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 #30: Your disinformation campaign rolls on [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
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Your disinformation campaign rolls on


Do you wear your mantle proudly as the premier polling disinformationist on the Internet?
I will admit I had it wrong when I stated that Oregon was the only non-Red state which fell within the MoE.


I meant to say that Oregon was the only non-Red state among the 14 lowest WPE. It is the only state that votes 100% by mail-in ballots.


Do you ever admit it when you misstate the facts? In case you didnt know it before, you know it now.
The Oregon MoE was 1.8%
In their 2004 Evaluation report, the exit pollsters state
Note: The above analysis does not include the Oregon president and senate races where
all interviews were done by telephone.

Thats because voting was done by mail; there were no precincts.

On page 42: The WPE was greater in the more competitive swing states. For this analysis, the following were considered swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This indicates that voters in the swing states (who were exposed to more paid advertising and media coverage than voters in non-swing states) were less likely to respond to the exit poll: but among those who did, more likely to be Kerry voters.

Some other facts for you yo mull over:
The MoE (excluding a cluster effect factor) was exceeded in 29 states
(22 were Democratic BLUE or Battleground states; 7 were RED states)
The average MoE was 2.44% for all states.

The MoE (30% cluster effect) was exceeded in 24 states.
The average MoE was 3.17% for all states.
Of 28 Battleground/ BLUE states, 9 (32%) were within the MoE: HI IL IA MD ME MA OR RI WI
Of 22 RED states, the MoE was exceeded in 5 (23%)
27 of the highest WPE states were Battleground or solid BLUE.


Image

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/EvaluationEMElec...



you just aren't very good at analysis, apparently



1
I don't think it's nasty or unprofessional to call crap crappy; even if it is, the crap remains crappy regardless. If you want to depict a relationship between "county size and vote change" (whatever exactly those variables are), a standard and reasonable way to do it is a scatterplot -- not a sorted bar chart with a diagonal dotted line through it. The latter raises questions about the intentions and/or competence of the analyst.
------

No, Mr. Other, your attempts to refute the analysis are crap.
You call yourself an analyst; I call you a misinformationist.

You have no idea what county vote size and vote change are?
Then you have no business replying to my post.
If you dont know what the variables mean, you are woefully ignorant.
If you do know, but are just blowing misinformation, you are just doing your job.

Dont like the bar chart? Too bad. Unlike your indecipherable swing vs. red shift scatter-brained plot, viewers of TIAs county vote change vs. size (thats size of the recorded vote, as if you didnt know) can actually see the trend lines; downward sloping for Bush from the biggest to smallest counties a 0.57 correlation. And they can see the county names as well.

2
You didn't directly answer my question, but your own urban legend scatterplot bar chart from hell indicates that Bush did better in 2004 than in 2000 in all but one New York county. So much for Bush "breaking even or losing share in Republican rural areas and small towns."* If that's what you meant by the urban legend being a myth, then I guess we agree, and I appreciate your concession.


* Of course, this chart doesn't display "share" at all, which in my opinion is a weakness. But in this case the answer is the same: Bush's vote share increased in all but one New York county.
---

It shows the CHANGE in COUNTY share vs. COUNTY recorded vote. That is what the Urban Legend is all about, isnt it? Do you have any clue as to what a statistical correlation is? Stop playing games. You remind me of the deathers who are opposed to health care. Why do you continue to blow smoke? What are afraid of?

What concession? I only concede that you are the most prolific source of disinformation to be found anywhere. You should have conceded a long time ago. You really do work overtime to confuse everyone, dont you, Mr. Other?

A fair observer with a modicum of intelligence would see that its the correlation, its the PATTERN. The biggest Bush vote gains were in the BIGGEST urban areas like 75% in Brooklyn. That is obvious from the graph to any fair observer - which of course you aint.

Let me make this as clear as possible. I am not trying to convince you.
Just to expose you as others have done many times before. How can you continue to self-immolate and still stand up?

3
The bar chart from hell does also indicate that Bush did relatively better in some downstate counties (but not in other cities such as Albany, Buffalo, and Syracuse). It hypes that finding by displaying ratios from low bases. For instance, in Brooklyn, Bush increased his vote share by about 8.6 points; it looks very impressive in this chart because Bush's vote share in 2000 was under 16%, but an 8.6-point swing is an 8.6-point swing no matter what the previous percentage was.
----

Hypes by displaying ratios from low bases?

WOW!

MR. OTHER, YOU REALLY HAVE NO CLUE, DO YOU?
THE BIGGEST CHANGES WERE IN THE BIGGEST COUNTIES!

