Good post, wrong analysis

[RaulVB]

From the DKos, KOS himself posted this:

"Though John Kerry was dismissed as a "Massachusetts liberal," a phrase that ought to be the kiss of political death in a region where the word "Eastern" can be taken as an insult, the Democrat came close to winning two states that went easily for George Bush in 2000--Colorado and Nevada--and improved the Democratic percentage of the presidential vote in seven of the region's eight states. Even in states where Kerry took a drubbing, the Democratic campaign showed strength--moving up five points in Montana, a state where he never campaigned. In Wyoming one county backed the Democratic presidential ticket. And it turned out to be Teton County, the home of Vice President Dick Cheney, whose neighbors picked the Democratic ticket by a healthy 53-45 margin."

What he doesn't see or does not want to understand is that the numbers he, himself, is copying, show that the American public voted for Kerry for president in 2004 but the fraud took the election away!

I find it very sad, indeed.

Very smart individuals lack common sense very often.

[Cocoa]

1. interesting post by Kos

and your objection to it is utterly lost on me.

[RaulVB]

4. Where the votes were more or less really counted, Kerry wins

Even on those places were Kerry DID NOT CAMPAIGN!

That tells me that Kerry won the election clearly but the fraud took it away.

That is evident to anybody, but KOS has banned the talk of fraud on the main page of his site, because he doesn't agree with the notion that anything strange happened on November 2nd!

[tx_dem41]

6. Help me out here....the excerpt you posted mentioned Kerry

moving up in five states (from Gore's 2000 margin), but he didn't win any of them. Given that, what do you mean when you say "Where the votes were more or less really counted, Kerry wins"?

[RaulVB]

10. Colorado and Nevada

If anything is clear today is that Kerry's totals there are far better than of those of Gore.

He won New Hampshire and outperformed Gore everywhere, but, curiously enough, Republicans claim the Bush "outperformed" his own numbers on the cities where the Democrats have a rock solid base.

In states like New York, California, New Jersey, etc. etc.

[tx_dem41]

14. Yet, again, he didn't win either state you mentioned in the title...

So, again, why does this show that Kerry actually won???

[RaulVB]

17. Voting tendencies

And the impact of those elements I mentioned in my other replies.

I have nothing else to add.

[tx_dem41]

20. Can you add one other thing...

Maybe some reasoned explanation to back up your fragmented little catch-phrases? Pretty please?

[RaulVB]

24. Thanks for the "writing style critique..."

The meaning of my posts is quite evident.

[tx_dem41]

25. Yes, I appear to be the only one on the thread that had a problem with it

:eyes:

[On the Road]

35. I'm With You, TX Dem

I don't understand how areas in which "the votes were more or less really counted" are distinguished from other areas.

I don't think Kos does, either.

[RaulVB]

36. I wouldn't dare to speak for KOS...

So I won't.

However, he really believes that "Bush won" the last election, "we all need to move on, think in the future, etc., etc."

[On the Road]

45. OK. I Don't Know if Bush Really Won or Not

I don't know the extent of voting suppression and fraud and whether it affected enough votes to swing the election.

It seems like you do. I don't understand the basis you used for identifying area where votes were more or less counted correctly.

[Straight Shooter]

40. I put quoted material in italics to separate it

I went back and re-read it and noticed you didn't put your personal comments in quotes, but upon first reading it, everything flowed together and I thought it was all from dailykos.

Maybe that's where the disconnect is :shrug:

[RaulVB]

42. You know...

I'm guessing the same now that I think of it.

Thanks!:thumbsup:

[RaulVB]

44. Plus, some context is also missing

KOS has not allowed conversation about fraud on the main page of his site.

You can write about it but only in the peripheral "diaries."

[bemis12]

11. That's true

But only if you are willing to pre-define "really counted" as those where "Kerry won".

That's precisely what you're doing, and it leads to your foregone conclusion.

You only recognize two places as being possible:

1. Those where Kerry won
2. Those where fraud took it from Kerry.

[RaulVB]

16. Bush won Wyoming, Montana, Alabama, etc., etc.

Your point is?

[tx_dem41]

18. Ohh....now I am very confused...

yi, yi, yi....since you didn't ask the question of me...I feel free to ask: "What is your point (at mentioning these states that Bush won)"?

[RaulVB]

19. I was offered only 2 scenarios...

And told about the meaning of my own posting.

I do not pretend that there is only 2 "possible realities"

I say the American public clearly was not behind Bush's regime.

And that fraud took place.

[tx_dem41]

23. "Clearly was not behind Bush's regime"?

Yet, to back that up you post results from five states where you, yourself, admit Bush won. :eyes:

[RaulVB]

27. Plain and simple

Kerry gains votes even on those places where HE DID NOT SHOW UP.

He was so good that I can only imagine how he won those states where he did campaign if he actually WERE NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF HIS VOTES.

[Joe Chi Minh]

47. Anybody who doesn't

think Kerry won in a landslide is seriously lacking in common sense.

[Cocoa]

12. this makes absolutlely no sense

unless the goal is to use some nonsensical version of the "election fraud" story to bash every dem. For which there is ample evidence...

[tx_dem41]

2. How do "the numbers he, himself, is copying, show that the American...

public voted for Kerry for president in 2004"?

[RaulVB]

7. Read response below (n/t)

[tx_dem41]

8. I did ...read mine ...above. n/t

[bemis12]

3. I say file suit

Quote the vote totals from Teton county, Wyoming as proof of Ohio fraud. That should get you laughed at.

