Republicans demand Washington state....

[NoCalMike 0]

You say that, but I feel confident in saying that if 1996 Bill Clinton was running against 2004 George W. Bush, Clinton would have won the election. Bush didn't have to deal with a viable third party; Perot had a lot of support.

 

Besides, Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 64%. Has Bush's ever been that high?

Lest you forget, Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed above 90% in the weeks following 9/11 and stayed I believe around 70% before the Iraq war. Was it that long ago?

Yes Bush's approval rating skyrocketed in the post 9/11 era of "don't question anything the government says or does in this new era" However why don't you go revisit his job approval immediately before 9/11. He was not very well liked, and pre-9/11 it was pretty much agreed he was mishandling the economy. It took awhile for people to shake off the whole "uh-oh we aren't special patriotic people if we question Bush" effect to wear off, but it did.

[CBright7831 0]

Besides, Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 64%. Has Bush's ever been that high?

Considering Bush once had one of the highest approval ratings of all time, the answer is yes.

[NoCalMike 0]

Besides, Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 64%. Has Bush's ever been that high?

Considering Bush once had one of the highest approval ratings of all time, the answer is yes.

Ok please ignore the post 9/11 approval rating when no one wanted to question anything, and basically walking around the streets of NY was good enough.

[Justice 0]

Besides, Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 64%. Has Bush's ever been that high?

Considering Bush once had one of the highest approval ratings of all time, the answer is yes.

Ok please ignore the post 9/11 approval rating when no one wanted to question anything, and basically walking around the streets of NY was good enough.

And his worst ratings are still better than Clinton's worst. He was averaging around 60-70 throughout most of 2003, long after the 9/11 phase you describe wore off. Clinton was mid-low 40s for a while, I believe.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Oh and the Ohio recount was only a recount of 3% of the ballots in which it included a cheat sheet on how to make it come out the same as the electronic voting machine tally, and big suprise here, it STILL came out different.

Do you even understand what statistical sampling is, and how given the law of large numbers we can come very very VERY close to the true population parameters.

 

No, of course not. Because you want every vote counted, even if its insanely cost-prohibitive and simply introduces other errors in the variance.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Oh and the Ohio recount was only a recount of 3% of the ballots in which it included a cheat sheet on how to make it come out the same as the electronic voting machine tally, and big suprise here, it STILL came out different.

Do you even understand what statistical sampling is, and how given the law of large numbers we can come very very VERY close to the true population parameters.

 

No, of course not. Because you want every vote counted, even if its insanely cost-prohibitive and simply introduces other errors in the variance.

which it (sic) included a cheat sheet on how to make it come out the same as the electronic voting machine tally

[Justice 0]

You are still expecting 100,000 votes to turn out of nowhere. I just don't see how you can argue that Bush stole the election when he won the popular vote and Ohio by pretty fucking handy margins.

 

Seriously, unless there is adequate proof that, well, there are 100,000 more Kerry votes out there in Ohio than we thought before, well, shut up on Bush stealing the election. This whole thing doesn't seem nearly adequate to hide 100,000 votes. I'm sure the Democrats would have already made this HUGE issue if Bush managed to 'steal' that many votes, because frankly it doesn't seem to me like this year's Democrat would give up when they had information in Ohio saying they won.

 

Edit: Yes, the only campaign worker they credit in that piece is one of Cobb's (Green Parties) Campaign Managers. Wow, that's an unbiased source, isn't it?

[The Czech Republic 0]

Besides, Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 64%. Has Bush's ever been that high?

Considering Bush once had one of the highest approval ratings of all time, the answer is yes.

Ok please ignore the post 9/11 approval rating when no one wanted to question anything, and basically walking around the streets of NY was good enough.

Well I bet if Clinton had it, it would count, right?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Oh and the Ohio recount was only a recount of 3% of the ballots in which it included a cheat sheet on how to make it come out the same as the electronic voting machine tally, and big suprise here, it STILL came out different.

Do you even understand what statistical sampling is, and how given the law of large numbers we can come very very VERY close to the true population parameters.

 

No, of course not. Because you want every vote counted, even if its insanely cost-prohibitive and simply introduces other errors in the variance.

which it (sic) included a cheat sheet on how to make it come out the same as the electronic voting machine tally

Have YOU ever heard of statistical sampling?

