Another Boorish Kennedy Prattles on About Democracy

[davidbikman]

Today’s story, according to the New York Times, isn't that the Republican Party may have conspired to disenfranchise thousands of voters in the 2004 presidential election; the real story is that a Kennedy (pause for sharp intake of breath) thinks the GOP stole the presidency, and that this Kennedy has had the temerity to go public. By embracing a theory the punditocracy dismissed within days after the election as conspiracy, Robert Kennedy Jr. is labeled "another Kennedy living dangerously."

Never mind the clumsy, scattershot anecdotes author Mark Leibovich prays will magically coalesce into a cohesive portrait; what is more frustrating is watching a story about a political figure making hay about a political issue dumped in the Fashion & Style section. Like wearing white shoes after Labor Day, accusing the ruling party of manipulating the electoral process, I suppose, is simply in bad form.

Content to reject the idea of foul play in Ohio by citing a single error-ridden story on Salon.com, Leibovich characterizes Kennedy Jr.'s activism as "a penchant for risk taking," and as much as dares him to follow in his father and uncle's footsteps by asking, "At what point is he tempting fate?"

Give. Me. A break.

* * Always Read More at "Times/WaPo Watch." * *

[Thickasabrick]

1. I disagree. I read the entire article and I felt it was rather good.

The article ended with this quote from Kennedy about entering politics

"I can only control my own conduct," Mr. Kennedy said, shrugging. "And I plan to go down fighting."

I must be missing something.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Techno Dog]

3. I wish

Do you really think treating people that don't know your stupid little code talk and secret handshakes the way you have will help us in any way what so ever?


Here is an interesting comment from a newbie....

I would take 1000 newbies with fresh attitudes over many of the so called celebrity posters that think they are the keepers of the dogma.

Even if you are right, what is the point of your post?

*edited to stay within the rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Techno Dog]

5. Who are you?

Are you a mod?

What good does your little call out do?

Can't you debate the text? Do you need to make sure everyone knows you think the person is a troll?

There is an alert button. I've been on the internet for years and not once seen a reasonable excuse for calling another a troll.

WTF is with this patriot shit? This board has people from all over the world. How on earth can you think this op is designed to cause conflict when you are the one calling him/her a troll? You are the one stirring shit.

List your concerns with the op and debate the points. Calling them like you see them is unacceptable because the rules say what you have just done isn't allowed, and the rules are there for a reason. Do you really want to alienate people?

I edited my post because it would be hypocrisy to call you out for violating the rules while I was doing the same.

I have been called a troll 50 times by people that couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. Are you one of those types of people? Are you not capable of taking a troll on with your ideas? If you are to lazy to think out a response that will discredit the ideas you object to that's your fault. Calling troll isn't an acceptable alternative to laziness.

[ebayfool]

6. Did you read his link? I think you're reading this too 'literally' ...

put a sarcasm smilie at the end & read the link. He's bagging on the article (kinda like a mediamatters thingie), not agreeing with it.

The OP needs some polishing on posting w/his brand of 'wry humor' so that it's not mistaken so easily for something else, I think. The first reply posted was confused as to his intent, as well.

Took me awhile to get the hang of 'posting with clear intent' when I got on the web too. Hell, I still muck it up & unintentionally set people off sometimes!

Is good to see a familiar face here - I don't see you outside the astro section often.

[Kurovski]

7. A clearer title for the OP would have been

"(NYT Implies That) Another Boorish Kennedy Prattles on About Democracy". it's rare that a headline will convey subtlety or irony well, given the lack of immediate context. A title is a strong first message. The author is listed as a writer working in communications, and must know this. (Welcome, davidbikman, and please forgive my writing about you as if you weren't in the room, although I will understand if you don't.)

It is easy to construe the OP as subtly reinforcing the negative NYT piece.

"...a story about a political figure making hay about a political issue..." is the author's own comment which implies that politics are being played regarding the issue of election fraud.

