Because it’s a blog it’s worthless! Even though it links to its source! It’s a hell of a lot more than you’ve cited to prove your contention that “4% error seems about reasonable,” that I think you read off the inside of your ass.
See post 92, my first. And put the goalposts back. All I’ve done is called you on your dismissal of statistics with a wave of your hand.
You want to investigate? You want smoking gun proof? Then stand with those who want paper trails, and demand data be released in Ohio that the Secretary of State has been withholding.
Because it’s partisan, they must be lying! You don’t need to refute the content, only point out they’re liberal! Cool! As far as no proof, I guess you didn’t visit the ‘analyses’ or ‘data’ sections - or maybe you expect them to get that data they can’t.
Then there’s no point to this. I’m arguing in good faith. You’ve added nothing.
Yup. Absolute garbage. Total kaka. Just like your argument, it’s a piece of shit. Shall I dig up right wing blogs to refute it? That would be equally pointless. It’s an OPINION piece, NOT a factual piece.
Your own fucking cite says that exit polls have never been academically studied for accuracy, and you accuse me of dismissing statistics with a wave of my hand. I’m not doing that at all, but I am recognizing that statistics is one endeavor where the data is extrodinarily vulnerable to being massaged by the analyst. A 15% difference? yea, I’d say that was a smoking gun. A 4% difference? Not so much, especially when dealing with rubber numbers such as exit polls generate. You’re fishing.
I support the full revelation of any and all relevant facts to any official, bi-partisan committee officially appointed to investigate. Bending over backwards to accommodate a witch hunt, ehh, you’re on your own.
Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! From either side! Christ, would you treat seriously with an article from Focus on the Family? Partisan cites are worthless because they come at each issue looking for data to support the conclusions they have already reached. Inevitably they find it. That’s true the world over, on any subject.
There’s no content to refute! Half that website is dedicated to them saying why they think papers that disagree with their POV are wrong, the other half is moaning that “If only we had this or that magical piece of info, we’d be vindicated!”. It’s a witch hunt pure and simple. It was disgusting when The Republicans did it to Bill Clinton in the 90s, it was vile when the Democrats turned right around and did the same thing for 2 years before finally netting…Scooter Libby (Scooter Libby, are you shitting me? 2 years of wasted time and money to indite Scooter Libby for maybe saying something different to a reporter than he said under oath. Scooter fucking Libby! If it wasn’t so tragic how polarized this country is, it would be hilarious) and it’s putrid when these left wing conspiracy theorists do it here.
You know something? If I argued in good faith that magnets cure cancer or that the Illuminati secretly run the world, I wouldn’t expect you to treat it as anything other than what it was: crazy. Arguing in good faith doesn’t add any credibility to the argument itself.
I think you’re right. Something’s fishy. Clearly, Democratic activists were traveling from polling station to polling station in an attempt to skew the exit polls and have the media report a big Kerry win to depress the Republican turnout.
A theory every bit as plausible as the ‘Republicans rigged the election!’. It has the benefit of having exactly as much evidence in support of it - zero.
You not only lack reading comprehension skills, you now demonstrate that you don’t know how to look at a map either. Young man, you need to get thee to a schoolery.
Here’s a little tip to get you started: When one is properly oriented and looking at a map of the United States, the left side of a state is the west side. Pull you out a map and (maybe) you’ll see what I’m talkin’ about.
Ah…and the fact that you referred to it as the LEFT side rather than the WEST side is…a tribute to your homies? When I look at a map’s compass rose I can see N and E and S and W…but now L! Holy shit, I have a defective map! Call Rand Mcnally!
You were trying to be so clever and so subtle. You failed.
Did you know not all maps are orientated northwards? It’s true!
Since you’ve turned into such a wordsmith, would you mind tackling the matter of why competitive sports are the only place one learns to deal with adversity, such that it logically flows that people who are “whining” about possible fraud in a political election must never have participated in them?
Look, are you guys deliberately seeking out ways to be obtuse, or are you really limited in the reading comprehension department? You wrote: “…sports are the only place one learns…”.
