EXIT. POLL. DEVIATIONS. ALL. FAVORED. BUSH. IN. NON-PAPER. BALLOT. STATES

No offense, but it is more a hindrance than a help to write like that (and in all caps).

BTW, I respect you as a poster. So seriously, no offense.

In short, what distinguishes these states from one another other than the fact that for one set the exit polls are in accord with the vote totals and for the other set they're not?

You claim one is a set of paper-ballot states, and the othere is not.

Well, what is it that makes a paper-ballot state a paper-ballot
state? Is it the majority use of paper ballots? Is it a paper trail?

Or is it that that's how you want the graphs to look, and you're calling the states "paper-ballot" or not based on wishful thinking?

I've asked this question numerous times. Others have asked, too.

Are you avoiding the issue?

paper that can be recounted.

A non-paper ballot state has BBV with no paper-ballot, such as Florida - or a state which does not count all the votes or has ballot spoilage, such as Ohio (see Greg Palast: 330,000 provisional ballots still not counted, mostly black).

Now, there are some states which have BBV precincts - not 100%, but enough BBV precincts to pad the vote (FL).

In the case of Ohio, I suggest you read the Greg Palast piece. Over 300,000 punched card and paper ballots are NOT being counted - mostly in black areas.

True, there may be some slight inconsistencies in my definition, but essentially the answer is this: Where votes could be audited, the Exit Polls were right on the money. Where they could NOT be audited (for whatever reason), Bush got an extra 5-6%.

Just look at FL and OH. And look at the changes in the other states.

Focus on the stolen election. Don't build a strawman to divert from the main issue: a rotten election rife with fraud.

I hope that satifies you.

BTW, progresivejazz, haven't we met before - like after the 2002 senate theft?

Maybe more, but that one jumps out at me. The votes can be audited.

Why did you put it in the wrong category?

This question is important, because we have met before, after the 2002 senate theft just as you recall. And I recall you had several things wrong there due to wishful thinking. (Just my opinion it was due to wishful thinking, but certainly several things wrong--e.g., calling a Governor's race in Georgia a Senate race).

Spreading around a faulty analysis will only serve to taint a good analysis done later in the eyes of the press and public--sort of like crying "wolf". Please correct your analysis if you want it spread around.

If that is your only criticism, it is a strawman argument.

If you believe there was no fraud, we have nothing more to talk about.

tia

I STRONGLY SUSPECT there was fraud.

I THINK a solid analysis will show it.

I KNOW your analysis is flawed, because you've put NH in the wrong category.

I SUSPECT your real criterion for categorization is wishful thinking. (Evidence: New Hampshire and Bev Harris' response on another thread.)

I FEAR your flawed analysis will be spread around as our position, labelling any later good analysis as also coming from us "tinfoil hatters".

I HOPE the statistician whose wife has asked DU for data can come up with an analysis soon. I'm PRETTY SURE it will be a good one.


One more thing. On another thread you say I only seem to show up after an election and argue for its legitimacy (paraphrasing). WRONG! I'm around here pretty much all the time, though I don't post much. Those who are aware of my posts know the bulk of them are an appeal for critical thinking and against believing something is true because we want it to be true. Most of them have nothing to do with elections or even politics, directly. But they DO have to do with credibility.

AN ANALYSIS SUCH AS YOU TRIED MUST HAVE CREDIBILITY. YOURS DOESN'T.

Why don't you do your own analysis?

AN ANALYSIS SUCH AS YOU TRIED MUST HAVE CREDIBILITY. YOURS DOESN'T.

It's easy to sit in your chair and criticize the work of others.

I'm around here pretty much all the time,

Easily said, difficult to prove.

I FEAR your flawed analysis will be spread around as our position, labelling any later good analysis as also coming from us "tinfoil hatters".

Not calling you a freeper, but this statement is ridiculous.

I SUSPECT your real criterion for categorization is wishful thinking.

If you suspect, wishful thinking, then take the time and do the research to prove your theory.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Only re:puke:'s believe that if you say something enough, eventually it becomes truth.

I look forward to your most truthful analysis.
Or your absence.

1. Why don't you do your own analysis?
I can't come up with a good criterion for putting states into the two categories. That's why I keep asking TIA for his. He gave one, but it doesn't fit with at least NH, which I would put into the "paper trail" column (as would many others--read the posts on his many threads to see this). Bev Harris tells us there are only two states that are all paper, and I believe her. Putting any other state into one category or another under these circumstances seems arbitrary to me, and arbitrary doesn't cut it when your trying to prove something very important.

2. It's easy to sit in your chair and criticize the work of others.
And it's easy to recognize a flawed analysis. Do you understand the concept of burden of proof?

3. I'm around here pretty much all the time. Easily said, difficult to prove.
Check out the threads in the meeting room (except for the last few weeks). You'll find I'm a regular poster who takes a skeptical view of Astrology, UFOlogy, etc., and is very pro-science. Some of my fellow skeptics there are Arwalden, Rabrrrr, and Enki123. I guess you could PM one of them and ask if I'm around pretty much all the time. I am.

4. I FEAR your flawed analysis will be spread around as our position, labelling any later good analysis as also coming from us "tinfoil hatters". Not calling you a freeper, but this statement is ridiculous.
Suppose we spread this around and I'm right that it's bullshit. If it gets to the press, they'll see it as bullshit right away and point that out. Now suppose somebody comes out with an analysis that isn't bullshit later. Won't they question the credibility of the good analysis because it also comes from the left, where a proven bullshit analysis also originated? Of course they would. Once we lose our credibility on an issue, it's almost impossible to get it back.

5. If you suspect, wishful thinking, then take the time and do the research to prove your theory. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
Oh, I can't prove it's wishful thinking. Never said I could. Assuming TIA is honestly trying to get to the truth on this, it's just the most likely probability. And I'm not asking anybody to believe anything just because I say it. Ask yourself--why is NH in the category it's in? Why are so many states in the "paper ballot" category when there are only two that are all paper? Look at these questions yourself and come to your own conclusion. I've made mine, that it's wishful thinking.

6. Only re:puke:'s believe that if you say something enough, eventually it becomes truth.
True, but it's human nature to want to believe something so much that we overlook flaws that others will see. The solution is something called critical thinking, which is hard to come by.

7. I look forward to your most truthful analysis. Or your absence.
I've explained why I can't do my analysis of this issue. If you don't like it, too bad. I've explained why I don't have to do my own analysis in order to discredit the one done (do yourself a favor, google "burden of proof"). You're not going to chase me off this board. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a freeper. And I'm not a wuss. What I am is a Wellstone liberal. And a critical thinker.

Fuck anybody that says otherwise.

:hi: