Skip to main content

View Diary: Did Don Siegelman win in 2002? probably not (19 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Except the Magnolia springs story was (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, agnostic, Snarcalita

    just as much a lie as the story that the first error was caused by lightning striking the power lines.  
       As far as I can see you don't know what you are talking about.
       jim gundlach
       

    eschew obfuscation

    by jimG on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:28:33 PM PDT

    •  At what point is his analysis incorrect? (0+ / 0-)

      Just saying he doesn't know what he's talking about isn't a refutation.

    •  OK, so the New York Times ran lies (0+ / 0-)

      All I can do is source what I've got. All you can do is source what you've got. A good place to start would be replication data.

      •  The NYT just repeated (4+ / 0-)

        what the Baldwin County officials said.    Also, I have a lot of things on the table right now and I don't have time to drop everything and respond immediately to everything you say but here are a few highlights.

           There were three separate Baldwin County results reported that night.  The first set was so obviously wrong that they pulled them back and only one copy of the first results got out.  For example, it had the third party candidate with more votes in Baldwin County that he got in the rest of the state.  The second set of results had about 6,000 extra votes but a total number of votes that gave Siegelman the state wide win.  After that count was released, everyone except the republican officials left the courthouse and it was locked.   During the next few hours the too large a number of total votes was noticed, as well as the fact that the numbers gave Siegelman the statewide win and then the third set of numbers were released.  A major point I make is that once a counting program starts producing different results that is a clear indication that someone is manipulating the counting process.

            I might note that I do not argue that my findings are sufficient to determine the outcome of the election, I do argue that this kind of evidence should be sufficient to base a call for a recount of the ballots by some other than those who produced the final results in secret.  Subsequent events further follow the pattern of something going wrong.  The republican Alabama Attorney General, Bill Pryor, ruled than anyone who tried to recount the original ballots would be arrested and then the republican Secretary of State went ahead and certified the Baldwin County results several days early so Siegelman was unable to file a challenge.  To date, the ballots have not been examined or recounted.  

           Given this background, the analysis shows that Baldwin County is an unexplained outlier with the final results.  There are two other outliers but both of them can be adequately explained, one is Riley's home county and the other is Lee County, the home of Auburn University where a Siegelman appointee to the     board of trustees really fucked the university over and Siegleman lost a lot of votes.  I might add that a subsequent analysis predicting the 2002 vote from the 2004 vote shows that Baldwin County is again the same kind of outlier, that is the final results don't fit the prediction and my estimated actual vote does. Anyway, I have a grandkid who needs to be watched and I don't have time to be at your beck and call to answer any more questions while this diary will be visible.
           
           I would love to have the ballots counted and my predictions tested.  However, the republicans are doing everything they can to see that it does not happen.  

           I would suggest that it would take a real fool to trust the results produced under these circumstances.   Off to take care of the grandkid.

        eschew obfuscation

        by jimG on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:14:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK, to review (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mooncat

          Yes, I know (or "know") there were three sets of results; that doesn't affect the analysis, so I left it out, as you did in your paper.

          If you have evidence about when the final totals were produced, or if you have evidence about how the votes were allocated in the set of returns before that, it would certainly be useful to present it.

          If different data are totaled, the totals will generally be different. I'm not sure why this rises to the level of a "major point."

          Anyone can look at the scatterplot and see that Baldwin is not an outlier. An outleaner, at most. Surely you must know this?

          I agree that it should be easy to obtain partial recounts, but that has no bearing on your analysis or on mine.

        •  Procedure would be to destroy 2002 ballots (0+ / 0-)

          22 months later, for a federal election.

          I dont know the ALabama procedure in this case.

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Just to be clear, (0+ / 0-)

      you are the James Gundlach referenced above, correct?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site