"The Horror": Why the Left Won't Believe RFK Jr, How to Help Them Listen

[McCamy Taylor]

It is really very simple. First read "The Heart of Darkness" again if you havent read it in a while. Pay attention to what Marlowe does in the end to Kurtz's fiancee. He lies to her, telling her that Kurtz's last words were her name, rather than the horror, because "The truth would be too dark". In other words, he does not tell her that the mission to Africa is a crock of shit, that people are ready to go native at a moment's notice, that colonialism is nothing more than greed and bloodlust. It would destroy the ideals which keep civilized society going. He thinks he is doing her some kind of favor, but then again, he knows he is not, because he is doomed at novel's end to repeat this story to anyone who will listen, like the Ancient Mariner who killed the albatross.

Every Manjoo and MOther Jones writer and John Stewart and Al Franken out there who refuses to see that the systematic voter disenfranchisement in Ohio and the smoking gun exit polls in Ohio indicate a premeditated attempt to hijack the 2004 election by forces within the RNC is suffering from Marlowe syndrome. John Kerry (but not John Edwards, who, being a southern plaintiffs attorney has seen all manner of evil and corruption) was suffering from it too after the election. They refuse to see that when the DOJ does not enforce the Voting Rights Act, state and local officials are free to resort to old style southern vote suppression tactics like those Blackwell used--and toss in some new tricks involving the new electronic voting technology while they are at it. They do not want to see. They have always counted upon one person, one vote. The alternative scares them to death.

What does this mean for the New Voters Rights Movement?

Maybe we need to modify our approach to the Reluctant Rebels. Rather than attempting to inflame them with a deluge of bad news, which only ends up scaring them back into their hole in the ground like groundhogs, maybe we should be educating them a little bit at a time. Tell them "This is how this is done, and this is how this done. This is how this problem is fixed and this is how this problem can be tackled." Show them how the same thing was done in the south, so that they know that what is being described is possible. Stress how none of this could happen if the law of the land was being enforced. If John Ashcroft and Al Gonzales become the ultimate villains (they are) then people will feel less afraid, because the attorney general can be easily targetted for anger and removal. It is more difficult when we ask them to blame a vast network of political and election workers who are faceless.

In summary, do not blame the left for being scared. Acknowledge their fear, empower them, help to understand and give them to tools to fight back.

[salvorhardin]

1. The left won't listen to RFK Jr. because he's a crank

And has a track record as such. Yes, there's systematic election fraud that goes on but RFK Jr. doesn't help.

Problems with RFK Jr.'s Rolling Stone article: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/election_fraud_or_just_bad_mat.php

[madrchsod]

2. what track record is that?

this article in scienceblogs does nothing to prove one way or another. the election in ohio was stolen and that is a fact. how it was done and by who will be researched for years. we have to focus on it never happenig again

[salvorhardin]

4. RFJ Jr. acquired his crank status the old fashioned way

He earned it with his mercury-autism articles in 2005 based on the work of other cranks
A sampling:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index.html
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/06/saloncom-flushes-its-credibility-down.html
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/06/mercury-and-autism-more-huffington.html

MarkCC's article is not meant to prove anything other than to highlight RFK Jr.'s ignorance and misrepresentation of the subject

[BeFree]

11. What a bunch of crap.....

...MarkCC's article is. He doesn't make a good case at all, he picks at two or three little things and says that's enough. He doesn't talk about any of the ways he believes it was stolen, he's just silent as can be. What a waste of time it was to look over that site.

Look, the whole administration is leaning on us and what we believe. Too, the mass media is slanted the other way from us and won't even explore the issues.

If you wanted to slam the movement, you done good, sal.

Either one sides with the vote stealing bastards, or one sides with us. An attack by anyone against the cause without constructive motives leaves one to a conclusion that they are against us, know what I mean?

[salvorhardin]

13. With us or against us

Sounds familiar. I think I heard some bozo say that on TV once.

RFK Jr.'s article was not credible. He's a crank. We can do better. We must do better.

My position is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2673632&mesg_id=2674711

If that is too nuanced for you, then I suggest you need to take your ideological blinders off before you step in some more horseshit.

[BeFree]

16. So....

...we disagree. I read RFK's article and it's a hell of a grand opening. Is it perfect? No. Does he deserve constructive criticism? Yes. Does it deserve the crap that your link threw at him? No. Not in my opinion. You obviously disagree with my opinion. But crap like that link will not sway me.

But that's alright, we can disagree. Just don't expect me to roll over and take ill-founded lumps to the cause.

The cause has many great and serious enemies. It pays to know thine enemies, and so it goes that wanderers into the camp bearing weapons that cut unkindly are to be suspected.

Now, if you care to personally criticize the RFK article, have a go at it. I will try to respect YOUR words. But links from asswipes like the one you passed on will get no respect from me.

[salvorhardin]

17. How postmodern of you. n/t

[BeFree]

19. Wait, come back

We've only just met, and I want to hear what you have to say!

I promise to try not be so postmodern, if you tell me what that hell that means. You see, I am just a simple guy, who sees things simply. But I love to learn new things, so if you'll just explain.....

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

20. With us or against us. I like it.

[Febble]

24. Yeah, shame

that so many American voters liked it too.

Nuance is Hard Work.

[Jim Sagle]

41. That's what w says, too.

[organik]

3. How does generating national attention to this issue not help? N/T

[salvorhardin]

5. "Karl Rove was indicted on May 12" -- Jason Leopold

How did that false statement, which generated considerable national attention, help the issue of exposing corruption, dirty tricks and possible treason in the White House? It simply made the position of the left a laughing stock.

The same principle is at play here. If you're going to make serious allegations you best be sure you have the evidence to back it up and your ducks all in a row when you present it. Otherwise you will be a laughing stock.

You don't like MarkCC's article? How about this one?
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/06/back-to-ohio-rolling-stone-piece.html

Or this one:
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/is_rfk_jr_right.html

Or this one from last November/December:
http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2005/11/recounting_ohio.html

And be sure to re-read the second and next to last paragraph of MarkCC's article. Here... I'll help you out.

RFK Jr's article tries to argue that the 2004 election was stolen. It does a wretched, sloppy, irresponsible job of making the argument. The shame of it is that I happen to believe, based on the information that I've seen, that the 2004 presidential election was stolen. But RFK Jr's argument is just plain bad: a classic case of how you can use bad math to support any argument you care to make. As a result, I think that the article does just about the worst thing that it could do: to utterly discredit anyone who questions the results of that disastrous election, and make it far more difficult for anyone who wanted to do a responsible job of looking into the question.

Was there fraud in the election? Almost certainly. Particularly in Ohio, there are some serious flaws that we know about. But this article manages to mix the facts of partisan manipulation of the election with so much gibberish that it discredits the few real facts that it presents.

There were serious problems with the 2004 election. They're almost certain to happen again, and something needs to be done about it. A crank repeating fallacious information does not help our case though. Facts do.

[organik]

6. Sorry, not the same thing.

The public is / was aware of Rove's possible indictment, yet most Americans haven't heard a word about election fraud in the '04 election. All press is good press in this case, if it invites honest debate, which it does.

I haven't been convinced that RFK's argument isn't factual - have you read Fitrakis or Freeman's responses to the Salon or MJ "debunking" articles? I have. Pretty convincing to me.

Also, the way you've held my hand in the last post, talking down to me, makes me lose all respect for your arguement, as you come across as self-righteous.

The left is a laughing stock for not getting in the face of these issues, not from the occasional bad press for a single incorrect story.

And, how is RFK, Jr. a crank? If you're going to label someone a crank, how about some examples? RFK Jr. has done quite a lot for very important issues affecting the environment.... and the links you posted "debunking" the mercury-autism link aren't too convincing either. Work in the pharmaceutical industry, do you? Must be some reason to explain your disdain for Mr. Kennedy.

[salvorhardin]

7. Answered above

RFK Jr. crank status: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=433821&mesg_id=433862

Also, see this thread, particularly posts by OnTheOtherHand for more informed discussion regarding Freeman: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2673632#2674067

My position is stated rather clearly in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2673632&mesg_id=2674711

[Melissa G]

8. This thread that you cite by OTIOH is not an informed discussion

on Freeman, merely more of OTOH's tedious, though amazingly prolific, opinions. He has his own bias which you seem to echo. Your talking points and his talking points seem eerily the same.
Your position is just that.. a position. Everyone has one like so many other things we all have in common..BTW, your sources seem quite a bit weaker than RFK, Jr's..

If you want to evaluate the evidence that RFK,Jr's article is based on try actually reading Freeman's new book "Was the 2004 Election Stolen? It is in stores now. My copy is in the mail on it's way to me as we type..

[salvorhardin]

9. Well, good luck with that

It's always nice to know someone can make a buck off the credulous.

