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 #174: Hi Febble, I kinda doubt we will have much agreement here but I'll [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
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #134
174. Hi Febble, I kinda doubt we will have much agreement here but I'll
respond since you were so complete and polite enough to post.

I am clear that noise reduction is important to you. I hear that OTOH and Rick Brady are your friends and that they find it interesting to pursue this as well. I am always happy to encourage folks to do what interests them. My problem here is that I don't think your efforts at noise reduction can address the screaming discrepancy of the enormously loud Shrub vote shift. It may well reduce it somewhat but it does not silence it's screaming racket.
I do not necessarily agree with you about the actual statement of premise of our argument. you write..
'If we (generic we) start from the premise that Bush cannot have won the election, ANY argument to the contrary will fail.'

While we now pretty standardly posit fraud around here, we actually started looking precinct by precinct in many, many spreadsheets about where the hard to imagine B### vote discrepancies were coming from first. Archival searches should bring this up.. I actually believe it is might be possible to show Blivet possibly won the election I just have not seen anyone come up with what i think is a reasonable explanation. We obviously disagree here. Though we agree that the election is unverifiable and that is a HUGE problem regardless.
On the evidence presented, unless i missed something I will continue to scoff at the recall argument. I see no evidence other than assertion for it and as i remember the studies i saw were not apples to apples... telephone polls much after the fact do not in my mind equate to exit polls immediately after voting..we will likely just disagree here also.
you write..
'We raise the issue that the pattern of bias in the poll does not support the hypothesis of highest fraud in Bush strongholds - or widespread vote-switching - and are accused of - I dunno, statistical incompetence, using bad data, you name it.'

I don't think i accused you of these things. Here I thought you were a clever academic on the Bush stronghold point. I think you got an academic two pointer by exploiting that weakness in the paper. My shots at you on this issue were about it's irrelevancy to the discussion. Your bringing this up was an academic win for you but in my view a red herring in the general discussion which I frame differently than you do.
Again, in my view, what is important and interesting to you was misleading to the case, which is more or less what i hear you saying about my/our position. Standing in each other's shoes i can see how this makes sense to us individually.
Best,
Melissa


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