THERE, DO YOU HEAR ME NOW?

4
To look at it another way, altogether Bush got about 190,000 more votes in the five boroughs in 2004 than in 2000 -- and there were about 7.4 million votes cast. Even if we assume -- for no particular reason -- that all those votes are stolen, we're nowhere near the exit poll result. (Go ahead, throw in some more counties. No point in my trying to do all your work for you.)
------

Those are THE BOGUS RECORDED VOTES. Got that? How many times does one have to hit you in the head with that BASIC concept? The point is this. One more time. The Bush votes were INFLATED. Will you ever understand that?

It is really sad to see that you continue on that bridge to nowhere. Since 2005 when TIA was posting here, you hopped on that bridge and are still on it. Whats the point? Who put you on it. The same people who built it for Sarah Palin. Why dont you come home and get out of the cold.

5
I actually can't replicate your correlations; you claim to have lever-only returns, but you've posted neither the data nor the evidence. So, for now, I'll file that alongside the claims that Oregon is the only 100% paper state (whatever that even means) and the only 2004 battleground or strong Democratic state within the margin of error. At any rate, you may sincerely believe that it is impossible for Bush to have done so 'well' in the NY metro area without fraud, but your sincere belief doesn't constitute evidence. Sorry.
-----
Cant replicate the correlations? Jeez, why dont you just get the NY county vote data from 2000 and 2004, like TIA did and crunch the numbers?

As for Oregon, you really have no idea what a 100% paper ballot state is? Are you putting us all on? This is quite pathetic. You read it at the top of the post.

I already admitted that I misspoke about the Oregon MoE. You have certainly had ample opportunities to correct the hundreds of misstatements that you have made over the years. But you have not and will not ever do so. Its not what you do.

Anyway, I will put a merciful end to this by reminding you that my point was that Oregon was the only Blue state among the all those Red states with a low 1.8 MoE. The Red states, Mr. PolySci, had low WPEs because they hardly had any Democratic votes worth stealing. Oregon had a low WPE because it was a paper ballot mail-in state.

