Yesterday, I posted about a study by Rodolfo Cortes Barragan and Axel Geijsel, regarding potential election fraud in the 2016 Democratic primaries. Certain people in the comments were critical of the study, its authors and their conclusions. In fact, I believe the most common sentiment related to me in those comments was that the study was “a joke” and “an embarrassment,” and that I should not have posted about it because it lacked any semblance of validity.
I stated at that time I would contact the study’s authors to respond to those objections. I emailed them, and they responded confirming receipt of my email, along with numerous others regarding their study. They informed me that they would do their best to respond to the comments I sent to them from this blog as soon as possible.
I also stated that I had sent the study to my father, Donald T. Searls, a statistician for his entire professional career, for his review.
My dad received his Ph.,D in statistics in 1962. He worked in in both private corporations and quasi-governmental organizations, before becoming a professor of Mathematics and Applied Statistics in the mid-80’s at the University of North Colorado until his retirement in 1996. A more complete bio of his professional career follows:
Donald T. Searls is a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado.
During the course of his career he was Vice President of WESTAT Research in its formative years (now Westat Inc.) working for corporate clients such as Budweiser; Director of Statistics for the Education Commission of the States and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); and as a Professor at UNC.
He received his Ph.,D from North Carolina State University, where he worked with a number of prominent mathematicians and statisticians at the Research Triangle Institute back in the late 50’s and early 60’s.
He frequently had the opportunity to collaborate with such luminaries in the field as John Tukey, Getrude Cox and Frederick Mosteller.
He’s been a member of the American Statistical Association for over 50 years. His last published paper was “THROW AWAY ZONES FOR PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS,” presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, August 5-9, 2001. My brother, Trace W. Searls, who also holds a Ph.D in statistics was his co-author. He still maintains a consulting business at the age of 85.
I literally do not know how many papers, monographs, comments to journal articles, etc. my father has authored and published in his lifetime but the number exceeds 100.
I sent him the study regarding potential election fraud in the Democratic primaries in 2016, without telling him why I was interested in it, or that I had posted about it online.
I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote:
I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present.
The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own.
My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don’t agree with him.
Dad
I called him after receiving his response to clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself.
I will provide a report on the authors response to the criticism received here when I receive it.
Say whatever you like. I am going to let my father’s words speak for themselves.
UPDATE: FWIW, I am adding the following comment at a reddit site to this post as it relates to the issue of why the study’s authors likely included probability theory (the “P value”) in the study, and reflects upon my father’s own comment in the email and to me on the phone re: that issue.
I have a long history (Almost 50 years) with statistics as well. And I also agree with your father. The data speaks for itself. However, I disagree with him that the authors of the study should not have brought in probability theory. The reasons for that are entirely political. This is because reporting statistics has been bastardized in the media over the last few decades. every reported study needs a “P value” even though people reading it do not really understand what the p-value really is. However, this “p-value” has become dominant in the mind of the public. So you give the probability values just because in the minds of the reading public that is what gives the study its validity.
Well now I wonder how other Sanders supporters are going to deal with this matter. If some of them bring out this report and your father’s evaluation at the Dem Convention. Things would get very interesting very quickly, no doubt.
You’re invoking Poe’s Law, right?
violating?
Sanders won the caucuses in Washington State. The beauty contest primary was won by Clinton. Vote by mail is all done by paper (I’m an election observer). Not challenging what you father said, just saying that Clinton is more than capable of winning this thing on her own without rigging the machines. Those machines are a problem, though, and need to be retired.
All the states where Clinton “cheated” the most (i.e. her victory margin was not predicted by exit polls) were ones where there’s early voting. Early voters don’t get exit polled. And who votes early? Old people and African-Americans (aka “Hillary’s base”).
The whole thing is insane anyway– the DNC doesn’t count the primary votes, the state does. We’d have to believe that state governments all over the South (and everywhere else) are cheating for Hillary. Collectively. Republicans trying to make the Democratic primary a blowout for the stronger candidate. Jeezus.
Actually, early voters and absentee voters do get polled and included in the reported exit polls. But as we all know, only in the US are exit polls exceptionally bad.
You are correct about early voting. But US polls are actually also accurate, unless you change the numbers, as these guys did (see my post below).
“Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present.”
You mean like those dozens of points made by the lot of us in the last thread?
Anyway, “[t]he raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own” might work if you’re evaluating whether a roulette wheel is honest. Doesn’t come close to being good enough in the sciences.
Glad your Dad has a new anti-Hillary talking point for the fall, though. Maybe he can use it to swing some Bernie supporters over to Trump.
You read the clarification and the update? Or chose to ignore it. Please send me your cv re:statistics and I’ll be happy to put you in touch with my father.
There’s no clarification and I didn’t need the update. Shit, I teach statistics.
Anyway, their raw “data” appears to be bunk. Not really something your dad would check.
Steven, good Lord…
We’re raising plenty of prefectly reasonable objections, essentially none of which are answered in this response. But how about this:
If the Establishment can fix elections in this absurdly broad way, why didn’t they fix it for Hillary in the 2008 primary?
Is this a serious question?
As we have seen over and over since, Obama embodies the establishment. Hell the campaign largely devolved to identity politics because they were so similar except he’s about 1,000,000 times more exciting than HRC. Whether you think the establishment committed fraud this time or not, its not hard to see why many backed 2008 Obama if they saw him as non-threating to existing structures.
LOL.
Okay.
Steven, it was nice of your daddy to try to bail you out after you posted an absolute joke of a study. However, regardless of your father’s qualifications, his “update” is also a joke. To AGAIN restate what I and others have already said:
1. Exit polls are EXTREMELY unreliable — as I thought everyone knew — so the entire “study” is bullshit. Garbage in, garbage out. In 2012, exit polls showed 90% of eligible (not registered) black voters in MO cast a ballot. That’s obviously wrong. Why? Nate Cohn:
“They’re usually based on a sample of a few dozen precincts or so in a state, sometimes not even including many more than 1,000 respondents. Like every other type of survey, they’re subject to a margin of error because of sampling and additional error resulting from various forms of response bias.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/upshot/exit-polls-why-they-so-often-mislead.html
Here’s Nate Silver with “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/
Your father is right: the data do speak for themselves. Unfortunately, the data are bullshit. The fact that neither you, nor the authors of this study, not your father could recognize that, is telling. Your father was either too lazy to check the reliability of the data, or he felt bad for his son who was definitely too lazy to check the reliability of the data.
