Pulled by the poster, me...HAVA nice day;)

[autorank]

:evilgrin:CURIOUS CONNECTICUT:evilgrin:

[Skinner]

1. No offense, but...

...this has been posted a bunch of times before. And each time it gets posted, election reform advocates (and I consider myself to be one) lose a little more credibility. Now TruthIsAll has fallen for it too.

See my comments here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2962088&mesg_id=2962099

And here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2962088&mesg_id=2962107

[autorank]

8. Thanks for the tip...but we know for sure...

that at some point in the eventing, Lamont reached that total and the exact total for every Senatorial candidates who received at least one less vote than he did, Of course that's a guarantee, but I'll make inquiries to the central office in Dubuque. That's actually a pretty harmless prank if it's discovered already.

[autorank]

20. Clarification on the missing post..

I'd posted a less than serious OP on the Lamont vote total "event." Apparently, that's been debunked. I'd also asked TruthIsAll to run probabilities on it. The post did not endorse the event or go after either candidate. It was a pretty good example on how to run probabilities but thats now lost Ianthe mix here. Any questions about the accuracy TIA's role here, check out a copy of the post at
the Election News Thread http://tinyurl.com/yjvoen It's just good probability analysis.

This is obviously a serious topic and the levity was ill taken. I take responsibility for any offense that was taken and also point out that TIA's role was "pure math" (and quite good too).

[Hav]

2. .

Wasn't it already established that the final vote count was not the same?

While I haven't looked up the exact result for the 2000 election it was strange that CNN had this number as well while other sources had a slightly higher number.

[Me.]

3. Conclusion?

And if the opinion is that there was funny business, given the method of voting in Conn., how would this be accomplished? Also, would you explain how exit polling is done?

[autorank]

9. Oh, boy...It was too good to be true...apparently, I'm told it

was a prank. Pretty good one too. I saw screen shots elsewhere, so I assumed it was Kosher.

And that was some of my very best photomontage and writing...I was so proud;)

[texpatriot2004]

4. How bizarre nm

[lapfog_1]

5. I thought this was already debunked as an "erroneous slide"

and my best guess as to how that happened is that someone retrieved the slide from 2000 showing a Lieberman win (the last time he ran for the Senate) and they updated his numbers and didn't update the other numbers. The actual final numbers for Lamont were different.

But who knows.

Was it worth investigating? You bet. Is it evidence of vote fraud, doesn't appear to be.

[Skinner]

6. Yes it has been debunked.

See my post above.

What remains to be seen is whether people care if it's been debunked.

[Dick Diver]

7. A perfect example of how useless statistics are

when you start with bad data. As with Skinner, I've posted in four different threads (as below) that this is FALSE. People who pride themselves on being "researchers" perhaps should check original sources, i.e., the CT State Official Election site, instead of relying upon secondary sources, such as CNN, electoral-vote.com and Wonkette (whatever that is), before making judgements and propagating conspiracy theories.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2960596
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2962088
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2963080
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2963159

[Skinner]

10. *shaking head*

If, however this turns out to be true, that means 7 years bad luck to those who fell for the disinfo form "management."

This is why science is so much better than politics.

Isn't the whole point of "research" to figure out the truth? In the search for truth, isn't it important to start with facts that are factual? There is no need to insult people who offer corrections to factual errors. They have done a favor to those who support election reform. If too many sloppy mistakes like this are made, then the entire body of work by election reformers is cast into doubt.

[autorank]

12. I said thanks for the heads upl

The post is gone. Mistake removed. The 7 years bad luck is a joke, which I though was obvious. Why don't you just pull the thread altogether.

Oops - now I get it - "management" was not a reference to you, It refers to "the man", the PTB, from CARNIVALE and numerous posts by me.

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

17. "Management" clarification ... not DU but rather, umm, the DO?

"Democracy's Overlords" ?? -- I do believe that by "management" Autorank was referring to those beltway cigar chompers who pull the strings of those who we see pulling the strings... Those folks who pulled the plug on Nixon, those that pick the kingmakers, you know, the capital-M Management...

I for one welcome the regular management overlords here at DU ;) You guys are doing a bang up job!! Gosh golly, I'm sure DU played a real part in changing our world from the insanity of Nov2 '04 to shockingly surprisingly sanity of Nov7 '06!!!

You're totally right (from upthread) about fraudulant vote fraud evidence being presented as the factual mushroom cloud of a smoking gun ....

At the same time, we're still in the post traumatic period where we expected the board to drop into the water once again on Nov7 but somehow someway something happened to not dunk us... I'm sure Autorank's enthusiasm towards this vote fraud evidence can be forgiven as it takes some time to stand down from a level of vigilance some feared we may have faced last Tuesday.

Thank goodness rather than being up in arms like a week after 2004's election found us on DU, we're able to be concerned that for once the people seem to have finally agreed with the rationale that gave you cause to actually START DU :>

If, however this turns out to be true, that means 7 years bad luck to those who fell for the disinfo form<sic> "management."

I daresay he was alluding to his own culpability in being duped by whomever might have been creating such falsified propaganda... :)

FWIW seeing the screencap evidence of the vote-count match between '00 and '06 did give me pause and given my hat it occured to me that maybe lieberman's "string pullers" were sending a message that he better stay "on side" or else ;)

All the best,

{B^> FMH

[Skinner]

19. I understand that autorank was not referring to me or the management of DU.

It was clear that the reference was to The Man.

What I found off-putting about the "joke" was that it painted those of us who consider factual accuracy to be important as easily duped by The Man. I am aware that it was a joke. But, under the circumstances, it appeared ass-backward to me.

But I think we've lingered on this enough. It's well past time that this thread should be permitted to drop.

[greyl]

11. Not cool to edit the OP like that, imo.

It would have been nice to add yet another thread to the record of debunkings.
For research purposes, ya know.

edit: but, at least you seem willing to respond to reason. ;)

[autorank]

13. I'd hate to see what this place would be like if we'd lost.

The OP was semi humourous to begin with as the little devil guys would indicate.

"at least" haha, yep, it's a good day, so I'm reasonable.

Now I'll go check out the site where I saw this.

As for pulling it, I have no problem doing that. In fact, I think people should have that liberty as a general rule. Why not, it's their information.

I'll be curious to see how this origiated. I saw screen shots on a site that I've had very good experience with...so somebody gave it some thought.

But just remember, "It's all whatever..."

[H2O Man]

14. We all

make mistakes sometimes. It's when people refuse to correct them, that it really becomes a problem. The president comes to mind .....

[autorank]

15. Yes and his pictures and graphics are not nearly as original as mine.

I'm leaving the pic there as a reminder...of a very special wake me up. This is why I generally don't getup until after 11:00.

:hi:

[greyl]

16. Yeah, but

it's the covering up of them that rubs me the wrong way. Now, the comments in this thread make a little less sense(after at least the 3rd edit of the OP). No big woop.

[autorank]

18. Nope, none at all:)