Please quote where I said sports are the only place. You can’t quote? That’s because I didn’t say that. Sports are a good place to learn to deal with adversity. I never said sports are the only such place. Big difference; one that apparently went right over your head.
Changing what someone said and then attacking their position based on changes YOU inserted is dishonest.
Tracy: The GAO report was thoroughly discussed in this thread.
I read the blog you linked to, and it seems to do the same thing the article in the other thread does. Lots of “coulda’, mighta’ maybe” and no proof. Here’s a post by Crotalus in that thread, which pretty much sums it up:
Please note that in your cite, nowhere does the GAO state that fraud was found. The GAO report found weaknesses, then the blogger makes a leap to state that the weaknesses were exploited. There is no evidence that such is the case.
I’m happy to quote you, fuckstick, because it is a fucking moronic quote that should repeatedly be exposed to the cleasing light of scrutiny.
This means that you looked at what you consider to be the “whining” of lefties, and determine from that that lefties never played competitive sports. Conversely, it implies that had we played competitive sports, we wouldn’t be “whining.”
By your logic, not only is there a causal relationship between playing competitive sports and not “whining,” but if you are given “whining” you can determine “no competitive sports.”
If, in your model, there were multiple causes for “whining,” you would be unable to determine “no competitive sports” when presented with “whining.”
Again with the reading comprehension problems! I’ve backpedaled on…NOTHING!
I stand by this statement:
In fact, I’m rather proud of it, now that I see how hard you and Joe have strained, twisted, paraphrased and misquoted in failed attempts to discredit it.
Sure. Do it. Ignore the messenger; weigh the message on its own merits.
Bullshit. It’s got falsifiable assertions.
For those who’d like the full quote, “Although exit polls have not been academically studied [the phrase ‘for accuracy’ was added by WeirdDave for your convenience], both the logic behind them and experience suggest that we can use these surveys to predict overall results with very high degrees of certainty.” He then goes on to cite how they are used to verify elections abroad (as he quotes Republican Dick Morris).
As you noted, he hasn’t updated it since he first put it on line. Rather than presume, as you did, that that means it’s bullshit (it’s bullshit because nobody found fault with it, perhaps?), I actually have e-mailed the author to find out if it has been published, and if he has gotten any feedback.
Except that they’ve never been wrong like that before. And they were always wrong in Bush’ favor - all ten states went Bush’ way be percentages varying from 2 to more than 11%.
How fucking circular! If it says there was a discrepancy, you conclude it’s biased! To find you an ‘unbiased’ source, you need something that says there was no discrepancy. Again, if it makes falsifiable assertions, ignore the messenger. If I had to dispute something Focus on the Family claimed, I’d have to debunk the message - prove that the message was wrong, not just dismiss it because it came from Focus on the Family! That’s stupid!
That was in reference to your accusation that I was being deliberately misleading.
Bup, you’re making the same stupid mistake that Tracy Lord did. You link to the GAO report. The GAO report documented flaws in the electronic voting procedures which could be exploited. I think it’s great that we have that report, it should be used as a blueprint for closing these loopholes and for shoring up the security of the system(and I believe that it is). However, just because the GAO discovered some flaws which COULD have been exploited for fraud that does not mean that those flaws WERE exploited for voter fraud. The GOA report did not discover any fraud in the 2004 election. There is no PROOF, no EVIDENCE. Until you provide that, the whole thing is just another crackpot conspiracy theory. Jesus, it’s amazing how difficult folks like you seem to find that simple concept. I’ll tell you what. You’ve got all of your blogs, all of your partisan outrage to look at. Is there anything in all of that that you could take into a court of law and get a conviction with? Anything at all? The answer is no. All your partisan whining is just so much pissing against the wind without that. When come back bring facts.
Exactly. It’s like when a new exploit in a piece of software is found and reported on. Just because it was found does not mean that it’s been used before publication. It might have been, but then you’d figure it’d be a known exploit once the malware started using it. Now, if it hasn’t been used, the exploit had better be fixed pretty damn fast because I guarantee someone will come out with a piece of malware targeting said exploit within a week. If the flaws reported by the GAO have not been fixed for the next election, then I will start getting suspicious about the possibility, not for 2004 but 2006.