And the generality of the comment "Give. Me. A break.", really doesn't say much, particularly given the bizarre and tasteless comment from the NYT "At what point is he tempting fate?", that it follows.

I completely understand your points, and wanted to point out specifically how suspicions are sometimes raised.

[ebayfool]

8. That's a much more concise way to say it - TY!

'Posting with clear intent' is the closest I could come up with in the middle of the night (that's MY muddled excuse & I'm sticking to it! :rofl: ).

And I forgot my manners on top of it all ... ty for the reminder!

[Kurovski]

10. And Techno Dog, do you think that referring to someone's behavior

as "stupid", or inept, or being comprised of idiocy as helpful to you and your cause?

Personally and thus far, I wouldn't look to you to instruct us on what "real progressives" are and do. If you strived for some kind of objectivity for the sake of compromise, maybe.

I note that here you choose to defend the subtly questionable OP, rather than full-out attack the idea that the election was stolen, as you often do. In fact you have taken delight in the mockery of the growing numbers of Americans who now have come to suspect that the election in 2004 was stolen. They are full of shit, as you tell us on some occasions. "bullshit", you say to those whom you call "conspiracy theorists". "prove it" you say.

You defend and cheer Kos for banning certain talk, but want us all to welcome with open arms the subtle armies of provocative posters and possible agents provocateur now emerging at a critical juncture in the internets' history, and months before an enormously important election. Yes. I know. "Alert".

Besides casting aspersions on the intelligence of DUers, you have stated that you would rather focus on the "60 million morons" that voted for Bush. Well, many of us saw proof that your estimated number of Bush voters can't be trusted. Machines changed votes from Kerry to Bush. Precincts had more votes than voters. Do you believe those were merely glitches? Alright then, we disagree about the nature of those mistakes. But they did happen. Do we agree that machine voting is too troublesome, perhaps too dangerous, to trust?

And why focus on the Bush voters anyway? some have changed their minds and now regret their Bush vote. Some never will. Get out the Democratic vote, as I seem to recall you saying at least once. If you focused on that more than deriding and browbeating in your posts, you would accomplish much more of what the body of sincere DUers hope to achieve.

I believe we can at the same time, both get out the Democratic vote, get Democrats in place at every level--local on up--as Howard Dean is doing, and demand verifiable and transparent elections.

Do you believe that too?

Would you seriously forgo working toward a trustworthy voting system merely because you find those of us who see evidence of election theft personally unpleasant, merely for believing so?

I respectfully ask you that question, because you are often very focused on the divisive element in the argument, and there is no rational reason to believe that everyone can't work together on these issues, provided neither party is caught up in name-calling, defining the other, or baiting. Or more importantly, as long as neither party FALLS FOR the baiting from either side. Instead, gently drawing focus to the task at hand, and coming to a consensus, always with a sense of forgiveness close at hand for the perhaps inevitable heated disagreements.

It is very simple: all we need to do is respect the conclusions each party has come to. You're not blind or naive for not believing in a theft, and I'm not a conspiracy whack-job for thinking "theft". Our personal opinions need not matter to any important extent if the goal for both is to get transparent, verifiable elections in the United States of America.

[benburch]

11. Well said! nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. "the subtly objectionable OP"

on any coherent reading was a defense of Kennedy.

I thought it was pretty classy of Techno Dog to step up to defend an OP that s/he probably disagrees with. Dog does bring the heat, but this one, s/he clearly had a point, as the mods agreed.

I also think it's pretty classy of you to write, "You're not blind or naive for not believing in a theft" -- and it would be even classier if you expressed that view more often, and the stuff about "subtle armies of provocative posters and possible agents provocateur" rather less.

[Kurovski]

14. "questionable", not "objectionable". A fine point, but you're quoting.

I read it as support of JFK as well, but the headline is what it is.

I disagree that my example given as to why someone might misconstrue the OP intent is incoherent, or is derived from an incoherent reading. I would have agreed if you had said it was a "stretch", for a "stretch", it certainly is. :-)

I cannot guarantee that I shall grow any "classier" than I have heretofore. Would that we all were capable of following a just, wise, and civil Magistrate's sterling example with devout consistency in these tumultuous times.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. well said -- a tip of the hat to Magistrate

I read the headline as clearly facetious from the get-go, but maybe that was just good luck on my part.

[Kurovski]

18. It was indeed a tip of the hat to The Magistrate, I'm happy you got that.

:hi:

[Techno Dog]

19. You

would like me to be the embodiment of all those that have dismissed the conspiracies so you can vent, but your post contains so many straw men I'm not sure where to begin.

Do you even know what the deleted posts said?

Try getting called a troll 50 times, getting called DU's boogey man anonymous army by prominent members of this site because I came here to challenge all the Leopudlians that think it is ok to engage in behavior that brings our entire movement in to disrepute.

Try going into another thread to express an opinion held by a majority of the online progressive community and have those same people question your motives.

Then and maybe then you will understand why I see posts like the ones the mods deleted offensive, destructive, and juvenile.

"Personally and thus far, I wouldn't look to you to instruct us on what "real progressives" are and do. If you strived for some kind of objectivity for the sake of compromise, maybe."

I don't ask anyone to follow MY interpretation of progressiveness, I ask people to follow standard progressive values when engaging in debate on political forums. This is not a tribe with secret handshakes. The registration calls for progressive discussion.

It is outrageous you bring up objectivity when any evidence not fitting into a stolen 04 election narrative is instantly dismissed with a troll accusation.



"I note that here you choose to defend the subtly questionable OP, rather than full-out attack the idea that the election was stolen, as you often do. In fact you have taken delight in the mockery of the growing numbers of Americans who now have come to suspect that the election in 2004 was stolen. They are full of shit, as you tell us on some occasions. "bullshit", you say to those whom you call "conspiracy theorists". "prove it" you say."


I never full out attack the premise that the election was stolen, go look for my discussion with sfepaxt2000 to see that I respect everyones ideas as long as they can substantiate them and offer the same respect for mine in return.

I think you need to quote me if you are going to say I've called DU'ers full of shit. Again you lump me in with all of your critics.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I ask for nothing more before any discussion of the theories can begin in ernest.



"You defend and cheer Kos for banning certain talk, but want us all to welcome with open arms the subtle armies of provocative posters and possible agents provocateur now emerging at a critical juncture in the internets' history, and months before an enormously important election. Yes. I know. "Alert"."

I defend kos for banning people that refuse to provide evidence for their claims after being REPEATEDLY asked to. I defend KOS against smears by people here that makeup stories of banning, when a simple search of Kos proves there are 355 Diebold diaries, and 144 stolen election diaries sitting on his servers, and their authors remain active users. Including one of the people here making the claims.

I expect that people in the election reform forum, and DU generally are equipped mentally to argue the points made by the troll army you so fear. If you are not is it your arguments that are lacking or your intellect.


"Besides casting aspersions on the intelligence of DUers, you have stated that you would rather focus on the "60 million morons" that voted for Bush. Well, many of us saw proof that your estimated number of Bush voters can't be trusted. Machines changed votes from Kerry to Bush. Precincts had more votes than voters. Do you believe those were merely glitches? Alright then, we disagree about the nature of those mistakes. But they did happen. Do we agree that machine voting is too troublesome, perhaps too dangerous, to trust?"

Cast aspersions, me? And for the record how many reported cases of votes switching have there been, 55? After making the assumptions about my positions why are you even asking now? Machines don't seal votes, people do. That's my position. And it is a position that a majority of democrats hold.

