Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
And yet the evidence of election fraud in Ohio during the last election didn't bother you one bit. Funny that.matthewk wrote:The 67-page report was full of facts and evidence of fraud. Voter fraud does exist, and it's more than 1-2 votes.
The WSJ Editorial page is looked at the same way you look at Michael Moore documentaries. It represents a certain POV, not journalism.matthewk wrote:So f-ing what? I don't care if the guy appears as a cross-dressing gay rights activist on cable tv.wco81 wrote:It's an opinion piece by columnist John Fund, who appears as a RW pundit on cable TV.matthewk wrote: You beat me to it. I heard about the WSJ article on the radio this morning. So voter fraud does not exist, huh?
It's not a news piece.
The 67-page report was full of facts and evidence of fraud. Voter fraud does exist, and it's more than 1-2 votes.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/33825499.htmlWSJ wrote:Last week Mike Sandvick, head of the Milwaukee Police Department's five-man Special Investigative Unit, was told by superiors not to send anyone to polling places on Election Day. He was also told his unit -- which wrote the book on how fraud could subvert the vote in his hometown -- would be disbanded.
Flynn told WTMJ's Charlie Sykes today there have been no discussions about disbanding the unit, noting it is needed in a city the size of Milwaukee. He also said that members of the unit are in squad cars, traveling around the city and will go to polling places if needed.
"I want them available to respond to complaints," he said. "They are in the field."
Flynn said the unit is part of a larger effort by the department to respond to problems. He said about 50 officers are on special Election Day duty, some traveling with prosecutors, others out with fellow officers or in a command post.
"We are making a major effort to make sure this is a free, fair election," Flynn said.
Who said it didn't bother me? Do you know me at all outside of this forum? That was just a real f-ing stupid and insulting thing to say.Feanor wrote:And yet the evidence of election fraud in Ohio during the last election didn't bother you one bit. Funny that.matthewk wrote:The 67-page report was full of facts and evidence of fraud. Voter fraud does exist, and it's more than 1-2 votes.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Went-Wrong-O ... 089733535X
http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Ohi ... pd_sim_b_2
Hardly.Jared wrote:Another one for the annals of reporting in the right-wing opinion press.
I'd disagree pretty vehemently with that conclusion. They've got these guys driving around in a clown car drinking coffee rather than demonstrating a presence in the polling places. That's a damn-sight short of making a "major effort" by any reasonable measure."We are making a major effort to make sure this is a free, fair election," Flynn said.
The govt. is going to be injecting hundreds of billions. The Fed cut the rates by 1/2 point a week or two ago. The Europeans are injecting even more and the ECB is expected to cut rates as well.Naples39 wrote:My point is that there is a a thousand factors that dictate levels of capital investment. Government only directly controls one of those factors, and that is taxes.
You can argue the magnitude of the effect of taxes on capital investment, but the effect of higher taxes, ceteris paribus, driving down capital investment is beyond reproach.
I think we'd all agree that unlike the 90s, or any other time in recent memory, we are in a uniquely bad time for capital formation. The credit crisis, the stock market crashing. Investors aren't exactly lining up at the doorstep of businesses. IMO, it is indefensible for government to compound this problem at this time by raising these taxes to historical levels which are even higher than those 'socialist' nations.wco81 wrote:Where is the evidence that there's been a shortage in capital investment? There's certainly been a lack of investment in creating new jobs, certainly.
First of all, the dollar has gained against the Euro recently, by something like 20%, because the dollar is seen as a safe haven. That's despite the higher rates you cite.Naples39 wrote:Absolutely true, which is why it is increasingly futile to practice protectionism these days as Obama espouses. You can practically guarantee with these higher tax rates that capital investment that once would go into the United States will now be put into foreign investments in countries like Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is less than a third of the United States'.wco81 wrote:Most big companies are multinational. They derive about half their revenues and profits overseas.
They are still the facts found by an investigation, no matter how many redirections you try.wco81 wrote:The WSJ Editorial page is looked at the same way you look at Michael Moore documentaries. It represents a certain POV, not journalism.
If there was any substance to that 2004 report, why hasn't more been done with it? The Justice dept. was pushing US Attorneys all over the country to prosecute voter fraud cases, often at the behest of state and local GOP groups alleging fraud all over the country.
Why did Bush countenance the alleged fraud in WI?
