You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #74: You. Have. Nothing. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #64
74. You. Have. Nothing.
"...your assumed vote shares were implausible..."

Yo, the challenge is to demonstrate that the vote shares were implausible, not simply to assert it. Once again you seem to have gone AWOL when it's time to do the actual work. (Some folks will assume that all those tables somehow prove your point about the vote shares, but they don't.)

Citing the percentages in the NEP tables doesn't count as an argument, because we've already explained why false reporting of past votes would distort those results. See also post #52. Under the rules of formal debate, you've simply conceded that point by ignoring it.

Actually, I've lost track of what you've conceded under the rules of formal debate. (Inter alia, you've conceded that the 43% and 37% are not "weights" any more than they are "chi squares," and therefore you are deliberately babbling when you refer to them as weights. Repeating your errors does not count as justifying them.)
So now had to replace the already-debunked reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis with a new one: Gore voter false
recall. Your sole rationale: an NES post-election 600-sample NES survey taken a few years after the election.

That's a lot of truthiness to squeeze into two sentences, but the absolute stupidest thing is when you say that the NES survey was "taken a few years after the election." How many times do we need to explain what a panel study is? (Or maybe the absolute stupidest thing is that you say this is my "sole rationale" for what you call "false recall" even after I marshal evidence from every exit poll, General Social Survey, and National Election Study I could lay my hands on.)

Here is a sentence-and-a-half snippet that conceivably might reveal even to you how far off you are. "...it's irrelevant whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters when they said they voted for Bush. What is relevant is who they said they voted for in 2004 - and 91% said it was Kerry." Dead wrong. If we don't know who the Gore 2000 voters actually were, then we don't know who they said they voted for in 2004. We only know that for the people who said they voted for Gore. So of course it's relevant whether Gore 2000 voters reported that vote correctly. Again, see also post #52.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC