Asymmetrical Information

I agree that the Bush lead is nothing like 14 points, but I think that Kerry is in a lot of trouble strategically. For example, at least one poll showed Kerry down by more than the margin of error in NEW JERSEY. Since NJ is a must-win for Kerry, he is now going to have to spend time and money to make sure he wins here. And the Republicans now have more places to put him on the defensive. This probably precipitated Laura Bush's short-notice stop in Hamilton yesterday, the first non-fundraising campaign stop by any of the heavy-hitters on the Bush team.

At a Fourth of July picnic, I predicted to my liberal friends that John Kerry would lose every state except Massachusetts. Several people were so enraged that they demanded that I put up or shut up.

I have two bets backing up my prediction. I expect to collect.

I didn't make this prediction because I'm partisan. I just know a terrible candidate when I see one. Kerry is hopeless.

The reason I made the bet was because I foresaw Kerry spending the entire election defending himself against his conduct when he returned from the Vietnam War. Forget the allegations of the Swift Vets or Bush's Guard service. Kerry slandered U.S. servicemen.

It will cost him the election. And, I predict again that Kerry will lose every state except Massachusetts.

Forget the national polls. Look at the state polls for an idea of what is happening. After all, the election is determined by the Electoral College. And check where Kerry and Bush are spending their money.

Bottom Line -- Kerry is in a world of hurt. He has given up on most of the so-called battleground states he hoped to take. Just about all the fighting is on his turf. Bush is secure in all but a couple of the states he won in 2000. Ohio has firmed up. Florida has moved into his column and is strengthening. He is leading or contending strongly in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

The economy is so strong that Yale's Professer Fair, a liberal economist, predicts that Bush will win a landslide with over 57% of the vote. The Iowa and Tradesports markets are moving strongly toward a Bush win. And an overwhelming percentage of people in polls say they expect Bush to win (a more accurate predictor than asking them who they will vote for).

If all these state polls are anywhere close to accurate, Bush is up at least 6 to 10 points nationally.

Stephen,
Do you still win if Kerry doesn't even carry Massachusetts?

Why not? This is essentially the margin that I have predicted since March. (I began with a 59-41 Bush edge and have reduced it to 57-43, in my latest prediction.) And it is essentially the same as predictions from more famous people, such as Ray Fair.

If you have a reason for not trusting Gallup, the most professional of the polling firms, let us know.

Jane Galt wrote:

There's no way that Bush is leading Kerry 54-40%. Best bet is it's a close race, with Bush ahead by 1-3% . . . easily enough to let Kerry come back.

Perhaps but I agree that Bush ought to run like he's ten points behind just so the election isn't close enough to let the Democrats get away with cheating as they did in 2000.

Hey Stephen,

Can I get a piece of that action?

I think that CIA report that just came out could potentially be VERY damaging to the President. I still think the election is going to be a coin toss and either man could win. I doubt either will do it by a landslide.

Oh, I don't know....there may be reasons for salivation. There are polls, and then there are "odds".

If you take a look at the trading in the Iowa Electronic Market, real time, real money betting on Bush/Kerry, you can see an uninterrupted plunge in Kerry's "futures", coinciding exactly with Rathergate.

We'll know how the candidates are doing by where they use resources and time. Judging by Kerry's and Bush's concentration in Gore states like Minnesota and Wisconsin, this battle is being fought on on Bush's terms. If Kerry starts working on holding New Jersey, this race is over. I read somewhere that Kerry's ad buys in Missouri have been cut way back. If true, this is another negative indicator for Democrats.

The national polls don't matter at all. They are useless to look at. You need to look at the electoral college votes. Currently they have Bush leading 307 to 211.

Check Here: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Have a lovely day..........

LB

It's over. I appreciate all counsel to avoid overconfidence and win the ground game, but W. has won. Economic indicators, Battleground state polls, on-line exchanges like IEM and Tradesports, and yes, even Gallup show that everything is over except the cryin' and the protracted legal challenges. My favorite indicator is this composite EV predictor of state polls from Tradesports http://www.geekmedia.org/tradesports/

Let's add to that "air of inevitability."

I fully support the President's reelection; however I am unwilling to feel secure in this outcome until after it occurs.

If the current trends continue, the danger of overconfidence in, and lower voter turnout in support of the President's reelection could become a factor in the final result.

I agree with the "run like you're behind" strategy.

What I'm truly hoping for is defeat for the Democrats on a scale which is clear and undeniable. They really need to go back to the drawing board. Our nation absolutely requires at least 2 competent political parties.

On the face of it, my personal impression is that George W. Bush looks presidential, and John Kerry can only hope to look presidential if viewed through Democrat beer goggles.

Stephen: Unless Kerry commits some kind of major gaffe in the next 6 weeks, there's no way GWB is headed for a landslide. Assuming no GOP scandal, a 300EV victory is reasonable -- and necessary to prevent the Dem lawyers from descending en masse.

The worst possible outcome is GWB winning by 10-20 EV. The Kerry army of lawyers will attack every close state, demanding recounts, counting chads, questioning counting techniques, etc. However, with a 60-70 EV victory, I don't think even the Dems have the chutzpah to try such a stunt.

Hewitt's book title says it all: If it ain't close, they can't cheat.

As I mention elsewhere, campaign's internal tracking poll are a bit more telling. Bush's campaign has Bush ahead aobut 4-5% (they're being conservative with that figure), and I haven't heard Kerry's side of the number.

I'm predicting an October suprise, at least for those who haven't heard of the Oil-for-food scandal. I suspect there will be evidence that middlemen with which Saddam dealed were funnels for sending money to al Qaeda.

As for October "surprises" -- look for the SwiftVets to run an ad (using authentic FBI documents and sworn testimony of witnesses who were there) that Kerry was part of the leadership at the VVAW meeting in KC in Nov 1971 where they discussed the murder of a number of US senators. They will point out that Kerry has lied about his participation.

I would also expect someone (527 or Bush) to make a big deal of the fact that Kerry refuses to release medical records (despite having had cancer), refuses to release tax returns, and refuses to release his military records.

" The Kerry army of lawyers will attack every close state, demanding recounts, counting chads, questioning counting techniques, etc. However, with a 60-70 EV victory, I don't think even the Dems have the chutzpah to try such a stunt."

This type of revisionism is ugly. Gore won in popular vote nationwide and won easily in Florida. See here and many other sources on the Palm Beach debacle. Bush is in office due to technicalities and superior legal wrangling from / on his side -- a triumph of letter of the law over intent.

Another example of Republican ugliness is the California recall. There, more people voting on recall day wanted Gray Davis to stay in office than wanted A.S. to take his place. Again, technicality triumphs over democracy. Finally, look at the Texas redistricting. Should every legislature with a sufficient majority just go ahead and consolidate its power like that? Please, Republican enthusiasts, point me to some recent cases where Democrats did things as bad and affecting as many people. They really would make me feel better.

The Pugh poll that had Bush up 12 points last week, came out yesterday with Kerry up by a point. The Harris poll, also out yesterday, has it dead even.

The Pugh poll that had Bush up 12 points last week, came out yesterday with Kerry up by a point. The Harris poll, also out yesterday, has it dead even.

I agree with BigFire that Bush's lead is more likely 5% than Jane's 1-3%. Not that I have any access to internal campaign polls, but what I like to do is simply average all the polls into what a pretentious professor would call a 'meta-poll'. Some site or other recently listed nine different polls giving Bush a lead of anywhere from +14 to -1 percent. The nine averaged out to exactly 5.0%. Sounds about right to me.

It may be more like 6-7%, since there seem to be a lot of Bush voters around who don't care to come out and say so. Back in 1980, I worked in a company in San Francisco that measured air pollution. We had two Carter voters (the boss-owner-founder and the gay guy), one open Reagan voter (me), and 6-7 other employees who all said "don't tell [the boss] but I'm voting for Reagan, too". I think there are similar stealth Bushies around today, and they don't necessarily tell the truth even to pollsters.

While I think the President will win handily (375 EVs, 54% pop), it's important to get rid of some of the obstructionists down the ticket, too. If you are in a Gimme state like SD or CO or OK, remember that the Senate is very important, too. Having Thune, Coors, Coburn, Barr, Martinez, et. al. instead of Daschle, Salazar, Carson, Bowles, and company will help greatly.

We've got one registered Republican and one registered Democrat in our household, and Bush is currently leading Kerry by 100% to 0% (margin of error 0%).

There's no way that Bush is leading Kerry 54-40%.

Oh? Why not?

The Pugh poll that had Bush up 12 points last week, came out yesterday with Kerry up by a point. The Harris poll, also out yesterday, has it dead even.

Isn't it odd that there should be a 13 point swing in a week, when no catastrophic news story has broken? I mean, even if CBS were to air photos of Bush sodomizing goats, I don't think there would be that big a swing that quickly -- people would just start scouring fark photoshop threads for proof they were forgeries! :)

Another example of Republican ugliness is the California recall. There, more people voting on recall day wanted Gray Davis to stay in office than wanted A.S. to take his place. Again, technicality triumphs over democracy.