Steven, you’ve already thoroughly embarrassed yourself. Remember the first rule of holes.
Like your original post and the study itself, your father’s response is a joke.
What I found interesting about the report is that it didn’t look at the usual suspects. But would need to study and think more about it before having an opinion.
Dueling bona fides might be instructive, no?
Didn’t note in the comments to the last diary that the Hill-fans were shooting the messenger (their preferred attack strategy), but instead shot the message with various spurious claims. Most of the critics seem not to have ever taken a course in statistics or even no much about polling methodology. Which comes in handy when TPTB need to shut down any controversy over election results.
MArie3–I am not a “Hill-fan”. I voted for Sanders. But I do not loathe Hillary Clinton. And I’m a practicing scientist who understands something about peer review and has occasion to use statistics in my research from time to time. I would thank you not to dismiss my attempt to point out what I think are flaws in the study as “spurious claims”.
Actually, you’re officially a Hill-fan now.
You’re also a neo-liberal neocon, princpleless, ethicless sell-out.
All because you don’t publicly shit on Hillary Clinton at every opportunity.
Why do you hate America?
a) I didn’t reference you in my comment.
b) You’re not the only one here that has engaged in scientific inquiries, run experiments, used research data and statistics, and knows all about peer review. But, in my case, I don’t pull out the “I’m a scientist” cred.
c) There aren’t flaws in the study — there are serious limitations in the data that can be obtained to study. Edison Research doesn’t release the unadjusted exit polling data to anyone. Statistically, an interesting anomaly popped out. One that intrigues curious minds.
There are flaws in the study. It has significant confirmation biases.
For example, why don’t we see the study authors bring into their considerations the States which held caucuses where Sanders outperformed pre-caucus polling on caucus day, sometimes by double-digit percentages? My explanation for those outcomes: Sanders outorganized Clinton on caucus day in those States, fair and square. Why can’t that be the explanation for other outcomes?
Could some outcomes be explained by the possibility that Clinton had a better GOTV operation in the big primary States and that, given that’s where the lion’s share of pledged delegates could be gained, her campaign concentrated its work on this? Is it possible that Sanders’ reliance on younger voters sometimes made it harder to turn out his supporters on Election Day in the big primary States?
If the evidence from this study is any good at all, why isn’t Sanders raising objections to the election results?
I wish you and others here weren’t using up your credibility in this way. This will not come out well for you.
Ok, you win.
If I mention that I have experience with scientific protocols and the use of statistics, I’m flaunting my credentials.
If I don’t mention such experience, I’m just another yahoo with an opinion.
When I read Steven D’s original post, I pulled a couple of statistics books off the shelf (I was at work eating lunch) and looked up some stuff about hypothesis testing. Then I looked at the tabulated exit poll results and published vote results. This is what I would call doing due diligence. Who knows? Maybe you did the same thing. If so, you never mentioned it. Instead you started writing insinuations about “Hillbots”.
There are flaws in the study. At a minimum, the authors ought to looking at the statistical properties of the whole available data sets, then looking at the two subsets they pulled out, and performing the appropriate statistical tests to see if the subsets are really distinct, in a sense that can be defined using confidence levels. The data (which for me means published results minus exit polls) turn out not to be normally distributed, which means that the statistical test that first comes to mind is inappropriate. And so on. The authors did not perform statistical tests to see if their subsets could justifiably be described as distinct. They didn’t do their due diligence. If they had submitted this to a journal, a reviewer would have jumped all over it.
Marie, for whatever reason, laudably (well, in the sense of lauding “baby steps” in a positive direction) dialed back her usual “Hillbots” to the (arguably) less-offensive “Hill-fans” for this occasion. (Describing someone as a “fan” of someone/-thing not automatically carrying the negative connotation that “-bot” pretty automatically does imply.)
Sorry, but it’s still dismissive, mocking the target as too biased to be worth attending to. Especially when she hasn’t any idea what that person actually believes, other than it doesn’t agree with her position.
It’s also pretty rich, coming from someone who bristles at the mere term “Hillary haters” even when it’s not directed at her but who has no trouble flinging derogatory names like “Hillbot” and who never misses an opportunity, no matter how tenuously connected to the topic at hand, to launch attacks on Clinton.
Let me say at the outset that I’m being a little unfair to you in what will follow because I only skimmed the post leading up to this one and I didn’t read any of the 77 comments there at all. And the reason it’s unfair is that I know it’s a challenge to provide content on a website and I want you to know that I really like a lot of your writing. You do a good job, and I feel like you at least deserve the respect of a thoughtful reading before I criticize what you’ve written. And I’ve let that responsibility lapse this time. But reading what you’ve written is frustrating.
Let me also say I voted for Bernie; I like the guy but I’m pretty much of a realist about what his chances were all along.
With all of that out of the way, the reason I didn’t read most of your previous post or any of the comments is: life is just way too short. Good lord, man, what in the world did you expect would go down here?
Here’s three rules I learned a long time ago in the early 1970’s, shortly before I dropped out of the Young Democrats: people who are interested in social change do not go into the Democratic Party. People who go into the Democratic Party are not interested in social change. The Democratic Party is not particularly democratic because its purpose is not social change, it’s social stability.
That’s pretty much all you need to know about the Democratic Party. It’s why it’s a dying institution.
Bernie Sanders launched his campaign for the Presidency at effectively the last moment, almost exactly a year ago — against an opponent who has been running for the office nonstop since 1992. And he began as and remained an insurgent, running against someone who was and is the consummate insider, who has been networking and mentoring and supporting and extending herself since day one with the sure knowledge that one day she could call in those debts and the people who owed on them would respond. Remember that scent in The Godfather, “Some day, and this day may never come, I will ask you to do me a favor…?” This should not be a news flash, it’s how institutions work and anybody who thought Sanders stood a chance of getting elected was, to put it bluntly, being naive. It’s a little like losing at 3-card monte: the certainty that you’ll lose (that Bernie would lose) is built into the game. To critique the process now, when it’s all said and done, just makes it look like you never took the time to understand how the game works before you agreed to play. And that really reflects worse on the chump than it does on the dealer.
Bernie accomplished a lot. Everyone knows the empress is naked. Clinton won the election but Bernie won the debate. Now we have to figure out what to do with that.
“Clinton won the election but Bernie won the debate. Now we have to figure out what to do with that.”
Hope you are right.
Well, I think I’m right, of course, but I don’t want to minimize the difficulties of “figuring out what to do with that”. Ideally you’d want to start very soon to put together a coalition of people who would:
This implies figuring out some kind of a formulation that grasps that Clinton is the lesser of the two evils while at the same time grasping why she’s an evil. And it implies some kind of a permanent organization persisting after the election and outside the control of the Democratic Party. That’s an incredibly tall order, I can’t think of any precedents and the forces that would put it together are scattered, weak, and untested.
I’m sure your dad is an excellent statistician and an academic with integrity.
However, that doesn’t mean he can evaluate a study like this. I’m sure he found the math to be correct, but I see no evidence that he did any evaluation of exit polling. Is he aware of how inaccurate they have been in the past or how their methodology is badly flawed because they tend to use a sample of convenience?
That’s probably why he’s careful to point out that “unknown confounding factors could be present.”
Also, it’s nice that you got a supportive comment from a reddit thread posted in “Kossacks for Sanders.” Get some comments from statisticians in a more politically neutral subreddit and then get back to us. I’m serious. I would be very curious to see what statisticians who aren’t already predisposed toward Bernie think about this study. They may even point out something that will change my mind.
And I am sure you read my question to him and the clarification he gave. Or maybe not?
I did. His further clarification has nothing to do with what I just said. He very wisely didn’t comment on it because he couldn’t know enough to make any judgment.
Understand, this is in no way an attack on your father. I’m just saying that he doesn’t confirm the opinion that you seem to think he does.
Steven D has a very interesting tendency to ignore very obvious points that undermine his claims.
Is that willful, or is there some other cause?
I think your dad was wise to opine that the numbers speak for themselves and not to try to analyze the statistical soundness of the paper’s conclusions. The authors’ only real “finding” is the difference in outcome between states with paper trails and those without. And you don’t need to calculate standard deviations or bring any other statistic constructs to bear to see the correlation, since the number of states that went for Bernie and Hillary respectively is not a sample, it’s a universe (of data).
The paper assumes what remains to be proven, that exit polls are an accurate reflection of the actual votes. I saw no analysis of the validity or reliability of the exit polls. What were the rates of non-response and response refusal (a notorious source of distortion in exit polls)? What were the errors of measurement? Do we have any analysis of Within-Precinct Error (WPE)? To assume the exit polls are more accurate than the tally of the votes is a huge leap that demands to be justified by showing that the exit polls were accurate.
As others have commented, correlation is not causation, and to leap from data that show a simple numerical disparity to the conclusion that widespread, systematic fraud occurred is tin-foil hat territory. Statistics can’t tell us any such thing. For that, you’d need a hypothesis of how that occurred, who was responsible, how such a coordinated, systematic and purposeful plot was carried out, and evidence to support it.
Sorry, nice (and seemingly earnest) try, but no credibility at all.
The exit polls by the same firm were within margin of error for all GOP primaries. Nice try.
So what if they were? There are any number of reasons that could be true starting with the fact that a lot of Democratic primary voters speak Spanish and are therefore much less likely to be sampled in an exit poll.
The exit polls were fine on the Democratic side, too. Your buddies just made up some exit poll numbers and — surprise! — they weren’t accurate.
And Steven D shows that he has no idea what he is talking about. No, the exit polls by the same firm were NOT within margin of error for all GOP primaries. First of all, the study uses unadjusted data which don’t even specify a margin of error since the pollsters recognize those data are wildly inaccurate. Second, the study does not talk about GOP results.
Just stop, Steven. Seriously.
I read the prior post yesterday and looked at the paper today. Two questions (sorry if they have already been asked):
Edson was the company that did the exit polls for all the media outlets. Google Edson and exit polls. Same was done for the GOP primaries. Again, same firm. Exit polls in all GOP primaries was within the margin of error.
As they were on the Democratic side.
Your faith in the honesty of Republicans is kind of touching, tho.
This is reaching 9/11 levels at this point.
Don’t believe me? My third cousin’s stepmom has a PhD in forensic statistics, and she says HRC won fair and square.
Jesus H Christ, Booman, you are polluting your brand but allowing this guy to post this drivel.
Post your stepmom’ cv and her name and her analysi and then I will believe you.
Because an appeal to authority is all you trust. Fantastic.
BTW, your daddy’s “analysis” isn’t anything of the sort.
I also hope he revokes your FP privileges Steven. This shit is delusional, debunked, and embarrassing.
Agreed. Steven D has no business on the FP.
My opinion is that BooMan is fully qualified to decide who his front pagers are.
9/11? Didn’t Hillary Clinton conspire with Bush and Cheney on that? I’m pretty sure that she was seen in New Jersey, celebrating with those Israeli spies when the Twin Towers collapsed.
No, you’re wrong. She wasn’t there. Sigh.
The reason for the discrepancies is that they didn’t report the correct exit polling numbers.
Here’s the 6 most “rigged” states, followed first by what the paper gives as the exit polls, then by the actual exit polls.
New York: “52.0%” was actually 57.7%, which was very close to the actual vote total.
Wisconsin: “37.0%” was actually 43.6%, which was very close to the actual vote total.
Ohio: “51.9%%” was actually 56.4%, which was very close to the actual vote total.
South Carolina: “68.7%” was actually 74.7%, which was very close to the actual vote total.
Virginia: “62.5%” was actually 65.0%, which still significantly lagged Hillary’s actual vote of 71.3%
Arizona: “37.0%” was actually… nothing. Exit polling wasn’t reported for Arizona, so they apparently just made up a number. Or copied their phony Wisconsin number.
Anyway, these fuckers are frauds. Or astoundingly incompetent. Or both.
N.B. My exit polling data is from NYT (and cross-checked with CNN for the first few I did).
So wait — not only do they pretend exit polls are somehow accurate, but they don’t even use the actual exit polls?
Further proof this study is b.s.
