« Dafna Linzer, the Iran War's A17 Expert | Main | Senate Republicans Defy Bush; Colin Powell Agrees »

September 14, 2006


Keep the focus.


"It's the Election, Stupid"

So for turnout, the Democrats are dependent upon nebulous, fragile, situational and candidate-driven "excitement", and the Repubs are dependent upon a reliable issue- and situation- independent methodology.

Advantage: Republicans. Hey, Democratic donors: how about investing in microtargeting?

A Hotline article yesterday said that the intensive GOP turnout effort works well the first time it's tried but they are experiencing some burnout the second time around where it has been tried before, namely MO, OH and PA. They plan to roll it out in CT (and IN) this year, as well as TN. I assume they mean it's harder to get the volunteers this time around, since it supposedly depends much more on volunteers (locals) than outsiders.

The problem I see with the Dems is that the DNC, DCCC and DSCC, plus labor, seem to have their own turnout efforts, rather than a more unified effort. Plus labor has endorsed the R in NY-20, PA-06 and 07, and CT-04 and 05, in addition to Burns, Chafee and DeWine, from what I read somewhere.

I really hope the Dems get this part of it together and don't just rely on 30 sec broadcast ads. Some of the ads are good, but they have diminishing returns over time (it is only mid-Sept) and turnout is the most important.

But for those waiting for hard-hitting Dem ads on Iraq, try this one.

I love that ad.

Okay...I was completely negated the last time I tried this but I am going to make my point again when we start analyzing the elections. Please read Freeman's work and the work of Mark Crispin Miller on the 2004 elections. Their works shows how voter turnout was impossible as the explanation for the 2004 national results.

This is a mathematical analysis. It has not been debunked in any specific way that I am aware of. There have been criticisms by political hacks and pundits but none by scientists(that did not have ties to the GOP).

My understanding is that their analysis, at the very least leads to many questions that cannot be answered without an in depth investigation. I have heard both men speak and read their books. I first read the study on the website doing the a search on election fraud. One of the studies came out of the University of Pennsylvania.

Perhaps in the Chaffee's case voter turn out was the issue. But their have been good scientists who question the plausibility of the numbers regarding the voter turn out issue in regard especially to Ohio in 2004. According to their analysis the number do not fit reality. They went by possible voters, possible evangelicals etc...and compared it to the results. An investigation is needed to determine where these votes came from.

I support the notion of getting dems to the polls and believe that if their is election fraud occuring that the more who turn out the better. It is only by having people vote that we will finally know whether or not they have been cheating. I do not want this to cause people to not vote but to stand up and demand that the investigations be done.

I wouldn't even consider that 9/11 might have been allowed to occur. It seemd impossble to me. In 2000, our democracy was over ridden. In 2004, I couldn't imagine that they would cheat and when Kerry did not confront it, I was willing to let it go and accept that maybe it wouldn't have mattered. I did not want them saying he was a sore loser!! However, there are some really impressive facts that would lead people to question the results. These two scientists have made me really rethink the issue.

Patterns of republican behavior that supports the potential for voter fraud.

9/11-evidence that they have obstructed a
nonpartisan investigation. Evidence that they may have allowed it to occur and charges that they actually caused it. There are some startling facts to consider. I am keeping an open mind.

Anthrax-dems got the poison. They certainly were the ones who "needed" to be afraid and willing to give up power for the sake of safety. blamed on a cia person who has been exonerated. Interesting pattern.

Katrina-clearly loss of life is NOT important to these people. Schiavo was public and to save one!

Iraq war-downing street memo and lots of evidence that going to war with Iraq was planned and executed in a very un-democratic way. (support the notion that our votes, the will of the people is not important to this administration)

The subverting of our constitution.

These are behaviors of the bush administration that make it plain to me, that the evidence supports that this administration would be very capable of cheating.

Please demand that there are enough voting machines (and/or polling places). See the latest study on hacking into voting machines (discover magazine had a very good article on this in 2003, before the 2004 elections...everything they said in that article has proven over time to be true. It is very easy to hack into voting machines without leaving a trace.) and understand the different ways that this administration suppressed the voting of democrats.

It would be like pushing for productivity without placing and emphasis on the collection of funds when trying to increase profits.

Yes, let's get out and vote but let's also make sure that all votes are counted and that all who want to vote have a wide open berth to do it!!

"It has not been debunked in any specific way that I am aware of"

Please. yes, it has. The exit poll stuff has been completely debunked by non-GOP academic scientists at the American Academy of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the pollster's organization, in Miami. There's no there there. Freeman is wrong.

