what's our M.O.T. in this election (Margin of Theft)

[nashville_brook]

How "big" must we win in order to beat the M.O.T.?

:evilgrin:

I've been wondering this since reading this Alternet story that states in the lead paragraph, "Progressive Democrats are saying, 'we need to... win BIG... to make sure the congressional elections are not stolen.'"

It bugs me that Dems have to "win big" in order to win at all. But, I'm game. I'm a believer in the fact that we DOUBLE-DIGIT leads and the "math" is on our side regardless of what math old KKKarl thinks he has.

But I'm just wondering... how big. If we get 60 percent of the popular vote in contested races? Will we need more? 75 percent maybe?

thoughts?

[althecat]

1. LOve the expression "Margin of Theft"

Here's an analysis of this question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x455846

Bottom line the overall numbers don't really matter it is what happens in the competitive races.

Our experience of 2002 is that pre-election margins of 12 points can result in losses without questions being asked.

The wider the gap the more theft required... but unfortunately if the goal is "not to lose" the house or "not to lose" the senate then the "Margin of Theft" is not all that large.

regards
Al

[nashville_brook]

2. thanks! i *thought* i was being cleverly rhetorical, BUT

there actually IS research on the Margin Of Theft! 8% they say!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/25/13291/514

How Much Do Democrats Have To Win By To Actually Win?
by Chris Bowers, Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:29:01 PM EST

Three political scientists have produced a paper on the relationship between the generic ballot and actual seats that is definitely worth a read. Here are the choice bits:
Now consider the polls over the final thirty days of the 2006 campaign. As of early October 24, PollingReport.com listed the results of 6 likely-voter generic ballot polls conducted during the final 30 days of the campaign, by CNN (2), USA Today/Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, Fox/Opinion Dynamics, and Newsweek. The average Democratic two-party share in these polls is 57.7%. Applying our formula as described above, the Democrats should win 55% of the two-party vote with a confidence interval from 51.3 to 58.7 percent, implying that the Democrats almost certainly would win a majority of the votes cast.


more at link

[althecat]

5. I think it is a lot bigger than that - over 12%

I think the margin of theft is directly proportional to the likelihood of being caught.

Now after an absolute failure to get recounts in Ohio, (I am not sure how hard anyone actually tried in New Hampshire), that the likelihood of being caught is arguably lower in 2006 than it was back in 2004.

Note also that there are probably enough competitive races for election theives to pick their jurisdictions.

Note further that even if discrepancies are found after a recount this will be able to be explained by any-number of pre-prepared explanations:
- crappy software
- hackers
- poll worker unpreparedness
- programming errors

All of which the craven media and craven DNC will lap up like good puppies.

Etc.

Therefore the question that really needs to be asked to ascertain the "margin of theft" is "HOW MUCH WILL THEY WANT TO STEAL THIS ELECTION".

At which point you can look at the martial law provisions just passed.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00490.htm

And the suspemsion of Habeas Corpus just passed in the Military Commissions Act.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00423.htm

Both of which point at desperate and dangerous people occupying the White House.

Q: Are these law changes intended to defend the US public against terror?

A: Seems unlikely.

Q: Are they designed to assist the GOP in its reelection efforts?

A: Also seems unlikely both measures cannot but play badly in the current climate.

So then..

Would people who do this STEAL AN ELECTION even if it meant DOING SO FAIRLY BLATANTLY?

Yes.

And as they say... its not the big lies that get you caught its the small ones.

Al

[tech3149]

3. I don't like to be pessimistic, it's just my nature

I expect we have to beat the MOT with 20%, but I'd rather see 25%. I think an honest 60% of the country of the country is seeing this misadministration for what it is. The other 40% is split between the uninformed but questioning and the total sycophants. If we need to beat the MOT by 20% or more, we need to educate the uninformed and hope that half of them can understand reality from a broader viewpoint.

[nashville_brook]

4. the question emerges... "educate" to what end? to get out the vote?

or to OUT the THEFT?

i'm thinking we aren't going to get the M.O.T. we need no matter what the number is, b/c the benchmark will keep moving. our best/last/only defense is to out the fraud. because if we lose this one, the first person who says "...but we'll get'em in 2008" is going to get it right in th' kisser!

[tech3149]

6. educate to what end?

Good question and a terrific topic of discussion. Education and learning without any other justification than satisfying ones curiosity are lofty goals. I'm no bible thumper but Proverbs chapter 4 defines a ruling concept in my life. Depending on which version you are reading, the text will vary but the concept is consistent. We are called to seek knowledge and to use that knowledge to find understanding. We are compelled to hold this knowledge and understanding as close to our heart as any other person, thing, or concept that we value more than our own lives. Knowledge(information) is useless unless it is processed to gain an understanding of the world in which we live. We live in a world where vast information is at your fingertip(for most of us) with almost no effort. Many choose to absorb that information as entertainment or distraction rather than use it to better understand the world in which they live. These people need our help and guidance, but it can only be served in small doses. Those that I speak of are crippled in every sense of the word. Their mental faculties and abilities have been constrained or diminished by numerous measures that they are not aware of. They may also be the ones that are so involved in trying to keep themselves and their family alive that they have no time or energy left for anything else.

Back to the topic at hand, educating about the corruption of the system and how it affects the reality of the average person are equally important. We have less than a week to inform those that are capable of dealing with that information The only determining factor is your own judgment. Target those that are uncomfortable with facts that explain why that is so. Target those who are poorly informed with information that is easily digestible and demonstrate the immediate impact on their lives.

We can win this and help all of America, but I'll still be a pessimist until next Wednesday.

[nashville_brook]

7. great response to ponder... we'll be voting and watching...

and ready to fight if things go south.

cautiously pessimistic? :)

[tech3149]

9. If things don't work our....See ya at Gitmo!

that's figuing I live that long.

[nashville_brook]

10. something else i hear in your post.... passive vs active learning

we are conditioned to extreme passivity in television/entertainment culture. the basic idea is that we are like sea anemones absorbing a tiny percentage of what floats in our general direction.

someone ignorant of election fraud disbelieves the existence of it because it hasn't floated past their Octopus' Garden. have they bothered to swim to the surface and look fior themselves -- is that even possible for a sea anemone? :)

maybe they aren't anemones after all. maybe they just think they are. maybe they are really octopi... capable and intelligent... but, asleep at the bottom of the sea.

[Kip Humphrey]

8. Greater than 10% ( assumes a 5% flip)

[nashville_brook]

11. good point... FLIPPED votes double the spread!