FOR PETE'S SAKE STOP THE DEBATE BETWEEN O'DELL AND USCV!

[helderheid]

Please.
Stop.
Now.

[Melissa G]

1. what are you suggesting? n/t

[autorank]

2. Tedious, isn't it. Love your post!!!

I do have something encouraging to offer before I go off to lala land.

If you look at the list of posters on that "Time for change" thread, they're almost all the same "academic debating" society. Lots of self-congratulatory stuff but fewer and fewer DU takers, except to leave an occasional pot shot.

Thank you for posting this:hi:

N.B. autorank and tommcintyre appear on that thread as "guest commentators" and not as an endorsement of the silliness therein (as you can tell from the posts).

[Helga Scow Stern]

3. It inspired me to visit Mystery Pollster,

just to confirm that he seems even more "fair and balanced" than before. He has weighed in on the Huffington Blog debate--dissed Lampley, given props to his detractor as "having kept up with the true debate," impuned DU, and all in all shown his true colors (or employer) once again. And he hides it all behind some pretense of being correct on some esoteric, distracting statistical arguments,

As if to seduce people who want to appear intelligent and nuanced and cool (they read Mystery Pollster!)by serving them a platter of shit and saying, "Oh no, scientifically, this is not feces! Don't be ridiculous. This is not shit! It could be, but it's clearly not because of this obscure equation! People at DU are vehement that it smells like shit, attracts flies like shit, tastes like shit, but we know how partisan they are in their vehemence against not being fed shit!"

"Intelligent people know it is not shit and will eat it, despite what those crazy, rabid people say at DU!"

His main responders now seem to be out and out freepers, so his site is certainly serving its purpose well. It's all stinking to high heaven. I'll bet even God is holding her nose by now.

[helderheid]

4. LMAO

Well, I say those who post on this post are the coolest DUer's EVAH.

;)

[bleever]

6. Somebody call me?

;)

The Titanic is going down and some people want to argue that it's not possible because icebergs are large chunks of fresh-water ice in a salt-water ocean, which clearly raises red flags about whether or not there actually are such things as icebergs, and...glug...glug...glug...

Thanks, helderheid.

:hi:

[helderheid]

18. welcome!

Glad you're here!

[Amaryllis]

26. Did you see this from Land Shark on election reform laws:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=375300&mesg_id=376031&page=

... use existing laws; some new laws would be fine, but not if they are
just re-arranging the old deck chairs on the DRE Titanic. Need to actually think about election integrity, not just amend the regime to make it less harmful (assuming that even succeeds)


This Titanic analogy is a good one.

[helderheid]

19. self loathing

kick because I actually posted in that thread. Pre-coffee mistake but man, I'm sorry y'all. My coolness rank was just knocked down a notch.

[autorank]

5. I wonder if Mystery Pollster ever comes here? (rhetorical, haha)

:freak:

[Helga Scow Stern]

20. If he does, I am sure he can't bear to read the posts,

because even though he calls himself a Democrat, he talks, walks, smells just like a fascist apologist.

I think reading posts at DU for these propagandists, for any purpose except to garner a few quotes to spew all out of context for their websites, is like sunlight to a vampire. They go screeching off into the night as if their heads might explode....

If they truly read DU in any role other than as psy-ops, they would be independent thinkers. They would be capable of true reason and debate. That does not compute with supporting the lies of the Cheney-Bush regime.

You can always tell a truly independent thinker by their grasp of and reporting of the facts. All MP does is take whatever arguments there are against his propaganda objective and find esoteric polling knowledge to crush them....it is so arcane that 99.9 percent of people have no idea what he is talking about. That doesn't matter--he is Mystery Pollster and he is a Democrat! He was well-placed in his website, he has become a celebrity, although I think by now the facade is starting to wear thin.

The flies are buzzing. Even Rove can't cover up the stench of shit forever.

[autorank]

22. Ojai Person, That's one of the best posts I've read on DU, period!

Thank you, I agree with everything. I had a funny image when you caid "as if their heads might explode...." -- remember the film "Scanners" - what a sight. (Tag: "There are 4 billion people on earth. 237 are Scanners. They have the most terrifying powers ever created... and they are winning.")