While you're waiting for that, why not give this a read?
http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-02/thinking.html

Also, you might enjoy this somewhat older but still relevant article:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

[Melissa G]

12. Well, What an eclectic character you are! Hmm...

interesting reading list...Why does a person from NY feature the Texas forum?

Why does a person who refers to articles on critical thinking seem to not even want to examine the evidence that he is ready to trash in advance..You feature a 'praise of Yurica' post.. the same Yurica who has currently written an article supporting the article you are currently dissing..Hmm

You cite critical thinking but are unwilling to even look at evidence which says a lot of what you say in other posts about the election being stolen...Hmm..quite the conundrum you are!

[Febble]

10. Beg to differ

Whatever you think of OTOH's posts, Melissa, and however tedious you find them, the last thing they are is "uninformed". That is simply an unsupported slur.

If you want a highly informed take on Freeman's position, try this:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/beyond-epf.pdf

Warning: you may find it tedious. Closely argued points are sometimes tedious. Information doesn't come cheap.

[Melissa G]

18. Hi Febble, I did not say OTOH 's posts are uninformed

or that he is uninformed...(Although I am willing to stand by the tedious as I do believe there is ample evidence for that..:evilgrin:) I was, if you were actually reading my reply in context, responding to salvorhardin..he said
Also, see this thread, particularly posts by OnTheOtherHand for more informed discussion regarding Freeman: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2673632#2674067
I do not remotely believe that that link deserves to be referenced as a more informed discussion regarding Freeman..IMO it is pretty slurry itself..Freeman's book is a much better source to evaluate Freeman, which is what I wrote.

Don't...don't send me to my room to read anymore OTOH tonight...please, please...I've already done well over 1000 of his posts and several of his articles...:evilgrin:
Best,
Melissa

[Febble]

23. I hadn't actually seen that thread

but I'd say it looks pretty informed. Some well-informed posters anyway.

And until Steve's book comes out, all we can reference or evaluate is his publicly posted work. I am not aware (and I think you confirmed) that there are no radical changes. Shame.

[Melissa G]

25. Steve's Book is out! There were 4 copies at one bookstore

downtown but the one closer to my house had not gotten it in yet. I think it may be headed to a second printing already.

Well, I, of course, do not think it is a shame..No, Steve's work is not going to feature a chapter on Febble's Fancy Function the way Mitofsky's does so I am sure you will like the guy's work who does better. No surprise there...Still, it is out there now for you and others to read. Have Fun!

[Febble]

27. OK, that's fine

I have the galleys anyway.

And I wouldn't expect it to feature the FFF, because you can only apply that to the precinct level data.

But it does, I'm afraid, contain serious errors in the two chapters specifically devoted to the exit polls. Nothing to do with the FFF, just mistakes that fairly seriously undermine his case.

Which is a shame, as he sets the case up nicely. If only he hadn't hung it on the exit polls.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. here's a thought...

If you want to disagree with me, actually disagree with me.

I'm sure it's much less "tedious" to offer opinions with nothing to back them up.

[Melissa G]

32. OTOH, Do you actually read what you are responding to before you

dash off a post???

If you did then you might, just might, notice that I am not in this particular instance disagreeing with you...I am disagreeing with salvorhardin using your post as a definitive source about Freeman's work..
I'm sure you don't mean to tell me that you think you are a better source for evaluating Freeman than the actual, complete book that Freeman wrote?

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. well...

I don't expect that much of Freeman's book is left standing after working through the sources in that post, unless Freeman found a way to retroactively commission some new exit polls while we weren't looking. I assume that the book has some arguments trying to explain away the pre-election polls, and I would need to add some sources to deal with that.

However, all these comments are moot, because the thread isn't about Freeman's book. Right?

[Melissa G]

42. No, the article was significantly based on RFK, Jr's early reading of

Freeman's book and his interview of Freeman. Did you not read the article you are commenting on? Did you not notice he is almost using the title of Freeman's book... that almost a tenth of the 74 cites are to Freeman. Freeman's is one of the 3 books cited in the press release excerpted below from the press release..

From the article.

The Books:

Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them) by Mark Crispin Miller

Buy this book
Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? : Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count by Steve Freeman, Joel Bleifuss

Buy this book
How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008 by Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman

In context of my post...I was replying to a member who used a post by you to define Freeman. I suggested he go to the source and read Freeman. So no, my post in context is not moot but your reference is..

And Yes, This is an example of how you read poorly and then act tedious about it. Twice..

