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 #60: bullshit, TIA, I call bullshit [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. bullshit, TIA, I call bullshit
Edited on Sat Feb-10-07 05:34 PM by OnTheOtherHand
Is there any limit to how wildly you can misstate my position? (I think you may have misstated Febble's even more wildly, but I will let her try to sort that out.)
The Final NEP weights are mathematically impossible (not feasible). Both you and OTOH have already stipulated to that in the Game thread of August 2005.

Bullshit. TIA, you are out in the clouds somewhere. I've double-checked the thread, looking at everywhere I referred to "weight," "impossible," "feasible".... What on earth is wrong with you, man?

What I probably stipulated* somewhere is that 43% of 2004 voters didn't vote for Bush in 2000.

Or maybe you are just so astonishingly incapable of learning that you still think those percentages are "weights." They aren't. The fact that 43% of 2004 voters didn't vote for Bush in 2000 has no bearing whatsoever on the mathematical feasibility of the weights.

Will you consent to use scientifically accepted and defensible terminology, or do you just insist on your sovereign right to make it all up?

(edit to fix typo)

* (I had written 'conceded', which seems to imply that I would be predisposed to resist the point. Of course I'm not, since I believe that people tend to overstate having voted for the previous winner.)

ETA: Wow, I'm just in shock. It's beyond Black Knight. TIA, you're just relying on attitude to carry you through. "You just keep on displaying that same, lame scatter chart- over and over again." In other words, you don't know what the scatterplot means, and you don't care, right? I don't see even a pretense of engaging substance here.

"But the votes shares are extremely implausible when put in juxtaposition to the Bush 48.5% rating on Election Day, the final 30-day undecided vote break to Kerry (60-38% based on the NEP), the many accounts of documented fraud in Ohio (including the recent recount convictions), the documented evidence of fraud in many other states." To see how muddled this comment is, any 'impartial observers' unlucky enough to have read this far can ask themselves: how does Bush's approval rating bear on whether the Gore->Bush defection rate was 8% or 10% or 12% or 14%? How does the undecided vote break bear on that? How does the (unspecified) documented evidence of fraud bear on it? Do you actually have any argument whatsoever about "plausible" vote shares? Or do you just mean that Kerry must have won, and therefore any vote share figures that imply otherwise are "implausible" by definition?

TIA, I thought you thought you had an argument. Is there any chance that you could tell us what it is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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