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 #41: Ok in CAPITALS so the extremely dim can understand [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is locked.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. Ok in CAPITALS so the extremely dim can understand
As I just got finished saying, I don't think the OP really commits to a view of what happened to rural votes.

BOLLOCKS: IT SAYS THE RURAL VOTE FOR BUSH DECLINED WHICH IT DID.

Like so many of these arguments, it seems to stop with the conclusion that the exit poll tables Don't Add Up.

NOPE AGAIN: SAYS LOADS MORE THAN THAT

It's akin to other areas where people poke holes in what they take to be The Official Story, but don't seem to try to figure out what The Real Story might be.

THE CLEAR INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE OP IS THAT BUSH'S VOTE IS PADDED PROBABLY IN THE SUBURBS THE SMALL CITIES AND THE BIG CITIES. SOMEONE LIKE YOU THAT HAS READ AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ THAT INFERENCE. THE OP DELIBERATELY DOES NOT ACTUALLY STATE THIS AS ITS INTENTION IS TO OPEN A QUESTION FOR OTHERS TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER.

As you point out, basically the 2004 table we're discussing indicates a large 'shift' of votes from rural to urban (and especially big-city).

NOPE: VOTE SHIFT FROM RURAL TO URBAN IS A PARTICULARLY STUPID WAY TO PUT IT. BUSH'S RURAL VOTE DECLINED. HIS SMALL TOWN VOTE IS STATIC. HIS URBAN VOTE EXPLODED. THIS IS NOT ABOUT SHIFT IT IS ABOUT CHANGE.

We don't think this shift actually happened, and I've certainly seen no sign of it in the official returns that the weights are intended to match.

THIS SENTENCE IS NONSENSE.

It's interesting to try to figure out why the national weightings misfired in this way.

YES INTERESTING AND PLEASE PROVIDE A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION.

Aspects that don't vary within precincts, and that aren't explicitly factored into the weightings, are especially volatile (and that would be true in 2000 as well). The 2004 national subsample contains 26 precincts in eight states standing in for the entire big-city vote.

WELL THATS AN INTERESTING PIECE OF ACTUAL INFORMATION WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE - REFERENCE PLEASE.

It appears that some of those precincts got upweighted for some other reason, throwing the urban/rural balance out of plumb -- and/or the 2000 subsample was out of plumb in the opposite direction.

IT APPEARS BECAUSE WHY? BECAUSE YOUR THIRD FINGER FOLLOWED YOUR SECOND WHEN TYPIING THE SENTENCE?

I can't think of any way to work out what this particular table actually ought to say (in order to match the official returns), because election returns aren't consistently reported by municipality.

IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS NO ANSWER SO DON'T BOTHER LOOKING.

We can probably work out the big-city part, but not the whole thing.

WELL THAT WILL BE INTERESTING. PLEASE BE SURE TO TELL US WHEN YOU DO.

It's much easier to look at the county level, and I will fiddle with that some once I get another paper 'out the door.'

IN OTHER WORDS I AM AN IMPORTANT PERSON WRITING IMPORTANT PAPERS SO BELEIVE WHAT I SAY.

I haven't thought a lot about the liberal/conservative mix in 2000 versus 2004. In fairness, I imagine the "fraud crew" would say that the apparent spike in conservatives in 2004 just proves how the exit polls were jiggered. Of course, that doesn't work very well, since even in the "early" national exits, conservatives were at 33%. Oh, but I should point out that there is a five-point drop in moderates, so the liberal/conservative balance goes from 20/29 to 21/34 (or 22/33 in the "early" version). At some point I will fill in the tenths place.

WHILE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT THIS PARA GIVES THE ILLUSION THAT THE POSTER ACTUALLY KNOWS SOMETHING.

Oh, nitpick: "You'll note the NEP is identical on both CNN and MSNBC." NEP is the name of the consortium that sponsored the exits in 2004 and 2006, not a good abbreviation for the national tables.

YIP NITPICK. IRRELEVANT. UNRELATED TO THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH.

Anyway, no, I didn't realize that there were two different versions of the 2000 state tables up on the web. I can imagine where that might come in really handy in some myth-busting -- and maybe in other ways, too.

NO IDEA WHAT THATS ABOUT BUT THEN MOST OF THIS CONVERSATION IS TAKING PLACE IN AN ECHO CHAMBER SO ITS HARDLY SURPRISING.
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