Great website. I wish I could have seen the play.

[Helga Scow Stern]

29. Gee thanks!

:blush:

Watching these psy-op guys since last November is finally beginning to make a few things clear.

As to your other comment,

The play "Sandstorm" was great. It most of all reminded me of how we are going to have a huge swell of wounded individuals on our hands, a real crisis--and I am not even talking about the physical wounds, loosing a foot or leg or an eye or sustaining brain damage....that's a whole other level of trauma. The stories of what these soldiers have been through have to be heard, then maybe some healing can begin for our country. Once we stop the killing, that is.

[helderheid]

24. thanks for the PM

:)

[Peace Patriot]

7. Yup. They've got us arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin...

...and won't let us look in the telescope! (--on pain of eternal damnation!)

[bleever]

8. Beautiful! The perfect analogy.

Thanks, Peace Patriot.

[Peace Patriot]

9. You're welcome! I didn't have a Catholic school education for nothing!

(They taught me to recognize and reject psyops before it embeds itself in brain tissue.)(--a Baptism by fire.)

[Amaryllis]

27. Catholic school! Me too.12 years.

[autorank]

10. It was at this moment, this stupid debate started. You'll enjoy this.

Trust me

DU's Long Thread Nightmare Started Right Here

Watch for the series, "Debating Election Fraud to Death" starting on Faux Entertainment this summer.

[autorank]

11. Breaking news: TIA offered a model to test the "reluctant Bush responder"

or " rBr hypothesis" -- This is what "the researchers" (febble, OTOH O'Dell, etc.) are here to promote. He also offered free computer time on his HAL2000 (seriously, he did offer computational resources).

Guess what, only one showed up and then withdrew from the contest over the real issue.

I'm sure user, Time for change, will show here and apologize for them but :wtf: ... I thought they wanted to further election fraud research.

If the "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis falls, Mitofsky and the National Election Polls practically PROVE ELECTION FRAUD.

(Of course, whatever the proof offered, I'll make a serious bet that the so called Carter-Baker Commission dismisses satistical analysis out of hand. It's a stacked deck there unless Carter grows a spine.)

Maybe they'll come tomorrow.

This is quite a good post by TIA, BTW, text intensive!

TIA Written analysis and offer to test rBr

helderheid, Great Post!

[helderheid]

12. Thank God for TIA

and thank God for all y'all!

[kster]

13. kick.nt

[TruthIsAll]

61. Its June 20...and still no response to my call to stress test the model

and come up with a plausible explanation for rBr.

[Melissa G]

14. It makes me glad I never became an academic.....

It gives new meaning to the phrase 'that's academic'...and not a flattering meaning...

[helderheid]

15. LOL

Yes,you said that well. :)

[Melissa G]

16. LOL!!! Exactly Helderheid! That's the problem..

These new guys don't seem to know how to ROTFLTAO. Way too dry up there in the ivory towers. I think I might have to go post something to this effect. Maybe we should invite them to join the KOEB!:evilgrin: Thanks for the insight!

[autorank]

17. Uh, Melissa G, it's not just "guys" ... ya know (haha). See the link on

my post 11 here. I'm so proud of it, nice pic, amusing copy, a new catch phrase for the "visitors."

[Amaryllis]

28. PhD Piled higher and deeper

[meganmonkey]

21. It's a bit of a distraction, isn't it?

:P

As someone who knows very little about the math, I have to admit the drama is kinda entertaining (I'm a little twisted that way), but not very productive. It kinda mucks up the forum.

Although, I guess the best way to know your subject is to have to defend it, so if it can help with fine-tuning the details it's not all bad.

[helderheid]

23. I MEAN IT!

STOP IT!

[helderheid]

25. Oh for pete's sake!!!!

:banghead:

[anaxarchos]

30. I don't get much of a chance to post here these days, BUT...

...a few weeks ago, I thought TIA had it nailed down solid. He related the exit poll demographics (and lots of supporting evidence) back to the political science of the elections. The question was "Where did Bush's majority come from?". I won't repeat but the analysis considered each element of the electorate in turn and showed how it was not possible to achieve the Bush numbers. Simple as it was, it was pure science: "if you claim 'cold fusion', reconstruct it for us please"...

The current debate over rBr and WPE is a HUGE step backwards from that.

I'm not implying intent - just stating a fact.

[helderheid]

31. I agree

And now they are trying to distract him with proving whatever statement he made God knows when. All this popped up right around when he was exposing the fact that the numbers for Bush were impossible.

[tommcintyre]

32. You're absolutely right.

It IS "is a HUGE step backwards...".

Several weeks back, I made a post that pointed out: "there is no there, there".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x363706#363731

LOL! I went back to find a very apt reply that was made to this; and, lo and behold! - it was you! ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x363383#363869
"The reason something as thin as BRH exists at all, with very little supporting evidence, is entirely political. Since the alternative (fraud) is so "inconceivable", we begin our trip out onto ever thinning ice. T'aint science at all."

So, we have gone full-circle, haven't we? We are right back where we started (regarding rBr).

There is no there, there.

[anaxarchos]

51. Hi Tom...

Sorry, I missed your post on the first pass. It is full circle, isn't it? rBr and "the exit polls were never designed...", etc., etc. seem to be the two poles of a recurring nightmare...

The funny thing is that the debate here probably has evolved into more of a dependence on the survey questions (the composition of who voted) and the state polls - something I don't even hear the "nays" disputing.

Makes you wonder...

[tommcintyre]

33. Why some of us are fighting this:

helderheid, you are ABSOLUTELY right (as usual ;) ); this totally stupid "debate" should stop (see my post #32 here to see how I feel about all this).

However, even tho there is no real substance to this rBr, it has been (and continues to be) clearly used to suppress the election fraud information - i.e. to keep the information from the people.

Here's some info from another post that helps explain my reasoning on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x374482#375542

"How your <Febble's> paper is most likely being used to suppress USCV's exit poll discrepancy evidence, and how it is being used to keep the US public from knowing about the possibility the election was stolen:

1- The Carter/Baker Election Reform Commission had it's first hearing (April 19th). There was NO mention (or testifying panelist) on the exit poll discrepancy evidence (which indicates that there may have been significant fraud - enough to have cheated Kerry out of the presidency).

2- The day after the hearing, Robert Pastor (the director of the commission was interviewed on C-Span. There was a portion of the interview where he took caller's questions. When a caller asked him why Steve Freeman (and the USCV evidence) was NOT included in the hearing to present the exit poll discrepancy evidence, Pastor quickly dismissed the caller by saying that the evidence had been discredited. (This is mainly what caused the thousands of angry emails that Pastor explained he received, when he called BradBlog to complain he was being harassed by these emails.)

3- Meanwhile, USCV had come out with an even stronger paper, indicating the possibility of election fraud.

4- Shortly thereafter. Elizabeth Liddle - a psychology PhD candidate(known as "Febble" here on DU), came out with her own paper which was used by Warren Mitofsky (the head of the group that did the exit polls) at a statistical conference in mid-May. Mitofsky used the paper to further support (prove) that the exit poll evidence did NOT point to election fraud.

Conclusion: Since the original claim that Mitofsky made that there was no significant election fraud (with no supporting evidence, when he released his original report on January 19th) was primarily used to justify NOT including the USCV (Freeman) exit poll discrepancy evidence; it is reasonable to assume that Febble's paper will be further used to block the exit poll discrepancy evidence from being presented at the upcoming hearing on June 30th (the last one).

Of course, we shouldn't be expecting anyone to come out from the C/B Commission and admit to this, should we? ;) "
--------------------
So, there you go. Unfortunately, some of us (with either statistical or manipulation-recognizing skill-sets) must continue to refute their "attempts", since new people come here and read their "misleading" posts.

But please do keep this post kicked up there. It can only help us to expose (shame?) them.

Take care,

Tom

[helderheid]

34. it's always so refreshing...

when someone acknowledges that I'm right as usual...

;) hehehe


Thanks for all you're doing!

[autorank]

35. Thank you tommcintyre, This frames the issues clearly, no escaping

the accuracy of your interpretation.

This post doesn't expand the debate, it gives the reasons for it to stop or, better yet, for it never to have taken place, here, now, or at any time.

:yourock:tommcintyre

N.B. I realize that Elections is a high brow forum but I spent too much time in The Lounge not to use these Smilies and pics now and then.

[helderheid]

36. you rock too

As you must know. :)

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. wait, are we ending the exit poll debate, or continuing it?

Please choose one.

The fact is that most public opinion researchers don't take the exit poll "debate" very seriously, because they have too much experience with polls being wrong. Perhaps they don't take the exit polls seriously enough. But Febble's work hasn't transformed the debate. So, if that is why you are fighting, then I guess we can stop.

[anaxarchos]

42. Proof by assertion...

1) "The fact is that most public opinion researchers don't take the exit poll "debate" very seriously, because they have too much experience with polls being wrong."

2) "Everyone knows that the U.S. is a beacon of human rights and that any comparison to gulags is ridiculous."

3) "It is silly to worry about the Patriot Act. The best insurance against abuse is this Congress."


G.W. Hegel once observed that that which is "commonly known' isn't known at all, simply for want of having to be proven.


Snotta a fact that you are asserting...

Tain't even snot...

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. well, as long as the thread got kicked...

It's true that AFAIK no one has done a survey of public opinion researchers on this subject (and who trusts polls, anyw-- oh, sorry, touchy subject). If you are curious, I am happy to marshal my evidence, which I admit is circumstantial. Argument by analogy to torture apologists doesn't work for me, but if it pleases you, whatever.

After 2000, I read several research articles by political scientists and public opinion researchers explaining why they thought Gore had won Florida. I've read many articles by people who believe Kerry won Florida, Ohio, the popular vote, etc., but very few by public opinion researchers and political scientists. (By the way, I'm not saying that these articles are no good because of who wrote them; my claim was about what certain people believe, not about what actually happened.)

The American Association for Public Opinion Research has something like 1600 members. How many of them have signed any USCV report? (1, I think.) How many have posted to AAPORNET in a way that implies that they think decisive fraud in 2004 was likely? (I would say perhaps 4.) How many presented work at the AAPOR conference arguing the case for fraud? (That may have been 0, but I'm not sure.)

Mitofsky made his presentation at AAPOR. Was he booed off the stage? not exactly. Was he hammered with questions by folks who thought Kerry had probably won the election? apparently not. (I know Ron Baiman had a good tough question for him, but Ron isn't an AAPOR member.) Mitofsky was just one presenter at a plenary session; the speakers made different points, but none advocated for fraud. Did many conference attendees construe the panel as a cover-up? I've seen no sign of it.

If I'm missing something, I would like to know what it is. I'm sure there are more than 4 public opinion researchers out there who believe that the 2004 exit polls might prove fraud, but I think my "most" was pretty safe.

[autorank]

45. Warning....

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. is that your way of asking me to go away? why don't you? n/t

[anaxarchos]

47. Wasn't suggesting an analogy... just sophistry.

The three statements are similar…

The logic rests not on the presentation of evidence or the consideration of merits but on "common knowledge" instead. Moreover, that common knowledge is not direct but indirect AND unavailable to the unwashed: "most experts agree"... No attempt to prove the point. Instead, there is an assertion that no proof is necessary other than the lack of action of those who would act if it were otherwise.

Would they? Where then is the report of the working group on the exit poll debate? Where is the resolution supported by an overwhelming number of AAPOR members dismissing fraud as a possible basis for deviations in the 2004 exit polls? Where are the scientific papers rising to the defense of the legitimacy of the President of the United States?

For that matter, when was the last time that ANYONE was “booed off the stage” at AAPOR? How many credible scientific papers were produced within 7 months of the 2000 elections? How many of those were produced by AAPOR members?

The argument is equally silly either way. Inaction only proves itself. You admit as much when you start with: “It's true that AFAIK no one has done a survey of public opinion researchers on this subject.” At this point, all you have left is a subjective impression and that is made suspect by the predisposition you wear on your sleeve.

There is no argument here… only a mild depression.