No. “calling all toasters” used the after the fact adjusted exit polls.
You know, you’re right. They are adjusted. You know what else? Unadjusted poll data are never released, according to Edison. So this whole thing is based on a conceptual error.
These schmucks couldn’t have used the unadjusted polls, because they couldn’t have access to them. So they just made up some results– or rather, they read a conspiracy site on the internet and used those made-up numbers.
I have to say that this has been a learning experience.
Yes, he used the adjusted polls: because even Edison admits the preliminary polls are wildly inaccurate.
However, those bogus numbers vaguely support this insane conspiracy, so let’s go with those!
Thanks for taking the time to check the actual numbers.
except she/he is wrong.
Ooops, at least one error above. I trusted their reports of the actual primary vote, which was a mistake. Virginia actually went 64.3% for Clinton, right in line with the exit polls.
So: they are actually entirely wrong in all 6 of their “worst cases.” Congrats to Stanford and Tilburg Universities!
Another thing you seem not to understand. Exit polls are “adjusted” as actual vote tallies begin to be reported. That way their exit polls end up looking very much like the actual results. Those are the numbers you just looked up.
The statisticians used the exit poll numbers that weren’t manipulated after the fact.
So, that’s two major errors you’ve made in comments on this one thread because you are poorly informed.
Please explain in detail exactly how exit polls are taken, by whom, what is the sampling protocol, and how the after the fact adjustments are made. Or refer me to a source that lays out all these details. Thank you in advance.
Here’s one (but you’re free to educate yourself with as many resources and references as you want to look up):
AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research)
They give as their source the NYT and a JFK assassination conspiracy site. I went with the NYT. They don’t actually say whether they’re adjusted or not, but at least in a few states they missed by a percent or two. That would indicate unadjusted.
And in the appendix it’s clearly labeled as “unadjusted exit poll” numbers. They list the NYT as the source for the actual reported election results.
What’s the “JFK assassination conspiracy site” that the authors cited as a source? Since conspiracies are an ordinary and everyday occurrence in families, within workplaces, government, etc. have never understood why the word is used to denigrate those that suspect that existence of a conspiracy in a specific situation. Was there not a conspiracy in this country to invade and occupy Iraq?
Guess Puerto Ricans were not exercised about being fed to vultures. Did not even bother to vote in the 2016 Dem primary…
The Democratic Party of Puerto Rico reduced polling places from about 1500 to under 500. They also came up with a means whereby voters who voted in local primaries had to go to a second polling place to vote in the presidential primary. Last winter they estimated 700,000 would show up to vote. By the time they finally held the elections only 60,000 voted, or 8% of the voters they estimated last winter.
Nothing to see.
I recently read somewhere that the term “conspiracy theory” started appearing in the NYT in 1964. Ever since then the term’s use in the NYT has multiplied.
What happened to cause that?
That’s a real head scratcher. Would be interesting to know when in 1964 in relation to the 9/24/64 release day of the Warren Commission Report.
“And in the appendix it’s clearly labeled as “unadjusted exit poll” numbers.”
I labelled my cat a horse, so now he must be a horse.
Yeah, their “expert” is Richard Charnin who has somespreadsheets of “unadjusted” data. He doesn’t say how he got them, but presumably he a has thousands of election-day employees and does his own polling. Either that, or he’s full of crap.
But a JFK assassination conspiracy-monger can’t be full of crap, can he now?
Anyway, their real data source seems to be “I read it on the internet!” http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/on-tim-robbins-election-fraud-and-how-nonsense-spreads-around-the-in
ternet/
I have have drawn no conclusion nor made any statement as to whether or not I accept the authors’ interpretation of their statistical analysis. That would require more of me than merely reading their report and supporting documentation. Therefore, for me at this point it’s data to be neither accepted nor rejected.
Why is this data so threatening to you? Are you unaware of the fact that US elections have been rigged for most of the history of this country? Do you think that in real time ordinary people saw the CREEP’s dirty tricks in the ’72 election? Hell, in ’72 ordinary people thought those that perceived a direct connection of the DNC office break-in to Nixon were nut-cases.
Oh, Jesus Christ, Marie — you’re using numbers THE POLLSTERS admit are inaccurate to claim there’s a nationwide vote fraud conspiracy involving dozens or hundreds of people.
“Why is this data so threatening to you?”
To paraphrase Capt. Willard, I don’t see any “data” at all.
“Are you unaware of the fact that US elections have been rigged for most of the history of this country?”
OK, bye now crazypants.
Crazypants, eh?
“The federal Election Assistance Commission (the EAC) has four Commissioner vacancies, which wouldn’t be all that bad, except that the commission only has FOUR commissioner positions. The entire commission has been vacant since 2011!”
“Federal certification of voting systems has become nearly meaningless since some of the certification companies themselves were “decertified” for failure to follow their own quality control procedures.”
“In essence, our election system is based on trust.”
http://blackboxvoting.org/2013-04-23-ca-testimony-by-tom-courbat-opposing-internet-voting-bill/
Read a few of their stories…http://blackboxvoting.org/
Yes, you’re right: clearly that proves there are and have been coordinated, nationwide instances of vote fraud (not suppression) involving at least dozens and probably hundreds of individuals, many of whom are affiliated with the candidate who was cheated.
The truth is out there!
Black Box Voting – one of the most credible organizations investigating voting issues – has received unofficial reports that political operatives have urged citizens NOT to ask too many questions and NOT to take photos or video of precinct caucus results, warning them that only “conspiracy theorists” would want to independently confirm the announced results.
Heh.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/stealing-election-easier-thought.html
Some interesting video.
Unofficial reports! You don’t say!
weak tea
Very entertaining… Politics in the Golden Age–The Age of Political Machines (http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Politics-in-the-Gilded-Age-1865-1900-COMPLETE2
.html)
“In the last three elections in Germany, for example, exit polls were never off by more than three-tenths of one percent. Unlike ordinary opinion polls, the exit sample is drawn from people who have actually just voted. It rules out those who say they will vote but never make it to the polls, those who cannot be sampled because they have no telephone or otherwise cannot be reached at home, those who are undecided or who change their minds about whom to support, and those who are turned away at the polls for one reason or another. Exit polls have come to be considered so reliable that international organizations use them to validate election results in countries around the world.”
