Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Truth About "North Carolina Fraud"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 03:48 AM
Original message
Truth About "North Carolina Fraud"
This issue has garnered a great deal of attention both here and at Daily Kos in the past few days. While we would all likely to see believable evidence of voter fraud, this is simply not it. Unfortunately, the entire argument was based a faulty math and a wrong assumption.

The individual who started this rumour suggests that equal numbers of Dems and Repubs voted early:

"we can figure that by dividing Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% for the Democrat. And then do the same for the Republican Ballantine to also get a ratio of 30%. Both Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls. Thank you, North Carolina."

That math is clearly incorrect, it does not take in to account party cross-overs or independent voters. The actual data, provided by the State Board of Elections and State Democratic Party is:

On 10/30 The Democrats provided the following info:

Total Voted = 970,894

Democrat = 477,298 (49.2%)

Republicans = 358,930 (37%)

Undeclared = 134,666 (13.9%)

Ignatzmouse then tried to suggest that this data represents a fair, impartial and 'undoctored' sample from which to compare the rest of the results. He began by suggesting that all the other races except for President, Senate, and two others he deemed invaild, kept their results within 1% of the early voting results.

"The Republican, Ballantine, actually did very slightly better in the absentee. But this is the overall pattern of consistency in all the statewide races (except for Senate and President which I'll hold till last)."

However, this chart proves that to be a bit of an exageration. http://www.charlieboard.com/NcStatewideEVvsElectionDay.... In fact, eleven races trended strongly Republican on election day. Only Easley and his associate gained ground, and each of them has large crossover appeal.

Now, given that we know that Democrats were over-represented in the early voting, this all makes sense. Of course there was a shift towards the Republicans, there was way more of them voting on election day. Further, the Democrats and Independents who voted on election day were probably those who supported Kerry. However, Bush and Burr had huge support from Independents and a good deal of crossover from Democrats.

So, if we assume that the Board of Elections and State Party aren't lying to us and that Bush had more crossover appeal than the Secretary of Agriculture, a large jump for Bush and Burr is completely expected. Bush's jump was nine points, while that may seem excessive, we must remember that he received 16% of the Democratic vote -- and simple logic suggests these individuals voted on election day. Sadly, those who have questioned the fuzzy math and ill-based logic used to support the assertation of fraud in North Carolina have been met with derisive flames rather than reasonable discussion.

The simple fact is that the initial poster did claim that the early results held in all the races but two (though he later identifies two other races he believes to be anomalies) and he did claim equal representation from both parties in early voting.

These two beliefs form the cornerstone of the argument that there was fraud on election day in North Carolina. Sadly, these claims are entirely baseless.

Unlike the other thread, can we please try to keep this one civil. No calling people trolls, no calling people liars. Deal with the issues and the facts raised by both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Link to Initial Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

It's rather messy and pretty much involves a slew of flames and accusations of me being a liar and suggestions that I am misquoting the initial poster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Moving Over From Other Thread
I quite simply refuse to post there anymore, the pro-Fraud crowd feel embolbdened to flame over there, hopefully this thread will be civil.

Milo just posted this over there:

"Here is where you are getting screwed up. The poster is talking about the ratio of HOW PEOPLE VOTED, not HOW THEY SHOWED UP. As I am sure you are well aware, if you are as politically astute as you claim to be and not as your posts suggest that many of the registered "democrats" in North Carolina are no such thing, much like the registered "democrats" in the pan handle of Florida.

You can only look at how they voted as evidence of their party loyalty. The consistency of the votes from Absentee to ED Polls contains the control sample, and the wild variance in the Presidential election is the anomaly you refuse to acknowledge."

This is where Milo and the initial poster are woefully incorrect. We know the final tally of how many Democrats voted. That's also in Board of Elections info. 39% of voters were Democrats, so it is critically important if we know what group showed up in what percentage for early voting.

We know Democrats were over-represented. That means there were fewer on them to vote on election day. We also know that there were almost no Republicans voting for Kerry. Therefore, we know that there were more Republicans voting on election day and there is no way they will vote for Kerry. Ergo, we know Bush must get far more votes on election day.

Sadly, Milo's theory of how elections works ignores cross-overs and independents completely. The entire analysis has been based on factless assertations like his above post. There are a fixed number of Democrats and Republicans voting in this election, the Democrats did not maintain a 12 point edge in turnout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Another Lie
"This is where Milo and the initial poster are woefully incorrect. We know the final tally of how many Democrats voted. That's also in Board of Elections info. 39% of voters were Democrats, so it is critically important if we know what group showed up in what percentage for early voting."


THe BOE has not released any such data. That 39% was from an EXIT poll, it was the % of people who identified themselves as DEMS in the poll.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. My mistake
However, that number is in line with Jerome's report of the 2000 turnout figures and media reports of 2002 turnout. 49% turnout for the Democrats would be outrageous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Finally...
You admit to an error.

Now, let me point this out:

"However, that number is in line with Jerome's report of the 2000 turnout figures and media reports of 2002 turnout. 49% turnout for the Democrats would be outrageous."

THOSE are not based on ACTUAL REGISTRATION, but again, on EXIT POLLS and how people ANSWER the question.

You need only look at the FLorida Pan Handle to see the reality of this. I am sure Democratic turnout looks GREAT there, but Bush won big. There are many people registered democratic, who have voted GOP since the 1980's. If you were to ask them, they would tell you they are GOP, but their registration still says Democrat because they never bothered to change it.