[autorank]

48. Correct for $800 - Sloppy Solipsistic Sophistry -

"Tripple S" as I call it. Great points. I can say no more for fear that it will encourage a response from the "Tripple S" crew!

Glad you showing up here more and more (or maybe you've been here longer than I...who cares...you're rokken)

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. dude, I don't care if you are convinced or not!

I still can't tell what is the basis of your objection to the original claim, either in fact or in purpose. You haven't lifted a finger to refute it; you're just challenging my evidence for it. Fine, that's your privilege. But if we want to convince public opinion researchers that the election was stolen, quibbling about what proportion currently believe that the election was stolen (or even worry about the possibility that the election was stolen) will not get us very far. So, do you have a point, or are you trying to score a point? This is what I would like to know.

No one with any sense could dismiss fraud as a possible basis for deviations in the 2004 exit polls. That formulation makes me wonder whether you have me confused with someone else.

The closest thing to a "working group" report is Traugott, Highton and Brady's SSRC report. The report notes allegations of fraud without entering into their merits, but it opens with the assertions that "the early exit poll data were incorrect" and that "even the final data had a Kerry bias." It's not that they rule out fraud, it's more that they don't treat the arguments as rising to the level of requiring refutation. (If you think that characterization is unfair, supply your own.) If you believe that approach is uncharacteristic of public opinion analysts in general, then I welcome your evidence.

Or maybe you can clarify why you took umbrage, or whatever, at the statement to begin with, and we can thus figure out what we actually should be talking about.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. correction to my snarky subject header

Actually, I do care whether you are convinced or not -- because I still don't know what we are actually arguing about.

What I meant was that I don't think I have committed a heinous intellectual offense by asserting without proof something which you may or may not deny or doubt (you haven't said yet). Every day on DU I read dozens of unsupported statements that I doubt. A fraction of those do strike me as sufficiently troublesome to warrant a response. Lots of them could well be true; lots of them don't seem worth arguing about.

[anaxarchos]

59. A fair question...

Fair Question (restated as):

"People on DU say unsupported things all the time. I say one lousy thing and what I say gets treated to a formal dissection as if it were a frog in formaldehyde. And, I don't even know what pissed you off. What gives?

Answer:

Exit Polls matter here. For some they are "evidence of fraud". For others, they are a source of election data. For still others, the exit polls provide supporting evidence to other analysis. I've seen far too many posters here who have no background on this issue at all, many of whom even "hate numbers", yet as "citizens of the republic" have devoted countless hours to trying to understand the polls (the AAPOR ought to be exceedingly pleased). Many such have made very genuine contributions.

I thought your posting was dismissive.

Much more importantly, by invoking your own resume and virtually the entire body of "public opinion researchers", you moved from commentary to "expert testimony". That raises the standard of the debate beyond that of normal "talk" (which I don't mind at all and which is mostly self correcting).

<Formality On>

I objected on three grounds:

1) It is not fair to give the sense of a body that has avoided giving a sense of itself - in fact, may not even see the need to do so. It is even less fair to interpret that inaction in such a specific way. If you were just giving a subjective impression, no problem. But, you were giving "expert testimony" ("It is a fact that...", etc.). We've been through this already.

2) It is not fair to give the sense of a body (particularly a professional or academic body) without trying to supply a context for that body - how it sees its charter, what it views as important, what it's history is, etc. Most people here don't know much about what drives the opinion of either "most public opinion researchers" or AAPOR. They don't know, for example, that there is a certain historical tension between academics and commercial exit pollsters. You actually make back-handed reference to some of this in your posts ("Perhaps they don't take the exit polls seriously enough..." or on the SSRC report: "it's more that they don't treat the arguments as rising to the level of requiring refutation". - Oh really. Why? The SSRC is too busy curing cancer? Global warming was first on the agenda? You give good testimony on why these bodies may view themselves too narrowly to be of much help either way). Thus the meaning of what such a body "thinks", even if it were accurate, is not clear.

3) Therefore, you can not use either "most public opinion researchers" or AAPOR to lend expert support to your position.

