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 #75: for your convenience... [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 Tue Aug-25-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. for your convenience...
"Is considering the 10% late vote discrepancy to the Election Day share a waste of time?"

Here's a Hobson's choice for you: do you think people who voted by provisional ballot were just like the rest of the electorate?

"Is considering the 0.61 correlation between Bush vote share gain from 2000 to 2004 and county population a waste of time?"

(Assuming that's the correct correlation, which you haven't demonstrated....) In terms of swing, Bush did better downstate (but not in upstate cities). That isn't evidence of fraud. If the correlation went the other way, you'd probably argue that the fraud was concentrated in Republican strongholds, like Steve Freeman says. And if the correlation were zero, you'd say, "So what? Bush could steal votes all over the state." There's no result whatsoever that you would have to treat as evidence against your position. Big problem.

How about that? Do you think Bush could steal votes all over the state? Why, or why not? You're remarkably evasive when it comes to reality checks.

"Is considering the 0.56 correlation between voting machine incident rate and Bush vote share gain a waste of time?"

Gee, do you suppose there's any relationship between county size and reported incident rate? Could it be that you're pretty much repeating yourself?

"Is considering that 19 levers were stuck on Bush and none on Kerry a waste of time?"

Nineteen?! That's a good argument for Bill, not so helpful for you. (I won't repeat all the other points that Bill and Wilms have made on this topic.)

"Is considering the massive 11% NY exit poll discrepancy a waste of time?"

"Considering" it is fine, but you still don't have a sensible rebuttal to the findings on swing and surprise.

"Is considering the 10.6% Lever machine WPE a waste of time?"

Ditto.

"Is considering the 300,000 net uncounted NY 2004 votes a waste of time?"

That's potentially pretty helpful, but not if you just use it as an excuse for blind faith in the exit poll results. How does it compare with the other elections in which you're apparently convinced that there was little or no fraud?

"Is considering that Bush needed to pad his popular vote a waste of time?"

Needed to?

"Is confirming that the Urban Legend is a myth a waste of time?"

I believe you've conceded that your claim about Bush's performance in non-urban areas was false. If not, care to try again?

"Is confirming that Levers are anything but transparent a waste of time?"

I don't think they're very "transparent" either -- it's partly a semantic issue, I think. But this debate has little bearing on what happened in 2004.

"Is confirming that NY vote counts are questionable by citing Obamas zero votes in 80 (mostly minority) districts a waste of time?"

Those aren't even the final results. Your problem remains that, as Bill pointed out, the statewide residual vote rate for president was well under 1%. You apparently want to treat those unofficial results from another election as the 'tip of the iceberg,' but the residual vote rate doesn't support your case.

"Is considering that the preponderance (actually ALL) of the evidence accumulated over the past 4.5 years indicates that Bush stole the 2004 election a waste of time?"

Untrue.

"Is considering that Rove could not allow a repeat of the 2000 fiasco in which Bush lost the popular vote a waste of time?"

Could not? (Are we assuming that Rove has magical powers to rig lever machines?)

Just added:
"Is considering that the average NY WPE was 8.0 under Bush and 0,6 under Clinton a waste of time?"

Charitably, yes. See other posts.

"Is considering that Bush needed 15% of returning Gore voters in the 15 largest NY counties which went for Gore by 64-31% and for Kerry by 62-37% on Election Day Levers a waste of time?"

Wow. So now you're using the fact that Kerry did so well in these counties as evidence that he was robbed there?

So, since we've responded to everything you've got, when is it time for you to be accountable to anyone else?
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