Here are the bar graphs which show the absentee results, overall results, and poll only (election day voting) results. Remember that Democrats and Republican turned out in equal numbers for early voting (we find this out by dividing Gov. Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% Democrat. Do the same for Republican Ballantine and you get a ratio of 30%). Remember, the 'Dixiecrat' theory (registered Democrats voting Republican) can't apply here...it would affect all races equally, and as you are about to see, that is not the case:

GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Mike Easley (DEM): 573,120 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 445,505 (43.2%) -12.4
Other: 12,490 (1.2%)

GOVERNOR (Overall)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,939,137 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,495,032 (42.9%) -12.7
Other: 52,512 (1.5%)

GOVERNOR (Poll only)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,366,017 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,049,527 (42.7%) -12.9
Other: 40,022 (1.6%)

To establish the point of consistency, here are the comparisons of two of the other statewide races. (they all have the same results, just refer to the numbers). It's a lot of numbers, most all of them in the same percentile range, but it was important to establish that there was a clear, obvious, and unaccounted diversion from the norm in both the Senate and Presidential races.

There is no skew between absentee voting and poll only/overall numbers. Apparently, even if there are a lot of 'Dixecrats' in North Carolina, even if they voted early they were representative of the overall results (remember 30% of NC votes were absentee).

Now, lets look at the Senate and Presidental Races.

WOW. With essentially the same vote demographics in the absentee and the poll, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. That's more than a little alarming and is in itself enough to call into question the legitimacy of the election day vote. Remember, this did not happen with ANY OTHER STATE office...except for president, which we'll discuss right now.

Kerry was behind by 6 points in the absentee/early voting. The result is consistent with the pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of November 2nd. THE EXIT POLLS TELL US THAT PEOPLE VOTED IDENTICALLY TO THE OTHER THIRD OF THE ELECTORATE. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should be very close to the same result. But look at what happens -- a sudden and unexplained plummet in the very same electorate of NINE POINTS at the election day polls, more than doubling Kerry's overall margin of defeat. A 15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day?

Uh-huh. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not that gullible.

I honestly don't know how to account for that outside of computer programming -- and if it's there, there's a good case with the nationwide inconsistencies between exit polls and results on election day to say that it follows everywhere electronic tabulation goes.

I AGAIN want to point out that the differential was not there prior to election day: Repulicans and Democrats turned out for early voting in the same numbers in North Carolina. THERE IS NO difference in all major state races EXCEPT for the Senate race and the Presidental race.

And again, the 'Dixiecrat' theory does not apply. If several Dixiecrats turned out, they would have affected other races as well, not just Senate and Presidential. The skew would have been universal across all elections.