Say what? Arnold received 3,744,132 votes for governor, while 3,559,436 voted in favour of retaining Davis.

Nice try, though.

Stephen,

"At a Fourth of July picnic, I predicted to my liberal friends that John Kerry would lose every state except Massachusetts." I live in Boston. I've taken an informal poll for a while by betting people $1 that Bush will win Massachusetts. No one has taken the bet. Even the rabid ones that still think that Dan Rather's memos are true and accurate. Could be very interesting on election day.

ATM -- A man (I didn't catch the name) was on the Hugh Hewitt radio program today promoting his upcoming program on Fox News TV this weekend on *exactly* that subject, including MIGO (or something like that) in Switzerland.

Sorry for the sketchiness of my report, but he specifically alluded to a bump in bin Laden's bankroll in 1998.

Poor Megan. You're suffering from pundit's bias. Always wanting things to be close just so your job could be more exciting.

I hope Jane's right (about the race being tighter than some of the polls indicate), but, unless y'all are betting at TradeSports and there's money involved, I'm not sure what the point is. Bush's policies still suck, and his Administration remains dangerously thoughless. Victory in November won't miraculously change the laws of nature. Things will continue to get gradually worse in GWB II; there will just be more people to bear the blame.

(NB: Dems trumpet good polls all the time, too. I probably have done so myself. It doesn't make it any more pertinent to the issue at hand - what should we do in the future?)

SomeCallMeTim

If GWB has been such a disaster for this country as you seem to think how come even you think he is going to win the election?

You Democrats just can't seem to wrap your minds around the fact that your years of running this country and putting it in grave danger from the islamofacists is OVER. Your policies are being repudiated and one by one will be ripped out by the roots as we go forward. The time of socialism is past and so are the leftists who have taken over the Democrat party.

The American people have continued to prove Old Abe Lincoln's adage- "You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time -- BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME!"

JUST LOOK AT THAT OLD FOOL DAN RATHER FOR PROOF.

THE REPUDIATION HAS BEGUN-- STAND BY FOR MORE.

Say what? Arnold received 3,744,132 votes for governor, while 3,559,436 voted in favour of retaining Davis.
------

Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. It was not intentional. I must have had the impression from the partial results and/or trying to figure out what would have happened if he could have run to replace himself, as was initially considered. The point about A.S. being recalled if they had another vote the day after still holds though, and if he couldn't have run to replace HIMself, then ... ?

Jane:

The CW is that the election will be close. The CW is always wrong. Ergo it will not be close.

Kerry will not win because he is a doufuss and because he cannot run to the left without alientating the vast majority of voters nor can he run to the right with out being insincere and alienating his base.

Bush will win because the economy is doing fairly well by any rational evaluation and most Americans don't want to rerun Iraq as Vietnam.

I have therefore have had red and over since the begining of the year. E-mail me offline with your predicted percent of the the popular vote for President Bush and the stake and I will take the over.

Since there was not a complete count of absentee ballots, it's incorrect to say Gore won the popular vote. The popular vote was never fully tallied.

I agree with the point about redistricting, but there's no reason to only consider one state. Both parties have behaved badly when it comes to redistricting. Perhaps legislatures should not be tasked with this responsibility. At a minimum, there should be a requirement that districts must follow county lines as much as possible.

Bush's policies still suck, and his Administration remains dangerously thoughless.

And as bad as he is, most/many/enough people still prefer him over Kerry, whose policies are dictated by the latest poll and the group that he is addressing at that moment in time, and whose campaign apparatus is unable to cope with a 527 with $2M in funds.

I disagree with Bush. A lot. I just honestly can not figure out where Kerry stands or what he's trying to do, other than promise me what he thinks I want to hear -- or the people he's speaking to want to hear (e.g. promising to up the benefits for the NG. Bread and circuses, bread and circuses ...).

If GWB has been such a disaster for this country as you seem to think how come even you think he is going to win the election?

Because people are stupid, of course, and are buying into the fear and loathing that the Repubs sell like soft drinks and churros on a hot day at Disneyland. If only the people were smarter, they'd understand the Democrats know what's best for everyone! :)

/snark

The popular vote may well be close, and like you I find the 54-40 number unbelievable. But Bush is still a significant favorite in electoral votes, and I don't think "easily enough to let Kerry come back" is true.

The lowest price I've seen is ~58 (on IEM and FX), and Tradesports (which I believe for theoretical reasons is likely to be more accurate) has him at about 68 right now. If you really think Kerry can come back easily, I'd be happy to give you 58:42 odds on a substantial wager.

Kerry will not win because he is a doufuss

The issue with the Gallup polls (and other polls that show Bush ahead by 8-10 points) is that they all oversamnple Republicans.

I'ms still not sure why, though.

Gallup's model predicts 40% Gop, 33% Dems on Election day, totally at odds with what has happened historically.

That's the whole difference between Gallup and Harris. One shows a double digit lead for Bush and the other shows the race tied.

Practically all the polls, including Gallup, show Kerry ahead among independents. It's just that Gallup has many more GOPers in its sample.

"There's no way that Bush is leading Kerry 54-40%. Best bet is it's a close race, with Bush ahead by 1-3% . . . easily enough to let Kerry come back."

Jane, you might want to reevaluate this. CBS/NYT poll results published today show a 50-41 Bush-Kerry split among registered voters.

Not 14%, true. But it's much closer to double digits than 1-3%.

Unfortunately, the Harris poll is nowhere near as transparent as the Gallup poll.

The Pew poll is transparent, and how they got their "second wave" dead heat is NOT pretty.

Hog Haven has the poop... and that's a deliberate word choice.

Karl,

That's a pretty bad analysis. Actually really bad.

The bottom line is that Gallup's poll is correct only if 40% of voters identify themselves as GOPers and only 33% as Dems. That is what the lead is based on.

If instead of that turnout you have the same turnout you had in the last 2 elections then the Gallup poll would show the race tied.

I put polls in the same category as horoscopes, ouija boards, the reading of goat's entrails and Freudian psychology - Interesting superstitions that have no place in the real world. Were it otherwise Presidents Landon and Dewey would be a part of our history books. That said, I will point out that polling firms do make a larger effort to be accurate in the Presidential races because of the prestiege and clients a good job can bring them. So Gallup will either win big or lose big by having differed so strongly from the rest of the pack.

And as a Republican? I do have a good feeling about this race that has nothing to do with polls. The fact that staunch Democrats such as GrimBeorn, Roger L. Simon, Michael Totten, and Orson Scott Card are supporting President Bush this year suggests to me that the Copperheads who support Kerry had already dealt themselves and their party a serious injury even before the CBS scandal had broke. The chief question in my mind is whether that injury will prove a permanent one. ^_~

AB, interesting analysis of the Palm Beach vote. It did leave out a few factors, however. One is that Pat Buchanan's cousin lives there and does a big get out the vote drive for him. Another is that Buchanan's cousin did that in the last election too and he got more votes there than any other county in Florida then too. Another is that if you are going to now say Gore won Florida by throwing out all election laws and doing a guessing game of what the voters might have meant, or use (in this case flawed) statistical analysis, then you have to do the same for Bush. A number of Cuban precints in south Miami had 20,000 ballots thrown out altogether as illegible, partly because there were stray marks on them for some inexplicable reason. The voted 8 or 9 to one for Bush, so if we throw that back in that comes to 16,000 votes for Bush. It was reported in Florida papers at the time, but not made a big deal of or a national story, I believe not out of bias but because it did not feed the feeding frenzy that was going on, which was started by the Democrats. It is almost humourous to read these analysis of how the Democrats really won which leave out all kinds of contrary information.

The moral to the story: Get over it, Gore lost.

GT,

Sorry if you think it's bad analysis to note that Pew changed the questioning in mid-poll in a way sure to depress Bush's numbers. Obviously, Pew thought it was significant, or they wouldn't have split their poll into two "waves."

As for the sampling issue, I'll quote what I already wrote in commenting on "Jane's" Sept 13th post, "Panic at the Polls?"

Welcome back. Rather than comment on the snapshots of the moment, I'll try to explain the divide between say, Zogby and other polling organizations. Zogby adjusts his numbers to reflect overall party identification statistics. For example, if his random sample did not produce a number of Democrats that is reflective of stats for the general population, the Dem responses in his sample will be given greater weight, to correct for the perceived disparity. Other pollsters don't make such adjustments, either to keep the purity of the random sample, or on the theory that party identification itself is more fluid than Zogby thinks it is (a position held, iirc, by Dick Morris). Zogby's method worked well in the 1990s, as it matched increasing GOP registration relative to Dem registration. I'm not as sure it works as well now that there is relative parity in registration and and partisanship.

