Reply #21: TIA, I just don't get it...yet.

[Bill Bored]

Give me a little time, which I don't have right now because I've been working on the HOW of election fraud, rather than the IF.

What bothers me about the Y2K voter stuff is that it all seems to be based on the answer to the question asked in 2004 which had a very high non-response rate and also showed that Bush won the popular vote in 2000 which is unequivocally false, thus invalidating the response sample. If the rest of the hypothesis or "proof" is based on that, it may not be valid.

If it's based on the actual Y2K votes, dead voters, etc., it makes more sense, but conflating this with the (under-) response to the How-Voted-in-Y2K question asked in 2004 just muddies the waters in my view, and this is why I don't buy it.

But the Party ID question was answered by almost EVERYONE in the 2004 sample and, after it was adjusted to 37/37/26 on 11/3, it does show a real deviation from historical norms, as well as the current Rep/Dem party registration distribution, as far as I know. So I think it's much more telling than a Y2K-related question asked and answered 4 years later by only 25% of the 2004 sample.

Unless you believe that 3% of all Democrats were kept away from the polls by voter suppression tactics nationwide, and even moreso in the West where the party ID shift was much greater (for which there is no evidence that I'm aware of), this is the smoking gun!

Bottom line: If they had to adjust the 2004 party ID weightings so much that they appear to be a unreal in order for Bush to even get close to winning the popular vote, that's good enough for me.