Listen, if I was going to ban everyone who mischaracterized the thoughts and opinions of another poster, then we wouldn't have a thread. I've tried to draw the line at something sensible and easily definable: personal attacks. If Feanor wants to make that post, fine. It's a dumb thing to say, but if I'm definitely not taking action either based on whether posts are dumb/smart, show poor argumentation, etc. You, of course, have the complete and total right to call him out for making assumptions about what you think. The line is drawn at personal attacks.matthewk wrote:Who said it didn't bother me? Do you know me at all outside of this forum? That was just a real f-ing stupid and insulting thing to say.
Jared, this is the kind of crap that needs to be monitored just as much as any openly personal attack. In fact, this is a direct attack. This clown has no idea how I felt about the issues with Ohio back in 2004, and yet feels free to make any assumption he pleases about me.
BTW, I voted for Kerry in 2004. What does that do for your over-simplified mind?
"We are making a major effort to make sure this is a free, fair election," Flynn said.
I was going to say the same thing. Pulling them from polling places to put them in cars certainly doesn't seem like it is a move to help them catch fraud.RobVarak wrote:I'd disagree pretty vehemently with that conclusion. They've got these guys driving around in a clown car drinking coffee rather than demonstrating a presence in the polling places. That's a damn-sight short of making a "major effort" by any reasonable measure.
Fund reports that they are disbanding the unit, without getting comment from the police chief. The police chief then responds that it is not true. Fund says that the unit was told "not to send anyone to polling places on Election Day", without comment from the police chief. The police chief says that they will go to the polling places if needed.RobVarak wrote:Hardly.Jared wrote:Another one for the annals of reporting in the right-wing opinion press.
I think this is where I disagree. I think his tax policy is based on the idea that a stronger middle class leads to a better economy, and that tax cuts to the middle class and poor will have a more direct and better effect on the economy than tax cuts to the rich.Naples39 wrote:-I'm not trying to say Obama is anti-capitalist, but I do believe many of his policies very well could turn out to be a step backwards concerning economic growth. As I've said for months, it seems to me that Obama's tax policy (both for federal income and corporate taxes) is built upon liberal social justice more than ways to grow and restore the economy.
Their presence in high-risk precincts gives a serious shot in the arm to the election judges when it comes to dealing with issues of fraud and intimidation.wco81 wrote:What are the cops suppose to do, check IDs and voter rolls themselves?
Work as poll workers?
If someone who's not on the voter roll tries to vote, the poll workers will let him unless there's a cop standing right there?
Let me rephrase......XXXIV wrote:He is truly a man to be disrespected.JackB1 wrote:
He's clearly not the same "Maverick" he was 10 years ago when I respected him.
I just fundamentally think that's the wrong question. The question isn't whether we should give tax cuts to the 'rich', the 'middle class' or to the poor. The question is, where will a tax cut create the greatest economic growth?Jared wrote:I think this is where I disagree. I think his tax policy is based on the idea that a stronger middle class leads to a better economy, and that tax cuts to the middle class and poor will have a more direct and better effect on the economy than tax cuts to the rich.
You mean to tell me you have never made assumptions about people here based on a few posts?matthewk wrote: This clown has no idea how I felt about the issues with Ohio back in 2004, and yet feels free to make any assumption he pleases about me.
Again, you want him to be a democrat, or a liberal. Jack, I don't have an issue with how you vote (though I'd love to shake some sense into you!JackB1 wrote:He's clearly not the same "Maverick" he was 10 years ago when I respected him. Just the way he chose his VP said volumes to me.Teal wrote:In other words, you want McCain to have been a damned democrat, a liberal, or something of the sort. Predictable, but still quite unbelievable. Anything other than a republican. Well, that's what he is. He is most certainly not Bush, no matter what the blue kool aid crowd wants to chant and repeat ad nauseum. But it would not have mattered. Had McCain gone further left, you and others would've painted him a 'me too' candidate, and repudiated him anyway.
His economic policies are not providing any decernable difference from what the Rep party & Bush has done the past 8 years and that is the reason he will lose this election. Plain and simple.