But over here, they are reliably unreliable?
That last question shows you were too lazy to do the slightest bit of research into how exit polls are conducted in the US. The POLLSTERS THEMSELVES admit they’re inaccurate.
And, of course, there’s a major difference in the polls here and abroad: “And here’s the last nail in the conspiracy-mongers’ coffin: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours aren’t designed, and aren’t accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. Lenski, who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. They’re far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so that’s what they pay for.”
From that noted right-wing rag, The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/
Well, that explains why they are reliably unreliable. Does not explain why that is acceptable to us, apparently. We are unable to do it?
Of course we could have more accurate polling. Edison’s exit polls are paid for by “a group of six media organizations that includes Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and the Associated Press.”
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/22/how-exit-polls-work-explained
Someone would have to spend a lot more money to get more accurate polls. And by the way, I would absolutely support that, just as i would absolutely support requiring a paper trail for all voting machines.
reasonably well:
Nice to see the tradition continues…
“This past March, in just one of many recent cases, Texas representative Ciro Rodriguez, chairman of the congressional Hispanic Caucus, lost a close Democratic primary after a missing ballot box suddenly showed up in South Texas, stuffed with votes for his opponent. Rodriguez charged fraud but could never definitively prove it. The circumstances were eerily similar to those that tipped a 1948 Senate race to Lyndon Johnson. Election officials found ballot box 13 several days after the election. It held 203 votes, all but one for LBJ. Amazingly enough, the voters had cast their ballots in alphabetical order.”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/how-steal-election-12824.html
An amusing history of vote rigging down through the ages.
your condescension here looks very misplaced. For one thing, you haven’t demonstrated any “errors” by c.a.t.
While I don’t claim specific expertise in exit polling methodology/protocols (do you?), I have a quite solid (graduate-level) background in statistics and have used a range of such methods professionally.
From that basis, what you describe above with dark hints at (or assumptions of?) its nefariousness, doesn’t seem so to me at all.
In fact, it seems pretty easy to see why raw exit-poll data as collected here in the U.S. would require such adjustment to be at all meaningful.
I surmise that it’s all about quite limited sampling. I.e., if information provided in this thread is accurate (it makes sense, so I don’t find reasons to doubt that), an extremely small proportion of precincts get exit-polled (I know I never got polled back when I used to vote in person . . . nor since!).
Which pretty automatically raises the question whether those exit-polled precincts are “representative” of the “population of interest” (district, state, nation, etc.) as a whole. (I also wonder if even the precincts exit-polled are rigorously manned throughout the period the polls are open.) Which leaves “adjusting” the exit-poll results (a “sample”, i.e., those willing to respond to the exit poll out of all who voted) to the actual empirical results (a “census” of all who voted) for that precinct before extrapolating them to the rest of the population make quite good sense to me. And it sounds to me like that’s basically what’s being done here. I believe public-opinion pollsters do some such sort of “weighting” of results on a fairly routine basis. There are careers to be had in critiquing such procedures (just ask Nate Silver or whatshisname Wang), but at least conceptually, it makes sense.
So, just to make up an illustrative, hypothetical example:
Suppose your exit poll reveals that a polled precinct breaks down 45% Dem, 30% GOP, 25% neither; 20% black, 15% hispanic, 65% other; 55% female, 45% male; 60% some college education, 40% none; etc., etc. If these are not representative of the whole “population of interest”, the majority of which was presumably not exit-polled, then simply extrapolating the polled precincts to that whole population is likely to produce very inaccurate results. It makes sense, then, to “adjust” them to reflect the demographics of the whole population.
(Again, the specifics of the algorithms for accomplishing this may be legitimately wide open to criticism; but the basic concept and need for it does not seem so to me, based on what I know. I’d surmise that the exit-pollers probably don’t do this on an individual-precinct basis, but rather by lumping all exit-polled precincts together, then adjusting results to the demographics of that “population of interest”. At least that’s what makes sense to me.)
Steven–
I was one of the people who noted problems with the statistical analysis yesterday. I noted some specific issues. “Tarheel” did as well, and from what he wrote, he knows more about statistics than I. I do not feel compelled to repeat what I wrote.
The comments you relayed from your father did not address the problems that Tarheel and I noted.
To me, as a practicing scientist, the idea that “the data speak for themselves” is fatuous. Good Lord, why in the world do you think we have peer review? It’s so other people can judge for themselves whether those data that allegedly speak for themselves are reasonable. I am flabbergasted at the seemingly cavalier way that you father addressed things.
What I see going on in regards to the study that you relayed, in the way you presented it, and in the way that you father remarked upon it, is an excellent example of what is known as “confirmation bias”, meaning one finds the conclusion one was looking for.
I agree with you father when he writes this: “Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present.” I can think of several factors. Number one is the way that the authors of the analysis, and you, and your father, all assume that exit polls are incontrovertible hard data. Man, that is the assumption upon which all the claims of fraud are based.
And now I move beyond the nerdy stuff.
—What you wrote is a classic example of the appeal to authority in place of an actual countervailing argument. I could give you a list of my refereed publications in scientific and engineering journals, too. The fact that your father has a publication record is ancillary. I would have liked to hear his response to the specific points that Tarheel and I raised. If you in fact ever relayed our remarks, you father didn’t respond to them. I wasn’t trying to obfuscate anything. I had legitimate criticisms.
–Your father is a lifelong Republican “and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee”. WTF??
Have you forgotten that the GOP has been ginning up outrage about Bill and Hillary Clinton for the last 25 years? Oh, you father is obviously above all that, I suppose. He is absolutely agnostic about The Crimes of Hillary Clinton, unlike, uh, damn near every other Republican out there.
–Man, was I ever a sucker to think that after all the vitriol of yours directed at Hillary Clinton that you would ever be fair-minded.
To this worthwhile summary of Joel’s I’d add the huge confirmation bias revealed by the study author’s decisions re. which caucus results they found worth considering, which caucus results they did not consider, and why.
Steven’s dad thinks the process was rigged against Bernie at each and every level. It’s his feeling. Who needs proof? Yeah, I trust him.
If these “fraud” findings had a smidgen of resonance to them, don’t you think the Sanders campaign and Bernie himself would be raising objections? He appears serious as a heart attack to me. Do you doubt his willingness to fight on if a credible case could be made to support these claims?
