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 #33: Ok, you've told is what you believe. [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 » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Ok, you've told is what you believe.
Edited on Thu Feb-24-05 07:15 PM by TruthIsAll
My gut feeling is correct.

You may very well be a reincarnation of those who have taken your stance before.

"Your threads are nearly impossible to post in because you take such a ridged stance trying to defend your spreadsheets relevant or not"

Me.
OK, be specific and point them (all of them) out.

"Now you are using these questions to divert the attention (straw man)from your now admittedly biased calculations".

Me.
Biased calculations? Now you really give yourself away.
Name them.
Is it the MOE?
Is it the exit poll data I have used?
Is it the calculations?

Just where is the bias?
You are the one whose bias is now clear.


"You pick the result you want to achieve and then work the math that assures the closest outcome. Then you act like you have solved a big mystery. WOW."

Me.
Is that so?
Seems I've heard that one before.
In point of fact, I have only sought to improve my analyses, by using the latest available data and asking mathematicians at DU to confirm or refute the probabilities . Where an error was found, either by myself or others, I have immediately fixed and posted it.

On the contrary, you appear to be the one who has an agenda.
You will find that it will be quickly exposed, not just by me, but by others at DU, who have extensive experience to draw upon.
We have heard all the excuses, seen all the straw men, waded through the fog.

Do you realize what you are getting yourself into?


You:
Now I will address your strawmen:

"YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED MY DIRECT QUESTION:
HAVE YOU READ THEIR 5-PAGE PAPER WHICH DEBUNKS THE MITOFSKY RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER THEORY?"

Yes.

Me.
A one line response.
This is NOT a court of law.
This is a give and take discussion.

You:
"DO YOU APPRECIATE THAT THE PAPER WAS PEER-REVIEWED BY MATHEMATICS/STATISTIC DEPT. HEADS FROM RENOWNED UNIVERSITIES WHO HAVE THEIR REPUTATIONS ON THE LINE FOR DEMOCRACY?"

Yes. Do they sanction your calculations?

Me.
They don't need to sanction them. The fact that they come up with the same probabilities is enough.
Do you sanction their results?


"SO TELL US, WHAT WILL YOU BRING TO THE TABLE IN THIS EFFORT?"

Certainly not flawed calculations.

Me.
Of course you won't.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T OFFER ANY ANALYSIS.
YOU CAN'T DO THE MATH.


"I, for one, am not convinced that your level of mathematics is up to snuff."

Never said it was. I do know that if you start with flawed assumptions then your work is worthless.

Me.
Oh, boy, another one.
Just what I thought.
Your mask is off.
What is it that you find in my any of my posts to be flawed?
The 3 national exit polls. Mixing apples and oranges?

I have already admitted my error in comparing them, and when I became aware of the pre-adjusted polling data, they only served to strenghten my analytical sense - and which has never wavered.

THE ORIGINAL, "PRISTINE" EXIT POLL OF 13,047, WHICH PRECEDED THE CONTAMINATED COOK-BOOK POLL OF 13,660 (MATCHED TO BOGUS VOTE COUNTS), REPRESENTS THE TRUTH.

DO YOU GET IT YET?

Be specific. Review my posts.
It's very easy to say it.
NOW DO IT.
ONCE AGAIN: BE SPECIFIC.
POINT THEM OUT. ALL OF THEM.

"1) What are your thoughts on the appropriate MOE for each of the poll categories?"

I would like to learn more about the mechanics used during the exit polling process.


Me.
You would like to learn more?
At this stage of the game?
And just how will you go about doing that?
Are you going to put on your training wheels now?



"2)Tell us about the Reluctant Bush responder theory."

It's a theory that states repubs were less likely to participate in the exit poll. Pretty simple concept.

Me.
Pretty simple concept.
Is that all you have to say?
No opinion.
Just a simple concept.
I see you are really taking a stance here.

Why are you not critical of Mitofsky's assumptions, as you are of mine?

Mitofsky has not a modicum of data to support that theory.
In fact, the data in his report reveals just the opposite.
Republicans were MORE inclined to respond, not less.

I thought you just said that you read the report from Uscountvotes.org.
Did you?

"3)Tell us why 99%+ of voting machine anomalies all favored Bush."

I don't support electronic voting. However, 89 votes do not make or break an election.

Me.
Once again, you reveal yourself as mathematically weak.
89 votes? Is that your answer?
It shows that you are unaware of the 50,000 recorded election "incident"s which are available online.

Do you know the probability that 89 of 91 votes would switch from Gore to Bush? Would you even know how to compute it?
Or do you even care?

And what about the other 49,900 incidents, of which 99% worked in favor of Bush?
Any comment?


"4) Then tell us your thoughts regarding ballot spoilage. What is your understanding of the average number of ballots which are never counted each election cycle?"


Many ballots are spoiled for a wide range of reasons.

Me.
There you go again.
I asked you for a number.
Avoiding the question.

"5) Then there's Florida 2000. What can you tell us about the 70,000 undervotes and the 110,000 overvotes? Any idea how many voters were disenfranchised? The Palm Beach butterfly ballot? What about those 16,022 lost Gore votes in Volusia? Do you know of the Diebold connection?"

Certainly valid issues.

Me.
Another one liner.
Don't you enjoy the give and take?
You call them valid "issues" as if they warrant discussion/debate.
These are facts which are not in dispute.

Thanks for your responses, as limited as they may be.
They speak volumes.
We now know each other much better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | 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