Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
Sure thing.
It starts with, "BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns."
Who is this person? Who is BeFree? What proof do we have that his numbers are right? Where are his references? Why did he choose to post them on DU? Has he reported them to someone else?
And from there we go to speculation that because some polls and other races were out of sync with the final product that there MUST be fraud.
Again, show me proof, with a trail that can be audited, not speculation and innuendo.
|
OK, so you went from the introduction to the conclusion, skipping all the numbers in between, and called it (un)good?
You have issues.
I can't answer all the questions you posed, but the only one I think relevant to the analysis is whether the numbers are correct.
Since they are available in the public domain, it seems to be a question of willingness to conduct research versus calling someone crazy, & etc. I find it more likely that you don't want to consider the data, aren't well versed in statistical analysis, and feel justified in concluding the source isn't worthy of consideration in order to ignore the statistical results he came up with rather than disputing them with numbers.
Whether the evidence provided speaks to fraud, I'm not drawing conclusions myself. But that doesn't prevent me from engaging with the data myself and wondering where the anomalies are coming from (or considering that the data presented even indicate anomalies occurred).
I'm not a member of DU, nor had I been there before you mentioned it. But presumably you have an account there (or lurk there for whatever reasons), so why not ask all those questions you find so damning to the poster himself?
Edit: Lebell, I also would like to point out that the author is in no way stating that the presidential election would have been reversed in this case. He points out that Bush won, but by a larger margin than the data suggests should have occurred. He does seem to question the Senate race, however, but his main thrust, at least according to my reading of it, is to demonstrate statistically that errors occurred via the electronic voting machines.