 

Because you can't guarantee a result, but you can get a confidence interval on the range.

 

Geebus

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I find it funny these guys want every vote in Ohio counted when a state like PA has never been an issue when Kerry won by less votes than Bush did in Ohio.

 

But no one really believes it. It's just a lame attempt to try and say Bush isn't a legit President.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Oh and the Ohio recount was only a recount of 3% of the ballots in which it included a cheat sheet on how to make it come out the same as the electronic voting machine tally, and big suprise here, it STILL came out different.

Do you even understand what statistical sampling is, and how given the law of large numbers we can come very very VERY close to the true population parameters.

 

No, of course not. Because you want every vote counted, even if its insanely cost-prohibitive and simply introduces other errors in the variance.

which it (sic) included a cheat sheet on how to make it come out the same as the electronic voting machine tally

Have YOU ever heard of statistical sampling?

 

Because you can't guarantee a result, but you can get a confidence interval on the range.

 

Geebus

If there was a cheat sheet (posted by a Triad technician) instructing counters on how to make the hand count match the e-vote without actually, ya know, hand counting, then the recount was irrelevant, Mr. Pompous.

 

By the way, Justice, no one here is arguing that Bush didn't win, so calm down.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

*test*

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Oh and the Ohio recount was only a recount of 3% of the ballots in which it included a cheat sheet on how to make it come out the same as the electronic voting machine tally, and big suprise here, it STILL came out different.

Do you even understand what statistical sampling is, and how given the law of large numbers we can come very very VERY close to the true population parameters.

 

No, of course not. Because you want every vote counted, even if its insanely cost-prohibitive and simply introduces other errors in the variance.

For statistical sampling to work, the sample has to be chosen at RANDOM from the population. In the OH recount, this didn't happen.

 

So you can quit being condescending now. Please.

[NoCalMike 0]

To suggest I have NEVER heard of statistical sampling, when just about every mainstream news organization uses it, is simply atrocious. Of course I know what it is, and I never said it would "prove Kerry won Ohio" Are you people reading what I post? I didn't say, a recount in Ohio would prove Kerry the victor. I said that a lot of cases of voter fraud had been reported in Ohio and other states as well which means it is our governments duty to make sure that these problems are taken care of in the future. That is basically what Barbara Boxer among other Democrats were arguing is that you cannot certify a vote that cannot be verified. They were supposed to be taken care of in 2000 for this election but the government sat on it's hands while they designed killer new voting machines that didn't leave a paper trail~!

 

Also, did you miss the part about the recounters receiving cheat sheets instructing them how to come up with an exact match as the voting machines and they still fucked up and it came out different?

[BX 0]

Don't question Poprick. He's Numbers Jesus, you know.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

To suggest I have NEVER heard of statistical sampling, when just about every mainstream news organization uses it, is simply atrocious. Of course I know what it is, and I never said it would "prove Kerry won Ohio" Are you people reading what I post? I didn't say, a recount in Ohio would prove Kerry the victor. I said that a lot of cases of voter fraud had been reported in Ohio and other states as well which means it is our governments duty to make sure that these problems are taken care of in the future. That is basically what Barbara Boxer among other Democrats were arguing is that you cannot certify a vote that cannot be verified. They were supposed to be taken care of in 2000 for this election but the government sat on it's hands while they designed killer new voting machines that didn't leave a paper trail~!

 

Also, did you miss the part about the recounters receiving cheat sheets instructing them how to come up with an exact match as the voting machines and they still fucked up and it came out different?

All they want is for you to shut up. Thats all. You see winning the election makes them think we should just shrink away and give up. You'd think the election results would be PERMANENT with all this mandate crap. Check the posts here. Filled to the brim with "Shut up, accept whatever Bush says, and go away" while they try and shovel poo down your gullet. No thanks. Conservatives may THINK they have the ball in their court, but there are too many left-wingers around ready to start enough legal trouble to give them headaches everyday.

 

 

Don't like it? Tough shit. We are never going to go away. Ever. At least the left wing plan doesn't exclude YOU on the right. So you've got it made.

 

 

NoCal: Good job. Keep making sense.