Half of these people probably don't even know they are registered democrats or GOP, they just show up and vote every 4 years.

I can guarantee you that voter turnout for "registered" democrats, outnumber voter turnout for "registered" republicans in NC, but that don't mean much in these states.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. But in Florida they told the truth, here you suggest they lied
There was a huge problem in Florida because exit polls showed Democrats voting Republican. Here, you are suggesting that Democrats lied and said they were Republican. It just doesn't make any sense, it is such an extreme assumption.

At this point, the belief in fraud is now based on the idea that registered Democrats lied and said they were registered Republicans or Independents. That seems extremely far fetched.

Is it not more likely that the Democrats simply don't have a good GOTV campaign with these individuals? Thus, the exit polls are right on party breakdown and the difference in results is due to huge cross-over for Bush, Burr and Easley?

Further, how do you account for Easley? Do you just pick and chose where you like the exit polls and where you think they are hogwash?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. No, wrong, AGAIN.
"There was a huge problem in Florida because exit polls showed Democrats voting Republican. Here, you are suggesting that Democrats lied and said they were Republican. It just doesn't make any sense, it is such an extreme assumption."

As you already said, these polls also showed democrats voting republican. Please try to keep your stories straight in the future.

"At this point, the belief in fraud is now based on the idea that registered Democrats lied and said they were registered Republicans or Independents. That seems extremely far fetched."

Wrong.


"Is it not more likely that the Democrats simply don't have a good GOTV campaign with these individuals? Thus, the exit polls are right on party breakdown and the difference in results is due to huge cross-over for Bush, Burr and Easley?"

Not based on the data in the post.

"Further, how do you account for Easley? Do you just pick and chose where you like the exit polls and where you think they are hogwash?"

Already asked and answered over and over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. My god
I'm just sick of being called a liar when I have never lied and made one factual mistake.

You suggested people lied to pollsters. Not me. Deal with the nonsensical version of events you are creating.

Next the aliens come in and rig the election for Bush.

Deal with the facts, more Democrats voted early, people did not lie to pollsters and the high Republican turnout explains why eleven of fourtee races turned strongly Republican on election day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. LMAO
"The exit polls matched in Northen Florida. You're just trying to cover your tracts. These juvenille lies are getting ridiculous.
"

The exit polls matched WHAT?

WHat type of idiotic claim are you trying to make now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. Lets try this civil like...if you are even capable of that
I'm not even going to address any more posts where you call me a liar. It's just not going to happen. You need to learn to act like an adult. So let's try just the facts one more time:

Early turnout shows 49% Democrats, 37% Republicans, 14% independent. Following the early voting, 11 races turned sharply Republican. by far the biggest turn was for Bush who jumped by 9%.

I suggest this occured because all information points to the concept that more Republicans voted than Democrats (40% to 39%) and more Democrats voted early. Obviously, more Bush voters remained (as well as Republicans in general).

You support the idea that the 49%-37% pairing held through the entire election (or some close proximity of it). To explain the exit polls, you suggest people just lied or didn't know what party they were really registered with. Further, all those races shifted pretty much because the Republicans cheated. The Democrats were happy about early results because they didn't know any better.

Does that pretty much cover it? The stuff we can agree on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Things that are not true....
"11 races turned sharply Republican."

This is NOT TRUE. Races turned GOP, but 11 RACES DID NOT TURN SHARPLY REPUBLICAN. Some turned BARELY Republican and others turned moderately republican.

" suggest this occured because all information points to the concept that more Republicans voted than Democrats (40% to 39%) and more Democrats voted early. Obviously, more Bush voters remained (as well as Republicans in general)."

No, all information does NOT point to that at all. 1 single exit poll states that 39% of people identified themselves as democrats and 40% identified themselves as republicans. Do you know the actual question asked? Did they ask specifically about registration or did they ask, "are you a democrat, republican, libertarian, etc..."

"You support the idea that the 49%-37% pairing held through the entire election (or some close proximity of it). To explain the exit polls, you suggest people just lied or didn't know what party they were really registered with."

No, I suggest they gave an honest answer to an honest question. Are you a Democrat or Republican? "Oh I am a Republican", despite the fact they have been registered democrat since the 1950s, but stopped voting for them in the 1980s.

"The Democrats were happy about early results because they didn't know any better. "

Obviously, as the vote totals show, since they were happy about losing by 6%, so obviously they didn't know any better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. So now your belief is based on the question?
It all comes down to how they phrased the question? Talk about grasping at straws. My version of events makes infinetly more sense. BTW, the post you are defending does explicitely state that the same number of Republicans and Democrats voted early. Not the same percentage that would happen throughout, but the same number:
"we can figure that by dividing Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% for the Democrat. And then do the same for the Republican Ballantine to also get a ratio of 30%. Both Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls. Thank you, North Carolina."

He also EXPLICITELY states that all the other races except Senate and President maintain the course established in the early voting:
"The Republican, Ballantine, actually did very slightly better in the absentee. But this is the overall pattern of consistency in all the statewide races (except for Senate and President which I'll hold till last)."

In fact, that lie suggests that the Republicans did better in absentee voting than in election day voting.


Who is lying here again?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. Wrong again...
"It all comes down to how they phrased the question? Talk about grasping at straws. My version of events makes infinetly more sense. BTW, the post you are defending does explicitely state that the same number of Republicans and Democrats voted early. Not the same percentage that would happen throughout, but the same number:
"we can figure that by dividing Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% for the Democrat. And then do the same for the Republican Ballantine to also get a ratio of 30%. Both Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls. Thank you, North Carolina.""

