Skip to comments.
UC Berkeley prof proves Bush stole election!!!
University of California at Berkeley ^
| 11/18/2004
| Michael Hout
Posted on 11/18/2004 1:17:42 PM PST by ArcLight
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-159 last
To: Torie
Bush gained 6% amoung Jewish voters, which was double the average swing, somewhat less vis a vis the Florida swing, but still more. Bush underperformed in short in Palm Beach and Broward, all things being equal, given the high Jewish population.
Ah - reading more of what you wrote - you allow that Bush gained in the Jewish vote nation wide. So I can make no sense of your statement that he underperformed in Palm Beach and Broward because of the high Jewish population.
Are you saying that, even though Bush gained in the Jewish vote, he gained in the non-Jewish vote in Florida by a better percentage?
141
posted on
11/18/2004 9:19:53 PM PST
by
ThePythonicCow
(Welcome home, Vietnam Vets.)
To: ThePythonicCow
The articles are so filled with numerous errors, that I won't even bother with them. Gore gained a grand total of about 70 votes in Palm Beach in the recount, not 750, for starters. The whole thing is ludicrous.
142
posted on
11/18/2004 9:22:01 PM PST
by
Torie
To: dhj
143
posted on
11/18/2004 9:23:41 PM PST
by
DBeers
To: kaehurowing
This is the university that last year came out with the "study" purporting to prove that conservatives were stupider than liberals. sheeesshhh...that's "more stupider" you maroon ;^)
144
posted on
11/18/2004 9:24:40 PM PST
by
Auntie Dem
(Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Terrorist lovers gotta go!)
To: ThePythonicCow
One would have to look at the individual precinct numbers to know more as to what was going on. But in the aggregate all things being equal, if the Bush national Jewish swing was 6%, and among the rest of the population, 3.5%, one would expect all things being equal for high population Jewish counties to swing to Bush somewhere inbetween those two numbers. The swing in Palm Beach and Broward was around 3.25%.
145
posted on
11/18/2004 9:25:57 PM PST
by
Torie
To: Torie
Well ... I don't have the expertise or time to go over the article with you.
But just giving something a broadside 'filled with errors ... ludicrous', and noting one apparent factual error doesn't persuade me to change my opinion here either. That sort of body slam really only works if you have previously established a strong reputation of unimpeachable judgments on such matters. Which perhaps you have ... just not that I know of.
I suspect that there is much truth in what you have observed. But I also suspect that there is some truth in the articles that you have condemned, more truth perhaps than you see.
Good night.
May we meet again.
146
posted on
11/18/2004 9:34:11 PM PST
by
ThePythonicCow
(Welcome home, Vietnam Vets.)
To: ThePythonicCow; Howlin; jwalsh07
Just ask Howlin or Walsh who was up on the numbers in the Florida recount, and flogged them to death, and made projections that team Gore would fall short with their Dem belt only recount strategy, a couple of weeks before it came was proven out. She and he were there to witness it. On this issue, frankly, I have credibility.
147
posted on
11/18/2004 9:38:40 PM PST
by
Torie
Comment #148 Removed by Moderator
To: Torie
Oh yes, and the thesis that Gore stole votes last time, and Kerry didn't this time, I find absurd. There's just as much actual evidence to support that explanation as there is to support the explanation that the electronic voting machines were flawed in 2004 - i.e., none whatsoever. There is no reason to believe that one can simply treat 1996 or 2000 as some sort of control group, and evaluate 2004 in light of those results.
149
posted on
11/18/2004 9:42:23 PM PST
by
general_re
(Drive offensively - the life you save may be your own.)
To: general_re
You got it. Nothing wrong with working with baselines, and looking at swings, but this data was so tortured, it makes the practicioners of torture by the rack during the auto de fe era, seem like compasssionate conservatives by comparison with this little study, and those who claim that Gore stole thousands of votes in Florida in 2000.
150
posted on
11/18/2004 9:46:21 PM PST
by
Torie
To: Torie
After skimming the math, I'm preliminarily ready to grant the general and vague proposition that there was a problem in some Florida election, but nowhere is there a magic bullet buried in the numbers to tell us which election had a problem. The authors cannot eliminate the proposition that 2004 was correct and 1996/2000 were not. Indeed, they can't, AFAIK, conclusively eliminate the hypothesis that all three counts were flawed, and that in fact none of them are correct.
151
posted on
11/18/2004 9:56:43 PM PST
by
general_re
(Drive offensively - the life you save may be your own.)
To: general_re
I'm preliminarily ready to grant the general and vague proposition that there was a problem in some Florida election I missed what you saw. I am prepared to dismiss it all as tinfoil.
152
posted on
11/18/2004 9:59:48 PM PST
by
Torie
To: Torie
I don't think there's much to it either unless you grant some large assumptions that the authors are apparently prepared to grant themselves. I'm trying to be generous here - gimme a break ;)
153
posted on
11/18/2004 10:10:02 PM PST
by
general_re
(Drive offensively - the life you save may be your own.)
To: Torie
Oh yes, and the thesis that Gore stole votes last time, and Kerry didn't this time, I find absurd.Well, my point was that the author seemed to take the view that the 2000 election was the control and any variation was to be attributed to fraud in 2004. If anything, I think it is more likely that the fraud occurred in 2000, but no reputable scientist can assume either.
To: ArcLight
We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chanceCorrect. As has been pointed out by myself and others, the huge jump in Bush votes in 2004 is a result of the massive fraud in 2000 that has been stopped. We need an investigation of the 2000 election.
To: ArcLight
We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chanceCorrect. As has been pointed out by myself and others, the huge jump in Bush votes in 2004 is a result of the massive fraud in 2000 that has been stopped. We need an investigation of the 2000 election.
To: ThePythonicCow
Torie is pretty damn good at electin analysis by county. In fact, I'd ssay his only rival is Michael Barone. Of course thats JMHO and it reflects my bias since I consider Torie a friend.
To: ArcLight
History proves that UC Berkley has destroyed the minds of over a million students!!!!
To: jwalsh07
Torie is pretty damn good at ..
Ok - I'll keep an eye out for his work in the future. Thanks.
159
posted on
11/19/2004 9:28:40 PM PST
by
ThePythonicCow
(Welcome home, Vietnam Vets.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-159 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson