Reply #248: What the hell was that?

[Awsi Dooger]

It activated my motion sickness, all the needless circles.

I'm trying to imagine reaction on this site if the GOP were claiming rightful victory in a state we won officially by 118,000+ votes? Ya think there might be some hysteria? We carry Montana and Virginia by a tiny fraction of that to retake the senate and don't think anything of it, moving on as rightful majority. Well, other than TIA who insists the margin should have been whatever the exit polls indicated, plus anything it takes to arrive precisely at his Monte Carlo spit out.

There's heavy burden to that 118,000. That's what I see, as someone who deals in applied probability every day. The fraud screamers have no trouble allocating heavy doses of every category in the same direction until it topples the known number. If the known number were to change, they'd simply allocate more. It reminds me of gamblers here content to run off a list after every lost bet, "if it weren't for that penalty, that fumble, that dropped pass, that terrible bounce..." They have no idea it's long since become a parody.

BradBlog's posts here were nothing but parody. I honestly couldn't believe he wanted to come across like that, so desperate to condemn user names, of all things. Newsflash: you sign up for places like this with no idea what you might discuss, what you might be known for, if anything. Then once you've established an identity it's silly and a hassle to re enlist.

When TIA was posting all the 99.9% estimates in '04, and already asserting massive fraud in '02, were we really supposed to dismiss him or ridicule him because he wasn't posting under his real name? I still have no idea who he is, and don't care. Good guy from Florida who I normally disagree with on applied political math, that's all.

Florida 2000, New Mexico 2004 and Florida congressional seat 2006 were all extremely tight, with logical application of a reasonable percentage of the flawed or missing ballots toward the Democrat, enough to reverse the result, more likely than not. I've yet to see how Ohio fits. The pre-election polling favored Bush. The logical relationship of Ohio to the national vote, and to states with the vote not in dispute, fell in line with Bush winning Ohio. In this thread we were treated to a comparison of Ohio 2006 to previous years, as if they were at all comparable, as a method of proving the elimination of punch cards finally revealed true Ohio partisanship. That passed without comment. Unbelievable. Find another year with an Ohio GOP incumbent senator trailing in pre-election polls by double digits for more than a month leading to election day. 2006 was a second term midterm, the GOP doomed to self-inflicted avalanche. In 2004 Bush was a pre-Katrina incumbent at war time and basically 50/50 in approval rating with his party in power in power only one term, facing a blase New England senator. Kerry had every birthright to lose, and succeeded. I don't mind comparisons, in fact I utilize them heavily. The ones I see on this site are generally idiotic, from the fraud crew and elsewhere.

If you squeezed every digit out of cleansed voter rolls, insufficient machines in heavily blue areas leading to no vote at all, phony challenges, forfeited punch card votes, and of course the ever popular 2-for-1 flopped vote, you might threaten that 118,000 burden. Actually I doubt it, in real world application. Ohio is not a standalone and realities like the white female national security mood in '04 indicate Kerry couldn't carry the vital swing states. This is like a game I senselessly jump into once in a while when insomnia prevails. But really, you wouldn't want to bet that way or need it to be true if something actually depended on it, a mindset capable of dismissing the 118,000 as if it were nothing. I trust it's merely reserved for here, moving tinker toys wherever they're needed.