Again, he is talking about how people VOTED, not how they are registered. Although I have explained that to you over and over and over.

"He also EXPLICITELY states that all the other races except Senate and President maintain the course established in the early voting:
"The Republican, Ballantine, actually did very slightly better in the absentee. But this is the overall pattern of consistency in all the statewide races (except for Senate and President which I'll hold till last).""

Uh, I would re-read that line if I were you. It doesn't say what you seem to want it to say. He is talking about the %'s of the votes and consistency, not a trend or exact numbers.

"In fact, that lie suggests that the Republicans did better in absentee voting than in election day voting."

No it doesn't. He mentions Ballantine as an EXCEPTION. You see it is given in contrast to the other statement.


Obviously you are not in law school. These are very basic reading comprehension problems you seem to be having.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. LMAO
""Again, he is talking about how people VOTED, not how they are registered. Although I have explained that to you over and over and over."

You can't read, it's sad."

Yes, I can, which is why I pointed out your error.

""Overall pattern of consistency in all the statewide races" (note: except eleven of them which shift Republican).

The % of vote is what changes genius. You're just making this up."

What are you trying to babble about here?

This is what happens when a troll gets exposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
71. This post convinced me you are not sincere.
I believe in spirited debate and I am offended that disagreement sometimes results in the 'troll' word being rolled out. Well, reading the thread with some interest, I noted that you started the name calling with this post. "You are a child" -- how pathetic. I think Milo_Bloom made some excellent points and when the heat was turned up rhetorically and logically, you resorted to name calling.

This forum is for Democrats. If you're one, you need to re-evaluate the facts you present in light of the excellent analysis offered as a counter to those facts. If you're not, just go away. BTW, being a Democrat here doesn't mean agreeing with everybody. It means engaging in an honest dialog without resorting to name calling at the first sign that you are losing the argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txindy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Last night was worse
His choices were not just "child," but "blithering morons", "idiots," "liars," etc. Those were deleted fairly quickly, fortunately.

I don't think the intent with this is to debate, at all. But that's just me. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Florida_Geek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. Oh mr 54 posts I think you know what you
are.

Probably will not be seeing you around here much longer.

"Now, given that we know that Democrats were over-represented in the early voting"

LOL talk about pulling something out of your Ass....

Talking about that,,,,, The scene from Man on Fire..... :evilgrin:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Suggesting I'm a Troll, Fantastic
Do you have any basis for the claim that the figures provided by the Board of Elections and posted by a very well respected individual over at Daily Kos are lies? No.

Yes another example of juvenille flames from those who have no basis for a counter-argument.

I repeat, please refrain from posting pathetic flames or accusations of being a troll. This is a thread for issues, if you don't have a case do not try to make one through irrelevent attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. This guy has been proven a liar and a fraud
He fails to take into account the registration make up of the state, which is 49% democrat, directly in line with the absentee data. He fails here b/c he doesn't realize that many of the "registered democrats" have not voted dem in YEARS, but haven't changed their registration data.

He lies about what the original poster said, claiming he talked about races TRENDING democrat.

He fails to understand that this statement, "we can figure that by dividing Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% for the Democrat. And then do the same for the Republican Ballantine to also get a ratio of 30%. Both Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls. Thank you, North Carolina.""

Refers to the VOTING totals and not necessarily looking into the hearts of the voters. In essence, the original poster is 100% right on this subject.

In the end, this poster just doesn't like being called out for exactly what he is... a liar and a fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Incredibly Juvenille
I respectfully asked for there to be no flaming in this thread, the first opportunity you get you start flamming. It's just sad that you are incapable of having a reasonable debate.

The fact that early voting went according to voter registration had nothing to do with the initial post. Actual voter registration data was not avaiable until I provided it some 24 hours after the initial post. You accepted the data as was until then, afterwards you invented a new reason to believe it.

However, nothing you say refutes this simple fact: we know the final turnout numbers. We know how many people from each party voted. We know that Bush had cross-over appeal and Kerry did not. There was a finite number of Democratic votes remaining, a number much smaller than the number of Republicans left to vote. Democrats crossed over, Republicans did not. It's quite simple and easily explained.

This entire thread has become a pathetic joke, summarized by this analogy:

1) 1+1=3
2) No, 1+1=2
3) No it's not, my friend billy said 1+1=3 and I know six others who think so too. Therefore you're a proven liar and scumbag.


SIMPLE QUESTION:

Do you honestly think that the final voter turnout favoured registered Republicans by a 12 point margin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Deal with it.
"I respectfully asked for there to be no flaming in this thread, the first opportunity you get you start flamming. It's just sad that you are incapable of having a reasonable debate.
"

You respectfully asked for no flaming and then started moving posts over to attack people outside of the original thread.

"The fact that early voting went according to voter registration had nothing to do with the initial post. Actual voter registration data was not avaiable until I provided it some 24 hours after the initial post. You accepted the data as was until then, afterwards you invented a new reason to believe it."

Lie. The registration data is available for ALL to see on the NC state board of elections website (http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/index_data.html )

"However, nothing you say refutes this simple fact: we know the final turnout numbers"

No we don't. We know what people said in EXIT POLLS about what party they belong to, but we do not have hard data about exactly who turned out.

"Do you honestly think that the final voter turnout favoured registered Republicans by a 12 point margin?"

No, but it probably did favor REGISTERED Democrats by something very close to that. Whether they voted that way is entirely different, but the absentee statistics you keep posting only look at what party they are REGISTERED in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Makes no Difference
"No, but it probably did favor REGISTERED Democrats by something very close to that. Whether they voted that way is entirely different, but the absentee statistics you keep posting only look at what party they are REGISTERED in."

Right now the exit polls give Bush 16% of Democrats, if you are suggesting that there were actually way more Democrats voting then that means that number would be even higher. So are you suggesting that over 20% of Democrats voted for Bush?

As for the voter registration issue, it most certainly was not brought up in a constructive manner, and most definetly not by the initial poster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Please, stop asking questions already answered!
"Right now the exit polls give Bush 16% of Democrats, if you are suggesting that there were actually way more Democrats voting then that means that number would be even higher. So are you suggesting that over 20% of Democrats voted for Bush?"

20% of Registered Democrats? Sure, why not. They are Democrats in registration only! Look at the FLorida Pan Handle and ask whether 20% or more of "registered" democrats can vote for Bush, or Dole for that matter.


"As for the voter registration issue, it most certainly was not brought up in a constructive manner, and most definetly not by the initial poster."

Again, I am forced to point out that none of this has anything to do with the original poster's claims, which aren't based on turnout in the least, but instead a signficant sample of voters and the consistency in the data.

The original poster's claims WERE NOT BASED ON TURNOUT. Say it with me now, THEY WERE NOT BASED ON TURNOUT!

They were based on HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTED. Taking that sample and comparing it with another sample, you find a statistical comparrison forms. THey are all very close within an acceptable variance. Over and over and over again you find the same results.

Then, you have the presidential election, which has an astronmical jump and stands alone in that jump. Again, which one is not like the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Based on homogenous turnout -- very different
The original poster's ideas were based on the fact that voter turnout was identical in early voting and on election day. That is not supported by the exit polls or by information from the BoE. The only possibility of it being true is if individuals lied en masse to pollsters about their party affiliation.

You continue to say that the Presidential jump was abnormal, but it wasn't. Bush had way higher cross-over appeal than any other candidate. He did way better than any other candidate amongst independents and he held his own party way better than any other candidate. Burr, had strong cross-over, did not quite as well with independents and didn't hold his own party quite as well. His jump was not quite as big but still bigger than other candidates with less crossover appeal.

Your entire belief is now predicated on the idea that voters intentionally and actively lied to pollsters (the question was about which party you are "registered" with). If they said I don't know they would have been listed as independents, not Republicans).

Next thing we know you will have aliens and Area 51 involved in this somehow.

Ockam's Razor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. The lie pops up again.
"The original poster's ideas were based on the fact that voter turnout was identical in early voting and on election day. That is not supported by the exit polls or by information from the BoE. The only possibility of it being true is if individuals lied en masse to pollsters about their party affiliation."

No, that is the essence of the lie you are telling. The original posters ideas were not based on that at all. It was based on a comparrison of two voting samples that matched far too often to be ignored.

The exit poll thing you are going to have to work on on your own. I am done answering idiotic misstatements that have already been covered.

"Your entire belief is now predicated on the idea that voters intentionally and actively lied to pollsters (the question was about which party you are "registered" with). If they said I don't know they would have been listed as independents, not Republicans)."

LIE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. My god
How do I report you to moderators? This is now in the realm of pathetic. We're back to whether or not the results match up, which they don't anywhere.

But all 11 races are within a decent Margin of error. Eleven races don't make a pattern though, hell no, that's just an anomaly.

Most juvenille style of debate I have ever seen. Exactly how old are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. Another lie uncovered
"How do I report you to moderators? This is now in the realm of pathetic. We're back to whether or not the results match up, which they don't anywhere."

Actually they do, but whenever people point it out to you, you try and shift the debate.

"But all 11 races are within a decent Margin of error. Eleven races don't make a pattern though, hell no, that's just an anomaly.
"

Again, the essence of the lie. The anomaly is not the 11 races, it is the one race that stands out above them all.

"Most juvenille style of debate I have ever seen. Exactly how old are you?"

I agree, you are a baby. I have never seen someone lie and twist so much to avoid being caught. You make up what other people say and then claim they are being inconsistent, when it is only your false statements that are so.

BTW, I am 35 and an expert in handling people like you... which means I am an attorney and used to your special brand of lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #31
39. Lies
What tier three toilet did you get your degree from? I'm a law student and even my liberal arts major girlfriend sees the horrible lack of reason you're utilizing to keep this debate going.

It is not logical to just sit there and say "lie, lie, lie, lie". That's pathetic. You don't even address what I say, you just call it a lie and attempt to move on.

Yes, one race stands out above them all. One candidate also got a far larger amount of cross-over votes and far more support from independents. You refuse to acknowledge that, instead citing some mythical program of systematic lying to pollsters to explain the results.

You would have been laughed out of court ages ago if you had dared present this to a judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. *SIGH*
"What tier three toilet did you get your degree from? I'm a law student and even my liberal arts major girlfriend sees the horrible lack of reason you're utilizing to keep this debate going."

"even my liberal arts major girlfiend..." LMAO. Wow, what nice respect you show her.

