Comments on: More on this “Stolen” Election

By: <i>Deinonychus antirrhopus</i>

<i>Deinonychus antirrhopus</i> — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:35:19 +0000

Significance Testing and Philosophical Issues in Statistics
Over at Outside the Beltway, and in other forums I have argued against the Frequentist view on statistics, generally speaking. The post right below this one was designed to highlight one of the problems with Frequentist statistics. Also, I have exchang...

By: Super Fly

Super Fly — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 02:39:27 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities

By: Anjin-San

Anjin-San — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:47:36 +0000

Democrats need to deal with the fact we got waxed by a raging mediocracy like Bush.

We lost. Don't point fingers, look in the mirror.

By: The Galvin Opinion

The Galvin Opinion — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:06:37 +0000

BREAKING NEWS: BOB DOLE WON THE 1996 ELECTION
Hysterical liberals can rejoice because now all past elections are suspect. Well, if you take the liberals at their word then they would have to agree that there is no way Bill Clinton won the Red States in 1996! But, somehow he claimed victory.

By: ken

ken — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:01:30 +0000

James, sorry to confuse you with someone else. I didn't realize you started having guest bloggers.

By: Joe Carter

Joe Carter — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:48:14 +0000

An excellent explanation of the flaws in the frequentist approach. My only quibble is that you didn't explain why using Bayesian probabilities would be any better.

Though I only have a rudimentary grasp of the Bayesian approach, I think it is much more interesting and useful. Still, I think it would have been instructive to hear a defense of that method.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:17:23 +0000

Does this mean Kerry actually did win the election, before he lost it? It's a great explanation. Works for me. But my liberal friends' eyes will glaze after 30 seconds, and then they'll go back to, "yea, but he still stole the election".

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:01:05 +0000

Steve, I knew this was you before I finished the first paragraph. I can't believe James lets you do this on his blog! Stevelish, indeed :-)

By: capt joe

capt joe — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:37:56 +0000

Moore is already planning on doing a sequel to F911.

I bet this becomes the centerpoint to his new movie.

By: Sgt Fluffy

Sgt Fluffy — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:34:38 +0000

Wow, That made my head hurt

By: QandO

QandO — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:11:14 +0000

The Problems with a Diebold conspiracy to steal the 2004 Election

The WaPo dives into the fevered swamp of the people who Just. Canât. Give. Up. Not Yet. Maybe Not Ever. The WaPoâs bit of sanity....

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:01:26 +0000

Ken: The post is by Steve Verdon.

There are several prominent Democrats actually expounding the "stolen election" theory, however, including sitting Members of Congress.

By: ken

ken — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:59:19 +0000

It looks to me James that you are giving far too much thought and energy to an issue that no one takes seriously this time around. Now if you would only spend as much effort on the stolen 2000 election you might discover something of value.