"And why focus on the Bush voters anyway? some have changed their minds and now regret their Bush vote. Some never will. Get out the Democratic vote, as I seem to recall you saying at least once. If you focused on that more than deriding and browbeating in your posts, you would accomplish much more of what the body of sincere DUers hope to achieve. "

You once again contradict yourself. If as you say you have seen me arguing that getting out the vote is vital how can you say my focus is on the morons? I only ever said the morons are a bigger problem than the machines. Because you think the machines are most important you took that statement as a repudiation of all that you hold dear. That's not my fault.

"Do you believe that too? "

No, not if you and others insist on saying 04 was stolen without proof. People here demand an investigation but can't even prove there was a crime committed to investigate.

Would you seriously forgo working toward a trustworthy voting system merely because you find those of us who see evidence of election theft personally unpleasant, merely for believing so?


Strawman. People here calling Troll whenever they face an idea they can't easily rebut are unpleasant not because of their beliefs, it's their behavior.

"It is very simple: all we need to do is respect the conclusions each party has come to. You're not blind or naive for not believing in a theft, and I'm not a conspiracy whack-job for thinking "theft". Our personal opinions need not matter to any important extent if the goal for both is to get transparent, verifiable elections in the United States of America."

I do not have to respect someone that says martians are controlling the president for world domination any more than I have to respect someone that claims every election official in the country is complicit in fraud for wanting to use voting machines. If can't back up your ideas with solid argument nobody needs to respect you or your ideas. They do however have to respect your right to hold those beliefs, but this is a political discussion forum and your ideas are what are being discussed.

[Kurovski]

21. " Martians?" Who is "accusing every official of complicity?"

"behavior that brings our entire movement in to disrepute"(?)The number of election reform advocates, including those who suspect the election was stolen, grow by the day. The Election reform daily thread reveals some of that. See autorank's post downthread for more on how our movement is spreading.

What exactly do you think is "our movement"? There has been a movement in this very forum that has grown without your presence, and suddenly it's "our movement", sans some of the members who built it, by your accounting.

The greatest volume of your posts are negative, not positive.

And what do you yourself fear that has you so impassioned in thread after thread? What is your proof that that fear is soundly based? I will say that the fear that election reform is being harmed by opinions (that are based on evidence that some accept, and others as yet do not, nor may they ever.) is not a provable premise at your end of the argument. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois is one who has finally come to the conclusion that the election was definitely stolen based on her examination of the evidence as it now stands. She even felt the need to apologize for not taking the matter as seriously as she felt she might have. The fact is that you yourself do not accept the evidence, and do not want anyone else to accept it either. there are threads here readily available for examination regarding the evidence. The JFK Jr. article contains the evidence. Mark crispin Miller has put together evidence. John Conyers has info. BradBlog. There are others. You simply do not accept it. And that's fine.

Are you afraid that voters won't show up if they believe their votes won't be counted? Can you Prove it? Or better yet, tell the electorate that we work for reliable elections instead of pretending there are no problems. And get out the vote.

What exactly do you want, not as it relates to how you're treated, or how you believe the message should be delivered, but what do you want to see happen in our government, and how do YOU hope to achieve it? what is your goal in "our movement", Specific and exact? Please answer that question first, and then go on to say whatever else you feel needs to be said.

I will be posting links to some of your comments later, as you requested.

[Techno Dog]

22. Try again

That you misrepresented "our movement" as something other than the progressive movement again is your problem.

The rest of your post is a regurgitation of your first post full of strawmen so I'm not going to repeat myself. You list five people of relative prominence that YOU say think the election was stolen. Conyers might disagree. The rest have every right to believe what the believe as do I. None of the people listed believe that machines stole the election. Why is that?

Our movement? which one? the one I was talking about was the progressive movement. My goal is to get subpoena power this November, as you would know if you had done as extensive a reading of my posts as you claim you have.

Everything else come after. Millions of democratic voters flooding the polls. Democrats sweeping both the house and senate.

All very clear goals. All possible without people like Brad trying to make a buck throwing "town hall" meetings that WILL hurt Busby's efforts.