"It is not logical to just sit there and say "lie, lie, lie, lie". That's pathetic. You don't even address what I say, you just call it a lie and attempt to move on. "

When you are lying, it is perfectly logical to call you out on it. You lied about what the orignal poster said, you have lied about what I have said. Everytime I point it out, you just say, "it's not fair to just say that I lied". Pathetic.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #42
48. You haven't shown a single lie
All you say is "that's a lie, I didn't say that" when I have quotes of you saying or directly implying it. It's pathetic. There is no way you are a lawyer, not even the most remote chance. With arguing styles like this you appear to have the analystical reasoning skills of a high school student. Either you are in liberal arts or you're about 18.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. Another lie exposed
"All you say is "that's a lie, I didn't say that" when I have quotes of you saying or directly implying it. It's pathetic. There is no way you are a lawyer, not even the most remote chance. With arguing styles like this you appear to have the analystical reasoning skills of a high school student. Either you are in liberal arts or you're about 18."

Here is the post where I pointed out a bunch of your lies, with direct quotes to your statement and direct quotes to the original statements you were lying about:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #51
55. No such post
There is no such post, meanwhile I've posted a quote where you clearly lie and go back on something you have admitted now. Just stop posting, it's getting sad. My girlfriend is killing herlself laughing that you're still claiming to be a lawyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. Another lie exposed.
"There is no such post, meanwhile I've posted a quote where you clearly lie and go back on something you have admitted now. Just stop posting, it's getting sad. My girlfriend is killing herlself laughing that you're still claiming to be a lawyer. "

Wait, are you actually claiming the post doesn't exist??????


Wow, I guess I need to cut and paste it for you.

"Milo, I have not lied once. I have simply taken the information provided by the initial poster and put it in chart format. That chart shows what he initially suggested is untrue. In fact, you began by suggesting that I was lying about the fact that the Republicans made consistant gains on election day. Then you changed your story and began to discuss an acceptable margin of error. One example of a five point spread falls under the category of MOE. 11 Examples of a shift towards the Republicans marks a trend. "

Oh please, you have lied over and over and over again. Let's have a look at your lies:

"The entire argument is based on ignatzmouse's assertation that early turnout was even amongst the parties."

That is a LIE. The argument is based on the consistency between the absentee data and the ED data.

Then you lied again here:

"Can you please address the fact that you insist all the races trended Democrat when they clearly did not?"

Of course, you later changed the meaning of the word "trended" to "maintained" and then changed it back to "trended" when you wanted to say the the GOP had gains during the day.

You even lie in this post right here:

"In fact, you began by suggesting that I was lying about the fact that the Republicans made consistant gains on election day. "

I NEVER said that. The first lie I attributed to you was your claim that this analysis was BASED ON VOTES TRENDING DEMOCRAT.

Here is another LIE in this very post, "Then you changed your story and began to discuss an acceptable margin of error"

Not true. I NEVER changed the story. You failed to read what I wrote and then attributed something to me that I NEVER said. Here is the quote from my original post on this:

"X = Absentee results.

Y = Election Poll Results

In just about ever race X = Y w/in a reasonable standard deviation."
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ... )

I mentioned the standard deviation right there, but you ignored that and claim I said that X=Y EXACTLY and then came up with 2,3,4 and 5 point variances to try and bolster your lie.

"That is 11 examples of a shift towards the Republicans from the early voting data. Complete opposite of what you and the initial poster suggest. MOE is meaningless with that many races, there is a clear pattern"

Another LIE. Niether I nor the original poster suggested ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

You are right about one thing. There is a clear pattern and it doesn't include a 9 point swing in one race!

"You spend no time actually dealing with the fact that more Democrats voted early (which would then lead to the expectation of a pro-Republican trend on voting day) and simply call it a lie."

ANOTHER LIE. I never said that more Democrats didn't vote early in this state. I disputed the effect it had based on the actual data above.

"You then further call eleven cases of a shift towards the Republicans a mere statistical anomaly. These are not the beliefs of a rational person."

ADD ONE MORE LIE TO THE GROUP. The statistical anomaly is NOT the shifts towards GOP on election day, it is 9 POINT LEAP OF FAITH IN ONE CATEGORY!


Oh for God sakes, are you kidding with these 2 questions?

"a) the board of elections is wrong and equal numbers from each party votes the first day -- or at least a fair sample of the number who would be voting on election day as well."

I NEVER SAID THE BOE WAS WRONG!! NOR DID THE ORIGINAL POSTER. HE TALKED ABOUT HOW THOSE PEOPLE VOTED, NOT WHAT PARTY THEY ARE REGISTERED IN!!

b) why eleven races showing similar results do not make a trend."

THE RESULTS ARE NOT SIMILAR. THE 9 POINT JUMP IS WAY OUT OF WHACK! THAT IS THE ANOMALY, NOT THE SLIGHT SHIFT!!!


This is one of the most dishonest debates I have ever seen. You have twisted and turned everything everyone says, ignoring things over and over again.
"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. Nope, just more lies.
I NEVER SAID THE BOE WAS WRONG!! NOR DID THE ORIGINAL POSTER. HE TALKED ABOUT HOW THOSE PEOPLE VOTED, NOT WHAT PARTY THEY ARE REGISTERED IN!!

Nope, you want the quote again? Maybe if you actually read it you will understand.

THE RESULTS ARE NOT SIMILAR. THE 9 POINT JUMP IS WAY OUT OF WHACK! THAT IS THE ANOMALY, NOT THE SLIGHT SHIFT!!!

Nope, you even looked at the exit polling? Do you see Bush's numbers with independents and Democrats? He is way ahead of Burr in those categories and therefore must be way ahead of Burr in the state.


You have spewed nothing but self serving nonsense this entire debate. I'm going to bed. This was the most pathetic display I've seen on a politics related board in years. At least since 2000, probably earlier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Another lie exposed
What exactly are you trying to claim here.

