Reply #11: But none of your own theories are backed up with hard facts, or data [View All]

Not in any irrefutable way. It's perfectly possible that massive voter fraud took place, but on the facts it's almost as impossible to prove as the "soccer mom" theory insofar as it relies on polls, and very loose interpretations of polls at that. Polls and statistics can be dangerous things on which to base sweeping declarations, especially when considering such a vast human behavior as a nation-wide election.

But let me prove my point using the same tactics as you use above to prove voter fraud. I know for a fact a lot of fraud took place in the old fashioned sense, and I know for a fact that vote theft (especially electronic theft) was very possible, and would leave no evidence. However, without proof, these charges won't go anywhere. Why aren't interpretations of statistics proof? I'll show you.

Polls leading up to the election showed Bush ahead in fighting terrorism, national security and morality. Polls showed that these issues decided the election. Statistics show that the incumbent has an overwhelming advantage in Congressional races.

Using your logic, those points explain all your quibbles with regard to California--they show why Boxer did better than Kerry in Republican areas (incumbent bonus would show more by percentage in Republican-dominated areas than Democratic areas, which would be inclined to Boxer anyway) and they show why Kerry lost voters in some urban Democratic strongholds (voters trusted Bush on terror and morality, terror and morality were the most important issues to voters).

Now this above analysis is absolutely preposterous. No DUer would take it seriously. But it uses the same kind of skewed statistical analysis one sees far too often here. I don't mean to discount theorizing based on apparent statistical inconsistencies, but the scope of a nation-wide vote and the inherent probability that something weird can happen for reasons that aren't at all measurable makes it impossible to -prove-. Theorize all you want, but don't claim to have proof. Since so much fraud has been unveiled and since the voting machines are so easily manipulated, your theory is plausible--but it does not represent any kind of proof.

Just don't call it proof, is all I'm saying. Exactly what you said may have happened--I don't know. But I guess my point is that nobody else knows either, except the fraudsters themselves.