), but at least just vote for your guy and stop wishing the other guy was more like your guy. That isn't the way it works. I wish McCain was more conservative, but he's a helluva lot better than the true alternative. His economice policies aren't as radical as Obama's, but in my opinion, that's nothing if not a very good thing...There was no choice as far as the bailout goes. Govt. had to be the backstop. In retrospect, I think Paulsen would admit that letting Lehman Brothers fail was a mistake, which precipitated the stock market meltdown.Naples39 wrote:WCO, you make some fair points.
I'll just say thee more things.
-You talk about the government injecting hundreds of billions of dollars. Time and time again the government has proven to be a lousy investor, and private investors get much better return on their dollar, finding better value and more rewarding investments. Government investment is no substitute to private investment, which is usually more productive and actually builds individual wealth as well as corporate wealth.
-You've thrown out a lot individual examples, and differing labor costs abroad, on which you are definitely correct. No presidential administration can control those things. The administration however can have a profound effect on behavior on the margin, and this is what I fear from Obama's policies.
-I'm not trying to say Obama is anti-capitalist, but I do believe many of his policies very well could turn out to be a step backwards concerning economic growth. As I've said for months, it seems to me that Obama's tax policy (both for federal income and corporate taxes) is built upon liberal social justice more than ways to grow and restore the economy.
Agreed.wco81 wrote:There was no choice as far as the bailout goes. Govt. had to be the backstop. In retrospect, I think Paulsen would admit that letting Lehman Brothers fail was a mistake, which precipitated the stock market meltdown.
I am not "wishing" McCain was anything. He is what he is. I feel Obama will do more for our economy and our position in the world than McCain will. That's pretty much it. McCain's age is also a major concern for me...not to mention who is next in line to inherit his spot. Talk about scary!Teal wrote: Again, you want him to be a democrat, or a liberal. Jack, I don't have an issue with how you vote (though I'd love to shake some sense into you!
1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.
2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote. Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had. But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back and watch The War Room, you'll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and Texas, which of course he did not win.
3. Exit polls were particularly bad in this year's primaries. They overstated Barack Obama's performance by an average of about 7 points.
4. Exit polls challenge the definition of a random sample. Although the exit polls have theoretically established procedures to collect a random sample -- essentially, having the interviewer approach every nth person who leaves the polling place -- in practice this is hard to execute at a busy polling place, particularly when the pollster may be standing many yards away from the polling place itself because of electioneering laws.
5. Democrats may be more likely to participate in exit polls. Related to items #1 and #4 above, Scott Rasmussen has found that Democrats supporters are more likely to agree to participate in exit polls, probably because they are more enthusiastic about this election.
6. Exit polls may have problems calibrating results from early voting. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, exit polls will attempt account for people who voted before election day in most (although not all) states by means of a random telephone sample of such voters. However, this requires the polling firms to guess at the ratio of early voters to regular ones, and sometimes they do not guess correctly. In Florida in 2000, for instance, there was a significant underestimation of the absentee vote, which that year was a substantially Republican vote, leading to an overestimation of Al Gore's share of the vote, and contributing to the infamous miscall of the state.
7. Exit polls may also miss late voters. By "late" voters I mean persons who come to their polling place in the last couple of hours of the day, after the exit polls are out of the field. Although there is no clear consensus about which types of voters tend to vote later rather than earlier, this adds another way in which the sample may be nonrandom, particularly in precincts with long lines or extended voting hours.
8. "Leaked" exit poll results may not be the genuine article. Sometimes, sources like Matt Drudge and Jim Geraghty have gotten their hands on the actual exit polls collected by the network pools. At other times, they may be reporting data from "first-wave" exit polls, which contain extremely small sample sizes and are not calibrated for their demographics. And at other places on the Internet (though likely not from Gergahty and Drudge, who actually have reasonably good track records), you may see numbers that are completely fabricated.
9. A high-turnout election may make demographic weighting difficult. Just as regular, telephone polls are having difficulty this cycle estimating turnout demographics -- will younger voters and minorities show up in greater numbers? -- the same challenges await exit pollsters. Remember, an exit poll is not a definitive record of what happened at the polling place; it is at best a random sampling.
10. You'll know the actual results soon enough anyway. Have patience, my friends, and consider yourselves lucky: in France, it is illegal to conduct a poll of any kind within 48 hours of the election. But exit polls are really more trouble than they're worth, at least as a predictive tool. An independent panel created by CNN in the wake of the Florida disaster in 2000 recommended that the network completely ignore exit polls when calling particular states. I suggest that you do the same.