I’m supremely pained about how much credibility is being eagerly burned down here by members of this community I often disagree with, but for whom I wish to remain respectful.
Bernie’s movement cannot fail, it can only be failed.
I don’t know statistics, but I do know confirmation bias.
How all this bullshit got its start:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/on-tim-robbins-election-fraud-and-how-nonsense-spreads-around-the-in
ternet/
If at this late stage you have infinite faith in the political parties and our voting system, then I have an election to sell you.
Hell, Texans probably still do it to keep in practice. Even when unnecessary. Loooooooooong tradition down here.
It’s not a question of faith, it’s a question of what makes sense.
Here’s what doesn’t make sense:
But I guess not believing obvious bullshit is the new gullibility.
Even before looking at the study, one has to ask him/herself whether it is more probable that 1) a vast network of individuals throughout the country are capable of perpetrating fraud on a massive scale, are willing to expose themselves to massive criminal liability even though it is likely unnecessary (since, you know, the primary results were largely similar to polling immediately prior to the primaries in question), savvy enough to know that they could only perpetrate said fraud in states without a paper trail, and are skilled enough to pull off the fraud in a manner virtually undetectable to the outside world while all of the hundreds or thousands of conspirators manage to keep their conduct a secret; or 2) maybe there’s a problem with the study and the accuracy of the data on which it is based. I submit that those who subscribe to #1 are not rational actors.
I’m not a statistician, but I’m very familiar with the idea of “garbage in, garbage out.” My layman’s understanding is that there is so much secret sauce in exit polls for the broadcast networks that they should not be relied on to make sweeping conclusions about alleged fraud after the fact. I’m not casting aspersions on Steven’s father, but it appears that his carefully-worded response presupposes the accuracy of the data in question and also adds important caveats as to the limits of his knowledge on the quality of the data which must be taken seriously. Moreover, while he may be very accomplished in his area of study, I don’t see any suggestion that he has any expertise in conducting or interpreting network exit polls. Very smart people can nonetheless render opinions that are wrong or misinformed on a subject outside of their wheelhouse. Even Nobel laureates can be (and are) stricken as expert witnesses in trials where they render opinions based on faulty analysis, dubious evidence, or subject matters outside their range of expertise.
A story from Robert Parry’s ConsortiumNews:
https:/consortiumnews.com/2016/06/09/clintons-curious-california-victory
Yup, machines broke down– RIGGED. Election called too soon after the polls closed– RIGGED. Every poll had Clinton ahead– RIGGED. Bernie had big rallies– RIGGED.
Hope you all sober up soon.
I’m suddenly nostalgic for the days when Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley raised the dead to vote for John F. Kennedy.
and the lonesome, lost ballot box #13…
Honestly, and I mean this without malice because I like you personally, but I hope Martin revokes your front page privileges. I have seen you amend, update, and retract theses too many times because they were based on passion not reality.
I like you Steve, but I have stopped reading your posts because they’re not based in anything I know as reality.
How can anyone give credence to an exit poll, forged, honest, readjusted or whatever? I’d say the Democratic primary was rigged in the sense that Hillary Clinton had an enormous head start on Bernie Sanders (name recognition, network, etc.), is dripping with money, had the media establishment on the Democratic Party Machine her side from the start, to mention some points. The fraud, if it might be called that, is what occurred in the management and manipulation of the optics, PR, access, theatrics. It is legitimate to think that numerical ballot fraud may have occurred to some degree, but if so, the proof needs to be found in the actual numbers or in the deficient voting machines or their electronic manipulation. What is the point of an exit poll? To sell newspapers and advertising, I guess. That said, fraud in US elections is a no-brainer. I’d like the UN to monitor US elections (just look at the crude, Byzantine cesspool voting laws are). Maybe Jimmy Carter would want to spend more resources examining the election practice in his own country instead of nosing around in every else’s. I was horrified at the idea that Mayor Daley of Chicago rigged the election for John Kennedy. Is it true?
I was horrified at the idea that Mayor Daley of Chicago rigged the election for John Kennedy. Is it true?
Probably. Team Nixon was preparing to challenge it, but flipping IL alone was insufficient and they couldn’t find a second state to challenge.
I can’t believe we’re having an honest-to-god Dean Chambers thread here.
Then stay out – there are plenty of FP pieces and discussion threads that I couldn’t care less about – and I never jump into them and complain that they exist and/or disparage those engaged in them.
Don’t worry, you’ll get your wish soon enough.
Speaking as someone who hates Hillary and has no training to evaluate the competing arguments, I’m very skeptical that the contest was rigged in any way beside the obvious ones: the debate schedule, media bias, etc.
That said, I think it’s fascinating that some people are calling for the poster to be banned – as if he were a Holocaust denier whose beliefs are so hateful and dangerous that society must be shielded from them, even at the expense of our general support for free speech. Are those people truly that insecure about Hillary’s legitimacy as a candidate?
Who’s calling for him to be banned?
No one. A couple of Frog Ponders are considering whether Steven needs to have his posts remain as automatic front page material. That’s far from being banned.
This post moves its wild claims with dubious evidence in the wake of the attack on Ryan Hughes which Steven moved a couple of months ago. Among other things, I found that episode astoundingly disrespectful to the Sanders campaign, and remarkably unwilling to understand that campaign volunteers often fail to understand, and are sometimes unwilling to accept, canvassing strategies.
There was also a recent post laying claims about BooMan himself which Steven D was forced to retract.
We’ve got a community here. The community wants responsible posts, particularly on the front page. I want Steven D to act more responsibly. He, and the authors of this study, don’t have the goods here.
It’s time to come to terms with the results of the primary. There are many ways in which the Sanders campaign could help create long-term changes to the Democratic Party. Let’s concentrate on helping him and his supporters do that. As a member of the California Democratic Party, I’m anxious to see the Sanders movement gaining permanent influence in the Party.
No one is calling for him to be banned. But a couple commenters above say he shouldn’t be a front pager. I agree with them.
His posts are ridiculous, pointlessly contentious, and overlong. This blog has two front pagers: one is the most astute political writer I know of and the other is a crank.
