Reply #13: well...

[OnTheOtherHand]

Gundlach seems to think that the numbers demonstrate something, and I've seen plenty of people trade on his supposed expertise. It's sort of confusing and frustrating. There isn't a lot of there there.

The slope comparing Siegelman's '98 and '02 county vote shares is greater than 1: he tended to drop further in the counties where he was weakest to begin with, including Baldwin. There is nothing inherently startling about this pattern, and no reason to single out Baldwin County: several counties have larger residuals in both directions.

The first two sets of results have more gubernatorial votes than voters. Clearly that's a big problem, but it's not inherently one that points to Siegelman being robbed. According to the New York Times report, Siegelman got over 6,000 votes in one precinct, and then most of those votes were taken away. If someone can refute that, I would like to know. Otherwise, it seems a bit like arguing that Bush was cheated out of thousands of votes in Gahanna.

Like it or not, there's also nothing suspicious about Republicans resisting a recount. You're shocked, shocked to see winners trying to protect their lead. I'm not defending it, but I can't agree that it points to fraud. (How many DUers were waxing rhapsodic about how wonderful it would be to have recounts in MT and VA to confirm the Democratic takeover of the Senate?) I don't know enough about Alabama election law to know if anyone made a wrong call, but many state laws would require a higher standard than Siegelman likely could meet. That's why I favor laws that make it easier to audit and to recount ballots. Even if Baldwin was squeaky clean, an election that close deserves a second look.

Based on my limited knowledge, indeed Siegelman was railroaded. I just don't see how that strengthens the case that he won the election.