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. you don't have a leg to stand on here

If my posts on the other thread purported to be a book review, you would have a gripe. But you characterized them as "not an informed discussion" without presenting any respect in which they are "not informed." I say it's spinach.

Kennedy's article has to stand on its own, and most of these arguments are not new. We don't have to forget everything we ever knew just because Freeman's book just came out.

(By the way, did you not notice that there are more than 74 citations in the RFK article? Speaking of not reading the article you are commenting on!)

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mod mom]

37. Baiman and Freeman have provided well informed summaries:

"I would take this evidence to a trial. Clearly a crime was committed
in Ohio. There is simply no other explanation for these patterns
other than vote shifting. The only thing we don’t know is who did it
and how. And exactly this kind of information is necessary to get
serious electoral reform - that you claim to support."

RON BAIMAN

The second page of this statement sets 95% confidence intervals for
these polls (for a “characteristic” held by roughly 50% of those
polled, for example a Presidential candidate preference for which
there is a close to even split) squarely at 4% for sample sizes of
951-2350 – the range of reported sample sizes for these states.
However, as Blumenthal knows, the reported sample sizes (also in the
methods statements) are about half of what they really are (see
Mitofsky correspondence in Baiman June 5 Free Press AAPOR report).
For these true doubled sample sizes of 2351-5250, NEP’s own estimated
confidence interval falls to 3%. This clearly puts the Ohio
discrepancy of about 4% outside of the margin of error - even using
NEP's inflated margins of error.

My margin of error calculations (and I believe Freeman’s) find a 2%
margin of error with a 30% cluster adjustment factor. As I have
stated in my earlier response to Manjoo, this puts Ohio well outside
the margin of sampling error with odds of less than 1,900 that
Kerry’s reported result is true given the exit poll result. This is
not “slight” evidence but rather highly statistically significant,
especially one considered with the inexplicable pro-Bush exit poll
discrepancies in the two other key battle ground states of Florida
and Pennsylvania. As Freeman and I have stated, the odds that these
“sampling errors” (in the same direction and of these magnitudes)
would occur for these three states simultaneously in less than one in
182,000,000 (i.e virtually impossible - this number is based on
doubled sample sizes). Moreover, when one looks at precinct level
exit poll data , and not just aggregate state polls, the evidence in
even more striking and inexplicable. A fact that Manjoo has not
addressed at all.

<snip>
http://www.Baiman.blogspot.com


Do the exit polls indicate a Kerry electoral victory?

Yes, as Kennedy reported, they do. Manjoo references a report I had
written shortly after the election to refute Kennedy's claim that
exit poll data indicated a Kerry victory in Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio.

At that time, the only data available (and these were hard to come
by!) were screen shots preserved from the CNN Web site on Election
Night (before the data were "corrected" so as to conform to the
count). Whether these data indicate a Kerry victory was a matter of
debate, but as any of Manjoo's experts should have known, these data
have been superseded by the more detailed data released later by the
National Election Pool exit pollsters. The detailed 77-page report
was released on Jan. 19, 2005, Bush's Inauguration Eve. Reporters who
filed stories on it that night had no time to review it properly;
they could only summarize the report's conclusion. Their stories
appeared under misleading headlines such as MSNBC's "Exit Polls Prove
That Bush Won." In fact, the report makes no such claim.

Manjoo -- though not his triumvirate of expert sources -- may be
partly excused for his ignorance on this matter. The National Exit
Pool unnecessarily complicates the data through secretive processes
and misleading terminology. Despite requests from U.S. Congress
members and faculty at leading research universities, the National
Exit Pool has refused to release or even permit independent
inspection of these data that would allow an investigation of
suspected fraud. We only had access to "uncorrected" "early" exit
poll data because of blogger leaks and a computer glitch. The
National Exit Pool intended to, and eventually did, replace these
CNN.com numbers with data "corrected" so as to conform to the
official count, and implied that the Election Night CNN numbers were
merely "early" results, rather than what they really were: end-of-day
data reflecting the entire surveyed population



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/freeman/

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. no, they haven't

It's not clear exactly what Baiman is mad at Manjoo for not having addressed, but the fact remains: while the discrepancy in Ohio was outside a nominal margin of error, the margin in Ohio was not. Frankly, Baiman doesn't work on the exit polls, and his opinions about what the standard errors ought to be are entirely irrelevant.

