I see. Let me translate your statement.
“I don’t have any proof that these elections were more fraudulent than previous ones, but I won’t that stop me from making sweeping statements”.
As I said. If you actually WANTED to reform elections, you would drop the “Bush cheated” meme like a hot potato, because that works against you. But you won’t, because election reform is not your real goal.
Vote spoilage – happens in every election. Happens with paper ballots as well. Why do you think that in these elections it was extraordinary?
Can I back up that statement of mine that there was not more fraud in these elections than in any others? You’re the one who is asserting that there was more – you are the one on whom the burden of proof is. Show me comparative statistics. Show me same parameters for these elections and the elections before. The fact that unweighted exit polls were wrong for 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992 and 1988 (and in fact were wrong a lot more than they were in 2004) shows me that your (and TIAs) exit poll arguments are bogus.
The MSM is not reporting on this for one simple reason – because they consider anyone screaming “Bush won by cheating” without hard evidence to back him up a loon, a tin foil hatter, a conspiracy theorist, and avoid him and his rantings like a plague. You may as well ask why MSM is not seriously reporting on the “fact” that Moon landings were staged in Hollywood studios.
That is exactly what I mean by you damaging your stated cause of reforming elections by pursuing the silly conspiracy theories. Of course, I doubt very much that your goal is actually reforming elections. I think it is actually trying to convince people that Kerry won and Bush lost. You will have to decide which is more important, because as long as you pursue the second one, you will lose on the first one.
You still believe that the Census voting numbers are correct, in spite of the fact that I showed you that they were consistently wrong in every election, and in spite of the fact that the Census Bureau themselves say that they are inflated. This is exactly what I mean – you have a belief and you try to make facts fit the belief.
The “mountain” of evidence is extremely flimsy. Yes, there was fraud. No, there is no evidence that there was any more fraud in these elections than there are in any election. Of course the election system is not foolproof. Of course it could be made better. But you are not making that point. You point, and your belief and you goal is to “prove” that Bush lost. That’s pathetic and actually damages greatly your stated goal of improving elections. That’s because as soon as you start with the “Bush cheated” routine most people will just shut you off as an annoying fly.
The truth of the matter is that when you set a goal (“Bush lost”) then try to falsify facts (“the census does not match the final exit poll”) to “prove” your goal, that is about as dishonest as it gets. Period.
I don’t try to find information to validate my preconceptions. Information is information. If it contradicts my preconceptions, that means they are wrong. That is how it works. Not the other way around. Unless you do it this way, no one will take you seriously (just like no one takes TIA seriously, except a small band of his cult-like believers, of which you seem to be one).
You don’t get away so easy. You posted misinformation in your original post. I believe a correction is in order – either that or the new post explaining it.
Two: you completely ignored my DU comments. Do explain the fact that anyone contradicting TIA on that board gets banned and the posts get deleted.
And three: what I think about Bush winninig has nothing to do with facts that are being discussed. Why do you even ask? This is the perfect example of the behavior of people like TIA – you first shoot, then draw a target around the hole, then you say: see, I hit it exactly right.
What in the WORLD are you talking about. Do you just blindly follow TIA without checking it yourself?
Here are the demographics of the final exit poll, that was adjusted:
Male: 46% Female: 54%
Some College 32%
College Grad 26%
It is EXACTLY the same as the stuff you’re quoting. If you think that closeness to the census validates exit poll results – then the final poll matches. Is it valid in your eyes. TIA lies to you and you swallow the lies. Do you EVER check what he writes?
Why do you insist that I answer your question when you refuse to answer mine? The answer is simple – census data is much more accurate matching demographics (people rarely misreport their gender, race or income) than matching things like voting patterns or party registration.
The best thing for you to do – if you want to prove your point – is to look for how well the Census data matched the demographics in prior elections. You will most probably find that they matched them pretty well – and still managed to miss the voting numbers by a mile, every time.
Now – I answered your question. Will you answer mine?
You didn’t answer my numbers. They show that Census data has been consistently wrong in estimating voter numbers, election after election after election. They also show that Census data has been wrong in estimating other things, like registered voters.
Please explain, in light of this, WHY you think that THIS time their estimates of the voters were, in fact correct? They haven’t hit it correctly even once, but you think that THIS time they were right. Could it be it’s your agenda coloring your thinking a little bit?
Also – you think DU is such a great place. Fine. Prove it to me. See that table above? Post it on DU as response to TIA – after all, it’s only factual. I can guarantee he will not answer it, but will sputter and scream about “naysayers”. See how fast they ban you and delete your post. You think that is called “free exchange of ideas”? I don’t think so.
From DailyKos thread:
The overestimates by the Census survey through the years:
2004 125,749,602 122,300,000 2.82%
2000 110,827,123 105,594,024 4.96%
1996 104,958,842 096,389,818 8.89%
1992 113,824,292 104,600,366 8.82%
This clearly shows that Census data consistently, in every election, overestimates the number of people who voted. In fact, in 2004 they were a lot more accurate (though still wrong) than in previous years.
Feel free to censor this as well.
You removed, yes, CENSORED, the EXPLANATION of exactly WHY the Census data was bullshit. Here it is again. Did you even check it for yourself or are your blinders on so tight that you don’t care whether the data is accurate or not as long as it fits your agenda?
According to the 2000 report, “The CPS routinely overestimates voter turnout. As discussed in greater detail in the report, the CPS’ estimate of overall turnout (111 million) differs from the “official” turnout (105.6 million votes cast), as reported by the Clerk of the House.”
The Census numbers reported are bogus, and it’s easy to prove. Pick a state. Go to the Census Bureau Table 2, and determine the Census Bureau’s number of registered voters by multiplying Columns B and D or Columns C and E for that state. Now go to the Secretary of State’s website and find the actual (BY DEFINITION) number of registered voters for that state. Compare the two numbers and see how bad the Census Bureau estimates are. I picked two states-Alaska and California for spot checks.
Alaska had more registrations than the Census Bureau number of citizens. (461 K registered voters versus estimated 434K citizens.) And California-the census bureau understimated the number of registered voters by 2.4 million! (Actual number of CA registrations was 16.6 million; Census Bureau estimates 14.2 million).
It’s a verifiable fact that the registered voter estimates are wrong. How can you even begin to believe that the vote estimates are correct?
Zoloft Cost Fast Delivery, Free Shipping is proudly powered by
WordPress. · Works best with