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 #62: it's boring to correct you over, and over, and over again [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
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. it's boring to correct you over, and over, and over again
Edited on Mon Aug-24-09 01:45 PM by OnTheOtherHand
Remember False Recall?
You were hoisted on your own petard. NES respondents correctly recalled their past vote.

Since many of them gave different answers, it's obvious that they didn't correctly report their past votes both times. If you can ever bring yourself to concede this point, it might be possible to have a serious discussion. I am not holding my breath.

Remember Swing vs. Rred-shift?
You were hoisted on your own petard. There was a correlation.

Once you fabricated some swing values. :eyes: You're not even thinking about theory here. If you want to use change in WPE instead of raw 'red shift,' that makes some sense -- but using your so-called "True Vote" can't work. Think. If you use exit poll results to calculate the "True Vote," then of course the "True Vote Swing" will be correlated with red shift. ETA: On the off chance that this might help -- the point of comparing red shift to swing in reported results is that fraud should contribute both to red shift and to swing in reported results. Fraud should not contribute to swing in "true" results, by definition of "true." At least, I assume that's what "true" should mean.

(blah blah blah)

Shorter TIA: "I've really got nothing to say about those polls -- or all the other points made by you, Wilms, and Bill Bored on this thread that I've ignored -- so my best play is to pound the table." Again, I wish I were surprised.

I note that despite your handwaving about "cherry-picked pre-election polls," you don't have any to support your version of what happened in New York. I accept your concession.

I note that you have no substantive response to the Texas sharpshooter issue. I accept your concession.

I note that you have no explanation of why Vice-President Bush would be able to rig votes in New York, nor of why he wouldn't be equally able to rig votes in other states (such as PA) that had small WPEs. I accept your concession.

I note that while you, selectively, regard Bush Sr.'s quasi-"incumbency" in 1988 as highly significant, you attach no significance whatsoever to the fact that Bush Jr. was governor of Texas in 2000. You didn't concede anything there, so I'll just gape in amazement.
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