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 #30: Your disinformation campaign rolls on [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
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Your disinformation campaign rolls on

Do you wear your mantle proudly as the premier polling disinformationist on the Internet?
I will admit I had it wrong when I stated that Oregon was the only non-Red state which fell within the MoE.

I meant to say that Oregon was the only non-Red state among the 14 lowest WPE. It is the only state that votes 100% by mail-in ballots.

Do you ever admit it when you misstate the facts? In case you didnt know it before, you know it now.
The Oregon MoE was 1.8%
In their 2004 Evaluation report, the exit pollsters state
Note: The above analysis does not include the Oregon president and senate races where
all interviews were done by telephone.

Thats because voting was done by mail; there were no precincts.

On page 42: The WPE was greater in the more competitive swing states. For this analysis, the following were considered swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This indicates that voters in the swing states (who were exposed to more paid advertising and media coverage than voters in non-swing states) were less likely to respond to the exit poll: but among those who did, more likely to be Kerry voters.

Some other facts for you yo mull over:
The MoE (excluding a cluster effect factor) was exceeded in 29 states
(22 were Democratic BLUE or Battleground states; 7 were RED states)
The average MoE was 2.44% for all states.

The MoE (30% cluster effect) was exceeded in 24 states.
The average MoE was 3.17% for all states.
Of 28 Battleground/ BLUE states, 9 (32%) were within the MoE: HI IL IA MD ME MA OR RI WI
Of 22 RED states, the MoE was exceeded in 5 (23%)
27 of the highest WPE states were Battleground or solid BLUE.


you just aren't very good at analysis, apparently

I don't think it's nasty or unprofessional to call crap crappy; even if it is, the crap remains crappy regardless. If you want to depict a relationship between "county size and vote change" (whatever exactly those variables are), a standard and reasonable way to do it is a scatterplot -- not a sorted bar chart with a diagonal dotted line through it. The latter raises questions about the intentions and/or competence of the analyst.

No, Mr. Other, your attempts to refute the analysis are crap.
You call yourself an analyst; I call you a misinformationist.

You have no idea what county vote size and vote change are?
Then you have no business replying to my post.
If you dont know what the variables mean, you are woefully ignorant.
If you do know, but are just blowing misinformation, you are just doing your job.

Dont like the bar chart? Too bad. Unlike your indecipherable swing vs. red shift scatter-brained plot, viewers of TIAs county vote change vs. size (thats size of the recorded vote, as if you didnt know) can actually see the trend lines; downward sloping for Bush from the biggest to smallest counties a 0.57 correlation. And they can see the county names as well.

You didn't directly answer my question, but your own urban legend scatterplot bar chart from hell indicates that Bush did better in 2004 than in 2000 in all but one New York county. So much for Bush "breaking even or losing share in Republican rural areas and small towns."* If that's what you meant by the urban legend being a myth, then I guess we agree, and I appreciate your concession.

* Of course, this chart doesn't display "share" at all, which in my opinion is a weakness. But in this case the answer is the same: Bush's vote share increased in all but one New York county.

It shows the CHANGE in COUNTY share vs. COUNTY recorded vote. That is what the Urban Legend is all about, isnt it? Do you have any clue as to what a statistical correlation is? Stop playing games. You remind me of the deathers who are opposed to health care. Why do you continue to blow smoke? What are afraid of?

What concession? I only concede that you are the most prolific source of disinformation to be found anywhere. You should have conceded a long time ago. You really do work overtime to confuse everyone, dont you, Mr. Other?

A fair observer with a modicum of intelligence would see that its the correlation, its the PATTERN. The biggest Bush vote gains were in the BIGGEST urban areas like 75% in Brooklyn. That is obvious from the graph to any fair observer - which of course you aint.

Let me make this as clear as possible. I am not trying to convince you.
Just to expose you as others have done many times before. How can you continue to self-immolate and still stand up?

The bar chart from hell does also indicate that Bush did relatively better in some downstate counties (but not in other cities such as Albany, Buffalo, and Syracuse). It hypes that finding by displaying ratios from low bases. For instance, in Brooklyn, Bush increased his vote share by about 8.6 points; it looks very impressive in this chart because Bush's vote share in 2000 was under 16%, but an 8.6-point swing is an 8.6-point swing no matter what the previous percentage was.

Hypes by displaying ratios from low bases?




To look at it another way, altogether Bush got about 190,000 more votes in the five boroughs in 2004 than in 2000 -- and there were about 7.4 million votes cast. Even if we assume -- for no particular reason -- that all those votes are stolen, we're nowhere near the exit poll result. (Go ahead, throw in some more counties. No point in my trying to do all your work for you.)

Those are THE BOGUS RECORDED VOTES. Got that? How many times does one have to hit you in the head with that BASIC concept? The point is this. One more time. The Bush votes were INFLATED. Will you ever understand that?

It is really sad to see that you continue on that bridge to nowhere. Since 2005 when TIA was posting here, you hopped on that bridge and are still on it. Whats the point? Who put you on it. The same people who built it for Sarah Palin. Why dont you come home and get out of the cold.

I actually can't replicate your correlations; you claim to have lever-only returns, but you've posted neither the data nor the evidence. So, for now, I'll file that alongside the claims that Oregon is the only 100% paper state (whatever that even means) and the only 2004 battleground or strong Democratic state within the margin of error. At any rate, you may sincerely believe that it is impossible for Bush to have done so 'well' in the NY metro area without fraud, but your sincere belief doesn't constitute evidence. Sorry.
Cant replicate the correlations? Jeez, why dont you just get the NY county vote data from 2000 and 2004, like TIA did and crunch the numbers?

As for Oregon, you really have no idea what a 100% paper ballot state is? Are you putting us all on? This is quite pathetic. You read it at the top of the post.

I already admitted that I misspoke about the Oregon MoE. You have certainly had ample opportunities to correct the hundreds of misstatements that you have made over the years. But you have not and will not ever do so. Its not what you do.

Anyway, I will put a merciful end to this by reminding you that my point was that Oregon was the only Blue state among the all those Red states with a low 1.8 MoE. The Red states, Mr. PolySci, had low WPEs because they hardly had any Democratic votes worth stealing. Oregon had a low WPE because it was a paper ballot mail-in state.

Mitofsky must be rolling over in his grave.
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