Mitofsky must be rolling over in his grave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -NY: Computer Tallies Can't be Trusted Wilms  Jul-26-09 09:57 PM   #0 
  - Its not that an accurate reliable machine can't be built....it's just easier to hide the fraud by...  yourout   Jul-26-09 10:17 PM   #1 
  - the risk is more limited with Lever, whereas with computer  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jul-26-09 11:28 PM   #2 
  - Important for NYers  clear eye   Jul-27-09 03:44 AM   #3 
  - New York Anomalies: 19 Levers stuck on Bush, none on Kerry (EIRS)  WillE   Aug-12-09 11:55 AM   #4 
  - So are you saying computer tallies CAN BE TRUSTED then?  Bill Bored   Aug-12-09 02:14 PM   #5 
  - Oh, and maybe you can explain how 19 broken machines out of 7,000 in NYC...  Bill Bored   Aug-12-09 02:46 PM   #6 
     - You have avoided the facts presented in the post and appear quite defensive.  WillE   Aug-13-09 12:22 PM   #7 
        - Damn right I'm defensive! Here's why:  Bill Bored   Aug-13-09 12:57 PM   #8 
        - Define Dem Share  Bill Bored   Aug-13-09 01:22 PM   #9 
        - Do you think that would be a lot of trouble and risk just to pad the popular vote?  Wilms   Aug-13-09 10:46 PM   #10 
        - 580,000 NY late votes; analysis of incidents, county size, Urban Legendand a response  WillE   Aug-14-09 11:57 AM   #11 
        - Everyone knows the problem, at issue is which is worse?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Aug-14-09 01:36 PM   #12 
        - Sorry, but you DO have to explain HOW the machines could have miscounted so many votes.  Bill Bored   Aug-14-09 01:48 PM   #13 
           - Sorry to waste your time with facts  WillE   Aug-14-09 03:52 PM   #15 
              - Are you going to answer my question or not?: How many lever machines had to be hacked...  Bill Bored   Aug-14-09 04:23 PM   #16 
        - A response and some questions for you  WillE   Aug-14-09 03:26 PM   #14 
           - well, there you go: unsupported dogma  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-14-09 04:24 PM   #17 
           - These reports sound like a Primary with separate Dem and Repub machines.  Bill Bored   Aug-14-09 07:44 PM   #18 
           - Thanks for using the word "believe". That's honest. Belief, while limited, is all we have.  Wilms   Aug-14-09 11:30 PM   #19 
              - Your comments indicate some confusion and a touch of desperation  WillE   Aug-15-09 12:17 PM   #20 
                 - Confusion? Projection?  Wilms   Aug-15-09 01:25 PM   #21 
                 - The raw data show that Bush didn't do better compared to 2000 in the precincts with the largest WPE.  Bill Bored   Aug-15-09 01:54 PM   #22 
                 - : Motive, Means, and Opportunity  WillE   Aug-17-09 01:52 PM   #24 
                    - I guess I'll stick to one or two odd claims per post  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-17-09 03:38 PM   #25 
                    - Oooooo!  WillYourVoteBCounted   Aug-20-09 01:57 AM   #41 
                       - the scary thing is, he still hasn't figured it out  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-20-09 05:31 AM   #42 
                    - Who said levers were "fraud proof"? Other than you claiming someone did, that is?  Wilms   Aug-17-09 10:57 PM   #26 
                    - The HNYVA of 1892  WillE   Aug-18-09 12:01 PM   #27 
                       - HCPB zombies don't seem to realize HCPB is not on the menu.  Wilms   Aug-18-09 10:27 PM   #35 
                       - No paper trail? How about NO RECOUNTS?  Bill Bored   Aug-19-09 12:39 AM   #38 
                          - Levers are the gold standard with an 11% WPE?  WillE   Aug-19-09 03:25 PM   #40 
                             - WPE is no standard at all.  Bill Bored   Aug-20-09 11:27 PM   #44 
                    - Too time-consuming to respond to all this but...  Bill Bored   Aug-19-09 12:10 AM   #37 
                       - There can be no stuffing of votes?  WillE   Aug-19-09 02:52 PM   #39 
                          - You think Open Source means Hand Counted or what?  Bill Bored   Aug-20-09 11:02 PM   #43 
                             - : Lets summarize an analysis of the facts. Warning: slow load.  WillE   Aug-21-09 03:28 PM   #46 
                                - "slow load"?! (snark redacted)  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-21-09 07:37 PM   #47 
                                - (crickets) n/t  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-23-09 03:51 PM   #54 
                                - Finally, something about Voting Systems!  Bill Bored   Aug-21-09 10:35 PM   #48 
                                   - More red flags! Average NY WPE: Bush 8.0 (1988,1992,2004); Clinton 0.6 (1996, 2000)  WillE   Aug-23-09 10:38 AM   #49 
                                      - Bush was running for reelection in 1988?  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-23-09 12:03 PM   #50 
                                         - You need to take an algebra class  WillE   Aug-23-09 01:56 PM   #51 
                                            - oh, brother  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-23-09 03:46 PM   #52 
                                               - Deleted message  Name removed   Aug-23-09 05:38 PM   #55 
                                               - O RLY?  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-23-09 06:02 PM   #56 
                                               - 1 was wrong. You were right. I know Bush was VP. Address the wpe anomaly  WillE   Aug-23-09 07:59 PM   #57 
                                               - I take that back. Another look at the top 15 NY counties and the Urban Legend.  WillE   Aug-24-09 07:20 AM   #58 
                                               - "I was essentially correct in my prior analysis." You were? And TIA?  Wilms   Aug-24-09 09:09 AM   #59 
                                               - "Hell, lets be honest: its impossible."  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-24-09 09:37 AM   #60 
                                               - There is much to refute here, but it's very easy to do. Just watch.  WillE   Aug-24-09 12:09 PM   #61 
                                               - it's boring to correct you over, and over, and over again  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-24-09 12:43 PM   #62 