The Freeman excerpt above uses a lot of words to say almost nothing; I can't tell whether that was accidental. Regardless, pages 22 of the "detailed 77-page report" shows that the exit polls did not "indicate" a Kerry victory in Nevada, New Mexico, or Ohio -- at least not in the parlance of any survey researcher I can think of. All three states were within the margin of error, too close to call. Call me nutty, but I bet Manjoo looked at page 22 at some point since the report came out in January 2005. Heck, I bet Freeman did too. He just chooses to ignore it, which makes his attributions of "ignorance" pretty darn brassy.

[daydreamer]

26. Nobody can prove that the Election

was stolen. All we know is that the Diebold CEO is a pioneer fundraiser for Bush and was committed to help deliver votes to Bush. A programmer of his company could easily make every 20th or so voted default to Bush. Exit polls are traditionally very reliable. All we know is that these dirty Republicans are capable of anything.

But if Michael Moor were the CEO of Diebold and ..., do you think the Republicans would not scream foul?

Most murders are committed without eye witnesses. In this case, the Republicans will not yield unless we have something like a video tape confession of the programmer or CEO of Diebold, which is impossible to get.

[salvorhardin]

29. Reality check

Nobody can prove that the Election was stolen.

All we know is that the Diebold CEO is a pioneer fundraiser for Bush and was committed to help deliver votes to Bush.

Absolutely true. Disgusting behavior. Does not invalidate your subject line. We have no proof the election was stolen.

A programmer of his company could easily make every 20th or so voted default to Bush.

Possibly. I've yet to see a mechanism presented whereby this occurred though. And thanks to Bev Harris and her merry band (whether or not they want to associate with her these days) we had the source code to an earlier version of the Diebold GEMS software. It's horrible, buggy, horrendously insecure code. But there's nothing to suggest it's crooked. Again, just in case you're not picking up on the nuance there... Diebold voting systems BAD. But they're bad because their software and procedures are so craptacular, not because the machines were deliberately engineered to steal an election. There are demonstrable faults with these machines. You don't need to make false claims about a stolen election to show the machines should not be used.

Exit polls are traditionally very reliable.

Yes. Also true. The exist polls are traditionally very reliable AND they traditionally, very reliably, show a Democratic bias. No conspiracy there. It's just the way the world works. Democrats just participate more in exit polls. It'd make a hell of a psych or sociological study to find out why, but they do.

All we know is that these dirty Republicans are capable of anything.

No. We don't know that. That's just conspiracist nonsense.

But if Michael Moor <sic> were the CEO of Diebold and ..., do you think the Republicans would not scream foul?

Of course they would. I would too. Michael Moore is a filmmaker (and a bit of a one trick pony at that) who has no skills necessary to head up a large corporation. Sorry, that argument is just silly.

Most murders are committed without eye witnesses.

100% irrelevant.

In this case, the Republicans will not yield unless we have something like a video tape confession of the programmer or CEO of Diebold, which is impossible to get.

And why would they yield? We have no proof of wrongdoing. People are still innocent until proven guilty in this country and it disgusts me that so many on the left want to chuck principle out the window.

Once again, stick with the facts. Gerrymandering + Vote Suppresion + Faulty Machines = Structurally Unsound Elections. All those things are known, demonstrable and provable. You have a slam dunk case for election reform. Why sully it by making shit up?

Note: I use Vote Suppresion as a bracket category for inappropriately allocated machines, voter roll purges, shifting polling places, etc.

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. two notes

Let me quibble with you on exit polls, just to keep my purity (grin) -- the exit polls nationally do seem to skew Democratic year after year after year, but it's not nearly so 'reliable' that it can simply be compensated for. And the bias seems to vary from state to state. It's just a fuzzy mess. It's not a big problem, as long as one doesn't take the exit poll data too literally. Heh.

Diebold was hardly in Ohio in 2004. We don't have to get stuck speculating about motives and possibilities; we can look at actual election returns to see if they bear out Vendor From Hell theories. So far, they pretty much haven't.

[salvorhardin]

31. Yes! I agree!

Sorry if my post didn't make it clear. When I used the word "reliably" with the skewing of the exit polls I didn't mean that they skew in such a way as to be predictable or correctable. What I meant was that one can reliably expect that there will be a skew.

As for my little equation, I did not mean to imply that Diebold was in Ohio or that all three of those things (gerrymandering + vote suppression + faulty machines) occurs in all states. What I meant here was that those three things do occur in various places (not necessarily all at once everywhere) and all work to undermine the election system.