Where is the quote of mine that contradicts this statement, "I NEVER SAID THE BOE WAS WRONG!! NOR DID THE ORIGINAL POSTER. HE TALKED ABOUT HOW THOSE PEOPLE VOTED, NOT WHAT PARTY THEY ARE REGISTERED IN!! " Somehow you failed to supply it.


"THE RESULTS ARE NOT SIMILAR. THE 9 POINT JUMP IS WAY OUT OF WHACK! THAT IS THE ANOMALY, NOT THE SLIGHT SHIFT!!!"

However, again, you fail to contradict the actual statement here, but go off on a tangent that has already been addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. Its ALWAYS Occam's Razor with you guys. NEVER factual analysis.
tia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:01 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. He's Using Wild Conjecture Not Factual Analysis
He's now basing his argument on the idea that the statistical sample from early voting held throughout election day. That is, 49% Democrats 37% Republicans. To straighten that out with the exit polls, he suggest tens of thousands of people lied to the pollsters.

That's factual analysis? Are you kidding me?

I'm examining the facts. The turnout of early voters. The relationship between early voting results and election day results.

He points to Margin of Error and lies to pollsters.

Are you kidding me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. Look at ALL THE PEOPLE....
"He's now basing his argument on the idea that the statistical sample from early voting held throughout election day. That is, 49% Democrats 37% Republicans. To straighten that out with the exit polls, he suggest tens of thousands of people lied to the pollsters.
"

There they are again, those TENS OF THOUSANDS of people who participated in the NC Exit polls.

LMAO!

"I'm examining the facts. The turnout of early voters. The relationship between early voting results and election day results."

Funny, those are the EXACT things that you REFUSE to examine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. Pathetic
Fine, several hundred who were polled all lied, for god knows what reason.

Do you realize how ridiculous your story is?

The voting sample stayed constant, and in order to rectify this with the exit polls you believe people intentional lied when asked if they were a registered member of a political party? That is insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #38
45. Nope, try again....
"Fine, several hundred who were polled all lied, for god knows what reason.

Do you realize how ridiculous your story is?"

Not several hundred. About 75-->150 is all it would take.

"The voting sample stayed constant, and in order to rectify this with the exit polls you believe people intentional lied when asked if they were a registered member of a political party? That is insane."

Again, I NEVER said that. I don't think they intentionally lied at all. They gave an honest answer of what party they belong to, not what party they are REGISTERED with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Moving Another Post Over
"Because the numbers match almost EXACTLY the registration make up of the state.

Further, as I have said before, over and over and over and over again, you need ONLY look at the results to see the consistency between the absentee and the ED Poll data.

How is this not getting through?"

There is a second post which is a pure flame, just repeatedly accusing me of lying and misquoting him.

The thing that Milo (again) does not acknowledge is that we know the party-breakdown of the Election Day voters, based on the 6pm exit polls (which show the numbers he likes) and the 12pm polls (which are slightly doctored already). Both polls do not show anything close to the turnout he suggests. Voter registration in North Carolina is 47% Democrat and 35% Republican. However, the Republicans always have a stronger GOTV effort. The real voting numbers were 40% Republican and 39% Democrat. Historical precident also supports my belief, with only 41% of voters being Democrats in 2000 (according to MyDD, is Jerome lying too?).

Voter turnout never goes according to registration. To suggest it in such an aggressive manner is probably indicative of an individual desperate to make a case where they know they have none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Another lie exposed.
"The thing that Milo (again) does not acknowledge is that we know the party-breakdown of the Election Day voters, based on the 6pm exit polls (which show the numbers he likes) and the 12pm polls (which are slightly doctored already). Both polls do not show anything close to the turnout he suggests. Voter registration in North Carolina is 47% Democrat and 35% Republican. However, the Republicans always have a stronger GOTV effort. The real voting numbers were 40% Republican and 39% Democrat. Historical precident also supports my belief, with only 41% of voters being Democrats in 2000 (according to MyDD, is Jerome lying too?)."

#1) Registration is actually 48% DEM to 34% GOP.

#2) You claimed % of actual voters are NOT OFFICIAL, but are based on responses in exit polls of how people declare themselves politically. There are many people who are registered democrat who identify themselves as republicans and visa-versa, but haven't changed their voter registration. I would have fallen into that category until this year (because I moved I had to reregister), but I was registered GOP until 2004, but would have told you I was a democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Wrong
Voter Registration numbers are 47-35 that is a fact. You simply continue to try to make headway with false accusations that I'm lying.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/ncwire_politics/st...

Exactly the numbers I gave.

As for issue #2, you are grasping at straws. The GOTV effort in this state has never been good, these aren't real Democrats but this nonsense about how they answer is preposterous. There is no way that voter breakdown was maintained -- there weren't enough independents voting early and we know they broke for Burr and Bush.

It is a simple fact that way more Democrats voted early. If you honestly think 49% of NC Voters were Dems then we have a serious problem here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. You're numbers are more than a year old
Mine are three weeks old.

But I'm lying of course.

#@$^@#&!@$!@%#&#@&^.

God damnit. Aren't his posts breaking some rule by this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Yes, you are lying.
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/voterreg/vregoct02/party.pd... I don't know if they have more recent data or not, but your link is not to an official source, so I don't know its veracity.

ALthough the lie was about the second part of your post, which has already been proven false over and over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Not a lie, more recent information
It's from a bloody local paper. You can't call everything you don't like a lie. Those are the bloody registration numbers. Grow up. As for the second issue, it's not a lie.