When I see a Steven D byline I almost always skip past it– he has to spew some seriously vile bullshit for me to bother rebutting him. He should go write his crank diaries on the right side of the page.
Agree with Toasters. Martin is brilliant. Steven is an embarrassing crank.
It’s sad to read someone preface their remarks by a statement of whom they hate, as though that boosted their bona fides.
Commenters on relatively obscure blogs always understand a topic better than experts.
The interwebs has always been kinda amazing that way.
I am a biostatistician. I have 160 publications, primarily in the area of medical statistics. I have run analyses involving small studies and large studies .
The main issue with the current system is VERIFIABILITY. Can you validate and recount the votes?
None of this is statistics. This is simply accounting or data accumulation. The use of p values (which I have no problem with) is pretty much irrelevant. If you cannot show the data and recount the data, the problem is going to be a serious one in the long run.
As Stalin said, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything”. That is the key.
In science today, there is a reproducibility crisis. The research results in many areas (you name it, I can show you a problem study) cannot be reproduced. There are 2 levels of this: 1) if you redo the experiment with another group of subjects, you get a different, often less strong result 2) if you redo the calculations on the same study with the same data, you may be a different result.
There is fraud in part of this. There is incompetence in part of this. Incompetence is a huge issue. If you go to people 2 years after a study is published, it is often hard to get the data, the code to do the analysis, and to determine where in the code a specific result came out. I have had this problem myself.
So, the problem in my opinion is not anything of a conspiracy. The problem is that structures and methods which do not allow or permit re-evaluation and re-tabulation to be performed are being used to select an important figure for a key office. And that is wrong.
There are simple solutions to these problems:
And just why are the networks using trash numbers to conclude anything? When they could do the job right using simpler methodology?
Yes, all the polling outfits, all the networks, all the newspapers, all the researchers use trash numbers. All those people who spend their lives doing and studying polling could learn a thing or two from you.
Next up: why climate scientists are shills for Hillary.
Within the large world of statistical methods, where are you located specifically? I for example am a biostatistician and psychometrician. That means that my polling knowledge is better than most, but not at a professional level.
What about you?
Some psychometrics, so a lot of factor analysis and reliability work. Lots of regression analysis in one period of research. Dabbled in cluster analysis for my dissertation. FWIW.
Anyway, the real problem with this paper is that their “data” is sourced to a single internet nut, and we’re supposed to just believe it. Why would a normal person believe it?
Anyway, no one has actually explained how Hillary could rig a process that is controlled by (mostly Republican) Secretaries of State. Meanwhile, the counts done by the party (caucuses) went to Bernie. The whole thing is ass-backwards, upside-down, and completely fucked up.
Hmm, still denying that there have ever been election shenanigans in our long history? lol
If the rest of the world can get accurate polling info with their simpler methodologies, why do we refuse to do it? We are able, but we don’t? Please explain…
I don’t deny that Bernie supporters tried to steal this election. Look at the most corruptible part of the process: caucuses. Where did Bernie win overwhelmingly? Caucuses.
Can’t believe you support his attempt to steal the election. No, wait: I totally can believe it.
Hmm, still denying that there have ever been election shenanigans in our long history? lol
If the rest of the world can get accurate polling info with their simpler methodologies, why do we refuse to do it? We are able, but we don’t? Please explain…
Wow– you still only have one line, and it’s dishonest to boot?
Better trolls, please.
I appreciate reading your work on setting a historical context for exit polling.
“What is most interesting for me is learning how much of a creaking election system we have in the US. No professional election commission, horribly inconsistent election procedures, hardly a thought given or effort made in systematically auditing election results, and exit polling treated as “electioneering” at too many precincts so that compared to Germany if not Europe exit polls are sorely lacking.
Most telling is how much of this is a complete novelty because it has gone unnoticed in the past (probably for decades). Is it just me or does it seem like the nation has been asleep at the wheel? Hard to comprehend frankly.”
(http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit_p.html)
His blog has moved to a new site…http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster
Primaries where people vote on paper ballots are dependable. All others are unreliable.
Exit polls are worthless attempts to monitor a process. Some people will simply not tell you how they voted. Others will lie. Exit polls are for idiots.
Fix the process, end the problem. Eliminate caucuses NOW. Caucuses are beloved by party bosses because they can control the results and deliver whatever outcome is desired. There is huge manipulation going on there. See my followup piece about Nevada below.
If party bosses can control Statewide caucuses, why did Sanders disproportionately dominate most caucuses? Were those State Party bosses in the bag for Bernie?
In 2004, I followed the returns closely, and was extremely happy about 2 PM when Kerry was clearly winning in OH, according to exit polls, but 4-5 %. He ended up losing by that much. About a 10% swing.
Exit polls are worthless crap. Never listen to them.
Most polling these days has horrible problems of non-response, lying to the pollster, inability of pollsters to call cellphones, and all kinds of shit. Polling is a problematic area for many reasons right now. Exit polls are the worst kind of poll. I never pay a single bit of attention to them.
Are they even consistently wrong in the same manner?
When we measure things (exit polls measure the vote that was just taken), we need to ask about validity (is the thing estimated what you want) and reliability (do we get the same thing over and over).
With exit polls, there is so much crap in the process that they are, IMSIO, worthless.
I pay no attention to them. I pay attention to polls only for Sept 15-Voting Day. Everything else is worthless crap.
Thanks for your posts and comment about the details.
I want to mention something about what you call the reproducibility crisis in science. People whose work is grant funded–not I, as I work for Uncle Sam–know quite well that they will never get funded if what they propose to do is redo someone else’s experiments. So for the most part, nothing ever gets redone.
Yes, very true. But I will tell that US is getting more interested. Just this spring, there was an ORI call for reproducibility projects esp those involved in image analysis.
In one way, reproducibility could be introduced. Grad students could, in an early class, learn to redo an experiment. There are very serious issues in this process. In a recent paper, a very interesting discussion about why 2 labs could not get the same process to give the same results. It turned out that a simple, basic step was interpreted VERY VERY differently. Lab A ran a 20 minute mixing session. Lab B ran the mixing session overnight, and at a different temperature. Totally different outcomes.
The whole reproducibility issue is a threat to science.
Thanks for your useful and illuminating comments; they’ve provided quite an education.