                                               - That was a truly weak response - as expected  WillE   Aug-24-09 02:32 PM   #63 
                                               - "Kerry won ALL three exit polls"?  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-24-09 02:54 PM   #64 
                                               - Here's a NY 2004 True Vote Sensitivity Analysis. Did you ever do one?  WillE   Aug-24-09 04:17 PM   #65 
                                               - all this is facially silly  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-24-09 05:00 PM   #66 
                                               - What's incredulous is your faith-based jargon and avoidance of analytical thought.  WillE   Aug-24-09 05:31 PM   #67 
                                               - "Now I know how Galileo felt."  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-24-09 05:38 PM   #68 
                                               - If you used exit polls in your "analysis " it was to thrash them n/t  WillE   Aug-24-09 10:02 PM   #71 
                                               - spoken like, yes, a fundamentalist  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-25-09 07:59 AM   #74 
                                               - Better things to do? Yes! Tell us how many lever machines would have to be HACKED to account for...  Bill Bored   Aug-24-09 09:35 PM   #69 
                                               - See post #49  WillE   Aug-24-09 09:59 PM   #70 
                                               - This is not about "trusting exit polls" . It's about considering ALL the evidence...  WillE   Aug-24-09 10:16 PM   #72 
                                               - How many machines was that again? nt  Bill Bored   Aug-24-09 11:21 PM   #73 
                                               - for your convenience...  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-25-09 10:12 AM   #75 
                                               - Thanks for bringing all this back in full view again  WillE   Aug-25-09 04:55 PM   #76 
                                               - "Do you have any proof that they weren't?"  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-25-09 06:02 PM   #77 
                                               - I accept your recession  WillE   Aug-25-09 08:26 PM   #78 
                                               - yeah, well  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-25-09 09:03 PM   #79 
                                               - No, I'm still here :)  Febble   Aug-26-09 05:30 PM   #80 
                 - wanna play "Urban Legend"?  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-15-09 02:14 PM   #23 
                    - This will not make your day. It will spoil it.  WillE   Aug-18-09 12:19 PM   #28 
                       - you just aren't very good at analysis, apparently  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-18-09 01:51 PM   #29 
                          - Your disinformation campaign rolls on  WillE   Aug-18-09 03:56 PM   #30 
                             - sigh  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-18-09 04:54 PM   #31 
                                - Mr. Other, you have been exposed  WillE   Aug-18-09 05:34 PM   #32 
                                   - uh, no  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-18-09 07:47 PM   #34 
                                      - (crickets) n/t  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-23-09 03:50 PM   #53 
        - CORRECTION TO LATE NY PAPER VOTES; EXIT POLL COMPARISONS  WillE   Sep-01-09 07:12 PM   #145 
           - 4.5 years and you're still making "corrections". That's inspiring. n/t  Wilms   Sep-01-09 08:51 PM   #146 
              - You never have to correct a thing. Cuz you never do analysis. Very uninspiring.  WillE   Sep-01-09 10:24 PM   #147 
  - ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##  DU GrovelBot   Aug-18-09 05:34 PM   #33 
  - Well, we're gonna let an exit poll define your programming. OK, Grov?  Wilms   Aug-18-09 10:29 PM   #36 
  - The reality is we have had GOP election theft for decades . . . with complicity of corporate press .  defendandprotect   Aug-21-09 02:12 AM   #45 
     - Election Fraud is endemic. These TIA graphs debunk all the Disinfo.  WillE   Aug-27-09 12:17 PM   #81 
        - TIA FAQ: whined about, but never refuted  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-27-09 12:32 PM   #82 
           - You concede when all you can do you is cherry-pick  WillE   Aug-27-09 01:31 PM   #83 
           - I didn't cherrypick  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-27-09 02:15 PM   #85 
           - He refuted it in spades  WillE   Aug-27-09 01:43 PM   #84 
              - nope  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-27-09 02:30 PM   #86 
              - No point in trying to discuss? Of course, because you can't.  WillE   Aug-27-09 03:45 PM   #87 
                 - what point have I not responded to? be specific  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-27-09 04:07 PM   #88 
                    - Once again, you are hoisted on your own petard.  WillE   Aug-27-09 06:45 PM   #89 
                       - trash talk aside, you're wrong again  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-27-09 09:04 PM   #90 
                       - You conveniently ignore the analysis which refutes you  WillE   Aug-28-09 12:05 AM   #92 
                          - And I thought electronic vote counting schema was a pretty iffy way to determine outcomes.  Wilms   Aug-28-09 12:33 AM   #93 
                          - Distracted? Uh, this is a thread about why we should trust computers to count votes in NY, right? nt  Bill Bored   Aug-28-09 07:31 PM   #97 
                          - you're simply misrepresenting the PA exit polls  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-28-09 06:10 AM   #94 
                       - A FREE online book about Kerry's 2004 landslide  WillE   Aug-27-09 10:22 PM   #91 
              - TIA FAQ Response Summary Update - Includes 2008 reference  WillE   Aug-28-09 08:09 AM   #95 
                 - my double dog dare stands n/t  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-28-09 09:26 AM   #96 
