Gore wins by 9 votes???

[rmeijer]

Russ writes:


Yes they were, by a statistically insignificant amount. If there were actually a significant variance, then one might be able to argue inaccuracy. This was not the case.

We will be having a similar situation here in Washington. In our Senate race, the democrat finished less then 2000 votes ahead in a count of over 2.4 million votes. The automatic recount may change that total slightly, but it will NOT change the outcome of the race.


I don't think anyone is arguing accurate verse inaccurate (at least I am not). What statistics does tell us, if we were to have another recount, Gore could easily come out ahead. This, of course, doesn't mean that the third count is more "accurate"!

As for the Washington case you cite, I think I may have confused you: The result could easily change if the counting mechanisms they use has an accuracy of less than 0.1% . Whether that would produce the "correct" result is clearly moot: statistically speaking, there is no way of knowing.

 

[pidge]

I wish I could take a vacation right now to some country and come back when we have a new president. I am so sick and tired of Al Gore. I wish his people would just shut up and accept defeat. Why can liberals bend the law so much and get away with it? :|

 

[ToBeMe]

You do realize of course, that this crying will be going on for the next four years while Bush is in office don't you! Equally if Poor Al would have won it would be the Reps. crying! As it is, I think it's all but over for now it seems public support is dwindling and even the media is backing away from a "sinking ship". Sueing fellow Democrats must not be sitting to well in the House & Senate and with Republican backing, I say Friday at the latest for a call for Gore to concede. It was close, but, after reading the law, and amended law that Gore won in the FL Supreme Court, it seems clear that each step was done in strict adhereance to these laws therefore any hope of overiding them is near nill. The Supreme Court will not overturn it's own ruling and the USSC seems pretty clear that they will hear this case only because of time contraints in getting this election cleared up before it is sent to Congress. They may hear it "after the fact" but, it will be fairly a mute point as Bush will already be in office. No, I say it is nearing an end for any legitimate hope for Mr. Gore.

 

[Russ]

<< As for the Washington case you cite, I think I may have confused you: The result could easily change if the counting mechanisms they use has an accuracy of less than 0.1% >>



rmeijer,

No, it appears that it is you who is confused. My point was that modern recounts do NOT change outcomes. The result in our Senate race will NOT change, just as the result in Florida has NOT changed.

Russ, NCNE

 

[ToBeMe]

Double Post.....darn sticky keys......I guess you really shouldn't eat above your keyboard!

 

[ToBeMe]

I seriously doubt there will be any further counts....by anyone. Like I said, I don't see how he would manage to get one in FL......They would have to say that we/they were wrong in the first place granting Mr. Gore the extension.....won't happen. As for the Fed. Courts, No way are they going to grant a recount by anyone else, that's basicly been said.

 

[Russ]

<< Successful Character assassination campaign employed by the Republicans >>



Red,

You mean stuff like this?



<< &quot;Lighten up on the funeral parlor
makeup... It's like Madame Tussaud's.&quot;
? Laura Ingraham of voter.com on
Imus in the Morning show last week

She &quot;seems to have applied her
makeup with a trowel&quot;
... &quot;Her skin had been plastered
and powdered to the texture of
pre-war walls in need of a skim coat&quot;
? The Washington Post, ostensibly
covering reaction to Harris' appearance

Protestors in Florida carried
an inflatable doll dressed like
the Wicked Witch of the West
and bearing Harris' face.

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law
professor and Gore backer,
labeled her a &quot;crook&quot;.

Slate magazine's Tim Noah
recently dubbed her &quot;Florida's
dragon-lady secretary of state&quot;.

Gore campaign aide Paul Begala
branded her &quot;Cruela De Vil,&quot;
the evil dog-hating matriarch
from 101 Dalmations.

Gore spokesman Chris Lehane
likened her to a Soviet &quot;commissar&quot;.

Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan
described her as &quot;ghastly... like
Dr. Richard Sharpe, the transvestite and
alleged wife killer. Or Marilyn Manson.
Or Dustin Hoffman as Toosie... or Leona
Helmsley on Halloween.&quot;

The New Republic published two
Associated Press photos: one a
close-up profile of Harris in mid-speech;
the other, a close-up of heavy metal
singer Ozzy Osbourne in mid-wail.
The headline: &quot;Separated at Birth?&quot; >>



Oh wait! That's the crap that the left said about Harris. Sorry, I couldn't find anything similar that the Republicans said about Gore.

BTW, in order to engage in character assassination, one's opponent must actually possess character. No target in Gore's case.

Russ, NCNE

 

[ride525]

<< Sorry, I couldn't find anything similar that the Republicans said about Gore. >>



I don't think Reagan.com will accept those kind of posts....keep looking....

 

[Mday]

lol

 

[sandorski]

This sounds like the perfect situation for a duel! Since Dubyah seems likely to have won, he gets to choose the weapons.

 

[SJ]

Gore should be lucky Bush's legal team didn't get all of those overseas ballots to count, legaly under FEDERAL law, 1,100 of those tossed out are legal. Bush would likely pick up more upwards to 400 more. Also lets not forget, the Dade numbers are HIGHLY skewed, Dade count the areas where Gore won 7-1 putting him up 157, they then promptly decided to only count the under vote, before they did the Bush areas. Gore's teams like to use statistical numbers, well heres one for you, if the same thing kept up throughout the county Bush would be the one with +400, not Gore.

 

[Rio Rebel]

rmeijer,

I agree. You don't follow my argument.

My point in the post you quoted was that &quot;margin of error&quot; applies to statistics, NOT counts. There is no such thing as a margin of error in a count.

A count is either accurate or inaccurate. Statistics, however, can be collected in a completely accurate and precise manner, yet still lead to an inaccurate conclusion, because they involve projecting from a sample.

In a count, you deal with all the cases. In a statistic, you project a conclusion by sampling a small number of cases, and speculate on the nature of the whole. Therefore, you have a margin of error with a statistic. You have no margin of error in a count - it's either accurate or it's not.

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Michael]

Rio Rebel - Now you're losing me. A count is either the process of performing the counting or the result of it. Isn't the result a statistic?

Michael

 

[rmeijer]

Russ writes:

My point was that modern recounts do NOT change outcomes.


Is 1996 not modern enough?