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 #78: I accept your recession [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-25-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. I accept your recession
Edited on Tue Aug-25-09 09:18 PM by WillE
1.Jaysus, TIA, do you know anything about provisional ballots whatsoever? Do you care? Could you maybe pretend to care? In this instance, you apparently don't have any evidence, so there is nothing for me to "dismiss."
--------
Jeez, Farhad, my name is Bill. I just remind you of TIA. Now, tell me all about provisional ballots and absentees while you're at it. And tell me why 66% were for Kerry.

2. In the past, when I've failed to replicate your results, it's because you were wrong. It happened in this very thread. If you ever had a presumption of infallibility, it long since expired. You can put up or shut up (not that I really expect you to do either).

"Bush did better downstate? You mean in Urban areas like the NYC area." Bush did better almost everywhere, as your own figures demonstrate -- but he didn't do especially well in urban upstate counties, as your own figures demonstrate. That's why I say "downstate."

I accept your concession: you admit that you would claim fraud no matter what the correlation was.
-----
I accept your lack of mathematical maturity. You have no clue as to correlation and you are a polysci guy? I gave you a graph with a best fit regression line which shows that county size was DIRECTLY CORRELATED to BUSH PERCENTAGE RECORDED VOTE GAIN. But as always, you resort to cherry-picking exceptions without accepting the overall trend. The correlation was not perfect. Nothing is. BUT IT WAS A STRONG 0.61.

You are obviously quite upset. I would be too if I were you right now. You have failed time and time again in your unending quest to debunk TIA, RFJK, Freeman, Baiman, Simon, ODell, Palast, Fitrakis, autorank.... You cant even replicate Kathy Dopps auditing mathematics.

OTOH, you have nothing. All the arrows in your quiver are gone: Non-response, False recall, swing vs. red-shift. One after another. You shot your load a long time ago. You dont even have a choir to preach to anymore.

Yes, Bush did worse everywhere in his TRUE VOTE. I repeat. TRUE VOTE. So he needed to pad his TRUE VOTE in Democratic Urban (and suburban) areas which MORPHED into BOGUS RECORDED VOTE.

ALL YOUR SO-CALLED "ANALYSIS" (FALSE RECALL, SWING VS.RED-SHIFT, NON-RESPONSE)ASSUMES THAT THE RECORDED VOTE WAS THE TRUE VOTE. YOU START WITH A FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTION TO PROVE A FALLACIOUS RESULT.

YOUR ASSUMPTION WERE A) ALL VOTES CAST WERE COUNTED, B) THERE WAS ZERO VOTE-STUFFING, C) ZERO VOTE SWITCHING AND D) THERE IS ZERO CORRUPTION AMONG ELECTION OFFICIALS.

EVERY ASSUMPTIONS IS FALSE THERFORE YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE FALSE. THEY ARE FAITH-BASED AT BEST.

YOUR SCATTER PLOT WITH ZERO SLOPE IS FALSE.
YOUR FALSE-RECALL HYPOTHESIS IS FALSE BECAUSE YOU DID NOT CONSIDER TOTAL VOTES CAST.
YOU ASSUMED THAT THE 2000 AND 2004 RECORDED VOTES WERE CLOSE TO THE TRUE VOTE.
BUT THAT CANNOT BE SINCE THERE WERE 5.4 MILLION NET UNCOUNTED VOTES IN 2000 AND 3.4 MILLION NET IN 2004. BUT IT'S EVEN WORSE. THEY WERE NET OF STUFFED BALLOTS!

YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WERE ZERO PHANTOM RETURNING BUSH 2000 VOTERS IN 2004 IS FALSE BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF LIVING BUSH RETURNING VOTERS IS LESS THAN THE NUMBER REQUIRED TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE - BY 5-6 MILLION.

Of course, you wont admit that because the Urban Legend was your Waterloo. The Final 2000 and 2004 NEP indicates that he also lost share in rural areas.

All the evidence shows that Bush gained RECORDED (i.e. fraudulent) share in Urban areas. Did you look? That doesnt mean he gained share without fraud. Do you know the difference between the True Vote and the Recorded vote?

