rbbomber wrote:

<snip>

> > You can claim any result you wish for the NORC survey. What you
> > can not do is to cite any single report from NORC stating the
> > results of their survey. Given, that fact, all that you can
> > offer is spin.
> >
> > David
>
> As we both know, there are nine "reports," one for each of the
> scenarios the NORC undertook. The one that counts is the statewide
> Florida study--all precincts, all counties. There's no need to spin.
> --Russ

Nine reports, of which not a single one is posted on the NORC web
site.

David

"Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message news:<be8mgp$c7c$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:7e483417.0307051848.1dd79a46@posting.google.c om...
> > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be7a0d$q9a$03$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7e483417.0307051053.c3fa96c@posting.google.co m...
> > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be4524$395$05$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:7e483417.0307031753.14f2a3fb@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<be28ut$ic$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > <snipped>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CNN is no friend of GWB. If it is partisan, it should skew
> against
> > > him.
> > > It
> > > > > > > doesn't because the facts are plain. GWB beat your loser, just
> as
> > > he'll
> > > do
> > > > > > > again in 2004.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Ms. Smoker,
> > > > > > I hold no brief for Mr. Gore and have no interest in him. If
> you
> > > > > > have Googled "NORC" you know that when all valid Florida votes are
> > > > > > counted Mr. Bush does not win. Your best bet in learning from the
> > > > > > post-election ballot studies is more than a website--it's the full
> > > > > > NORC study, available at your library.
> > > > > > --Russ
> > > > >
> > > > > Available at my library? Do they have those documents here in
> Germany?
> As
> > > > > for the Google search, I did do one. How did you think I found the
> CNN
> > > > > article? I first tried the NORC web site, but it gives no real
> indication
> > > > > either way, as far as I saw.
> > > >
> > > > Try again, Ms. Smoker. NORC reported the results of nine
> > > > scenarios, each undertaken in response to specific questions raised in
> > > > the Florida fiasco of 2000. One of these gives the results of what
> > > > happens had Mr. Gore gained a recount only in the four Florida
> > > > counties he chose, with nothing done elsewhere--the reult is that he
> > > > still loses. But the scenario that really counts for you and me as
> > > > citizens and for history is the one in which the ballots in all
> > > > precincts, in all counties, are studied. In that, Mr. Bush does not
> > > > win.
> > > > Yes, very likely the materials are available in U. S. Armed
> > > > Forces Libraries in Germany. If not, they are most likely obtainable
> > > > through interlibrary loan.
> > > > I'm not interested at all in Mr. Gore nor in the past. We need to
> > > > look ahead, to prevent future fiascos like 2000. Any suggestions?
> > > > --Russ
> > >
> > > They do not have those items at my library. I wish they did, because
> I'm
> > > not prepared to take your word for it. Not that you'd lie about it, but
> > > maybe you misunderstood, remembered it inccorrectly, or whatever. Give
> me a
> > > URL and I'll look at it.
> > >
> > > About fixing things so the fiasco cannot happen again, that has 2
> possible
> > > answers.
> > >
> > > 1) they need to upgrade, modernize, and standardize voting registration,
> > > procedures, and machinery.
> > >
> > > 2) they will never prevent this sort of thing from happening again
> because
> > > leftists are whiners by nature; every time one of them loses an election
> by
> > > a narrow margin, they whine and moan about everything from imagined
> > > registration irregularities to poor ballot design (though I think it was
> a
> > > leftist who designed the ballot that tricked the stupid people in Palm
> Beach
> > > County into voting for Buchannan).
> > >
> > > I think answer #2 is the correct one, though I'd still like to see as
> much
> > > of answer #1 as possible.
> >
> > I'm not aware that leftists whine any more or any less than
> > rightists do.
> > As to getting believable results, I think there are lots of
> > possibilities. One is to bar partisans from vote-counting
> > responsibilities (Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State,
> > charged with "certifying" the results in 2000, was Mr. Bush's campaign
> > co-chair for the state.) Florida law requires full recounts in certain
> > close elections. In 2000, as close an election as ever, no full
> > statewide recount was ever undertaken (and still has not been). The
> > NORC study showed that a full state-wide recount indicated that Mr.
> > Bush did not win.
> > If you're looking for NORC results, try googling again on NORC.
> > They should at least give you the nine scenarios and their results.
> > There's no need to take my word for anything; your library can get you
> > the full NORC study through interlibrary loan.
> > --Russ
>
> Look, Russ. You're starting to make me feel like I'm talking with a broken
> record. I know my situation, and the library here will not provide me with
> the document you seem sure they will. I'm not going to go into specifics
> about where I live, but I will tell you that the library is very small, with
> a tiny staff, and does not do interlibrary loans of the kind you keep
> insinuating they will. In a larger library, yes, I know they would. But
> not in mine.
>
> Then there's the Google thing. I did Google NORC, and the results it sent
> back do not contain the claims you're talking about. If it's so easy to do,
> surely you would have rolled your eyes at my density, taken 3 minutes of
> your own time, and pasted the URL into a reply in this thread to prove I am
> off base. You have not done so because you cannot "Google NORC" to get the
> results you claim, either. You know, there always comes a time to "put up
> or shut up" and Russ, I think that time has come. Post the URL you keep
> assuring me is easy to look up, please. Or admit you lied.

Dear Ms. Smoker,
Here you go: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp
will take you directly to NORC's online "Florida Ballot Project."
Because this version is necessarily much shorter than the full print
study, I continue to recommend getting that through any library; I've
never heard of one that didn't offer interlibrary loan service, not
even a library with a staff of just one librarian. Germany, as you
know, has an excellent library system, and German librarians know how
to get English-language materials. I also don't understand how you
could miss the ballot study when you googled. Instead of partisan
argument or insult, how about telling us what went wrong for
you--maybe other NG subscribers are having the same trouble or similar
ones.
--Russ

"rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:7e483417.0307060621.52d9eb9a@posting.google.c om...
> "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
news:<be8mgp$c7c$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > news:7e483417.0307051848.1dd79a46@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<be7a0d$q9a$03$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:7e483417.0307051053.c3fa96c@posting.google.co m...
> > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<be4524$395$05$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:7e483417.0307031753.14f2a3fb@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:<be28ut$ic$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snipped>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CNN is no friend of GWB. If it is partisan, it should skew
> > against
> > > > him.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > > doesn't because the facts are plain. GWB beat your loser,
just
> > as
> > > > he'll
> > > > do
> > > > > > > > again in 2004.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Ms. Smoker,
> > > > > > > I hold no brief for Mr. Gore and have no interest in him.
If
> > you
> > > > > > > have Googled "NORC" you know that when all valid Florida votes
are
> > > > > > > counted Mr. Bush does not win. Your best bet in learning from
the
> > > > > > > post-election ballot studies is more than a website--it's the
full
> > > > > > > NORC study, available at your library.
> > > > > > > --Russ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Available at my library? Do they have those documents here in
> > Germany?
> > As
> > > > > > for the Google search, I did do one. How did you think I found
the
> > CNN
> > > > > > article? I first tried the NORC web site, but it gives no real
> > indication
> > > > > > either way, as far as I saw.
> > > > >
> > > > > Try again, Ms. Smoker. NORC reported the results of nine
> > > > > scenarios, each undertaken in response to specific questions
raised in
> > > > > the Florida fiasco of 2000. One of these gives the results of what
> > > > > happens had Mr. Gore gained a recount only in the four Florida
> > > > > counties he chose, with nothing done elsewhere--the reult is that
he
> > > > > still loses. But the scenario that really counts for you and me as
> > > > > citizens and for history is the one in which the ballots in all
> > > > > precincts, in all counties, are studied. In that, Mr. Bush does
not
> > > > > win.
> > > > > Yes, very likely the materials are available in U. S. Armed
> > > > > Forces Libraries in Germany. If not, they are most likely
obtainable
> > > > > through interlibrary loan.
> > > > > I'm not interested at all in Mr. Gore nor in the past. We
need to
> > > > > look ahead, to prevent future fiascos like 2000. Any suggestions?
> > > > > --Russ
> > > >
> > > > They do not have those items at my library. I wish they did,
because
> > I'm
> > > > not prepared to take your word for it. Not that you'd lie about it,
but
> > > > maybe you misunderstood, remembered it inccorrectly, or whatever.
Give
> > me a
> > > > URL and I'll look at it.
> > > >
> > > > About fixing things so the fiasco cannot happen again, that has 2
> > possible
> > > > answers.
> > > >
> > > > 1) they need to upgrade, modernize, and standardize voting
registration,
> > > > procedures, and machinery.
> > > >
> > > > 2) they will never prevent this sort of thing from happening again
> > because
> > > > leftists are whiners by nature; every time one of them loses an