I absolutely agree that Vendor From Hell scenarios did not happen and that speculation is both pointless and unhelpful when there are documented problems.

[BeFree]

33. Vendor from hell?

Well, that's a pretty Fundamentalist attitude, eh? Caught up in it, are we?

But lets look at it from a scientific angle: this "Vendor From Hell", shall we?

HAVA's $4 billion, Tom Delay, Blackwell, Harris, rob.georgia, Hursti 1, and Hursti 2, Shamos, Jones, Avi, Rove.

Thems the facts. Go, do some science. It's obvious that to some exit-polls are not good science, but the cases above are.

Of the scientists who would know, nearly all say that these machines should not be used. Show me the quotes from your associates that come any where near belaboring that point. Most of them love the machines.

Instead, all we get from those web warriors is fuzzy math and arguments like: They say, I say, they are all wrong but me. But nearly all somehow manage to mutter: _{Something is wrong.}

Yet, those web jockeys slam anyone who dares to loudly proclaim the undeniable: Something is FUCKING wrong. Like your web pals are doing to RFK.

Its all bull shit, this foaming at the mouth over the picayune details. And it is the so called 'experts' who are the lead foamers. Never doing any work, really, just looking to attack the, as you call them, the "fundies".

Here's a novel idea for yall: DEMAND CHANGE. Demand the vendors operate with our votes in the open.

That is, if you really believe in the facts. And if you really want to practice your science. To all you 'scietists', I say, go. Go do some honest work. Something is really wrong, right?

[salvorhardin]

34. Lovely display of anti-intellectualism there

To all you 'scietists', I say, go. Go do some honest work.

Have a Manichaean day! Better take your umbrella though, I hear there's a good chance of doom and gloom exacerbated by hyperbole.

[BeFree]

35. What?

I ask the intellectuals do do some honest work and I get called an anti-intellectual? I ask intellectuals to use their intellect and I get this crap?

Welcome to ER, Sal. May you live long and learn much. That is, if you dare use your intellect for learning.

[BeFree]

44. Hey, where'd yall go?

Afraid of a debate? Yall are afraid of ol' Befree?

All yall can do is throw out one liners and slink off into the darkness?

Yall are just like fundamentalists. When confronted with the facts fundies scream, close their eyes and ears, and run away to bother someone else. Leave them alone, c'mon back and tango with me, why don't ya?

[mod mom]

39. Exit polls point to the fact that the election was stolen, the evidence in

the form of affidavits, video, copied ballots have been archived. Have you bothered to review them all? I don't think so/ If you are interested in true evaluation, perhaps you and your cohorts should stop shooting off your uninformed opinions until you have reviewed the evidence. Funny the corporate media calls Manjoo's analysis "exhaustive", yet he never bothered to go through the evidence, and relied on others who have not bothered as well. The exit polls are not the entire case, but help back up the evidence. You show your true colors when you rapidly dismiss RFK Jr and those who scream foul without analysis of evidence.

[Febble]

46. Well you need to exercise discernment

when you review the evidence. Some of what you cite is excellent. But the exit poll evidence isn't. I can give you any number or reasons why it isn't. As SalvorHardin says:

"Gerrymandering + Vote Suppresion + Faulty Machines = Structurally Unsound Elections. All those things are known, demonstrable and provable. You have a slam dunk case for election reform. Why sully it by making shit up?" I'd add to that systemically lax recount and audit protocols.

If exit polls were anything like "the entire case" you wouldn't have a case. What you cite as "back up" is the primary evidence, collected by people like you (and even by me), "known, demonstrable and provable".

The exit polls are a crock. At best, a glimmer of evidence for high differential residual votes on older technologies may show up in the exit poll data when analysed at a national scale. Nothing at state level. Baiman's analysis tells you nothing about what caused the discrepancy, and the scale of voter suppression in Ohio makes it even less likely it was due to fraud.

[BeFree]

47. The exit polls are a crock?

Somebody better tell Mitofski that his efforts are a crock!

All that money time and effort, by 'experts', produced a crock, so says Febble. What a revelation that is! From one of the defenders of the project no less.

Actually, I totally agree. Under the current management and after reviewing their final product, I too, think the exit polls are a crock.

But what is cool is that somehow the raw data escaped their clutches and became wild where folks looking that data over were able to make up their own minds, without the experts telling them what to believe. Ah, freedom!

