Obama hurting his case in November?

[Bonn1997]

If he's the nominee (and I think he will be) and if the election is stolen, I think he's screwing himself by not challenging these fishy primary results where the machine counted results differ from all other vote totals (pre-polls, exit polls, caucuses). If the same happens in November, the Republican can just say "this happened in the primaries and you didn't question it then." Your thoughts?

[nacdemocrat18]

1. Well....

The Republicans have stolen two in a row...but Karl Rove was involved. He doesn't seem to be this time, but the Rev. Wright stuff stinks of him. Obama better watch out.

[Bonn1997]

11. I don't think Karl Rove matters here

He's not involved now but nevertheless the machine counts differ from all other sources in both parties primaries--and EVERY time the discrepancy favors the most electable Republican (McCain) and the least electable Democrat (Clinton).

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. that simply isn't true

For instance, in Wisconsin, the pollster.com pre-election average put Obama up by 7 (a better guesstimate might've been 11), but he won by 17.

Could you please spend some time establishing facts before you draw your inferences?

[Bonn1997]

16. OK, well over 90% of the time, not every time.

That make you happier? I didn't think anyone would need a precise percentage to notice the obvious trend that the discrepancies between machine and all other counts indicate a large (but imperfect) bias toward the most electable Repub and least electable Dem.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. it doesn't make me happier if you're making it up, no

Once again I invite you to document your purported facts. Some people around here may give high marks for apparent earnestness, but I do not.

[Bonn1997]

19. Actuallly...

What were the exit poll results in that election? I've NEVER advocated looking at pre-polling without looking for corroborating evidence from exit polling.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. excuse me...

nevertheless the machine counts differ from all other sources in both parties primaries--and EVERY time the discrepancy favors the most electable Republican (McCain) and the least electable Democrat (Clinton).

(emphasis added)

You can spin about what you have "advocated," but what you claimed speaks for itself. You can correct it, or not.

Actually, the first WI exit poll table showed Obama up by 12, so that won't really help you either. You say that you teach quant, so I assume that you realize how far you are from substantiating your claims.

Of course it's true that other exit polls have substantially overstated Obama's vote shares. The trouble is that the potentially corroborating evidence tends not to corroborate the exit polls. This is perhaps clearer if we go back to 2004:

* Exit poll red shift wasn't substantially correlated with deviations from pre-election polls. (That appears to be true now, too, although it is hard to tell because we don't have exit poll measures independent of pre-election expectations.)

* Red shift wasn't substantially correlated with deviations from past Bush performance.

* Red shift wasn't substantially correlated with e-voting (which drove Freeman to make a very dubious "inference" about hand-counts vis-a-vis every other voting method).

* In New Hampshire, which had one of the largest exit poll discrepancies, an extensive partial recount found no significant deviations from the original results.

In short, there is a reason why most survey researchers, political scientists, knowledgeable observers, etc. haven't accepted the exit poll fraud argument -- in fact, there are several reasons.
I don't know why Democratic political leaders would embrace the argument.

Therefore, in my view, people who value election integrity should either start coming up with much better arguments about 2004, or they should focus on the inherent vulnerabilities of the machines, where the opinion of knowledgeable observers is much more on their side. Given a choice between hopeless arguments and winnable arguments, when people persist in choosing the hopeless arguments... well.

[Bonn1997]

21. Again

I never said to look at only one source (e.g., pre-polls) and you still can't find a quote where I said to look at only one source. The exit poll is pretty close to Obama's count and in none of the polls was the ultimate winner different. I'm not sure what you think you're proving with this one case. I'm not sure why you're obsessed with this one state either. If you know anything about stats (which I doubt since you do not know what "reliability" means), then you know not to rely too much on a sample size of one.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. again

Conceivably you yourself don't notice that you are moving the goalposts here. Of course you never "said to look at only one source." You said that every source supported you in every instance. That is untrue. You will correct the record, or not.

I'm not "obsessed with this one state." I've looked at all the states, and I know your assertion is untrue, even with the ad hoc improvisation of "90%." I'm beginning to wonder how long you can go without wondering (caring?) whether your assertions are true. I also think it's telling that you had to ignore most of my post in order to pretend that it was all about Wisconsin.

Your claim that I don't know what "reliability" means also stands refuted, since you had no response to my last post on that subject. But it would be more useful if you attempted to engage substance.

[Bonn1997]

23. You ARE relying on a sample of 1

The NH recount was several days after the vote when anything could have happened/been done to the ballots. (Even if you include NH, you're relying on only a sample of 2.) As to your other comment, when I realized you preferred to think you knew what reliability was rather than to learn from a professor, I decided it wasn't worth my time to correct you. Don't confuse "getting the last word in" with being "proven correct."

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. again

you are refusing to ignore the total lack of support for your own claims, and the evidence against them; you are reading so carelessly that you apparently don't know what NH recount I was referring to (and of course you are ignoring the rest of the post) ; and you are pretending that your unwillingness to respond to my arguments somehow demonstrates your superiority.

These are not behaviors that I would care to model for my students, and I imagine you feel the same, which is perhaps why you prefer to conceal your identity.

