Something is rotten in the state of Alaska?

[-Jrabbit]

{Insert here: Ben's insistence that Alaska's deep redness trumps logic}

[DanS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Dan, are you denying that there is some odd stuff going on in the numbers out of Alaska? I don't necessarily think there was fraud. I just think that there is enough strangeness to warrant a real look at the data.

There are a lot of poorly understood reasons why voters do what they do. But the context is what it is -- a particular portion of the Democratic Party is trying to find how Alaska was robbed. They expected to win Alaska, and are casting about for something to tell them they won, rather than examining how they could have garnered more votes in order to win.

It's human nature for people in losing close races to have the first reaction that the election was stolen. I've worked on campaigns in those kinds of races. There is never a shortage of available reasons to back up those kinds of feelings. The voting process, while good and to my mind quite acceptable, is never pristine.

Edit: It should be noted that not all of the ballots have been counted in Alaska. The Dems still could win it. This perfectly illustrates that the "we were robbed" is a double-edged sword that should stay sheathed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, those races were not close because of a drop in turnout. Those races were polling dead even before election day -- and this year, the polls were largely right.

Which polls? Rasmussen was right, and I don't see him predicting that Alaska would flip.\

Edit: DIE TYPO

You must mean the ones that had O+11.

In the other dead-heat races where voter turnout dropped, the races broke for the Dems (WA governor, OR Senate, WA-08; CA-04 remains uncalled).

Let me put this another way. Just because 15 races break the other way, and one breaks against you is not evidence in any way shape or form of voter fraud.

Frankly I am disgusted at the cries of voter fraud. Your man won. Be happy for once rather then a whiny *****.

Logically, a bigger drop in turnout would have exaggerated that effect. But in Alaska, the drop appears to have benefited the GOP

I thought the mantra from the left was -- high turnout is good for the Dems and low turnout for the Republicans.

-- a fact without precedent in this year's results or previous analogous instances, and a fact that doesn't really make any other kind of sense.

So a result which, by your admission fits into the general perception, (it was close), and breaks the other way is voter fraud? Please.

We wouldn't be hearing one word about Alaska if it wasn't the 60th seat on the Senate that the Dims need. This is just being a sore winner.

[Ben Kenobi]

{Insert here: Ben's insistence that Alaska's deep redness trumps logic}

Logic --

Democrats cry voter fraud in every instance that they lose a close race.

Therefore, people are less likely to believe that voter fraud actually occurred when democrats and their supporters cry wolf.

I have found this election to be an enlightening window on the mindset of the left. Citing voter fraud in an election that you overwhelmingly won is a new one for me.

I had believed that the folks who supported Obama were misguided, but I can't see any evidence for this anymore.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You must mean the ones that had O+11.

Let me put this another way. Just because 15 races break the other way, and one breaks against you is not evidence in any way shape or form of voter fraud.

Frankly I am disgusted at the cries of voter fraud. Your man won. Be happy for once rather then a whiny *****.

I thought the mantra from the left was -- high turnout is good for the Dems and low turnout for the Republicans.

So a result which, by your admission fits into the general perception, (it was close), and breaks the other way is voter fraud? Please.

We wouldn't be hearing one word about Alaska if it wasn't the 60th seat on the Senate that the Dims need. This is just being a sore winner.

See, if Ben Kenobi's signature would be changed to "I PREDICTED A MCCAIN LANDSLIDE WITH 55%+ POPULAR VOTE AND 300+ EVs THE DAY BEFORE THE 2008 ELECTIONS! YOU CAN TRUST ME TO BE AN OBJECTIVE EXPERT ON POLITICS AND ELECTION POLLS!", he wouldn't get away with sounding credible at face value when using this arrogant I-know-everything-about-US-politics -tone.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Dan, are you denying that there is some odd stuff going on in the numbers out of Alaska? I don't necessarily think there was fraud. I just think that there is enough strangeness to warrant a real look at the data.

Negative campaigning drives down turnout. A declared election result when voting takes significant effort (sparsely populated are means that the voting places are far from voters and Alaska doesn't have a nice weather to queue in) drives down turnout.

National media went ape-**** over Palin and simply made up Quayle-like news stories ("she doesn't know what the VP does!" when she brings up that VP doesn't have any active duties with a rhetorical question) out of their ass, I can see how this would depress turnout on the Republican side. Obama was declared winner by media outlets before the polls closed in AK, I can see how this would depress turnout on the Democratic side.