I thought I had posted that in this thread, which was why my prior post just linked to the issue with the Pew poll. My apologies.

I would add that if a number of poll samples show an increase in GOP party ID, one has to at least ask whether this represents a shift in public opinion, rather than a sampling error. Unfortunately for us, the empirical answer here will only be known in hindsight.

Further, I note that the "second wave" of the Pew poll encompasses a weekend. Such polls tend to be less reliable and (counter-iuntuitively, imo) tend to favor Democratic candidates.

I would posit a 5-6% lead, not the 14% Gallup had. I agree that the Gallup poll is probably an outlier, perhaps due to sampling issues and perhaps just because polls only have a 95% confidence level in the first place. But you can't ignore Pew's reordering of their poll just because you don't like the answer it implies.

My conclusion of Bush +5-6% is arrived at by looking at a spectrum of the national polls and state level polls in the battleground states. In this regard, I'd briefly note that the latest Zogby poll, which does adjust the sample, has Bush +3. The latest CBS/NYT poll, which historically skews leftward and which used only registered voters (which again skews leftward), has Bush +8 or +9 (depending on Nader).

It's also supported by making inferences about the campaigns' internal polling from what the candidates themselves are doing. Bush is targeting states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, which went for Gore in 2000. Kerry is going more anti-war and dropping advertising in states like Missouri. The posture of both campaigns showed Bush on offense and Kerry on defense, which would not be the case if they thought the race was within the margin of error.

"One is that Pat Buchanan's cousin lives there and does a big get out the vote drive for him. Another is that Buchanan's cousin did that in the last election too and he got more votes there than any other county in Florida then too."

The statistical analyses I posted include comparisons with the previous election. The relative numbers of Palm Beach vs. other counties in 2000 were vastly different from 1996.

"A number of Cuban precints in south Miami had 20,000 ballots thrown out altogether as illegible, partly because there were stray marks on them for some inexplicable reason."

I'm just not able to find any references on this despite a lot of searching. Can you provide any? In fact the data on discarded ballots that I have been finding suggests the net effect was helping Bush. (Which might be one of the reasons recounts, accepting greater numbers of ballots as valid, tended to help Gore.) Also there was the black-but-not-Hispanic voter rolls purging effort, which will apparently haunt us again this year..

This is a strange election indeed. By any number of measures, Mr. Bush has been a poor president. I suppose people might be voting for him based on the fact that there's been only one catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil during his tenure, but that seems an odd basis for support. Iraq has been woefully mishandled, fulfilling the darkest prewar warnings. The economic recovery has been anemic, and the president tax policies have been patently absurd in the face of a supposed (and actual) war mobilization. Government has expanded, even outside of defense and homeland security, even outside of entitlements, despite a Republican administration and Congress. The structural deficit has badly worsened and threatens to explode if the president keeps his second-term promises. This is a record deserving of reelection? Only if, as Mr. Kerry aptly put it the other day, you're living in a fantasy world of spin.

Sorry, I meant "the president's tax policies." Should have previewed!

ABS:
The numbers in Palm Beach were vastly different from other counties, but not from the previous, 1996 Palm County due to the fact that I mentioned. They were larger numbers than the previous election, but whose to say why for sure? Maybe more GOP voters were swayed to Buchanan. In any case, my recollection is that the overall numbers were small, what 5000 out of 650,000? When you have a Democratic party writing the ballot, you have a number of them signing off on it and testing it for months beforehand, then the day of the election you have a Democratic party activist complain about the ballot early in the day, then by 5 o'oclock before the polls even close you have contracted a whole team of professional phone callers calling old people telling them they may have marked their ballots wrong, that gets ones suspicions up that this whole thing was planned in advance.

The part about the Cuban precincts ran in the Miami Herald and Orlando Sentinel at the time. I posted links in a thread called "Election" on Raging Bull at the time. I just mentioned this one, there are many other examples.

I am tired of arguing this one, maybe I will try to look some things up for you, but maybe you should consider this. There are six million voters in Florida, and for every thing you can find on one side, you can find an alternative on the other. When you have six million votes counted and it comes out that close, that is pretty much a statistically reliable sample of accuracy in and of itself. Nothing major that doesn't happen in any election was found. Bush won by a hair. Time to move on.

Oh, the thing about the prisoners names? It was well known before the election that there was a problem, every one marked off the list was sent a letter at their registered voter address three months before the election informing them that they were marked off. Twenty counties in Florida, knowing there may be a problem still included those names on their voter list. This is another pseudo problem in search of a spin.