Let's move on.

Mimikatz, is that for real, about Labor endorsing DeWine and Burns? Bad enough the assorted Representatives they stick with (I assume they've been with them a long time); but those two guys are key to a Dem turnover in the Senate. I'm starting to agree with Kos: the alleged "liberal interest groups" are so far behind the curve they're almost destructive to our efforts. Didn't they notice Bush and Co. going balls-to-the-wall for Chafee? Can't they understand, the only game now is chamber-control?

DemfromCT, to back up our shared analysis of the polling last night: Pew just released a poll taken 9/6-10, and it showed Bush's number unmoved at 37%. Thus, the week of terror-terror-terror, and the miraculous fall in gas prices, can't reasonably be given credit for any Bush bump. It's clear it's the network pageantry of September 11th alone that made the needle move, however slightly. A week from now, we'll forget it ever happened.


I strongly suggest the Democrats make the economy their biggest issue, especially as housing cools--winter isn't a great time to buy a house in an already slow market.

I read it somewhere and wrote the names down, rather than printing the piece, so have no link. I'll try to research it. It does seem bizarre.

Katie Jensen, please also note that my comment in in way suggests that Dieboldissues aren't important (they are) or that voter suppression isn't important (Ohio 2004). But Kerry really did lose.

2000 is another story.


I would encourage you to read the analysis and answer to Mitofsky Jan 2005 analysis of Freeman's work. The response to Mitofsky was authored by 12 scholars and from that analysis it is clear that Mitofsky has his bias. Everyone should read their response. My point is not, that there was in fact voter fraud. My point is that there are legitimate questions regarding the 2004 result to warrant grave concern. We are a democracy and my bias is that if we doubt the voting tallies we have a big problem. The discussion is far from resolved, as you report.

I would also encourage people to read the studies about the lack of voting machines, where they occurred in Ohio and how many folks did not get to vote because of the long lines. This number of people would have made Kerry the winner according to that study and it just came out last month. There were a multitude of ways that the republicans tried to affect voting. This is serious stuff here. That fact is clear. They worked at supressing the vote. Whether or not anomalies can be explained entirely by Freemans work I do not know for sure because the statistical analysis is over my head. But twelve scholars argue against Mitofsky's jan debunking. The reply to Mitofsky makes it clear that he minsunderstood some of the conclusions if you read the April report by these scholars.

My point stands. There is enough controversy here that all Americans should be concerned. I never said that Kerry won. I am stating that this issue has valid and legitimate scientists concerned. I don't see the pattern running much different than it did in regard to global warming or the Iraq war. They get some scientists to debunk some legitimate questions and then the people let it rest as if the issue is closed. There are as many open questions regarding the 2004 elections as there are in the cia leak case. It's the same tactic.

Question it. Don't let them convince you that the questions are not valid. The questions are valid. The concern is valid. I know we are all tired because the assault is constant. It's a lot like living with a batterer. Pretty soon we all get tired and give up the fight or minimize the problem.

This is a big problem. Mitofsky's paper and comments are not the end word.


I would also encourage people to read the studies about the lack of voting machines, where they occurred in Ohio and how many folks did not get to vote because of the long lines.

You have hit the nail on the head. It isn't hard to do the math on this one. Long lines mean that the voting process is being limited by the rate at which people are able to vote, not the rate at which they are coming to vote, and thus the total number of votes cast in a precinct is capped at (the number of hours the polls are open) times (how many people are able to vote each hour). If you can cause this to happen in your opponent's strongholds, you can set an upper limit on how many vote he can get there.

As for Diebold's machines, have you seen the new Princeton University video?

Definitely worth checking out: http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

And finally, as for the exit polls, we'll probably never know for sure. I poured over the raw data at the time and, when you got past the obvious (such as the Gahanna precinct where Bush got 4,258 votes out of a total of 638 ballots), there was still a lot left to be suspicious of.


I'm sorry folks. I am extremely familar with all of this. The late Warren Mitofsky (he died this month)had it more right than the group aruging aginst him. The exit polls were wrong.

But you are conflating different things. Voter fraud? No. Not in 2004. Voter suppression? Yes. Diebold issues? Absolutely. Exit poll controversy? There's no controversy. Exit polls were not supposed to pick a winner, and couldn't in a close election. The papers by freeman and US Vote Counts and other discredited organizations that broke up arguing amongst themselves (most of the authors recanted) are not credible.

