Kevin Drum makes the case against voter fraud

[Bucky]

This came out yesterday, but I didn't see a thread on this topic. The "Political Animal" columnist at Washington Monthly is making a pretty strong case against the election having been stolen. He's linked to a couple of sources showing that Democrats always do better in exit polls than they do in presidential votes. In 1988 exit polls showed Dukakis ahead by 0.6%, but he really lost the race nationally by 7.7%--better than an 8% spread.

In 1992, Clinton got a 7% spread from the exit polls. He exit-polled a 12.8% victory, but only won by 5.6%
In 1996, Clinton got a 6% spread from the exit polls. He exit-polled a 14.7% victory, but only won by 8.5%
In 2000, Al Gore got a 2% spread from the exit polls. He exit-polled a 2.3% victory, but only won by 0.5%

I haven't seen any national numbers--Democrats were mostly talking about gaming on a state-by-state basis (again failing to run as "a full service party" as Wes Clark has critiqued our side for doing). But the state polls I've seen showed Democratic-leans pretty consistant with these numbers.

Now, before some of my fellow DUers fall all over themselves denouncing Kevin Drum as a "whore" for pointing out inconvenient facts, please take this reminder that Drum is one of the best of the good guys and one of the most consistant Bush-nailers among the big players in the blogosphere. He's no sell out.

He is not to be conflated with the usual barking silliness from the New Republic where yet another act-tough hawkish liberal elitist (this one named Norm Schreib) is floating the psychological-projection-based hypothesis that "Liberal guilt to blame for the screwy exit poll data." OK, that guy is a maroon. Drum uses something TNR posers don't recognize--hard facts and dispassionate logic--to make his case.

Are there still questions left about the disparity between exit polls in machine states vs exit polls in scanner states? Sure, and those should be looked into. I can tell you from experience as an election judge myself that introducing new technology into the voting process tends to throw off the voting results from people who have lower formal education levels--and who also happen to vote disproportionately Democratic. This alone may have cost us Iowa, but probably no other state.

The facts being cited at DU and other Democratic sites I'm loyal to about possible vote fraud just are not being vetted thru enough critical filters. Cleaning up the flabby voting system in this country is an important mission for us to take on. Claiming with certainty that the BBVs and exit polls alone prove the election was stolen just makes our side look like a bunch of left wing freeper paranoids.

Let's be reality based, my friends. I promise you that's the side that always wins in the long run.


--Bucky
A Brown Bag Blog

[demgrrrll]

1. Kevin Drum is now a Washington insider who knows who is signing

his paycheck. He has become increasingly irrelevant since he moved from his original blog to his new digs.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Bucky, there are enough glaring questions...

That it behoves us, as citizens, to keep asking them and keep digging.

If that is lacking reality, then I shall enjoy my schizophrenia.

There is enough evidence out there that anyone who views it with a critical eye could easily let loose with a hearty :wtf:

[grasswire]

3. Kevin Drum...

...has always played both sides. I stopped reading him eons ago.

[Straight Shooter]

4. Excuse me, but my reality tells me

that Kevin Drum's argument is baseless.

If he would take a good hard look at all the damage control of the radical fringe of the right wing, he would understand this. First they diss the exit polls (except for the morality values), then they call us conspiracy theorists, the media is hush-hush on evidence which is yelling to be investigated except for the ridiculous Cal Tech report, and now they're trying to eliminate release of exit poll data "too soon."

I think Kevin Drum needs to get off his high horse. The side that always wins, my a**.

[rooboy]

5. Historical comparisons of exit polls don't disprove fraud.

Bev Harris going to a county and finding vote tapes in the garbage is an indication of fraud. Congressional committee chairmen who won't let voter verification bills make it to the floor of the House indicate an intent to commit fraud.

I think I'd rather be "reality based" than make my conclusions based on some guy's blog. Us reality-based people are always the ones who win in the long run.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Kevin Drum ain't nuthin' but shit.

[Bucky]

7. Wow, it's like none of the herd even read what I wrote

Ahem, one more time:

"Are there still questions left about the disparity between exit polls in machine states vs exit polls in scanner states? Sure, and those should be looked into."
and
"Cleaning up the flabby voting system in this country is an important mission for us to take on."

[glitch]

8. Just FYI - Optical Scan tech first used in 1962 election in CA

http://nairobi.mwc.edu/~rdean8it/HIST200R/types.html

By 1996, 25% of all American voters used the optical scan system.
http://www.factmonster.com/spot/campaign2000ballot.html

Exit polls were first used in 1964.
http://slate.msn.com/id/1006435/

[Metrix]

9. Huh?

"I can tell you from experience as an election judge myself that introducing new technology into the voting process tends to throw off the voting results from people who have lower formal education levels--and who also happen to vote disproportionately Democratic. This alone may have cost us Iowa, but probably no other state."

What exactly is this supposed to mean?