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 #91: in other words, you concede that I was right [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
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #85
91. in other words, you concede that I was right
+187K votes (depending on how one rounds) -- not much headway toward a supposed 3.2 million Bush vote increase in urban areas. As I said.

But then, this could not come as much surprise, since (1) the OP numerical analysis is posited on the assumption that big cities made up a much larger share of all votes in 2004 than in 2000, and (2) the OP pretty much demonstrates big cities did not make up a much larger share of all votes in 2004 than in 2000, even in the official returns.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to state your central claims clearly, but you have unaccountably failed to do so.

In your other post, you ask: "How precisely do these vote return figures disprove the inference that city votes were padded to bush?"

Charitably, this is confused; less charitably, you are moving the goalposts as a distraction. I do not know whether "city votes were padded to bush," in general. I am still waiting for you to tell me whether you think that Bush got 3.2 million more big-city votes in the official returns (hint: the OP itself all but proves that he didn't) -- or just according to one extrapolation from a table in the national subsample -- or what. Your decision to begin a research thread is a promising sign that you are finally beginning to catch on.

Now, if you would like to discuss whether it is likely that Bush's performance in New York City was due to ballot-stuffing (figuratively, since NYC uses lever machines), I am open to hear any arguments that you might have. I will point out, as I have many times before, that four statewide polls in the week before the election gave Kerry slightly smaller winning margins than he received in the official count. It therefore seems a priori unlikely to me that massive tampering of any kind favoring Bush took place in the state. Since over 40% of state residents live in New York City, that presumption applies to the city as well.
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