But the fundies of the voting process, those who believe in paperless results, continue to deny that 'they would do that'- steal elections with new fangled machinery. Even tho there is recent proof from Iowa of the stealing of hundreds of votes by machines, they carry on as if nothing happened.

Yes, we need to exercise discernment. Yes indeed.

[Febble]

48. Well, either you know what I am talking about

or you don't, so in either case there is no point in trying to explain further.

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. luckily, folks know to ignore the New York data at all costs

Otherwise, they might really wonder whether John Kerry won New York by 30 (or 31) points. Ah, but they have you to explain that a survey that small couldn't possibly cover a state as big as New York. Even though a survey that small can cover the entire country. Hmm....

Well, anyway, thank goodness they can make up their own minds without those dadgum Experts messing things up. Except for the Good Experts, of course. They don't mess things up.

"But the fundies of the voting process, those who believe in paperless results, continue to deny that 'they would do that'- steal elections with new fangled machinery."

Perhaps someday you will direct us to one of these people.

[BeFree]

50. Direct? You need a map?

Tell us, please, just why you think NY exit poll was so wrong?

Is it because the "exit polls are a crock"? Or what?

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. no, BeFree, why don't you?

"The law of larger numbers indicates that the NC poll would be far more correct than the NY poll by several orders of magnitude."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=429093&mesg_id=429248

"Anyway, since you asked why NY numbers were so skewed, I thought I'd give you an idea why the exit-poll number in NY came out as it did."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=429093&mesg_id=429357

[BeFree]

53. You have no clue?

All you can do is point out my guesses? Heck, I am no expert, nobody posts my websites as proof, nor do they quote me. And that's alright. Dey's smarter than that.

But you, on the other hand, are thought of as an expert. So, tell us why the NY exit polls were so far off. If you don't know, that's all right, just admit you don't know.

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. you first

I've expressed plenty of opinions, you've expressed plenty of snarks. Time to narrow the gap. Do you think the NY exit poll was correct?

[BeFree]

55. Me first? What is this a game, a childrens game?

All I know is that the exit polls are a crock - under their present guidance and management.

You linked to my remarks, lets hear from you... why did the exit polls miss count ski the NY election?

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. for you, perhaps n/t

[BeFree]

57. No game, deadly serious

But then, I am just a lay person. Just trying to figure out what went wrong with certain cherished traditions in my country.

You are the expert at this. You have recognition and are published. So, I ask you again, in your expert opinion, why were the NY exit polls so messed up?

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. umm, okay

I think the NY exit poll was messed up because Kerry voters were more willing to participate than Bush voters were. There are plenty of other possible contributing reasons, and we don't have sufficient information to sort them out -- i.e., no one on the planet possibly could.

Here is another chance to demonstrate your deadly seriousness: now you can answer my question. Do you think the NY exit poll was accurate?

[BeFree]

59. As accurate as could be

Given that so few people were interviewed. I'd say at least twice as many people should have been interviewed. I think we disagree on that point.

I understand your explanation as saying you don't know why the exit poll in NY was so wrong. Right? No wonder you keep asking.

Too, given that numbers from a place such as Pasco county Florida could screw with yall's estimatings so much, it does seem as if anything in the last election was possible. Eh?

I'll say this: I don't trust the pollers at all. I do not subscribe to the idea that they have been completely honest. I am not a believer in the people who currently manage the polling data. They are hiding something.

They may have intentionally messed up NY, just so they could say: Look at NY!

Who knows? Gosh, it must drive you crazy, this not knowing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. hmm

OK, presumably you can pull out an old TruthIsAll post, estimate a margin of error for about 1500 exit poll respondents (the formula will give too low a result, but then there were more than 1500 respondents, so it may even out), and see what you think.

Hmm, about plus-or-minus 2.6%, something like that. 5.2 points on the margin. So maybe Kerry only won New York by 26. Or maybe it was 36.

"They may have intentionally messed up NY, just so they could say: Look at NY!"

Right. And maybe Satan planted dinosaurs, to try to lure us into the belief that the world is more than 6000 years old. It must drive you crazy, this not knowing.

[salvorhardin]

52. Lax recount and audit procedures...

I'd never considered that. Hmm. Do you mean the protocols in place at the local level? This is not an area I'm familiar with. In relation to the other ones I mention, how big of a problem do you think this is?

[Febble]

61. I don't know

Except that precincts for the recount in Ohio were not randomly selected, and without random selection, then there really isn't any point in a partial recount, nor is there any point unless custody of the ballots is ensured. So if the point of the recount in Ohio was to reassure Ohioans that their votes had been counted fairly, it singularly failed.

