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 #49: Just looked at some of your [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
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #34
49. Just looked at some of your
other posts left overnight.

Your basis for calling my posts, and those of OTOH and awsi dooger crap seems to be that we are "exit poll skeptics". You do not actually make any counter-argument to any of the arguments we put, you merely crap on our heads. You ask why we "hunt in packs". I am not aware that we do, but when exit poll crap gets posted, then those of us who know a bit about why it's crap point it out. More like scavenging a carcase, than hunting in packs perhaps.

I simply do not understand the utter refusal in some quarters on DU to actually examine evidence. It's as thought the exit poll evidence were sacrosanct somehow, and anyone who dares to point out that polls are not random samples, and that the non-randomness is likely to be responsible for the observed anomalies, is self-evidently a troll.

Well, it isn't true. The posters you crap on are not trolls, AFAICT they are reality based people who wish that Kerry had won, dearly wish to see election reform in the US, and want to see decisions about election integrity policy made on the basis of sound analysis and data, not urban legends about multi-million vote theft.

So when an OP like this gets posted and is widely publicised, and yet is clearly based on a fundamentally flawed premises, then we point that out. And instead of addressing the points, people like you crap on our heads.

OK, let me ask you again:

Where is your rebuttal of my point about the reweighting, about the non-correlation between discrepancy and increase in vote-share, and where is your rebuttal of OTOH's point about precinct sampling?

If you can't provide it without more crap, then I'll take the crap (I'm almost immune to it by now), but please also provide substance.
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