Reply #62: it's boring to correct you over, and over, and over again

[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. 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.