"Hey, Democratic donors: how about investing in microtargeting?"

Democratic donors? The problem is that this isn't the kind of thing that is best handled by an ad-hoc donor effort. It needs an infrastructure that remains in place from election to election.

If only we had some kind of organization that had the responsibility for things like microtargeting.

The Republicans have a Republican National Committee that deals with such things. If only we had a Democratic National Committee to keep pace.

Oh, that's right, I forgot. We do have a DNC. Except the current regime over there has far grander priorities than the unpleasant, grubby business of winning elections.

Is there any practical difference between voter fraud and voter suppression? They're two different forms of manipulating elections and denying voters the franchise. Both strongly suggest conspiracy.


I am just going to assume you know alot more about this than I do. I wasn't able to come up with any articles that debunked the last April 12 article. But I am not expert. I do respect your knowledge and know when to quit. My point was though, that any analysis of the elections needs to deal with and include this aspect of voter supression. My point (and I didn't make it very well) was that if in fact it was an impossible thing that "every" neo con voted (which was part of the info in Freeman's work that I found interesting) it may be that they didn't "get out the vote" as well as they supressed ours.

It is frustrating me, in light of all the good analysis out there that we seem to be ignoring this issue. It's great to analyse what they on the other side did well, but I am not certain that we weren't pretty effective in this regard, especially in light of the number of folks who couldn't wait in lines.

That one really got to me. I was a single mom for a long time. I would not have been able to sit in a long line. I would have had to go pick up my kids at the day care after work by a certain time. I just think this issue is being ignored by the dems. I know they don't want to look like sore losers and all that, but it seems that there is now ample evidence of voter supression tactics in those states where it was going to be very close. That's really all I wanted to say. It's good to analyze but this needs to be included in any analysis of what will work! Just my humble opinion, and thanks for your comments on this.

Hi DemfromCT,

Did you read the MysteryPollster work? Elizabeth Liddle's contributions? I don't remember you commenting on the MysteryPollster blog, and as far as I'm concerned that was the epicenter of honest debate on the exit poll issue.

I was there from the beginning on the debate on statistics, and dueling reports. If you want to educate people I would send them to Mysterypollster.com so that they can see the honest debate for themselves.

I don't disagree with you, the debate on the exit polls has just about ended as you claim, but I don't appreciate the dismissive attitude. If it was up to people like you, the full analysis never would have happened. For a critical thinker, that is an unworthy attitude, even if you personally don't see the value in the debate beyond proving your prejudices correct.

and as far as I'm concerned that was the epicenter of honest debate on the exit poll issue.

Good for you for saying that! alcatholic, please note I was actually in the middle of the debate. See

[Full disclosure and adapted from the Mystery Pollster, who has a similar disclaimer: For the last two weeks, I have had the unique opportunity to watch the development of Elizabeth Liddle's work through a running email conversation between herself, Rick Brady of StonesCryOut and Mark Blumenthal from Mystery Pollster. This post benefits greatly from their input, although as always, the views expressed here are my own - DemFromCT].
which was written on Fri Apr 29, 2005. In fact, here is how it appears on the old Mystery Pollster site on the same day as my post:
[Full disclosure: For the last two weeks, I have had the unique opportunity to watch the development of Elizabeth's work through a running email conversation between Elizabeth, Rick Brady of StonesCryOut and "DemFromCT" from DailyKos. My use of the familiar "Elizabeth" henceforth results from that remarkable experience. This post benefits greatly from their input, although as always, the views expressed here are my own].

I was more than there. I was part of it.

And by the way, Elizabeth Liddle was posting under the name "Febble" at Daily Kos while I was a front pager there, and that's where on-line work on her idea started and developed, as I outline in my post above, from April 2005.

Just for the record, MP was not the only epicenter, nor was it the only place for honest debate, though it was outstanding.

I just found my way back here, and I was pleasantly surprised to read your response.

I appreciate now that you helped promote Liddle's work, good for you. I apologize for writing that if it was up to you the full analysis wouldn't have happened.

I was aware that Liddle had posted at DKos, but I had assumed from some light reading at the time that you had been dismissive and snarky during the debate. I'm glad to learn that you also appreciated the value of a rigorous response to the USCV papers. Not enough to dismiss them as wrongheaded.

Snark and dismissiveness when there were still open questions is what was thankfully missing in Mark Blumenthal's posts at Mysterypollster.com. I'm glad it wasn't the only thing being bandied about at DKos.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad