Skip to main content

View Diary: Nate Silver singlehandedly dismantling the myth of Mitt-mentum (233 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Certainly GOTV (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MJB

    is important - voter suppression, and even simple fuckup, could make a result-turning difference in a close race, as it did in Florida 2000.

    Not convinced either turned the result in 2004.

    •  Ohio was stolen in 2004 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Febble, lysias

      I went to the hearings in Columbus, Ohio in Jan 2005.  I heard the testimony - ALL DAY.  They had to open several extra overflow rooms because there were so many people testifying about the shenanigans.  What I saw was horrific; and I'll never be the same.  Most of the crimes were voter suppression tactics.  If Ohio was a former Russian state, we'd be declaring the election completely flawed.

      GOTV is important, but it's not that useful if the elections are not secure.  We need more election workers/volunteers, not just GOTV...

      •  Well, I happen to think that voter suppression (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HudsonValleyMark

        whether deliberate or simply negligent, is many orders of magnitude bigger in effect than vote theft, and GOTV efforts are a direct antidote to voter suppression.

        So, very useful, I'd say!

      •  Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again" (0+ / 0-)

        I thought was very persuasive on the 2004 election having been stolen.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:51:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HudsonValleyMark

          I didn't.  His case seemed to be largely based on a wildly over-optimistic reading of the pre-election polls coupled with a categorical refusal to believe that anyone with any sense could possibly vote for Bush.

          He rightly cited election mismanagement, some of it apparently deliberately designed to suppress the Democratic vote, some apparently negligent (and culpably so).

          But his numbers don't add up to a Kerry win as far as I can tell, unless you scale the effect for which there is least evidence (actual vote theft) by some kind of factor based on the exit poll discrepancy, which is in any case fallacious.

          What part of his argument convinced you that deliberate shenagans occurred on a result-turning scale?

          Because that's what I am disputing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site