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

Reply #115: I am not rationalizing anything [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
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. I am not rationalizing anything
I am _reasoning_ about the implications of the fact that, in surveys, some folks who actually voted for Gore in 2000 (or who did not vote) presumably report having voted for Bush in 2000. That is not something I desperately made up; that is something supported by the 2002 and 2004 NES, the 2002 GSS, and by analogy in a host of other studies from the U.S. and Britain. (And no doubt some Bush 2000 voters now "recall" having voted for Gore, although all survey results known to me indicate that the tide runs in the other direction. Incidentally, Febble has pointed out that the tide of false recall does not always favor the incumbent; she knows of at least one counterexample in Britain.)

The fact that you and I can hardly imagine having voted for Bush in 2000, much less falsely remembering having voted for him after the fact, does not constitute a refutation of poll results evincing false recall.

I think that my quantitative evidence can at least hold its own against your "substantial anecdotal evidence." Of course, if you can come up with some reason why (or at least some evidence that) exit polls are uniquely immune from false recall, then we have something further to discuss.

When it comes to the MoE, please bear in mind, again: I am not trying to argue that the exit poll error was within the range of sampling error. It is worth getting the MoE calculations right because any calculation worth doing (yadda yadda yadda). It also may shed some light into why no one called Ohio and Florida for Kerry based on the exits, although that could be explained in lots of ways.

While we are at it, let us consider what we are arguing about. I get the sense that, in your heart, you think I am trying to convince everyone that Bush won the 2004 popular vote. I am not. I plunged into this thread based on your invitation (dare?) to refute your arguments one by one, but even if I had time to undertake that challenge, I would not wish to dispel real, legitimate questions and doubts about the 2004 outcome. I sincerely deny that your 120 scenarios are any sort of "clincher." I think we need to look for clinchers somewhere beside the exit polls -- and, for that matter, somewhere beside the past. And I think we need to recognize that a lot of people think that Bush won the 2004 election, and probably a lot of them will continue to think that, and in order to get election reform we will need support from some of them, too. (And, yes, I am one of those people, but it's just a current personal opinion, not a cause I intend to prosyletize for.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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