Deficeit? Think again John.

The Treasury department just cut in half the amount it intends to borrow in the quarter (follow the bond market and you'll see this).

Why? Because tax reciepts are running WAY ahead of where they were expected to be - thats CASH the government is getting, not survey nor guesses. Its actual witholding and tax money receipts. The deficiet will likely be adjusted down within a month, by as much as $100 Billion. The GNP figures for the first quarter and 2nd 2quarter are being revised upward by as much as 25% (from 4% to almost 6% growth). And the jobless figures are being revised down, employment begin revised up. ALl those facts add up to a booming recovery.

And the percentage of GNP of the current shortfalls is not at historical limits yet. Remember - the growth, unemployment, and number of employed people are all at or better than 1996 for President Clinton's "robust economy" re-election - coming off a stock market crash and recession inherited from 2000, and interest rates are far lower.

So, the picture is not quite they way you paint it. Follow the Fed. Greenspan knows the real truth. He is raising rates because he sees the robust growth that somehow is never adequately reported.

Secondly, the polls: National "Beauty contest" polls are meaningless - they are distorted by opverwhelming partisan areas - much like NY, Illinois and California provided several million votes to Gore's margin in the national count, but were meaningless in the electoral vote.

Also, look at the internals of the poll - and the fact tht the Approve/Disapprove for Bush is 52/44. And the Bush vote breaks 90% for bush, 10% against Kerry, whereas the Kerry vote breaks 50% for Kerry, 50% against Bush. (latter figures may be old - I've heard as high as Kerry voters being 65% "against Bush"). Historically, "voting against the other guy" proves to be a very weak base if there are not scandals involved (i.e. Nixon and the Ford pardon of him). And its this base that may be peeling away leaving a larger margin for Bush. After all, the "Anti Bush" crowd does have Nader to go to.

In short - its improbably the gap is this large, but not implausible.

The numbers in Palm Beach were vastly different from other counties, but not from the previous, 1996 Palm County due to the fact that I mentioned.

In 1996, I haven't found general election data for Buchanan in Palm Beach; he was a write-in candidate. In the 1996 Republican primary, he received 8788 votes there, which were 5.4% of his total votes in Florida (and he polled 18% in the primary!). In the 2000 general election, he "received" 3407 votes, which were 19.6% of his total votes in Florida. (http://elections.fas.harvard.edu/statement/hbrady/node4.html) Among other facts mentioned there, there were only 1,282 voters in Palm Beach County for Joel Deckard, the Reform Party candidate for the Senate. Do a g**gle search for more. There's no support at all for the idea that the Buchanan number in 2000 is an accurate reflection of voters' intentions.

There are six million voters in Florida, and for every thing you can find on one side, you can find an alternative on the other. When you have six million votes counted and it comes out that close, that is pretty much a statistically reliable sample of accuracy in and of itself. Nothing major that doesn't happen in any election was found. Bush won by a hair.

This argument holds no water. It is not true that "you can find an alternative on the other"; you can talk just as long about alternatives, but that doesn't change their weaker cogency. This is just after-the-fact rationalization, cognitive dissonance reduction. It makes one feel bad to think that our available social and technical resources were able to determine a clear winner, but legal wrangling and technicalities led to the opposite person being selected. The (statistically significant) popular vote difference only increases the pain. Far more pleasant to believe that it was just a coin toss anyway.

The main point is that, tired of arguing or not, the 2000 election is a strong and continuing cause of resentment of Bush and Republicans by many people, and that's not going away.

The main point is that, tired of arguing or not, the 2000 election is a strong and continuing cause of resentment of Bush and Republicans by many people, and that's not going away.

My strong and continuing resentment is over the fact that Wisconsin's electoral votes went for Gore after documented vote buying by the DNC, claims of double voting, and systematic collection of absentee ballots in dementia wards. Due to the shift in local politics in the interim, they will either have to steal so many votes it won't be possible to ignore or Bush will carry the state.

triticale, references please? Again, the mere raising of arguments to suggest that Gore received unfair advantages in 2000 is not sufficient -- you need to make the case that (a) there is substantial evidence that the problem occurred, (b) the quantity of votes concerned would have affected the outcome, and (c) these would outweigh the counterparts to (a) and (b) presented on the Gore side.

I've been posting statistical analyses. The responses have been anecdotes about somebody's cousin, and vague allusion to ballot issues in Dade County for which apparently one needs to go to the local newspaper archives to find out anything about.

Comments are Closed.