And Andrew Wakefield still defends the fraudulent study that provoked the anti-vaxxer movement and relying on the “testimony” of someone defending a fraudulent study is, at best, problematic.
I can see how, if you are eager enough and willing to bend the context to fit, you can at least imply that the subject was broached. Close enough for you, OK.
What is your theme, here? With all the smoke and mirrors, there doesn’t appear to be a clear statement. Does this conversation mean that Obama was encouraging illegal voting? I hesitate to ask the question, because the idea is so thunderously stupid. It would be like asking if you believe the moon is made of cream cheese.
So I won’t even broach the subject, just offer you the opportunity to clarify.
I already answered that question, even before anyone asked it. Then I reiterated my answer (with highlighting) when k9bfriender failed so hard. I have no reason to believe that, if I were to repeat it a third time, you’d be any more capable of understanding it than you were (apparently not) the first two times.
Well, could you cut and paste? Or you could say “Post #nnn”. Really, all kinds of ways.
But you are under no obligation to clarify anything! Its just as I said, I’d hate to turn the page on this thinking that you believe something absurd when you really don’t. But if you’re dignity cannot abide lowering yourself like that, well, so be it! Its your rubber ducky, after all.
Monkey Cage isn’t Andrew Wakefield, they have been a respected blog for years, cited frequently by liberals, until they started asking the wrong questions. Their blogging excellence in the field of political science got them the Post gig the same way Ezra Klein and Eugene Volokh and Chris Cilizza did.
Sure, the findings have been rebutted. That’s how the system is supposed to work. Debunked is a matter of opinion, however.
But sure, we can leave that one aside. Dead people voting and felons voting does still happen. And it’s REALLY easy to find. If a local outlet can find these stories so easily, the national media choosing not to look into it is a decision they make. THey really just would rather not know.
It was literally quoted in one of my posts that you quote-snipped from. You complimented my typing. If you can’t find it, the only reason I can imagine is because you are deliberately trying not to.
Then it should be real easy to show where that totals up to 3-5 million occurrences.
By the way, you left out people who have moved.
Nope, a good demonstration of why their numbers and approach were wrong was their failure with the election of 2014.
When you start with numbers that the earlier researchers advised that they were not reliable and that later the earlier researchers also showed why and how the numbers were off, the only conclusion others can reach about the ones that continue to look for support at the 2014 team is to put them in the same column as creationists and climate change deniers.
What I do think is going on is that regardless that 2014 paper was discredited, what is going on is that a lot of conservative leaders reach for it and unfortunately many rank and file have or must trust what the leaders are telling them, unfortunately all an echo chamber did was to repeat the discredited paper as gospel, and it has worked with a lot of people. It is no wonder why is that for many Republicans in congress ignorance is strength.
This is what kinda gets me. We know voter fraud has existed in American elections in the past. Also, we know certain individuals linked to the Democratic Party have recently stated they help facilitate voter fraud. Now, these individuals could be lying. Assuming for a second that they are not. Why would any competent political operative help with voter fraud if they felt it had no chance to swing an election? In what fictional universe do political operatives work hard & presumably spend hard at something that gives their candidate zero electoral assistance?
Im positive voter fraud exists(as should everyone on this board). The big unknown is how widespread it is. I think it’s probably widespread enough to swing many a local election, and perhaps swing the occasional state wide election (im looking at the likes of you, Al Franken) and perhaps even the very occasional Presidential election too.
All this talk is missing the crucial point, which is that the interviewer is an expert in all matters television and soap opera and dramatological. She has shit-all expertise in issues of voter fraud, and it’s ludicrous to use her question as evidence for anything.
One very likely explanation for her weird question: she was using terms incorrectly. One other very likely explanation for her weird question: she was unclear on who is allowed to vote. One ridiculous explanation for her weird question: she knows about millions of DREAMers who are illegally casting votes, risking prison time for their actions, and decided that the best way to handle her knowledge was to confront the sitting president with it in a question that didn’t make a lot of sense.
Yeah, that makes no sense. Of course, considering that a lot of the “evidence” came lately from the likes of James O’keefe it can be disregarded.
The preponderance of the evidence is that it is not widespread, or to be more precise, not consequential as many conservatives think because they are basing their assumptions on already recognized flawed research.
And like a bad penny…
Most of the “evidence” reported by the republican ignorasphere about Al Franken also comes from the very same flawed 2014 study. and one has to note this too: and from the same blog post were the spin was worse than the research; so much so that the WP had to add a disclaimer that “reporters” like Breitbart never mention to their readers. Again, see post #182 for the antidote. As noted before, for the republican sources of information and current leadership ignorance is strength.
Investors Business Daily brings more examples:
Voter fraud certainly exists, we just need to know how much. It’s probably not the 3 million votes Trump alleges, but it’s a lot more than the zero that some have absurdly stated(like the NY Times).
What sometimes gets lost is that “voter fraud” is generally being used as an excuse for voter suppression. If we do a study before instituting additional measures that suppress the vote, I’m not too upset about that (reserving judgment for biased studies, flawed studies, studies that through their investigation intimidate legitimate voters, etc.)
But the general approach up to this point has been, “We don’t know if it’s a problem, so let’s (heh heh) tighten up the voting system.” That’s what’s bogus.
That is also pointing at the flawed 2014 study too. (someone is not learning anything here) And like a typical creationist and climate change denier the article goes for the old “we should do more research” when plenty of research was made already. Enough to point out that even the few significant numbers (but still not decisive in any example) reported in your cited article are more likely to be reduced much more once someone bothers to check properly.
Can you spot the dishonesty in this article? I’ll highlight it here:
*The mainstream press has dismissed that study, pointing out that a Harvard Team found flaws in the methodology. But the Harvard team also declared that “the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is 0.”
Whatever the flaws of the 2014 study, we know for a fact that the number of noncitizen voters is more than zero.*
Note the goalpost shift in bold from one sentence to the next. Is the number of illegal votes zero? Probably not. Does the percentage round down to zero? Apparently, yes.
Yep, the most important lesson that I have pointed many time before is that one should dump unceremoniously the sources of information that clearly are ignoring a mountain of contradictory information and not reporting that to their readers, and as Fiveyearlurker noted, they are basically dishonest too.
They are relying on flawed information and sources and never bother to add notes pointing at the corrections made by researchers or corrections made by the press several years ago even. This is more crucial now because nowadays the flawed sources of information are being relied on by the Republicans in power.
The evidence came from the mouths of Democratic political operatives themselves. This doesn’t mean they were telling the truth, but your attempt at dismissing it purely because it’s from an O’Keefe video tells me you are unwilling to consider the likelihood of voter fraud.
I know nothing of the 2014 study and Al Franken’s election. My point was that it wouldn’t take a particularly widespread degree of voter fraud to have impacted the 2008 Minnesota Senate election. It was purely a numbers thing. A victory of just over 200 votes in a turnout of 2.8 million would simply require non widespread voter fraud for the result to be questionable. I believe when we are talking of local elections voter fraud will be 100 times more impactful. I suspect there is a problem with voter fraud in US elections. I think it probably best to look at the issue than ignore it. I rather doubt the major problems are at Presidential level. However, I believe at Primary and local level there is an issue that some people probably want kept rather quiet.
I love how liberals proclaim an issue settled, when it’s never even been studied. They just assume the hypothesis, that voter fraud isn’t a problem, and then whenever researchers find voter fraud, they attempt to debunk the research, while still not doing any of their own.
That’s not how the scientific method works. No research has even attempted to find out what the level of voter fraud is. Except for of course the ones cited, but since those have been debunked, can’t anyone point me to a study on voter fraud that purports to show that there is very little?
Nope, as even you pointed before it does not make sense to risk arrest or fines when you already have a big advantage in the polls (IIRK the O’keefe target was in New York). O’keefe does not deserve even the time of the day because even in that case the video was edited and previous “interviews” from O’keefe shows that many times either O’keefe or the ones being interviewed thought that they were being played and made boasts that were not very likely or believable. Except by partisans.
And I can’t help but notice that you are omitting the fact that the Fanken election was one of the more scrutinized in history. 538 was also correct then by expecting the recount to show that Franken had more valid votes than the ones they originally were reported in his already narrow win.
One thing to notice is that then the Republicans did not see much of an issue with illegal immigrants voting, so much so that much of the focus was on felons, rejected and missing ballots.
I have to agree with critics of the republicans, or their sources.“They do cite isolated problems as indicative of a national crisis, slickly ignoring any sense of scale and pushing ‘solutions’ that help the GOP by targeting perceived Democratic voting blocks.”
My benchmark is 3000 prosecutions. That’s 1/10th of 1 percent of Hillary’s close to 3 million popular vote margin. (Assuming my math skills haven’t totally left me.) Can’t do it? It’s a bogus claim.
Part of the problem here is that we all know it’s BS, and that the Republicans pushing it know it’s BS too, but we all act as if it’s a serious argument.