2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

The irony being that they had to poll someone to find out if polls are real right? So perhaps they exaggerated the findings, and it's only 20% that think THE POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS AT THIS POINT.

But that's like asking what percentage of the population believes in gravity. I don't care if it's only 5%, the act of polling doesn't make something poll-worthy.

Polling people to find out who they're going to vote for is valid. Polling people to find out whether they believe the polls are right is meaningless.

The Central Limit Theorem doesn't care what you think.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I guarantee this is the future of political blogging.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Read an interesting story about Super PAC's the other day. There's been a disconnect between what they're raising and the ads they're buying. At this point Obama should be getting outspent in total but he's not, and if its already October one has to wonder when the deluge is going to start.

I'll try to find the article, but what I saw was fascinating about how these things work. Many times when someone sets up a SuperPac (I'll use the Koch one for example) and raise money for it, they will then use companies they themselves own for the advertising and mailings. So, if you seeded a PAC with 10M, and it raised 100M, 15% of that goes back to entities that you own to advertise. Not a bad ROI. There's also higher than normal salaries being paid out to staffers and other assorted flunkies. Lastly there was a good point about advertising tailored towards the Super PAC founder's preferences even if it does nothing to help the preferred candidate (Mittens lets say). So they could be spending heavy to blast unions in Michigan for example even though Romney isn't contesting the state.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

As has already been mentioned, there's no problem with voter ID's at the polls. The problem is enacting it right before the election.

Yes, you and I have already agreed on this point. Go ahead and install a voter ID program and take the time to do it right.


There are still some head in the sand types who refuse to acknowledge the obvious, that there is much more widespread support for voter ID among people with no intent to "disenfranchise." It is an unhealthy thing for civil society for people to lose confidence in the integrity of elections, and many people think that's where we are.

Someone running for office had to drop out of her race because she voted in two states in the same election, yet we still have to put up with the myth that voter fraud is a myth? Please.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

But a lot of people still scream bloody murder no matter how far ahead it's done from an election. But, I agree it's best done with time to work out details and all well before an election.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

There's also higher than normal salaries being paid out to staffers and other assorted flunkies. Lastly there was a good point about advertising tailored towards the Super PAC founder's preferences even if it does nothing to help the preferred candidate (Mittens lets say). So they could be spending heavy to blast unions in Michigan for example even though Romney isn't contesting the state.

The last part is actually a "good" thing (if anything about people using their wealth to buy political influence is ever "good"). The idea (well, scam) was to separate the PACs and the candidates. If the Kochs are using their money to advance their 19th century agenda rather than Mittens' 19th century agenda, that's actually slightly less disgusting than the Kochs using their money to advance Mittens' 19th century agenda directly.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

How would you reduce electoral fraud?

Require a paper record of every ballot cast so that a true recount can be done in case of questions about a result (vs. just adding up a bunch of numbers from the insecure voting machines again). Do an automatic paper count on a random sample of precincts to make sure that the electronic counts jibe with the paper counts, regardless of whether an overall recount has been requested, and only determine which precincts will be sampled after the votes have been tallied (otherwise anybody interested in stealing the election knows which precincts to tamper with).

As things stand, not only do we not know if tampering is going on, in most cases we can't know because the only record of votes cast is the electronic record.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I wonder how many pundits will get burned by having their "reviews" of the debate get published before the debate begins.

No matter what either candidate does tonight, the narratives from the surrogates have already been written. I'm sure we could write them out here.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Require a paper record of every ballot cast so that a true recount can be done in case of questions about a result (vs. just adding up a bunch of numbers from the insecure voting machines again). Do an automatic paper count on a random sample of precincts to make sure that the electronic counts jibe with the paper counts, regardless of whether an overall recount has been requested, and only determine which precincts will be sampled after the votes have been tallied (otherwise anybody interested in stealing the election knows which precincts to tamper with).

As things stand, not only do we not know if tampering is going on, in most cases we can't know because the only record of votes cast is the electronic record.

Or just go back to the mechanical booths. I miss those things. And no, I still do not trust their pens.

 

[busterman62]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I wonder how many pundits will get burned by having their "reviews" of the debate get published before the debate begins.

No matter what either candidate does tonight, the narratives from the surrogates have already been written. I'm sure we could write them out here.

My review: "Neither candidate said anything of substance."

Doubt I'll get burned

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Or just go back to the mechanical booths. I miss those things. And no, I still do not trust their pens.

Old School:

(I agree completely. I don't trust the screens at all. When they refused to do paper audit trail that was it for them.)

 

[Rover]

I wonder how many pundits will get burned by having their "reviews" of the debate get published before the debate begins.

No matter what either candidate does tonight, the narratives from the surrogates have already been written. I'm sure we could write them out here.

Agreed. Saw that with the Brown-Warren Senate debate in MA. I don't think anybody strayed from what you would have expected them to write beforehand, and the debate really didn't break any new ground nor have any major gaffes.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Agreed. Saw that with the Brown-Warren Senate debate in MA.

She's a pretend Native American and he's a liar. Take your pick.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Agreed. Saw that with the Brown-Warren Senate debate in MA. I don't think anybody strayed from what you would have expected them to write beforehand, and the debate really didn't break any new ground nor have any major gaffes.

I actually meant something else. Fox will say "Romney hit it out of the park" no matter what he does. Actually showing up at the debate is optional. Maybe he'll send a servant.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

But a lot of people still scream bloody murder no matter how far ahead it's done from an election.

If it's done correctly and with the right amount of time to prepare those objections will fall on deaf ears.

But that's like asking what percentage of the population believes in gravity. I don't care if it's only 5%, the act of polling doesn't make something poll-worthy.

Polling people to find out who they're going to vote for is valid. Polling people to find out whether they believe the polls are right is meaningless.

The Central Limit Theorem doesn't care what you think.

Oh come on, Kepler. Perception. You obviously have that all important word mixed up with percentage.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Require a paper record of every ballot cast so that a true recount can be done in case of questions about a result (vs. just adding up a bunch of numbers from the insecure voting machines again). Do an automatic paper count on a random sample of precincts to make sure that the electronic counts jibe with the paper counts, regardless of whether an overall recount has been requested, and only determine which precincts will be sampled after the votes have been tallied (otherwise anybody interested in stealing the election knows which precincts to tamper with).

As things stand, not only do we not know if tampering is going on, in most cases we can't know because the only record of votes cast is the electronic record.

Out of curiosity, do any other states use the system we have here in Alaska? We get a paper ballot that has the standardized test like ovals next to the names. You fill in the oval, you stick the ballot in a machine that reads the ballot and counts the vote. You get a fast count of ballots and you have a paper record.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Out of curiosity, do any other states use the system we have here in Alaska? We get a paper ballot that has the standardized test like ovals next to the names. You fill in the oval, you stick the ballot in a machine that reads the ballot and counts the vote. You get a fast count of ballots and you have a paper record.

That sounds like the system we have in AZ and have had for many years.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

If it's done correctly and with the right amount of time to prepare those objections will fall on deaf ears.

Uh, yah.

 

[bronconick]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

That's what's been at my precinct every year I've gone.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

She's a pretend Native American and he's a liar. Take your pick.

Slicing the bologna a little thin, don't you think? Differentiating between "lying" and "pretend." And he hasn't been practicing law without that pesky old license.