You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #135: Ah... Doctor Other... [View All]

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #46
135. Ah... Doctor Other...
I thought you had bid me adieu. What a pleasure to see that you are still here. Let's try to have a chat before Mr. Hand inevitably shows up...

Before we begin, there are no "mixed signals in this thread about whether we are supposed to be talking about the polls, or just the political logic -- maybe even just the political logic as of 2003". I didn't bring up the polls at all, except as a final afterthought (supporting evidence) to kiwi_expat. You brought up the polls in your initial response and tritsofme kindly repeated what you had said with the addition of that helpful table. You then claim confusion on the issue.

Let me be clear then. The only reason for talking about polls here is to quell the diversion. So let's quickly dispense with the polls and get to the meat of the issue.

1) There is every reason to believe that "a 60% turnout would blow up all the LV models". If turnout didn't matter, there would be no "Likely Voter Models". Polling self-described Registered Voters would be enough. In fact, the RV polls differ significantly from the LV polls as you yourself have pointed out. The specific turnout that is assumed by LV models would matter less if the turnout assumed by the various LV models did not yield divergent results. Blumenthal makes the opposite point. Actually, he implies more, because some sort of cut-off is implied by all of the LV polls. The ones that use a method other than Gallup's merely mediate that model with additional demographics.

2) There is no reason to assume that any of the LV models suggested a turnout different from that projected by Gallup or NBC (i.e. 109 to 111 million voters - I claimed a larger number, if you remember) nor that they significantly "tweaked" their projected turnouts (except at the 11th hour). If you have direct testimony to the contrary, you really must present it. Otherwise, the only point you have really made is only something that "should be true" according to you but remains unsupported by any other evidence.

3) You use a rhetorical device to set up your point. You call 108 to 112 million voters a "lackluster turnout". Sorry. That would have been a significant increase over 2000 and the largest turnout since 1968.

4) Other than agreeing with Blumenthal on that previous point, I actually quoted him in the context of "look even MB notices this". I don't agree with him. You do. I know you often argue points from convenience but I wonder if you have noticed that you are simultaneously arguing that the LV polls were an accurate predictor of Bush's performance and that the LV models which were the most accurate were the ones that most dramatically understated the turnout?

We can discuss the points above in detail at a later time, if you like. The rest of your "points" are arguments with yourself. You don't need me for those...

Now, we've been rude to me... so let's get to the political point.

You have not stated my argument accurately. I go MUCH further than you say. I claim to have inside knowledge of Republican 2004 election strategy ('snot hard). I claim a specific focus on "3 million evangelicals". I claim a very specific significance to that number as a function of expected turnout. I claim that this strategy was still operative to the very end of the campaign (or at least I cite a Washington Post account that claims it is still operational as of the middle of October, 2004). I further claim that I call Karl Rove himself to testify as an expert witness (second hand, admittedly).

If I have set this up correctly, there are only two possible objections:

1) I have misrepresented Rove and the Republican "strategy".
2) Rove was wrong and here is what he missed...

Please, don't bother to tell me what it "seems like" to you. Cite specific evidence. You can rest assured that I will do the same. I will give you time to collect your case and we can resume at your leisure.

I so much enjoyed this little chat Dr. Other, and I hope we can resume it soon but I notice Mr. Hand came in at about the same time as you. I will excuse myself to say hello to him as well.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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