I was thinking about this today... Do the polls taken daily factor in military votes, or just "likely voters" stateside? Given the military is as much as 4-1 for Bush (if not more), would there be enough votes from servicemen to sway some states and cause them to go to Bush?

One of the impacts of all the Democrat lawsuits to force Nader off the ballot has been to delay the printing of ballots.  In some states the absentee ballots won't be mailed in time for them to be returned in time.  This just happened in Pennsylvania, disenfranchising 19,000 military overseas voters.  

The service members who actually request a ballot are usually the older career guys who run even more conservative than the average for the military.  Looking at the PA ballots you can assume the 19,000 would split up something like 15,000 Bush/ 4,000 Kerry, a net gain of 11,000 for Bush, that he now won't get.

The PA vote may very well be decided by less than 11,000 votes.  The PA Electoral votes may well  be enough to decide the national election.  In this scenario the disenfranchisement of military voters could determine who occupies the Whitehouse.

Pennsylvania is not the only state where this has happened.  I wonder if it was done on purpose as part of a strategy by the Dems.

As an interesting aside, there is only one Florida voter who has proved in court that he, as an individual, was purposefully denied his vote in the 2000 Florida Presidential election.

It was an Army Colonel who procrastinated mailing in his ballot, so he sent it overnight delivery (requiring a signature) to the polling place.  A Democrat election worker signed for receipt of his ballot on election day.

Later, the Colonel saw a published list of  Florida ballots that had arrived too late to be counted.  His ballot was listed as having arrived nine days late.  However, he still had the signed receipt that his ballot had arrived on time, in fact it was early.

The Colonel took it to court and won, but it took two years and all he got was satisfaction.  He has stated that this year he will take leave to vote in person.

There is an article about it in the current (or maybe last) Army Times, if anybody wants to read more about it.

The military vote is huge in Florida.  For active duty, Florida does not charge income tax so lots of folks who are/were stationed there become residents.  Conversely, very few military member stationed in CA become state residents because of the confiscatory state income taxes.  I know that I have seen a much greater emphasis on voting this year than any previous presidential election and I'm on a staff, not a tactical unit where the get out the vote effort would be much stronger.

+1 for Bush in PA from this servicemember.  Hope it makes a bigger difference than in Y2K.

Quoted: One of the impacts of all the Democrat lawsuits to force Nader off the ballot has been to delay the printing of ballots.  In some states the absentee ballots won't be mailed in time for them to be returned in time.  This just happened in Pennsylvania, disenfranchising 19,000 military overseas voters.   The service members who actually request a ballot are usually the older career guys who run even more conservative than the average for the military.  Looking at the PA ballots you can assume the 19,000 would split up something like 15,000 Bush/ 4,000 Kerry, a net gain of 11,000 for Bush, that he now won't get.

This is perhaps the ultimate slap in the face to members of the military: The very people who have the greatest stake in this election will be denied any say in its outcome.

On a more positive note, this sounds like solid grounds for a legal challenge after the election.

the concept of those in the .mil not having their votes counted is completely reprehensible... if that happens, and it affects the outcome of the election, I would say it is time for REGIME CHANGE in the US.