You're basing your entire argument on the possibility that thousands and thousands and thousands of people lied about their party registration.

Why of us is a liar again?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. Try to keep your lies straight please
"It's from a bloody local paper. You can't call everything you don't like a lie. Those are the bloody registration numbers. Grow up. As for the second issue, it's not a lie."

I already told you that wasn't where the lying accusation came from.

"You're basing your entire argument on the possibility that thousands and thousands and thousands of people lied about their party registration.

Why of us is a liar again?"

That isn't the argument at all. It is your lying again. You see this is exactly what you do. You create your own argument for other people and then try to claim that it is inconsistent.

My "entire argument" has nothing to do with a few people misstating their party registration. Yes, it would only take about 100 total people to pull that off, I don't know where you come up with "thousands and thousands", just more of your special brand of lying.

My "entire argument" is based on the statistical analysis in the other post, the analysis you keep ignoring over and over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #25
35. More lies
You maintain that the voting sample of the absentee voters held throughout the election, that would require thousands of lies.

And How can I keep straight when you're accusing me of lying? You say everything I say is a lie and make that the subject of every single one of your posts.

It's like how Bush called Kerry a flip flopper and that was all he talked about. Not the issue, just flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop.

Democrats voted early, FACT.

All the races but three shifted Republican. FACT

Milo is a liar with no case. FACT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. LMAO
"You maintain that the voting sample of the absentee voters held throughout the election, that would require thousands of lies. "

How? The Exit Polling data upon which you base your "turnout" is comprised of between 1000 and 2000 people, TOTAL. It would only take about 75-->150 of them misstating their registration to account for a large shift.

"And How can I keep straight when you're accusing me of lying? You say everything I say is a lie and make that the subject of every single one of your posts. "

Maybe the phrase fits. You are lying to make your point. It is a proven FACT.

"Democrats voted early, FACT."

In nearly exact proportion to state registration data. So, this fact has become MEANINGLESS.


"All the races but three shifted Republican. FACT"

NO ONE has EVER claimed that not to be true. This is another of your now infamous lies. You make this claim like people have suggested that this statement isn't true, but no one ever has.

Dude, you're done!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. Absolutely pathetic, just put on your tin foil hat
So I get a bit sloppy at 3am, the fact of the matter is that you claimed all afternoon that these races hadn't really trended Republican. In fact, you spent a solid hour arguing over the meaning of the word trended.

You are quibbling over semantics, trying to get the last dime from a dying man and basically grasping at any straws you can get.

The Democrats in NC considered the early voting to be a massive success. If it was exactly in line with the total they were expecting, why would they believe that?

The early voting data is not meaingless, what is meaningless is pathetically unscientific formulas which suggest faulty models of turnout (which don't even apply to the Presidential race which would show Dems +4 by your invalid method).

Your entire model is constructed on formulas that could have been designed by a small child.

Either hundreds lied to pollsters and Democrats DOMINATED GOTV, or Dems really did have a good early voting movement. You don't have a shred of credible evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Another lie exposed
"So I get a bit sloppy at 3am, the fact of the matter is that you claimed all afternoon that these races hadn't really trended Republican. In fact, you spent a solid hour arguing over the meaning of the word trended. "

That isn't true at all. In fact, I said EXACTLY the opposite. I agreed that they trended republican and I correct you who kept saying that the original poster and myself were claiming that they trended Democrat!

You then changed the meaning of the word trended and stated, you meant that dems MAINTAINED their vote count.

"The Democrats in NC considered the early voting to be a massive success. If it was exactly in line with the total they were expecting, why would they believe that?"

Because they had absolutely no sample with which to compare it b/c there had never been early voting like this before!


The rest of your post has been asked and answered over and over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. Another lie exposed

"That's just absolutely untrue, you claimed for ages that the votes showing the Democrats ahead had continued. "

Really? Where did I make this claim exactly? Please show me the quote where I said that the democrats were ahead and continued??????

When you can't find it, I expect a full apology.

I also expect a full apology for all the lies I pointed out in this post! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. Here is your lie, time for you to apologize
X = Absentee results.

Y = Election Poll Results

In just about ever race X = Y w/in a reasonable standard deviation.

Interestingly enough, X = Z (the exit poll results), but that isn't as conclusive as the fact that in 2 races, X doesn't = Y. In fact, X and Y are so far apart, it sticks out like a soar thumb.

So tell me, oh great studier of mathematics. If the DEMS got out the vote early and the GOP had such a banner day at the polls, how could X EVER = Y????? WOuldn't X and Y have wild swings depending upon the race? They didn't. X=Y over and over and over again.


You say flat out that absentee results equalled election results. Something you now acknowledge as false.

Just please stop posting. It's clear you are making this up as you go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. Uh, did you READ the post?
"You say flat out that absentee results equalled election results. Something you now acknowledge as false."

Did you miss this line?

"In just about ever race X = Y w/in a reasonable standard deviation."


What part of that isn't clear????????????????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #58
62. Nothing, it was perfectly clear you lied
You tried to throw in some wishy washy term to allow you to say any race was still tied. 11 races make a pattern, there is no accept variance when eleven races show the same things to different degrees. Anyone who has taken stats knows that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. LMAO
Yes, of course, don't answer any of the actual lies pointed out. Don't bother responded to your direct quotes being used to prove you a liar.

NAhhhhhh, that would be too difficult. Instead, claim that anyone who has taken stats would agree with you and leave it at that.