Bush had 48% national approval. What was his NY approval? Around 35-40%? Tell us how Bush got 15% of returning Gore voters in the top 15 NY counties when Gore won them by 64-31%? WITH 35% NY APPROVAL? EXPLAIN THAT!

3. "You have no clue. We are talking about percentage gain, not absolute gain. Got that?" No, in fact. WTF does that have to do with the relationship between EIRS reports and county size?
---
Ok, let me spell it out for you. There is a strong correlation between voting incidents and change in county vote. Most would expect that counties (such as Queens) with a higher rate of incidents (i.e. fraud) would see larger PERCENTAGE RECORDED VOTE GAINS than in rural counties with little or no fraud (such as Sullivan).
Makes sense, yes?

4. I accept your concession. You don't actually think these reports have any bearing on the hundreds of thousands of votes you believe, or claim, were stolen.
-------
Weak response. Those 19 stuck on Bush, none on Kerry.
To you it was just a coincidence. OK.

5. I accept your concession. You have no counter to my argument in post #62, and there's no prospect that you ever will. (Hey, I'll try again: TIA, explain to us why you think the change in true vote should be correlated with the WPE.)
----
Its Bill, Farhad. The problem is that no one accepts your canard. You are speaking to yourself. Even the sheeple wont listen anymore. Swing vs. red-shift has been debunked in a logical proof by Kathy Dopp.

TIA debunks it in this graph.
Image

6. Wrong twice: I'm not thrashing Mitofsky, and I didn't work for him.
------
OK, then was it pro bono consulting? But you do thrash him indirectly every time you say the exit polls suck. Is that anyway to revere his memory. Then again, he thrashed the polls himself. But hes gone now RIP. And so is Febble, apparently. Is Farhad still writing? Who is left?

7. Most of your points don't have much to do with anything, so I'm not impressed that they aren't about exit polls.

I accept your concession: you can't rebut my evidence and arguments, so your best play is to pretend that I don't have any. I'm sure someone out there is buying it.
------
I accept that you are a broken record. All jargon, no data. No analysis.

8. It shouldn't make sense to anyone. Even if we stipulate that Bush "had to" run up the popular vote, are you aware of the existence of large red states?
----
No sense to YOU. Bush already had most of the votes in the RED states. There was more votes to be mined in the big BLUE states. Of course you dont accept that. Neither did Farhad. I wonder why.

9. I accept your concession: Bush's performance increased in almost every NY county, so you have to waffle back and forth between official NY returns and national exit poll tabulations.

Can you really not know your further error here? That national exit poll tabulation does not match the official returns. The overall Bush and Kerry vote shares should more or less match, but the official returns don't show a big increase in big-city turnout. This has been explained many times.
-----
Look at the NYC returns. Did Bush gain share or not?
Bushs RECORDED vote share INCREASED in almost every county.
His TRUE VOTE share DECREASED in almost every county.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that with 35% NY approval Bush increased his True vote share in NY state? Did Nader voters break for him? Did new voters break for him? Even returning Bush voters broke away from him. Thats what happens when you have 35-40% approval.

10. I accept your concession: you claim that "VOTES WERE MISCOUNTED NOT BY LEVERS, BUT BY HUMANS," so the jams are largely irrelevant.
------
I do not accept your putting words in my mouth.
Levers were at least 0.77% responsible.
I do not concede that they are perfect.

11. I accept your concession: the low residual vote rate proves that jams didn't have a large effect on the final results.
------
I accept only that you are clueless. Many folks got disgusted and never voted. They did not show up in the exit polls. As usual, you resort to cherry-picking. No points for you.

12. I accept your concession: your evidence is so weak that your best play is to demand that I convince you.
------
I concede only that you havent convinced anyone of a thing in all the years you have been fogging. Why should I expect you to convince me of anything? I take that back. You convinced Farhad Manjoo to write that hit piece on RFK, Jr. How did that work out for you?

13. Deja vu all over again.
----
I accept your concession.

14. I accept your concession: you still have no response to my arguments, so you attack me.
----
Pot calling Kettle black.
As HST once said when asked why he gave the GOP hell:
I just tell the truth and they think its hell.

Why should the Truth be hell?

15. At best, it's the same old unsupported argument from incredulity.
-----
I accept your non-responsive concession.


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