vote flipping: Some claimed electronic voting machines “flipped” votes from John Kerry to George W. Bush due to tampering. But multiple investigations found no evidence of widespread vote flipping.
- Diebold conspiracy: Due to some of their executives supporting Bush, voting machine company Diebold was accused of rigging machines. However, Diebold machines weren’t even used in Ohio.
- Stolen votes: The claim that over 300,000 Ohio votes were stolen or lost was circulated. But independent investigations found no evidence to substantiate this allegation.
- Ukraine connection: Some theorized that the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election fraud conspiracy was connected to the U.S. election. But the two situations were very different politically and evidentially.
- One of the most circulated conspiracy films was “Ohio 2004” by filmmaker Richard Hayes Phillips. It claimed to have photographic evidence of vote mistabulations and fraud in Ohio. However, reviewers found the data cherry-picked and the conclusions unsubstantiated.
- Some analyzed election results and claimed that irregularities in vote counts and turnout pointed to manipulation of electronic voting machines. However, studies by institutions like MIT found these anomalies did not indicate fraud once contextual factors were included.
- The group Black Box Voting alleged that votes were illegally counted multiple times in Ohio. They filed lawsuits seeking access to ballot records, but were unable to uncover solid evidence backing their claims.
- Author Mark Crispin Miller wrote a book claiming that John Kerry actually won Ohio, alleging various kinds of fraud. But other analysts found his claims to be based on misinterpretations of data and unreliable evidence.
- Democrats in Congress pushed to challenge the Ohio results over allegations of irregularities. But the challenge was abandoned due to lack of concrete evidence and endorsement by Kerry himself of Bush’s certified victory.
- Some claimed that Republicans orchestrated long lines and shortages of ballots/machines in Democrat-leaning areas to disenfranchise voters. But studies indicated that precinct resources were not disproportionately allocated by party.
In summary, while there were anomalies, claims of a stolen election remain unproven. Multiple state recounts and independent investigations uncovered no significant evidence of fraud or vote rigging. The election results were certified.