                    - The analysis that you won't do proves you dead wrong once again. Your move...  WillE   Aug-29-09 09:19 AM   #98 
                       - sorry, you're still pwned  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-29-09 10:11 AM   #99 
                          - Your myths vs. the facts. Now show us your cherry-picked PA LV polls  WillE   Aug-29-09 11:33 AM   #100 
                             - Hmmm. "true activists are winning" you say.  Wilms   Aug-29-09 11:55 AM   #101 
                             - Show us your numbers and stop whining!  WillE   Aug-29-09 12:07 PM   #102 
                             - I'm whinning.  Wilms   Aug-29-09 12:17 PM   #104 
                                - Take your pick. Column A or Column B? Steak or Pork?  WillE   Aug-29-09 02:20 PM   #105 
                                   - Analysis is anything but black and white.  Wilms   Aug-29-09 02:31 PM   #106 
                                      - HS Litmis test?I have no problem with your having a problem...  WillE   Aug-29-09 03:04 PM   #108 
                             - It's time for you to recognize some facts.....  WillE   Aug-30-09 01:44 AM   #115 
                                - Gimme an example.  Wilms   Aug-30-09 02:07 AM   #116 
                                   - Strawman. You avoid my question and are putting words in my mouth.  WillE   Aug-30-09 02:19 AM   #117 
                                      - Don't be silly! Activism was a result of the radical Bush regime and FL 2000.  Bill Bored   Aug-30-09 03:25 AM   #118 
                                         - Activism was muted in 2001; it became widespread in Nov. 2004  WillE   Aug-30-09 09:58 AM   #119 
                                            - Ah, but most Dems in Congress voted FOR HAVA! They considered themselves to be reformers!  Bill Bored   Aug-30-09 08:46 PM   #120 
                                               - You just don 't get it, do you?  WillE   Aug-30-09 09:41 PM   #121 
                                                  - You're still not listening. And may well never.  Wilms   Aug-30-09 10:12 PM   #122 
                                                  - You avoid the content of the post.  WillE   Aug-30-09 10:34 PM   #125 
                                                  - Human Miscounts?  Wilms   Aug-31-09 01:00 AM   #134 
                                                  - I don't CARE what the polls say. They are just polls -- not voting systems.  Bill Bored   Aug-30-09 10:17 PM   #123 
                                                     - In fact, where are all the true-believers?  Wilms   Aug-30-09 10:28 PM   #124 
                                                     - Now it is clear...  WillE   Aug-30-09 10:45 PM   #127 
                                                     - I have no troops.  Wilms   Aug-31-09 01:03 AM   #135 
                                                     - You really DO have blinders on.  WillE   Aug-30-09 10:42 PM   #126 
                                                     - You wrote: "No one is contesting that the levers are accurate." Good! Then my work here is done.  Bill Bored   Aug-30-09 10:46 PM   #128 
                                                     - No, your work has just started..  WillE   Aug-30-09 11:11 PM   #129 
                                                     - Didn't Bush run in 2000?  yowzayowzayowza   Aug-30-09 11:22 PM   #131 
                                                     - Bush was NOT the incumbent in 2k. He was in '04. He had means, motive and opportunity.  WillE   Aug-30-09 11:35 PM   #132 
                                                     - Welp, at least we agree that it is a ...  yowzayowzayowza   Aug-30-09 11:51 PM   #133 
                                                     - but, WillE,  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-31-09 05:16 AM   #137 
                                                     - You either don't read or you quickly forget: Motive. Means. Opportunity  WillE   Aug-31-09 06:53 AM   #139 
                                                     - projection much?  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-31-09 07:36 AM   #141 
                                                     - of course he can "have it both ways" -- think about it  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-31-09 05:06 AM   #136 
                                                     - You want to talk about "blind faith"? OK.  WillE   Aug-31-09 07:29 AM   #140 
                                                     - darling, you're in a panic  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-31-09 07:57 AM   #142 
                                                     - Show us YOUR numbers. Here is the NY True Vote analysis you WON'T DARE do.  WillE   Aug-31-09 08:59 AM   #143 
                                                     - as usual, you have no counter to ANY of my points  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-31-09 09:31 AM   #144 
                                                     - You really *are* an optimist!!! n/t  yowzayowzayowza   Aug-30-09 11:20 PM   #130 
                             - you didn't respond to any of my points  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-29-09 12:16 PM   #103 
                                - As usual, you are a no show  WillE   Aug-29-09 02:53 PM   #107 
                                   - care to try again in English?  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-29-09 03:21 PM   #109 
                                      - Now about those LVs and Rvs- you have shown us NADA  WillE   Aug-29-09 03:54 PM   #110 
                                         - JIm Lampley on Bradblog in 2005  WillE   Aug-29-09 04:40 PM   #111 
                                         - Must Listen! Jim Lampley of HBO on Bradblog in May 2005  WillE   Aug-29-09 06:05 PM   #113 
                                            - I recall that interview. Was very happy to hear it.  Wilms   Aug-29-09 06:48 PM   #114 
                                            - here's an interesting part  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-31-09 05:19 AM   #138 
                                         - no, you haven't  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-29-09 04:56 PM   #112 
 

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