In the San Diego mayoral elections, my understanding was that the recounts from a randomly selected 1% of precincts matched the tabulated totals exactly. However, when the people conducting the parallel elections asked for a recount of both their precincts, and a second random selection of precincts, there were a few trivial discrepancies. Funnily enough, I think that is probably evidence in favour of the interpretation that both the parallel election precincts and the additional randomly selected precincts were genuninely recounted, and genuinely almost matched, but it also suggests that the official 1% selection were artificially tidied up. Also, no-one was sure how secure the ballots had been kept between the election and the recounts,.

I think standards for audits need to be realistic, then stringently enforced, if people are to have any confidence that their votes are fairly counted. At the moment, in some places, it would seem that there is pressure on BoE officials to tidy things up to avoid triggering something more onerous (and presumably expensive). Of course, they may have had something worse to hide, but it is clearly important that transparency is paramount, and in Ohio it wasn't.

[salvorhardin]

62. Interesting. Thank you.

So, maybe the equation should be Gerrymandering + Vote Suppresion + Faulty Machines + Ill-defined Procedures & Protocols = Structurally Unsound Elections?

How unsound do you think our elections are? This question goes for OnTheOtherHand as well.

My general impression is that there are some disturbing trends, but as of right now our elections are still pretty good. I don't think historically they've ever been great but overall the system has more or less worked. Yet for a variety of reasons (complacency, apathy, decreased emphasis on community values which leads to things like a decreased quality of poll worker, a whole host of social factors really) I think there is cause for serious concern. I also think it's a self-reinforcing system. All of the things in my equation lead to a worsening pf social factors related to elections. And I most emphatically do not believe the Supreme Court should ever pick the victor of a Presidential election the way they did in 2000.

It might be interesting to do a series of blog posts examining the "state of the vote" once it gets closer to election time that take a look at each of the arguments in my equation. Say starting in mid or late September when interest in elections is greater?

[Kip Humphrey]

14. Sometimes when you act like an ostrich, you become an ostrich!

...And ostrich tastes like chicken to me! FDR said it all: "All we have to fear is fear itself." The Democratic leadership, by wallowing in fear and losing their courage to stand up for our country, demonstrate that the only ones who will save our country from the depths of fascist rule are We, the People.

The solution will not come by way of another stolen election. It will come when we organize and educate and mobilize and show these "leaders" what they have to fear - the unbending will of the people. History tells us over and over and over, that, in the end, dictators fall when the people find their courage to stand up and demand their will be heeded.

I will not capitulate for the sake of my children. I will heed no man who refuses the return of our voting processes to citizen control. I will lend no support to any politician who tastes like chicken!

[glitch]

15. Another damn fine post McCamy Taylor. K & R

I don't blame them, but I am disappointmented in them.
Is that so wrong? ;)
Of course the ones who feel like they need to tear down the more courageous among us I have no sympathy for whatsoever.

[BrklynLiberal]

22. kicked and recommended!

[BeFree]

36. Wonderful post McCamy

Now that is using your noggin for something other than a hat rest. <grin>

When explained to our people in the way that you suggest, this issue will be far better accepted as the crime it is. Folks do tend to duck away when we slam them with all the different aspects of the problem. Picking the lawlessness items out and explaining how voters' rights are being criminally neglected by those who have the power to enforce the laws, will make the bitter pill much easier to swallow.

Look forward to reading more from you.

[autorank]

63. McCamy Taylor, I like your Heart of Darkness analogy but here is

...another way to look at the education effort.

Simply bypass the ass hats on our side who are too limited or too "comfortable" to tell the truth.
They know it was stolen, it's just not convenient for them to say so for any number of reasons.

The public doesn't need an education, just the left press that few read.

Look at this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2682337

40% of PA thinks the 2004 election was stolen, majority of Democrats and Independents.

84% of a Lou Dobbs poll want to abandon electronic voting.

Our audience is ready, the people who naysay are merely in the way. We need to come up with ways to
bypass them. Why waste time trying to educate them since they don't influence many to begin with
(Stewart is the exception although I don't know that he's a denier).

Local media can do a great job.

The internet is a powerhouse in search of it's first monolith to topple.

And there must be other channels that we have not thought about.

No need to educate those who choose ignorance. They cannot be educated. They are hopeless.

Lets do what Macarthur did in WWII, bypass the bastards.