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 #19: do you have any substantive response to post #9? [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 Sun Sep-06-09 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. do you have any substantive response to post #9?
Or is this really more about starting fights than analyzing evidence? I know the opinion I'm forming.

Out in the real world, if any quantitative political scientist agrees with you that the exit polls were basically accurate, s/he is keeping the secret well. You can scan the journals in vain for debate on this issue, much less support for your side of it. I'm marginalized as a political scientist not by believing that Bush really got more votes (whether or not he "won fairly"), but by trying to take you seriously.

But when you refuse to address substance, you can't be taken seriously. You simply aren't showing up for work. Febble did more to document election failures in the two months after the 2004 election than Team TruthIsAll has managed in almost five years.

Right here on DU, I presented model results showing how a Gore-to-Bush defection rate about double the Bush-to-Kerry defection rate was broadly consistent with the election returns, the National Election Study 2000-04 panel data, and other evidence. TruthIsAll had so little substantive to say about that model that he got tombstoned instead. I don't think things have changed much since then.

It's a bit annoying to wade through all the swill, but mostly it's boring. We already know that you don't like to be disagreed with. Tell us something we don't know. For instance: what is your substantive response to post #9?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -Late Vote Smoking Guns: 2000-2008 WillE  Sep-03-09 01:50 PM   #0 
  - the crucial error appears to be here:  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-03-09 04:14 PM   #1 
  - Yes, the NY late vote indicated a Gore bias. But there was NO Kerry bias in 2004. And 2008 ?  WillE   Sep-03-09 06:17 PM   #2 
     - it seems to me that you are simply ruling out an obvious possibility  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-03-09 08:46 PM   #3 
        - It seems to me that you easily dismiss the very strong State Late vote vs. Exit Poll correlation  WillE   Sep-04-09 08:35 AM   #6 
           - it seems to me that you didn't read my post  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-04-09 09:04 AM   #7 
           - You see, the point is: the exit polls were RIGHT in 2004. Kerry really DID win.  WillE   Sep-04-09 12:23 PM   #8 
              - that's a claim, and your own evidence undermines it  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-04-09 04:44 PM   #9 
                 - You still believe that Bush won, "the greatest miracle of all"  WillE   Sep-04-09 07:16 PM   #10 
                    - this is yet another non-responsive post  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-04-09 07:43 PM   #11 
                       - I asked you for YOUR evidence. You resort to whining.  WillE   Sep-04-09 07:54 PM   #12 
                          - umm, is post #9 actually invisible, or what?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-04-09 08:48 PM   #13 
                             - Your obfuscation won't work. Late votes, exit polls and True votes INDEPENDENTLY expose you.  WillE   Sep-05-09 09:26 AM   #14 
                                - "what are you going to do, bleed on me?"  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-05-09 11:52 AM   #15 
                                   - You are in a state of pure panic; you are the one bleeding  WillE   Sep-05-09 08:03 PM   #16 
                                      - hahaha  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-05-09 09:27 PM   #17 
                                         - You are dreaming..  WillE   Sep-05-09 10:02 PM   #18 
                                            - do you have any substantive response to post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 06:19 AM   #19 
                                               - Give us some names...  WillE   Sep-06-09 07:39 AM   #20 
                                               - do you have a substantive response to post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 08:37 AM   #22 
                                               - Umm, did you read the reply in post # 14, or what?  WillE   Sep-06-09 08:19 AM   #21 
                                                  - any reader can verify that you simply ignored my points  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 08:49 AM   #23 
                                                     - Our evidence vs. your evidence  WillE   Sep-06-09 09:16 AM   #24 
                                                     - do you have a substantive response to post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 09:57 AM   #25 
                                                     - Back in the USSR Quoting two Ruskies? Show us their evidence  WillE   Sep-06-09 12:12 PM   #26 
                                                     - WTF?! "two Ruskies"?! (oh... got anything on post #9?)  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 06:41 PM   #27 
                                                     - Now I see where TIA, er, Wile E., gets that punch card lever machine.  Wilms   Sep-06-09 06:55 PM   #28 
                                                     - Phillips would NOT have written the article if he knew that the NY exits were off by 12%...  WillE   Sep-06-09 07:28 PM   #30 
                                                     - Wow. Just wow.  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 07:37 PM   #31 
                                                     - OK. You failed logic. So I won't expect you to make sense of what I'm about to say.  Wilms   Sep-06-09 09:29 PM   #38 
                                                     - YOU speak of science? Your method is faith-based belief...  WillE   Sep-06-09 10:14 PM   #40 
                                                     - When you demonstrate a rudimentery understanding of lever machines  Wilms   Sep-06-09 10:28 PM   #41 
                                                     - Educate us, then, since you are such an expert...  WillE   Sep-06-09 11:14 PM   #42 
                                                     - Round and round you go, TIA.  Wilms   Sep-07-09 12:26 AM   #43 
                                                     - No, keeping the NY facts hidden is distracting...  WillE   Sep-07-09 07:13 AM   #44 
                                                     - What's it like being irrelevant?  Wilms   Sep-07-09 11:15 AM   #48 
                                                     - Love your ability to link and not think .. n/t  WillE   Sep-06-09 08:22 PM   #35 
                                                     - So where is their evidence?  WillE   Sep-06-09 07:17 PM   #29 
                                                     - you're asking for kindness?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 07:45 PM   #32 
                                                     - You replied just as WE ALL KNEW you would. With NOTHING.  WillE   Sep-06-09 08:06 PM   #34 
                                                     - "WE"? you and your imaginary friend? can he help out with post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 09:10 PM   #36 
                                                     - So did Myagkov et al actually analyze the U.S. (S)elections? NO!  WillE   Sep-06-09 07:56 PM   #33 
                                                     - OK, this time you actually needed to read your own post  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 09:13 PM   #37 
                                                     - Hehe. Not good enough. DISPLAY AND EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT ANALYSIS.  WillE   Sep-06-09 09:47 PM   #39 
                                                     - this time you're not even going to admit your blunder?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-07-09 07:22 AM   #45 
                                                     - You just cut yourself off. You read the book? Then show us what you learned.  WillE   Sep-07-09 07:36 AM   #46 
                                                     - do you have a substantive response to post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-07-09 07:44 AM   #47 
                                                     - Uhm, er, pardon. But TIA just used a bunch of all caps.  Wilms   Sep-07-09 11:17 AM   #49 
                                                     - hey, if he does it seven times, my exoskeleton will collapse  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-07-09 12:10 PM   #50 
                                                     - Do you have anything SUBSTANTIVE to say?  WillE   Sep-07-09 12:16 PM   #51 
                                                     - TIA, you are the "one-track agenda". And it's all about you.  Wilms   Sep-07-09 02:15 PM   #52 
  - K&R!!  Stevepol   Sep-04-09 03:52 AM   #4 
  - K&unR.  yowzayowzayowza   Sep-04-09 04:50 AM   #5 
 

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