LMAO!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UL_Approved Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:52 AM
Response to Original message
22. Voting total questions
If you add up votes for various races, you see that the voter totals for state races are around 2.5 million. If you add up the amendments, the totals are approximately 2.8 million. If you add up the senate race in question, the total is about 3.3 million. The totals for the presidential election are around 3.5 million. Does somebody want to explain why there would be 40% more people turning out ONLY to vote for the presidential ticket that didn't vote for any state races (excluding senate and amendments)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. Presidential Race Always Has Higher Turnout
This occurs in every state, in every election. Not too many people know or care who is the Agriculture Commisioner or some damn fool thing like that.

Check data for other states, I'm sure it happened everywhere -- including solidly Democratic states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. If you're so sure, you check and prove it.
Baseless claim after baseless claim. It's wearing thin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Good god
That's common sense, if you don't know enough about elections to be aware of that it's not my problem. You look it up, maybe a tiny bit of knowledge would help you better understand the lack of fraud.

Or perhaps you could deal with the FACT that more Democrats voted early while (unless they lied) more Republicans voted overall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:56 AM
Response to Original message
67. Another Example Of Milo's Lies and Shifting Stories
"The basis is that the 1/3 of NC who voted acted as a very reliable control group based on the outcomes of the other races. The chart you love to post shows it just as well.

The fact that the exit polls matched the absentee data adds fuel to that fire."


The control group was a VERY reliable predicator of the other races? No, not even close. You are now talking about an acceptable margin of error.

Exit polls matched absentee data? LOL. Bowles tied or Bowles down six...hmmm. Those are the same right?

Just pathetic.

There was no fraud here. The only fraud was that perpetrated by Milo and his friends on the blogger community. For that, they owe us all an apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. Why it is necessary.

"The control group was a VERY reliable predicator of the other races? No, not even close. You are now talking about an acceptable margin of error."

What this little clown forgets to tell you, is that I, we, anyone who studied this after the original post, ALWAYS talked about an acceptable MOE. You can go back to my original post to find where and how he lied (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... )

I bet some people are wondering, why the hell would you waste so much time on an obvious troll. I posted it in the other thread, but it was buried in 200 others posts, so just incase someone was wondering (besides needing a break from work tonight), I offer this explanation of why I bothered with this chowderhead.


If Gracchi was just trying to make sensible disagreement, I don't think anyone, including myself, would flame him. However, to make his point, he sees the need to attribute untrue statements to the original message.

If these types of attacks are allowed to go unchallenged and unridiculed, they gain strength and validity and people might not fight with the same vigor with which they need. They may assume some accuracy in the statement and back off when they need to keep the fire burning hot.

It is similar to a discussion I had with someone about the gay marriage issue. I get very frustrated when politicians with obvious progressive values say things like, "well, I don't personally support gay marriage" or fail to vigorously challenge a statement about whether homosexuality is a choice or not. By doing this, they lend credence to the opposing argument. People feel as if it is okay to hold these views. If when the issue came up, progressives were to ridicule the entire idea of restricting someone's rights, you would probably find many more people not willing to carry the hatred banner. You can marginalize the positions of being anti-gay by shaming people who try to restrict their rights.

Think of the "support the troops" statements. No matter how anti-war you may be, you have to "support the troops". Forget the fact that the statement has no real meaning, since very few of us do anything in our lives to support or not support the troops. My standing out to protest a war is troop neutral as far as I am concerned. Now, some have decided that because the very idea of not supporting the troops is so morally repugnant (a concept created by the GOP in 1991 to sell the Gulf War... remember all that?) that even the war protestors now carry the banner, "support the troops: Bring them home". This is a good reworking of that message, but you still bought the message... You can't not support the troops.

In short, flamings work and work well. Sometimes they are justified, sometimes they are not. However, they are a necessarily tool in our shed, especially when dealing with someone as inherently dishonest about the analysis as Gracchi has proven to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. not being a legal eagle, I was lost until you used the examples
about gay marriage and the "support the troops" statement (another Rove-I am gonna back your opposition in a corner move).

This has been educational for me as I never seem to pick up on trolls right away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gracchi Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. Meaningless Comparison, Another Desperate Lie
You brought up two examples which have no bearing on this discussion at all. Neither example presents a counter-belief that is well thought out or more plausible.

Your current argument is predicated entirely on the idea that the voting sample remained constant throughout the election. Historical precident marks that as IMPOSSIBLE. Voter turnout in NC never matches the large Democratic lead in registrations.

Milo and his cronies are not interested in fact. They are willing to bend the truth in any way needed to support their view of events. The simple fact is that the unaltered exit polls show 40% of voters were Republican.

Milo explains this by saying voters did not know what party they were registered with. LOL.

This debate has become completely pathetic. This was resolved at Kos last night with supporters of fraud admitting there were SERIOUS flaws in the evidence which required leaps of faith and were unsupported by fact.

There was no fraud in NC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Good work Milo!!! Welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
73. Investigate & reform "irregularities & glitches" in NC & the USA
I'm willing to concede it may not have been fraud- but I cant know until it is all investigated, officially. Seems like way too many "accidents" did occur in NC & nation wide.

With elections as close as these- there is no more room for any of these potential "accidents"- these irregularities need to be investigated & fixed NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
74. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
76. I'm locking this thread
Reason:

I strated going through this thread to remove personal
attacks , 15 minutes later I realized the whole thread
is just jam packed full of "personal accusations,and
attacks" Too many for this very busy moderator .

This thread was also started as a continuation of
an ongoing flamewar .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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