[RaulVB]

5. I would say to that:

Open a political science book, read some chapters concerning voting patterns, propaganda, the impact of war in political campaigns, public policy, the voter's response to those...

Good luck!

[righteous1]

9. Yea,I would classify that as

a bit of a "leap"

[RaulVB]

13. Reading between the lines?

My point is that some people just like to play the role of the victim without looking at the facts.

I'm not "leaping" anywhere.

[righteous1]

21. "Leap of logic" to definitively draw a hard conclusion from

isolated demographic changes that can have been caused by any of a 1000 dfferent influences

[tex-wyo-dem]

26. See post below...

These are not isolated demographics...this is a macro view of cities, suburbs and rural. Tell me that it makes sense that * would lose 5 pts in the God-fearin', gun-totin', terrorist hatin' rural communities and countryside while at the same time gaining 10 pts in the more liberal cities.

Defies all history of voting patterns.

[RaulVB]

Good!

That is what I was trying to say, that "defies all history of voting patterns."

So, how do you explain that?

[righteous1]

31. Isolated meaning that it did not happen across the country,

it varied depending on the location. To take this data and say that it has to be fraud (which i am not saying didn't happen) but to definitively state that is the cause is at the vary least premature at the most totally reckless. There are many different reasons that could have caused this, but being that you have convinced yourself that fraud took place, all these anomalies have to be because of fraud.

[RaulVB]

34. Not stating that at all!

I made a comment based on the history of American voting patterns.

To pretend that I'm saying that Wyoming or Montana Kerry's totals are my argument to show that fraud took place, would be preposterous.

From what I have learned anyway, you seem to be in the other side of this argument, that is: "Bush won."

Am I wrong?

[righteous1]

38. No, I am not a complete believer that it did or

that it didn't for that matter, in other words. I don't know. And if that was not the point your were trying to make ok, I misinterpreted what you were saying

[RaulVB]

39. Ok, fair enough

Thanks for the comments.

[tex-wyo-dem]

37. No, I agree with you righteous...

From the perspective that voting patterns for specific areas and states are influenced by different anomolies and/or issues from voting cycle to voting cycle (Example: Kerry probably did better in Nevada than expected due to the issue about Yucca Mtn.). But my point was that the numbers given by Newsweek take into account the entire country -- localized anamolies and issues are probably a wash when you look at it from a macro perspective.

Don't you find it curious that * did so well in cities (+10pts) but lost 5% of his support in his strongest of strongholds?

[righteous1]

41. Curious....yes, but I hesitate to view anomalies as conclusive

evidence of anything. For example I was looking at Cuyohoga county, JK increased his margin by 3%, Bush increased his margin in rural areas by 4%. That at first glance looks odd because his statewide % margin was less than in 2000. But when you crunch all the figures it makes sense

[righteous1]

43. I have no idea if this is correct but a possible theory on that

would be that urban dwellers were more sensitive and fearful of a possible terrorist attack and Bush cosistently polled 10% better than JK on that issue. Granted I pulled that outta my .... but a expert in demographics could come up with legitimate theories better than I to "possibly" explain it. I am just very careful about accusing anyone of multiple counts of a serious felony without being awfully darn sure

[tex-wyo-dem]

46. Maybe, but believe me...

rural voters, at least the ones I've been around, are equally as sensitive, if not more so, to terrorist attacks. In fact most of them take a very aggressive stance towards the entire issue, thus Bush's support in areas like Wyoming where I grew up.

I now live in Dallas and can tell you that people here don't seem to be, on a whole, as concerned and aggressive as your typical rural voter. Plus if "moral values" were really an issue in this election then, believe me, he would have gained 5 pts in rural areas rather than lost.

[tex-wyo-dem]

15. How?

How does * gain support in urban and suburban areas but lose support in areas that are supposed to be his stronghold -- that being rural? From someone who has lived in rural areas most of my life, I say no way does this make any sense whatsoever.

Numbers quoted from Newsweek:

2000 2004
Dem Rep Dem Rep
Cities 61 35 54 45 +10
Suburbs 47 49 47 52 +3
Rural 37 59 42 57 -5

This is very telling...

[RaulVB]

22. That's the official Republican version of the last election

"Bush did great among urban voters, particularly in Democratic strongholds..."

That is what THEY SAY.

[tex-wyo-dem]

28. Yep...if you're going to steal and election...

forget about the rural areas...too easy to get caught. Concentrate on the chaos of the cities...easier to hide.

[RaulVB]

29. Sorry, I guess I didn't understand your notes early

We agree on that.

[tex-wyo-dem]

33. Yes, we're in total agreement....

Rethugs would, for the most part, ignore the rural areas for large scale fraud due to the facts that 1.) it's too easy to get caught and 2.) they're in the bag for you anyway.

Fraud primarly took place in the cities, hence the numbers.

[trudyco]

30. Conveniently where there's a bb-evoting machine near you....

With no paper trail, or oops we forgot the printer, or multi precincts in Ohio where anybody went to any booth yet the order of candidates is by precinct, or the abysmal allocation of machines, well in the urban/suburban areas you just get more bang for your fraud buck.

In rural areas there was less chance of fraud - and surprise! the Dems really did good. CO practically painted itself Blue. Unheard of 4 years ago. The rural red county next to me became blue! I think some of these counties are feeling the Iraq war and the economy. Some of the upper middle class reds are appalled by the lack of fiscal responsibility. There just aren't enough evangilicals to offset that.

trudyco

[RaulVB]

32. Thank you!

Really, those were the real voting tendencies this year.

People on rural counties don't like to see their own killed or mutilated in a "war of choice."

No matter what the MSM may tell you.