It’s unsettling to contemplate the implications inherent in failure of reproducibility — among them the opening it offers for science deniers to further undermine any rational, evidence-based approach to our problems.
FSM knows, scientists are human beings, too, not immune to all the biases, differing interpretations, errors, wishful thinking, fraud, and just plain fuckups everyone else is; but I’d thought the scientific method had safeguards in place to protect (for the most part) against all that. Apparently not — or not nearly enough.
In the defense of these scientists, they each had a clear belief that their approach was the standard.
One thing I did not know prior to reading about this problem was the Journal of Visual Processes (or something like that). In this video journal, which is edited and reviewed like a print journal, methods are shown visually, so that you are not confused by an ambiguous description.
That sounds like a great idea!
(so-called), with their completely self-discrediting element of a self-selected sample (among numerous other methodological issues)?
re:
The Nevada caucus is a case in point:
If you cannot trust the process to accurately measure the underlying attitude, then all the statistics in the world and all the fancy theory you can marshall are so much reeking bullshit. Fix the process (no caucuses, no electronic-only machines) and the problems outlined by these guys, neither of whom have probably ever been to the US, will vanish.
Steven has posted excellent pieces over the years. This is not one of them, the evidence of vote rigging is weak. Too bad there’s not an overall editor that can act as a filter to nix pieces that don’t meet standards.
Steven, reading all of this makes me think of the seven stages of grief. It must be early days for you because this all sounds like you’re at disbelief/denial.
Others above have pointed out problems with data validity, statistical methodology, confirmation bias, and the size of the conspiracy necessary to implement what you believe took place. The only think I’ll add is to say this: let’s say that you’re right and massive electoral fraud did take place. How are you going to prove it? Assuming that you could even do so by the time the question was decided the election would be long over. What then — a do-over?
It can be hard to accept. I have Democratic Party friends in Wisconsin who still can’t believe that Scott Walker handed them their asses three times in four years but you know what? That’s exactly what happened. Walker hands-down out-organized them (us) in 2010, 2012, 2014. And he’ll do it again in 2018 if they can’t pull their heads out of their asses and take some responsibility, figure out what they are doing wrong and how to put it right. Yet still they don’t do that.
If you ever believed that Sanders had anything more than an insanely, incredibly, long-shot chance to get nominated then you need to start taking some responsibility too: you were naive. Maybe that’s a tough thing to read but nobody else is going to tell you that. In particular people who still believe in this farce won’t tell you that.
It’s like I said above: this is 3-card monte. The dealer will never tell you that you’re the chump. It takes another chump, so here’s what I learned back when I was a chump: the people who control the Democratic Party, who have the real power, don’t have much in the way of principles. They’d rather win than lose, that’s true; but they’ll cheerfully accept losing an election (or two, or three) as long as it means that they don’t lose their power and their perks inside the institution. That they won’t allow. Hence, it’s bupkis for Bernie. And if you didn’t see this coming, you were a chump. Plain and simple.
Instead of going crazy with could’ve/would’ve/should’ve and bemoaning the unfairness of this nomination charade look at it as an organizing project. Yeah we got beat on the nomination. It happens. But we won something too: everyone sees that the empress is naked. And looking at the mess that is Donald Trump, we are faced with the opportunity of handing white supremacy its worst defeat since 1865.
This is an organizing opportunity that nobody expected a year ago. It’s huge. And if we leave it to the Democrats, chances are they’ll fvck it up. So every second we spend worrying about primary elections that are already over, were they/weren’t they fair, blah blah blah, is a second lost that we should be directing at exploiting the possibilities in front of us. We have little time, and a lot of work to do.
Yep. The Iron Law of Institutions…personal power trumps any duties to the institution.
WI, MI, OH, PA – these are “blue” states that have been red in various ways in the last 10 years. In 4 years, it will 2020, and redistricting will be occurring. There is no way that the Ds will have the rural turfs in WI. Even IL, that “true-blue” state, is 10 D, 9 R in HoR.
If Ds cannot compete in the rural turfs, the Ds are toast. Period.
And why can’t we compete? A lot of reasons that I will go one way on and most here go the other way on. Until we can put up a challenger for Paul Ryan in the Kenosha-Racine-Jaynesville area, we will not win anywhere outside of Eau Claire-LaCrosse-Milwaukee-Madison.
In 2020, the Rs will control redistricting, and the same stuff will happen again – pie wedge districts that keep the majority of HoR seats red.
All the trans stuff is not helping, either.
I have no opinion on whether Steven D’s stuff ought to be on the front page, and in any case, Booman owns this blog and decides who’s on the front page.
What I have a problem with is the unrelenting vitriol that Steven D has directed at Hillary Clinton. I know there’s a school of “journalism” practiced by people such as the late Christopher Hitchens in which cleverly worded invective substitutes for anything substantive. Well, Steven D has the invective down, but the cleverness I’m not so sure about.
Some things that Steven D has written previously suggested to me that he has some sort of Buddhist spiritual practice. Moi aussi. In that context, he might find metta practice useful.
Steven D, writing about Booman Tribune commenters;
——-
I have been a front pager there since 2005. However his site has been infested by David Brock trolls. I find that sad.
——-
In the comments.
.
Man, I wish. Trying to stamp out this wildfire of bullshit would go easier if I were getting paid.
Anyway, we all know that Steven D is intemperate and an intellectual lightweight, and as a result doesn’t really do facts. His idiotic ad hominem (that he doesn’t have the guts to say over here) is merely the icing on his shitcake.
He’s called me a troll at least twice, and that was after I offered fact-based critiques of his conspiracy theories.
Is it too late to offer you my congratulations? 🙂
Is it really so necessary to dump on him with such enthusiasm? Honestly, it’s an interesting idea, although I too think it’s crap. It might be better to be a little less enthused in your comments.
I have no idea if it’s necessary. It is justified.
More about uncounted votes in California:
http://bradblog.com/?p=11719
“Election results are updated as often as new data is received from county elections offices after the polls close at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Many ballots are counted after Election Day. County elections officials have approximately one month to complete their extensive tallying, auditing, and certification work. They must report final certified results to the Secretary of State by July 8, 2016.” [italics added]
Per the website of the California Secretary of State, right here.
Do you need someone to solve your plumbing issues?
Well here we are, theplumbing911