Skip to main content

View Diary: Who Called the Wisconsin Recall Election? (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The reason I'm not chaning my post... (0+ / 0-) if I'm wrong in my actions I am willing to accept the consequences, But I'm not going to change my opinion (in print or anywhere else) simply because someone says I'm not allowed to share that opinion.  Not you, not all of DailyKos.  They can delete it or ban me, but I'm not changing what I think, which is what I posted (my thoughts), and my thoughts are based on information I shared.  YOU might not think I've provided enough to support MY OPINION, but I do.  And so do, it seems, the nearly 40 people who shared this post...or the one guy I know of who used it to continue researching.  

    Oh that what bothers you? That someone might agree, share, and continue to pursue that line of thinking?

    Anyway....why not change my mistakes?  Because once my post has been read, unless there small typos, I try to correct myself in the I did when someone questioned my interpretation of the Madison count.  As soon as he (she?) did that, I checked myself, then came back and posted that I was wrong.  I did that here and I did that on my Facebook.  I also called and texted people I spoke to about it so they knew I had erred.  But to change it - as if I never said it - feels too much like dishonesty and secrecy.  I made a mistake - if people see it and want to get on me about it, I am a big girl and can take it.  Thanks for the advice, though.  I'll take it into consideration every time I post my opinion here.  :)

    •  mmmmm (0+ / 0-) thoughts are based on information I shared.  YOU might not think I've provided enough to support MY OPINION, but I do.
      If you really think that your diary provides information that supports your stated opinion, why didn't you (1) say so and (2) point to some?

      (By the way, do you see a gap between "I believe that something is amiss with this election" and "Wake up people, THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE STOLE THE RECALL ELECTION"?)

      Oh that what bothers you? That someone might agree, share, and continue to pursue that line of thinking?
      If the "line of thinking" is that the results might be wrong, and pursuing it leads to interpretable evidence, then I would be delighted. It's kind of sad that I have to explain this.

      If the line of thinking is that the results must be wrong, and that you somehow supported that in your diary, then I think we have a problem. I can't even tell what you think you were demonstrating: that counties around the state were suppressing their vote counts and AP was making numbers up? How would that work?

      But to change it - as if I never said it - feels too much like dishonesty and secrecy.  I made a mistake - if people see it and want to get on me about it, I am a big girl and can take it.
      That's fair. There's an easy way around that, as regards the diary text -- a few ways, really. One is to strike out text you no longer agree with, using the <strike> and </strike> tags. It would look like this: the Devils will win the Stanley Cup. (By the way, I used a backslash before those tags in order to get them to display.) If you don't want to strike out text, you can insert comments in brackets, perhaps referencing a fuller discussion in a diary update.

      It's great that you're engaging substance in comments.

      •  Okay :) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I get what you're saying - or, at least, I think I do: you don't believe that I have supported my opinion.  Or, you disagree with me and would need more to feel I supported my opinion, regardless of whether or not you agree with me.  Am I getting close?

        If it helps to know where or how this post (and my thoughts) came about, all I can really say is that while I was looking for the numbers (county-by-county count that AP and others have provided in the past that are updated as precincts report), all I could find were articles with grand totals that used AP as the source.  So, I started looking into where AP got their information and was surprised and gravely disappointed to find out how AP and the whole election calling thing works...which (from the links I posted) is within an inner-circle of powerful media sources (our major networks).  

        I decided to share my findings and thoughts when my dozens of searches to find the AP results page came up with nothing - and when I also found very little on city and county sites -  and I started to feel as though this inner-circle of powerful media sources have a bit too much involvement in the calling process. And I say this ONLY because people take a reputable news service like AP to be nearly as good as fact.

        That said, I know that calling it does not finalize it - nor do the preliminary numbers that are posted - until the powers that be declare an official winner.  But I'm very miffed at the thought that AP had the numbers and did not post them (or, so it seemed until late last night when someone provide a link for me...more on that later).  

        Do I think the numbers are wrong?  I have no way of knowing because  I wasn't able to watch the counts grow as the results came in...which is what started this whole thing.  If I had been able to see what they (AP, NEP, and Edison Research) used to call the election, I wouldn't have researched, found what I did, formed the opinion I have, and posted this.  There have been 10 elections in the last year and the only one's that have raised concerns with me (in terms of results) are the Prosser/Kloppenburg and Gov. recall elections.  All others I was able to monitory the results before the races were called.  I hope this is making SOME sense to you.  If not, well, I guess "I'm sorry" will have to do!

        Now, about the tips for editing.  Thanks!  While I am not new to posting and commenting online (just in general) I appreciate the tip.  I will - from here on in - use that technique to edit my original post if it helps keep communications clear.  :)

        •  Excuse my typos! LOL It's been a LONG day! :) (0+ / 0-)


        •  thanks, this is cool (0+ / 0-)

          Yes, for me, "supporting" a factual opinion is a lower threshold than convincing me or anyone else in particular.

          As you know from comments, some people on election night were actually watching county returns on certain news sites. Those would still be gathered by AP, so they could be wrong, but at least they weren't mysteriously missing. I think part of the problem may have been that for big elections, CNN and the networks generally have "dashboards" that make it easy to find vote counts and exit poll results; last week, not so much. As for whether counties themselves were failing to post results as quickly as in past elections, I honestly don't know.

          Vote counts in Wisconsin, basically, percolate up from polling places to municipalities to counties, and ultimately to the GAB. AP could misreport the vote counts, but that in itself wouldn't suffice to change the election outcome. If CNN had called the election for Hari Trivedi, that would have been interesting, but in itself it wouldn't do Trivedi any good. The vote counts would actually have to be tampered with. That's logically possible. At least conceptually, the easiest way to do it is to hack the scanners -- in which case there would be no need for AP or CNN to misreport the vote counts and/or blow the call.

          I understand (I think) why you would feel more secure about the numbers if you had watched them come in, but given how Wisconsin elections work, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Wisconsin elections are relatively decentralized, so what polling place observers see is more important than how fast the totals hit the internet. Again, it seems to me that the best way to steal an election in Wisconsin (once people have actually voted) is to hack the scanner counts. (Some WI voters use DREs, but most of the votes are counted on scanners.) If someone was able to do that, then the way in which results came in probably wouldn't be unusual. The results themselves would be somewhat surprising -- maybe very surprising, if the attacker was able to hack some scanners but not others. Or, then again, if election observers around the state reported that they were illegally prevented from examining the scanner results, of course that would be alarming.

          I hope I didn't imply that you're an internet discussion n00b. DKos diaries have some conventions of their own. (The conventions have changed somewhat in the last year, and I'm probably kind of old-school....)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site