If brad and the election fraudsters stand in the way of Democrats getting elected with sensational claims and baseless accusations you and everyone in "your" movement can expect resistance from active progressives.

No matter how loud you scream rovian plant it won't make it true.

Now I await your posting my "defeatist" words. This should be a hoot.





But I obviously want Rove to role the universe. <shakes head>

[Kurovski]

25. Rove? Why bait your hook with that fat worm?

If you wanted to go ahead without me and assume what my reaction would be, you'd have done better to claim that I'd accuse you of tossing DLC dynamite in the fishing hole.

We've both had our say, and that's enough for me. I will sincerely look forward to seeing you explain to many thousands of DUers how subpoena power will help us, and how we should go about achieving it in many, many more posts to come, until everyone is clear on your view of a positive plan for progressives and Dems, rather than the touting of your "self-appointed expert(ise)" in "standing up to vainglorious efforts."

Which reminds me, nowhere in this thread did I claim to have done an "extensive reading of your posts." So why on earth would you even bother to say so?

Edit: And regarding the "troll question"--I've been accused of being a troll, but 50 times, and in a matter of a couple of weeks? Now why would such a thing happen? it would certainly give me pause. I might begin to think there could be a better place for me to expend my energy, or a better way to get my points across.

[Techno Dog]

27. Typical

You are done before you prove your charges. Well played.

You did say MOST of my posts were negative, defeatist, etc etc. That does presupposes that you have actually read most of my posts.

Alas more bark no bite.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. Define a positive post

When BeFree starts a new thread entirely for the purpose of misrepresenting Febble's positions via partial quotation, is that a positive post?

[Kurovski]

26. It's a moot point, the majority of BeFree's posts are positive.

I've had a spat with BeFree myself, but we were both more interested in cleaning things up than shovling more shit.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. Techno Dog hit it on the head in #19

Try going into another thread to express an opinion held by a majority of the online progressive community and have those same people question your motives.

Then and maybe then you will understand why I see posts like the ones the mods deleted offensive, destructive, and juvenile.

Febble has had a target on her back ever since she came here, because she dares to disagree. So I came to share the sick fun. I've learned a thing or two about who is interested in "cleaning things up" or "shov(e)ling more shit," who is willing to engage in serious discussion and who prefers the thrill of flaming the heretics. Some folks actually think that all the evidence is on one side (although, in my experience, they can't justify their position). Some folks apparently think it is politically savvy to talk as if all the evidence is on one side (although when folks are reduced to beating up on Salon as "corporate media," I would think some alarm bells might go off).

[Awsi Dooger]

29. Not a moot point

For instance, posting a poll with a desired landslide result then questioning, in ridicule terms, who were the two voting in the minority. Threatening Febble with a poll regarding the caliber of her contributions.

Sorry, none of that is positive or even civil. It cheapens this forum, and propably limits contributions, when a handful of posters frequently condemn and question the motives of anyone who doesn't denounce the machines at least twice per paragraph.

This is what frustrates me. And it will sound strange, but that's fine. Normally when I'm in a big dispute like this it's sports related here in Las Vegas. I can bet on my opinion unfolding as correct. In this instance, I'd love for the exact numbers of votes suppressed by low tech means in 2004 to be revealed tomorrow at noon. Same with the exact number of votes denied or switched by machine. I know what the favorite would be, on DU and elsewhere. I also know I would wager heavily the other way. And be chortling a few minutes past noon, with this forum in stunned denial.

[BeFree]

33. Kurovski

Thanks.

Is someone talking about me? Am guessing it was the one on my ignore list? Thought talking about someone on a thread where someone hasn't posted was verbotten. Ahhhh, rules: meant to be broken, eh?

Anyway, I am glad we were able to clear up my mistake, I learned a lesson there, thanks.

[Kurovski]

35. You're welcome.

Carry on.

[ebayfool]

9. Kicked & Rec'd

Forgive my boorish manners, davidbikman. Welcome to DU!

Poking the bear very nicely in your article - keep sharpening that stick!

[glitch]

12. welcome to du and k & r.

how often does a welcome come with a rec? well done.

[WhiteTara]

15. kick

:kick:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

16. In the headline summary that is emailed to those who subscribe, at least

it is included under "Washington News," despite being located in the fashion section.

I hate their headline, it seems extremely exploitive.

His dad was my favorite politician ever. I was a heartbroken teen when we lost him.

I find this article very distasteful. I despise it both for not taking such an important issue seriously, And for raising the spectre that has plagued the Kennedy's and their supporters for decades.

I hope a lot of us let the NY Times news editors, not the editorial page editors, know what we think of this carp.

:puke:



See no, hear no, speak no Evil at your own risk

[autorank]

20. I too found the article sophomoric (as in high school sophomore)

And that would be a Wise Ass High, located somewhere in the back woods of some offshore locale.
Not even a high school sophomore with a bad attitude would take the liberties that the NYT
typist used the "living dangerously allusion." We've got the Kennedy history of murder and
accidental death plus the clear correspondence to the film, "The Year of Living Dangerously,"
which ends with the protagonist's death. What utter bad taste and disregard for any standards
of decency. These are strong charges I make, however, the irresponsibility and insensitivity
just jumped off the page from the headline.

It would have been appropriate to point out that Kennedy was taking a major risk as a figure in
the public realm by advocating what he clearly believes to (a) be the case and (b) have tremendous
importance to the current and future status of this country. The national MSM has failed to even
broach the subject, not once in the main only on the margins (e.g., individual MSM folks like
Lampley, KO, and Koehler). The counterpoint of real interest might have been the willing of the
public to totally reject electronic voting (Lou Dobbs poll 85% - dump the machines) and about a 40%
endorsement of a stolen election in 2004. The poll in PA divided people by major source of television
news. Of the non Fox networks, there were a majority who believed that the election was stolen. Fox
skewed things considerably since only 0.5$ of them believe 2004 was stolen.

In any event we've got Kennedy making the case for a stolen election, the national media blocking
any discussion of that proposition, and the public willing to dump the machines and believe, at 40%,
that Kennedy is right.

Just imagine what things would be like for Kennedy and the rest of the election fraud researchers
if we had a free press. But we always have to remember, the police don't often charge other
members of the police (which I understand, up to a point). The news media are just one branch
of our burgeoning police state and they take their implied or explicit marching orders from the
head cops in the White House.

Excellent point. You nailed it. K&R.

[eridani]

23. Wrong frame! Wrong frame!

Bringing David Dill in again here. We cannot know whether 2004 was stolen for sure, because the goddam actual data is proprietary, ferchrissakes. As Dill says, the burden of proof that elections are valid must be forced onto elections officials. There is now no reason to trust the results of ballot tabulation, ever. "It is not enough that elections be accurate. We have to know that they are accurate, and we don't."

[Febble]

30. I agree with this

Let me make a careful distinction:

The fact that you cannot know "whether 2004 was stolen for sure" is the critical issue when it comes to the case against secret vote-counting software.

However, the estimates as to whether fraud was on a scale of millions or thousands is a critical issue when it comes to figuring out how to win the next election.

My own arguments that it was nowhere near millions makes absolutely no difference to the first issue, but it has an important bearing on the second.

This is why I agree that you are right: the case against digital voting technology must be framed in terms of trust and verifiability.

But when it comes to the case that Democrats did not lose the argument in 2004, then that needs to be based on estimates as to the number of votes likely to have been stolen or suppressed, and I think it is not a well-supported case. This is my problem with Kennedy.

[eridani]

31. How would we know whether it was thousands or millions--

--if nobody can look at any raw data?

[Febble]

32. From the exit poll data

I've outlined this recently here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x435991#436807

but also here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/3

And Mark Lindeman has an account of the same analysis here:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/slides.html

The short version is:

Fraud would be both in reflected in better performance by Bush and by redshift in exit poll precincts. The extent to which Bush's performance correlates with redshift should give you an estimate of the degree to which it was due to fraud.

And it doesn't correlate at all. The full story is fairly complex, but the short story is that trying to squeeze even hundreds of thousands, let alone millions, of stolen vote into that plot requires heroic assumptions. The more parsimonious explanation is that fraud was not on that scale.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

34. It doesn't necessarily take huge shifts to change the election outcome

when you have control of the machines, software, and the central tabulator.

My own belief is that it was stolen.

In any event it was close enough to not justify IMO the ongoing agonizing of the Democratic party.

Frankly, I feel that the wringing of hands and self-doubt is a very taxing process.

I do agree that you don't need to prove it WAS stolen, but only that the capability existed and exists. That is enough to justify major reform and throwing out the e-voting machines ASAP.

David Dill, Rebecca Mercuri, Avi Rubin and all the rest are just computer "scientists." Get it? * et al do not believe in science, when it isn't convenient.

Those computer scientists are good enough to write mission critical software for oh say the space program, the defense systems, medical equipment.

But for e-voting, let's let the felon and his cohorts at Diebold write it, guard it, use it, manipulate it, and/or help others do the same without any supervision.

:sarcasm:

[eridani]

37. Exit poll data is secondary data

The only real data is primary data, which we are not allowed to see.

[Febble]

38. You are right, again

which is why I made that careful distinction.

As a matter of principle, it is essential, if you are going to have trust in your democratic process, that the count is transparent, and it isn't.

But there is another, quite separate issue, which has little to do with election reform, but has a great deal to do with the strategies that Democrats need to adopt to win elections, which is to try to make some kind of estimate as to whether Kerry won the votes of a majority of Americans - whether, in other words, he won the political arguments (if you can call them that). The fact that it has to be an estimate, made from secondary data, is an election reform issue. The estimate itself is germane to the political issue, and my estimate, as I said, from that secondary data is that it is extremely improbable that more voters cast votes for Kerry than for Bush.

People on this forum have been happy to use that secondary data to infer that Kerry won the popular vote - or at least to claim that that it is indicative that he did. My point is that I consider that on close inspection, that the secondary data strongly suggests that he did not.

I think this inference has no bearing on the need for election reform, but it has an important bearing on political strategy, not only for Democrats, but for election reformers, which was your original point. The frame should be, not whether Kerry won (which is vulnerable to demonstrations, such as mine, that he probably did not), but the fact that there is no access to the primary data from which we can tell whether he won.

[eridani]

39. Was there any exit polling estimating how many people were prevented--

--from voting? That certainly has a bearing on who won the argument, I'd think.

[Febble]

40. No, and that is an excellent point

and one of the reasons that exit polls are irrelevant to a huge chunk of the election reform argument, i.e. the voter suppression part, for which we have excellent evidence.

The only sense in which voter suppression would show up in the exit polls would be via uncounted provisional votes. People prevented getting to the polls at all won't show up in the exit polls.

And so I take your point: my estimate doesn't include suppressed voters. So in that sense, if there were millions of suppressed Kerry voters, then Kerry might have "won the argument". All the more reason to campaign against voter suppression! But that of course isn't new.

Memo to Democrats: convince people to vote for the Democratic candidate: fight for the right of everyone to vote.

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. even paper ballots would be irrelevant in that part of the argument

This almost seems too obvious to say, but not only does most voter suppression not show up in the exit polls, but it doesn't show up in the ballots, either. (As you said, the big exception is uncounted provisional ballots.) So while eridani is making a good point, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the earlier point about primary vote data vs. secondary exit poll data.

[eridani]

42. I'd add another

We don't have infinite resources, so we have to target states that are at highest risk for fraud. By sheerest coincidence, these states also tend to have the highest incidence of vote suppression.

[Vidar]

36. Good article. Welcome to DU.