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 #32: Well, speaking for myself [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
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. Well, speaking for myself
and I'm fairly intelligent, and I'm not convinced by this "clincher" story, so, do I believe that:

- Bush legitimately won the 2000 election in Florida?
No

- the Repubs legitimately won the senate in 2002?
DUNNO, sorry, wasn't following that story

- Bush won Ohio without the help of Ken Blackwell?
Possibly not

- Bush won Florida without the help of Jeb Bush?
Probably, but he might have helped anyway

- The reason why Diebold/Es&S didn't include a voter-verified ballot was to save cost?
I doubt it

- All those new, young female voters wanted Bush?
Disagree with premise

- The reason why the early exit poll results were never mentioned in the media was because they had no meaning?
Possibly, but they were mentioned in the media I read

- The reason that the Final Exit Poll matched to the vote count was because the vote count is accurate?
No - it matched because it was matched

- Mitofsky is a great exit pollster with 25 years of experience who only hired inexperienced polltakers when a Bush was running?
I think he hired inexperienced interviewers this year, and probably in the past.

- The exit polls were uniformly biased throughout the states to favor Kerry?
Probably

- that it's just a coincidence that the exit polls were accurate, (according to Mitofsky's own data) in those districts where paper ballots were used?
False premise; data does not support this inference

- that Republicans who controlled the design, manufacturing and programming of the voting machines fought against a paper trail and with machines that could never pass certification?
Probably

- who give you talking points?
Cheap shot

It is possible to think that there is good evidence that the election was won illegally, and that there is some vulnerable evidence. IMO presenting vulnerable evidence is a bad tactic. Think Dan Rather.


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