Again, if people vote by paper and votes are counted by both parties, fraud is really easy to notice and prove. 'The EVIL republicans CHEATED again!' is the message we're given and you're echoing, it's nothing but self-congratulating prejudice reinforcement from partisan Democrats unless there's some evidence.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Which polls? Ramussen was right, and I don't see him predicting that Alaska would flip.

Once again, Ben, you force all of us to wonder whether you're an idiot or a liar. The Rasmussen Poll from from October 28 showed Begich 8 points up, 52-44; in fact, every poll conducted after the Stevens conviction showed him trailing Begich. So you want to cling to Rasmussen? Works for me.

Oh, and incidently, it's "Rasmussen," not "Ramussen." I'm the last person on this board to be a spelling Nazi, but I remind you that you once used my misspelling of the plaintiff's name in an obscure court case to argue that I "didn't know what I was talking about." Those are your rules, Ben; are you going to abide by them for once and acknowledge your breathtaking ignorance?

[Tuberski]

Just because you don't know Ramussen doesn't mean he don't exist!!!

ACK!

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and incidently, it's "Rasmussen," not "Ramussen." I'm the last person on this board to be a spelling Nazi, but I remind you that you once used my misspelling of the plaintiff's name in an obscure court case to argue that I "didn't know what I was talking about." Those are your rules, Ben; are you going to abide by them for once and acknowledge your breathtaking ignorance?

Part of my job is copyediting.

Die typo!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


There are a lot of poorly understood reasons why voters do what they do. But the context is what it is -- a particular portion of the Democratic Party is trying to find how Alaska was robbed. They expected to win Alaska, and are casting about for something to tell them they won, rather than examining how they could have garnered more votes in order to win.

It's human nature for people in losing close races to have the first reaction that the election was stolen. I've worked on campaigns in those kinds of races. There is never a shortage of available reasons to back up those kinds of feelings. The voting process, while good and to my mind quite acceptable, is never pristine.

Edit: It should be noted that not all of the ballots have been counted in Alaska. The Dems still could win it. This perfectly illustrates that the "we were robbed" is a double-edged sword that should stay sheathed.

Fair enough. But I think that it is important, when there are at least superficial irregularities in the data that people are extra careful about verifying the results.

[KrazyHorse]

if people vote by paper and votes are counted by both parties

Are you sure this is the case in Alaska? Because it's got a small enough population in a large enough area, and is GOP dominated enough to worry about this.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

if people vote by paper and votes are counted by both parties

Are you sure this is the case in Alaska? Because it's got a small enough population in a large enough area, and is GOP dominated enough to worry about this.

That's all I'm saying. Here's an analogy, one that Dan should appreciate.

Imagine it's 1994. Dan Rostenkowski, the most powerful and possibly most corrupt of all Chicago politicians, is running for re-election while under federal indictment. All the polls show him trailing his GOP opponent, Michael Flanagan. Then, come election day, Rostenkowski wins! It's a miracle! And then it turns out that the turnout in Rostenkowski's district was significantly lower than in the rest of Chicago.

Would that look like an election had been stolen? Would that suggest that maybe, just maybe, a whole bunch of ballots cast ended up in the trunk of somebody's late-model Oldsmobile instead being counted?

Of course it would. And that's exactly what Alaska looks like right now -- straight down to the felonious incumbent and the legendarily corrupt local party he represents. Honestly, if this were any other state, I might not care so much; but the Alaska GOP is notorious for being every bit as corrupt as the Cook County Democrats, and that combined with the generally anomalous nature of the numbers certainly suggests that a second look is warranted.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course it would. And that's exactly what Alaska looks like right now -- straight down to the felonious incumbent and the legendarily corrupt local party he represents. Honestly, if this were any other state, I might not care so much; but the Alaska GOP is notorious for being every bit as corrupt as the Cook County Democrats, and that combined with the generally anomalous nature of the numbers certainly suggests that a second look is warranted.

You think I like Stevens? I'd rather see him be the only republican to lose.

If you suspect vote fraud then it's up to you to prove the fraud. As much as I don't like the fellow, unless I have some pretty damn good evidence, I'm not going to cite voter fraud as the reason for his victory.

[-Jrabbit]

I think most of us are just saying: something smells odd here, so it should be checked out. A cop would likely judge the circumstantial oddities as "sufficient cause" for further investigation.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

In this context, the election was declared before all the voting in Alaska and CA was done. IIRC, the networks called it about 6 PST, which is well before the polls close.

As I recall, CNN called it just after 8 p.m. Pacific Time. The polls here had just closed.

It's possible that some other networks called it when Obama took Pennslyvania. That's when I knew McCain had not chance in winning.