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 #76: Thanks for bringing all this back in full view again [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-25-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Thanks for bringing all this back in full view again
Edited on Tue Aug-25-09 05:44 PM by WillE
Thanks for bringing all this back in full view again.

It's a great opportunity for DUers who are unfamiliar with your work to see you in action.

"Is considering the 10% late vote discrepancy to the Election Day share a waste of time?"

Here's a Hobson's choice for you: do you think people who voted by provisional ballot were just like the rest of the electorate?
Do you have any proof that they weren't? And is 500,000 not a big enough sample size?
You dismiss any and all evidence that points to fraud.

"Is considering the 0.61 correlation between Bush vote share gain from 2000 to 2004 and county population a waste of time?"

(Assuming that's the correct correlation, which you haven't demonstrated....) In terms of swing, Bush did better downstate (but not in upstate cities). That isn't evidence of fraud. If the correlation went the other way, you'd probably argue that the fraud was concentrated in Republican strongholds, like Steve Freeman says. And if the correlation were zero, you'd say, "So what? Bush could steal votes all over the state." There's no result whatsoever that you would have to treat as evidence against your position. Big problem.

How about that? Do you think Bush could steal votes all over the state? Why, or why not? You're remarkably evasive when it comes to reality checks.
Are you too lazy to replicate the correlation? Apparently so. Tell you what.
Ill give you two weeks, if you still cant do it, Ill provide the numbers.
Lets see you do something productive for a change.

Bush did better downstate? You mean in Urban areas like the NYC area.
Sure thats where the votes were. He didnt do so well in small rural counties. Why not?
Thats an Urban Legend which everyone has debunked except you.

"Is considering the 0.56 correlation between voting machine incident rate and Bush vote share gain a waste of time?"
Gee, do you suppose there's any relationship between county size and reported incident rate? Could it be that you're pretty much repeating yourself?
You have no clue. We are talking about percentage gain, not absolute gain. Got that?

"Is considering that 19 levers were stuck on Bush and none on Kerry a waste of time?"

Nineteen?! That's a good argument for Bill, not so helpful for you. (I won't repeat all the other points that Bill and Wilms have made on this topic.)
Just a coincidence, eh?

"Is considering the massive 11% NY exit poll discrepancy a waste of time?"

"Considering" it is fine, but you still don't have a sensible rebuttal to the findings on swing and surprise.
Im not surprised you are still swinging...
Your swing. vs. red-shift scatter graph showed a zero slope.
In fact, using the Total votes cast, the swing was negatively sloped.

Of course, you used recorded vote swing and not true vote swing.
You assume that 2000 and 2004 were both fraud-free.
You continue to hoist yourself on your own petard.

"Is considering the 10.6% Lever machine WPE a waste of time?"

You continue to thrash Mitofsky.
Didnt you work for him?

"Is considering the 300,000 net uncounted NY 2004 votes a waste of time?"

That's potentially pretty helpful, but not if you just use it as an excuse for blind faith in the exit poll results. How does it compare with the other elections in which you're apparently convinced that there was little or no fraud?
That is pure BS. Most of these issues have nothing to do with exit polls.
I am looking at ALL the evidence. What have you put forth?

You seem to have blind faith in the NY pre-election polls. Yet you fail to consider RV vs LV (22 million new 2004 voters) and undecided voter allocation (Gallup gave 90% to Kerry)
Of course, you don't do analysis so why would you consider it?





By the way, how do you explain Kerrys 63.1% share in the NY composite exit poll?
In case you were unaware that final adjustment (before the forced match to the bogus recorded vote) incorporated those NY pre-election polls you love so much.

Lets see. According to you, NY exit polls are bogus.
But pre-election polls are the real deal.
Talk about cherry-picking.

Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System - January 19, 2005

NY Exit Poll

Method WPE
IMS 12.2
VNS 11.4
DSS 11.9

Measure Kerry Bush Margin Error
Recorded 58.4 40.1 18.3 - official result

WPE 64.3 34.1 30.2 11.9 no adjustment
Best GEO 65.1 33.8 31.3 13.0 only exit poll tallies
Composite 63.1 35.5 27.6 9.3 weighted average of pre-election polls and Best Survey

"Is considering that Bush needed to pad his popular vote a waste of time?"

Needed to?
And you call yourself a political scientist? OK, Ill repeat it again for you.
Next time Ill just cut and paste.

Are you aware that Bush stole the 2000 election but lost the popular vote.
He needed to win the popular vote this time.
He had to have the mandate that you believe he won fairly.
Does that make sense to you?

So he had to pad his vote margin.
Does that make sense to you?

The small red states were no help; there were too few Democrats.
Does that make sense to you?

He needed to flip the battleground states for the electoral votes.
Does that make sense to you?

His only recourse was to cut Kerrys margin in big Democratic states like CA and NY.
Does that make sense to you?

No, I dont expect any of it does.

"Is confirming that the Urban Legend is a myth a waste of time?"

I believe you've conceded that your claim about Bush's performance in non-urban areas was false. If not, care to try again?

You mean these graphs?

These are the Bush percentage vote gains in the largest 15 NY counties.

There was a strong 0.61 correlation between Bush NY percentage vote gain and county size.


Bushs recorded vote share declined by 3% in rural areas based on the Final National Exit Poll from 2000 to 2004. And I know that you believe the Final since it was forced to match the recorded vote and you believe the recorded vote.


"Is confirming that Levers are anything but transparent a waste of time?"

I don't think they're very "transparent" either -- it's partly a semantic issue, I think. But this debate has little bearing on what happened in 2004.
No bearing? Wrong. It was because of non-transparency that votes were miscounted.


Based on the small WPEs, the levers worked fine in 1996 and 2000 when Clintoin was the incumbent. In 1988, 1992 and 2004, not so much.
Score one for Bill Bored.
The levers have a low spoilage rate.
Good machines.
But Bad people.
No transparency.

"Is confirming that NY vote counts are questionable by citing Obamas zero votes in 80 (mostly minority) districts a waste of time?"

Those aren't even the final results. Your problem remains that, as Bill pointed out, the statewide residual vote rate for president was well under 1%. You apparently want to treat those unofficial results from another election as the 'tip of the iceberg,' but the residual vote rate doesn't support your case.
So what? Thats how they were reported at first.
Oh, I know it was human error, Just an oversight, sure.

"Is considering that the preponderance (actually ALL) of the evidence accumulated over the past 4.5 years indicates that Bush stole the 2004 election a waste of time?"

No, True. Do you have any evidence to show that Bush won?
Besides the recorded vote?

"Is considering that Rove could not allow a repeat of the 2000 fiasco in which Bush lost the popular vote a waste of time?"

Could not? (Are we assuming that Rove has magical powers to rig lever machines?)
Not rig levers. But corrupt election officials could be bought off.
Especially when Bush controlled the justice department. They could be protected.


Just added:
"Is considering that the average NY WPE was 8.0 under Bush and 0,6 under Clinton a waste of time?"

Charitably, yes. See other posts.
Of course you would say that.
It makes too much sense to consider it as evidence.

"Is considering that Bush needed 15% of returning Gore voters in the 15 largest NY counties which went for Gore by 64-31% and for Kerry by 62-37% on Election Day Levers a waste of time?"

Wow. So now you're using the fact that Kerry did so well in these counties as evidence that he was robbed there?

So, since we've responded to everything you've got, when is it time for you to be accountable to anyone else?

You havent a clue do you? Some analyst you are. The calculations and sensitivity analysis were not meant for you; they were meant for those who cared to see the anomaly.
But it is apparently beyond your level of comprehension.
All analysis is.

Ok, One more time. Mr. Other:
Bush needed 15% of Gore voters to cut Kerrys margin DOWN to 62-37% in those 15 counties.
That's 15% in HEAVILY Democratic counties.

Of course, you cant see it. Because thats just you.
But everyone else can.

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