Skip to main content

View Diary: How Ohio was Rigged For Bush (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You know what initially undermined the entire (none)
    analysis presented in the article posted? The typos and errors. This is supposed to be a lawyer presenting evidence to "suggest" that the unusual results in the data is the result of fraud. He's got an open bias throughout this article (and prior articles), and he makes mistakes in the public presentation of his findings.

    Now people pursuing this issue in the name of justice are not going to allow an overt bias simply suggest the proper interpretation of the results. Coupling his bias with his errors suggests that his work and conclusions need scrutiny from an unbiased source.

    In that one paragraph alone, there are two obvious errors that I wouldn't expect an "expert" to make in his presentation of anything as serious as evidence for election fraud.  First there is no such thing as a Constitutional Law candidate, it's Constitution Party. Second, he relates his data to that from the year 200 (apparently he means 2000).

    The rest of his data in that paragraph stands on shaky ground because of his propensity for careless errors in his typing. Taking his word for it and interpreting his results the way he tells you to is dangerous.

    Nobody else here gives a shit about doublechecking his numbers. Which reveals their own motivations for pursuing the matter of a just and fair election.

    I've admitted the Peroutka votes are indeed an anomaly based on continuing discussion about the votes. But to see everyone here fight tooth and nail to claim those results for Kerry without examining the complete set of data throws their bias into the spotlight and makes them look like children tugging back and forth on a playtoy screaming "mine! mine! mine!"

    •  Insignificant errors, right? (none)
      He made a slight mistake in the name of the party that Peroutka ran under and he had a typo in typing 200 instead of 2000.  This is somebody who is doing a tremendous job of research and documentation, is deeply involved in the legal case (co-counsel) and is running his operation on a shoestring - he doesn't have a big staff to triple check for this stuff.  

      And to you this petty crap "undermines" the whole case?  Is there any SUBSTANTIVE error in his work?  Do you have one example of a SUBSTANTIVE error?  If not, then I would say your comment is basically bullshit, IMO.

      Voting rights are our most important rights because all the other ones depend on them

      by markusd on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 07:42:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know, haven't seen his supporting (3.00)
        data to know if he's made substantive errors. Have you? Maybe he meant 81% instead of 91%, just a slip of the finger on the keyboard. Yes his insignificant errors undermine his suggestive analysis. And if you want to follow his lead blindly, whether it's in this particular precinct or the analysis from elsewhere, be prepared for a possible Dan Rather outcome.
        •  Yet you criticize the work anyway. (none)
          Despite admitting that you don't know if he made any substantive errors.


          •  Faith based support will only get you so far (none)
            Yes he's doing a remarkable job in exposing the myriad of irregularities in this election. That's a great thing. I took issue with one particular aspect of his findings, after red flags had already gone off regarding his superficial errors, and my bias was evident in my very first post on this topic. I wanted the Peroutka votes to be real and valid, and I wanted it to be an anomaly that favored Kerry in the larger picture, which is certainly possible if the anomaly was more widespread in the results of this analysis.

            Everybody started flailing their arms that this particular anomaly was on the pile of many that favored George Bush, and I disputed that based on my own bias in interpretting the results. The author is telling us those votes were intended for Kerry, but he does NOT provide enough data to come to that conclusion. He has nothing in this particular case that reflects the impact of voter suppression that likely suppressed Kerry's numbers. He tells you what to make of his percentages, because he wants those votes to be Kerry's. I want them to be Peroutka's, and I want this precinct to be one of the ones Karl Rove missed when he went in and stole the third party votes and put them into Bush's column. But nobody else here wants that kind of bias, nor wants to consider that kind of manipulation in their analysis.

            Yes I'm criticizing the suggestive analysis IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE because of the red flags that went off, the absense of verifiable data supporting his conclusion, and my own bias to wish the results were real and valid without the suggestion they belonged to Kerry.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site