<Formality Off>

Take a step back and see how you interpret what you posted. Remember, too, the context of the original thread. In your subsequent posts, it is no longer clear whether "most public opinion researchers" are the subject or the object of your initial comments, i.e., whether you were depressing the thread, depressing yourself or both. I'm not sure whether you have shifted or simply clarified. If it's the latter, OK... I accept that.

Finally, you asked what I think:

1) I have no opinion concerning the AAPOR. It is not on the "top 100" list of organizations I would try to "convince". I do not expect that body to organize itself into a scientific court of inquiry on the exit polls nor would I expect such an inquiry to yield much beyond technical confirmation or denial of specific details. Sooner or later, such an inquiry, to be broader, would have to reach outside social science into politics. This body would then have to decide what is "likely", "plausible", or "conceivable" in an area in which it has no more claim than anyone else ("Only the People can claim expertise on the body politic").

2) I am not invested in the USCV debate (thus I posted to this thread). I thought the May working paper was a stretch. I thought everything after, both pro and con was a disaster.

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. thank you for setting out those points so carefully

I am sorry that my post was interpreted as claiming expert support for my position on the exit polls. Actually, I do not especially intend to argue my position on the exit polls, and certainly wasn't trying to do so there. It does not trouble me if people disagree with my present beliefs about the exit polls, and I welcome the opportunity to seek further light together, or to coexist in amicable disagreement. It does trouble me if people regard my colleagues as mercenaries, or shills, or traitors, or crypto-Republicans, etc. But neither was that the point of that particular post. My point was that for whatever reason(s), the evidence that some people here regard as conclusive is not so regarded by a large number of public opinion analysts. It seems to me that regardless of one's own views, that point could be at least tactically pertinent.

The recent events within USCV have been extraordinarily frustrating and, I believe, painful for everyone involved. I continue to hope that we will soon find better ways to move forward.

[autorank]

37. My response to username "Bruce Odell"s announcement.of a big msg.

...on the thread we're talking about. I thought I'd post it here so you don't have to visit it. I won't even put a link down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Please take is SOMEWHERE ELSE. We've had enough.
Posted by, me, autorank

I don't know how to say it any more succinctly. Enough, just stop it. This is internal stuff, just call it a day, walk away, have your fights somewhere else. Since the start of May, there has been nothing here but elaborate, detailed philosophic debate augmented by some of the nastiest swarming attacks by the less polite of our detractors (all aimed at TIA, btw) that I've seen on any forum. I'm not saying you're folks brought the the nastiness but the atmosphere was certainly created for conflict. This is relay too much. Please stop. Get your own server and board if you want to fight with each other.

And visit this thread. It will let you know how people feel about the internal debates of USCV, all aired in public and fought out here. It's simply not fair.

A thread you should visit on DU elections. This is the exact title:

FOR PETE'S SAKE STOP THE DEBATE BETWEEN O'DELL AND USCV!

And while you're at it, why not...

Contact the DNC and Give 'em Hell About NOT Acting on Election Fraud

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

--------------------------
PS. Just think of us DUers (tommcintyre, TIA, LighteningFlash, etc) who go to "the" thread (and encourage productivity) as though we were those Russian nuclear technicians who went in and fixed Chernobyl, that's why some of us actually glow in the dark. Very safe for cycling but a little conspicuous in a theater.

[helderheid]

38. thank you!!

[autorank]

40. thank you!! this thread is a repository and haven for sanity!!!

[helderheid]

41. Let's keep it that way.

Focus!! :)We need to continue to explore TIA's numbers and the magically appearing * voters.

[autorank]

43. KICK

:kick:

[kster]

49. KICK.NT

[autorank]

50. kster KICK

:kick:

[Nederland]

54. Yes

Yes, let's stop the debate. In fact, let's stop all the debate. We wouldn't want to have any debating going on here... :eyes:

[helderheid]

55. heheheh

Cute.:)

No, I understand what you mean and you're right, debate is important and needed - I just worry when a debate turns into a distraction leaving gaps for work that still needs attention. That was my point.

[kster]

56. kick.nt

[autorank]

57. Please stop now! Or five minutes from now but real soon. "Nice" to do so

[kster]

58. kick.nt