[Bonn1997]

25. Which NH recount are you refering to?

Are you posting so carelessly that you don't even realize this thread is about this year's primaries and you're posting about a different election?

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. did you read post #20?

The reason it is helpful to go back to 2004 is... well, I won't condescend by explaining that.

[Bonn1997]

29. You're right...

Your careless off-topic posting began in reply #2, not 25. My bad.

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. in your dreams...

If the pre-election polls don't support your case, and if exit polls aren't accurate, then what do you think you have left?

No wonder you want some party leader to bail you out. Think about it. Please.

[Bonn1997]

33. huh?

"If the pre-election polls don't support your case, and if exit polls aren't accurate"
Despite many replies, you've come up with zero states that contradict my statement. Your parents would be proud of you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. ok, I'll stop feeding you now n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. ah, but I do plead guilty to careless posting

When I wrote that you were "refusing to ignore" your lack of support for your claims, that was a braino, or perhaps a wishful Freudian slip. (I was running off to class.)

Believe it or not, I actually do wish that you would try to support your claims. I think it contributes much more.

[Bonn1997]

28. You still haven't supported YOUR claims

You still haven't come up with compelling examples where discrepancies between machine and ALL other sources favored anyone but Hillary or McCain.

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. huh?

I can't tell whether you are moving the goalposts again, or what you think this means. You think I bear the burden of proof with respect to your claim?! Cute.

So, you get to make crap up, and I get to give you a counterexample, and you get to claim that I'm "obsessed" with it and it isn't "compelling," and then I post a dozen more counterexamples*, and then... then someone stops by and accuses me of trying to undermine your contribution to election integrity? Do you have an end game here? Because by your own account, you apparently realize that your improvisations aren't winning American hearts and minds.

If you want to do something for the country, do something for the country. If you think that gathering and analyzing poll numbers will do that, do it. If you think that making SWAGs about poll numbers will do that -- well, good luck with that.

* With respect to preelection polls: AL, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, IA, MD, MN, MS, MO, NV, NY, OK, SC, TN, VA are cases you might investigate. If you do that sort of thing. You might also be interested in http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4f7f4146-bce7-43fc-9ca8-ad7bd6f68a86">this, for a bit of insight into primary vs. caucus dynamics.

[Bonn1997]

34. So you can't put a complete sentence together...

"If you do that sort of thing."

Not sure what I've said that would be contradicted by those pre-election polls. It seems more like another attempt on your part to go off topic. There simply is no argument against the claim that by and large machine counting has shown a strong bias favoring the least electable Democrat and the most electable Republican.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. seriously...

what do you think you accomplish by making crap up, failing to substantiate any of it, and flaming me when I point it out?

nevertheless the machine counts differ from all other sources in both parties primaries--and EVERY time the discrepancy favors the most electable Republican (McCain) and the least electable Democrat (Clinton).

Status: False.

There simply is no argument against the claim that by and large machine counting has shown a strong bias favoring the least electable Democrat and the most electable Republican.

Apart from the dearth of supporting evidence and the fact that Obama has, if anything, on average outperformed pre-election polls?

There are somewhat credible allegations that Obama got cheated in a few of the caucus states, and there are the crossover voters. But if you actually think that you are sitting on credible evidence of bias in machine counting, don't you think you owe it to the country to tell us what it is?

Hey, whatever.

[Bonn1997]

37. The evidence has been posted already

in dozens of threads after each primary. Go back to the dates of the major primaries and search. The point of this thread wasn't to evaluate the evidence. That's been done in countless other threads after each primary, and I should not have allowed myself to get sucked into this off-topic discussion here when there are other threads on the topic. Bump one of the old threads or start a new one about your views of the evidence and I'm sure many people will reply. I posted this thread solely out of curiosity about what Obama's options would be in November if or when the election is stolen.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. I've been on this board the entire time

It's, obviously, chickenshit to tell me to reread all those threads until I somehow end up agreeing with you.

OK, I'll go back to the premise of the thread. Obama's options in November if the election is stolen will depend on the evidence available at that time, and will not be foreclosed by his failure to cry wolf in the primaries. At that time (if it comes), we will need people who are willing to distinguish between good evidence, iffy evidence, and lousy evidence. Which camp will you be in?

[pocoloco]

2. Agree!

Just don't use the same 20,000 lawyers kerry used!

[shenmue]

4. You must be counting entire law firms. Or cities.

:eyes:

By accounts, he should have used 20,000 more.

[shenmue]

3. I don't know that they're fishy.

They sound fishy to his supporters because they don't think people could possibly vote for anybody else. It's that smugness that hurts them.

[EFerrari]

5. I don't think we can rely on politicians to police our elections.

That's our job.

[Bonn1997]

6. That's a good point BUT

I'm doubtful that we'll ever be able to reach the masses without the help of politicians.

[EFerrari]

7. There are a number of groups doing a great job right now.

You might want to check them out.

Try VoteTrustUSA and Verified Voting for a start. Also, Velvet Revolution. No need to reinvent the wheel. There are groups that could use your help.

[Bonn1997]

8. Great job in what sense?

Sure, they're reaching the fringes but despite years of hard work, 99% of the public has no knowledge of vote rigging. I question whether that number will ever get lower than the upper 90s without the help of MAJOR figures in the Democratic party. Hard working people in the groups you cited are basically doing the dirty work for Obama, Clinton, Kerry, et al., and I don't see that working. I can't see how these groups will ever reach the masses. I hate to be so negative and pessimistic but that's my view. I really hope I can be proven wrong.

[EFerrari]

9. Our elections don't belong to Kerry, Obama or Clinton, They are ours.

[Bonn1997]

10. I agree but

IMO we simply cannot win this fight without the help of Clinton, Kerry, Obama etc. They (and other big names in the Party) are the only ones who can capture the attention of enough people.

[Melissa G]

13. You're welcome to your opinion, but IMHO you're wrong.

We were pretty much abandoned by the politicians and we still got the word out.

Now many more folks at a minimum think the 2004 election was heisted and we have many states tossing out voting machines into the rubble piles. Many of us have been here working day in and out towards that end. When we started we were tin foil hatters. Now we have secretary of states convinced there is reason to worry. More awareness is better of course, but I'll take help from the presidential candidates after they are elected or at least when we need them to question a race.
There are plenty of issues like the war and the economy that need focus to get elected. As long as they back us later, I'm okay with deferred support.

[troubleinwinter]

15. To be fair, a few politicians have stepped up.

Rep. John Conyers helped bring the issue to public light. Rep. Rush Holt has worked on the issue for years, and now Rep. Dennis Kucinich, SoS Calif. Debra Bowen and SoS Ohio Jennifer Brunner.

To be sure, there are many more politicians fighting against transparency in elections, but I see some headway over the last several years.

[Bonn1997]

17. What % of the public has been reached?

It's been three plus YEARS since the 2004 election. What percentage do you think now realizes that the 2004 election was stolen? Maybe 1%? At that rate we might get to 50% by 2100. I think the only argument you could at least attempt to make is that election reform can be done even if the majority of the public doesn't back it because I don't see how you'll ever reach the majority without big figures stepping up.

[Melissa G]

32. As our ER friend, Fly By Night, often quotes "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

These numbers below are old figures, BEFORE all the traction we have gained. Others around here may have time to dig you up new numbers. I think you should spend some time in the Forum archives.

In January 2005, there was the National Annenberg Election Survey, which sampled 100,000 interviewees, It said that an alarming 30% of American voters were “not confident that their vote had been counted accurately” in 2004 and that was January 2005 when most people I talked to thought I was wearing tinfoil and talked to little green men or something, when I talked about stolen elections. If I bring it up now, people nod in acceptance, even if it is new information for them. It's a very different experience.

http://company.findlaw.com/pr/2004/090704.electronicvoting.html
Many Americans Distrustful of Electronic Voting Machines, Says New FindLaw Survey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EAGAN, Minn., September 7, 2004 -- Call it a "hanging chad" hangover: roughly four in 10 Americans say they are worried about potential problems with electronic voting machines to be used in the November election, according to a new poll by the legal Web site FindLaw® (www.findlaw.com). Forty-two percent of those surveyed are concerned about potential vote tampering in electronic voting machines. Thirty-eight percent say they are worried about the accuracy of the machines.

In 2000, President Bush won Florida's electoral votes by just 537 ballots. The narrow margin set the stage for unprecedented election turmoil, and lawsuits eventually found their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the wake of the 2000 election controversy, many states have enacted legislation to clarify their recount procedures and implement new systems intended to ensure that every vote counts. But these efforts have instead led to further confusion and widening concern over vote tampering and election security.

Roughly one-third of voters nationwide will use touch-screen computer voting machines in the upcoming November election. The machines are controversial because of concerns over testing procedures, security measures to prevent tampering, the accuracy of vote counts, lack of paper trails, the potential for software bugs and vulnerability to computer hackers. Lawsuits have been filed in several states demanding removal or modification of the machines. New electronic voting machines are being installed in several states, including California, Ohio, Maryland, Connecticut and Florida, the site of several major vote tallying controversies in the 2000 Presidential election.

The survey interviewed 1,000 adults nationwide, with results accurate to plus or minus three percent. The FindLaw survey found that concerns about accuracy and vote tampering with electronic voting machines were higher among adults who were younger, those with lower incomes, and minorities. A majority of those with annual incomes of $25,000 or less said they were concerned about possible vote tampering. Fifty percent of non-whites said they were concerned about possible vote tampering.

[troubleinwinter]

14. VoteTrustUSA is a 501(c)(3) organization. Verified Voting Foundation is a 501(c)(3).

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual... it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Velvet Revolution is not a registered 501(c)(3).

The co-founder of Velvet Revolution has produced an attack ad against one of our current Democratic presidential candidates, and VR claims it, hosts it and promotes it.

One might want to determine whether or not to donate to an organization promoting attack ads against a Dem. candidate, or if that is better left to the GOP.