election
> > by
> > > > a narrow margin, they whine and moan about everything from imagined
> > > > registration irregularities to poor ballot design (though I think it
was
> > a
> > > > leftist who designed the ballot that tricked the stupid people in
Palm
> > Beach
> > > > County into voting for Buchannan).
> > > >
> > > > I think answer #2 is the correct one, though I'd still like to see
as
> > much
> > > > of answer #1 as possible.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware that leftists whine any more or any less than
> > > rightists do.
> > > As to getting believable results, I think there are lots of
> > > possibilities. One is to bar partisans from vote-counting
> > > responsibilities (Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State,
> > > charged with "certifying" the results in 2000, was Mr. Bush's campaign
> > > co-chair for the state.) Florida law requires full recounts in certain
> > > close elections. In 2000, as close an election as ever, no full
> > > statewide recount was ever undertaken (and still has not been). The
> > > NORC study showed that a full state-wide recount indicated that Mr.
> > > Bush did not win.
> > > If you're looking for NORC results, try googling again on NORC.
> > > They should at least give you the nine scenarios and their results.
> > > There's no need to take my word for anything; your library can get you
> > > the full NORC study through interlibrary loan.
> > > --Russ
> >
> > Look, Russ. You're starting to make me feel like I'm talking with a
broken
> > record. I know my situation, and the library here will not provide me
with
> > the document you seem sure they will. I'm not going to go into
specifics
> > about where I live, but I will tell you that the library is very small,
with
> > a tiny staff, and does not do interlibrary loans of the kind you keep
> > insinuating they will. In a larger library, yes, I know they would.
But
> > not in mine.
> >
> > Then there's the Google thing. I did Google NORC, and the results it
sent
> > back do not contain the claims you're talking about. If it's so easy to
do,
> > surely you would have rolled your eyes at my density, taken 3 minutes of
> > your own time, and pasted the URL into a reply in this thread to prove I
am
> > off base. You have not done so because you cannot "Google NORC" to get
the
> > results you claim, either. You know, there always comes a time to "put
up
> > or shut up" and Russ, I think that time has come. Post the URL you keep
> > assuring me is easy to look up, please. Or admit you lied.
>
> Dear Ms. Smoker,
> Here you go: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp
> will take you directly to NORC's online "Florida Ballot Project."
> Because this version is necessarily much shorter than the full print
> study, I continue to recommend getting that through any library; I've
> never heard of one that didn't offer interlibrary loan service, not
> even a library with a staff of just one librarian. Germany, as you
> know, has an excellent library system, and German librarians know how
> to get English-language materials. I also don't understand how you
> could miss the ballot study when you googled. Instead of partisan
> argument or insult, how about telling us what went wrong for
> you--maybe other NG subscribers are having the same trouble or similar
> ones.
> --Russ

I found that web site. That still does not tell me where the 9 scenario
thing you mentioned is. And please drop the library option. I know my
situation, and you don't. I cannot get the item here. Please take my word
for it.

"Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message news:<be9i1d$c29$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:7e483417.0307060621.52d9eb9a@posting.google.c om...
> > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be8mgp$c7c$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7e483417.0307051848.1dd79a46@posting.google.c om...
> > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be7a0d$q9a$03$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:7e483417.0307051053.c3fa96c@posting.google.co m...
> > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be4524$395$05$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:7e483417.0307031753.14f2a3fb@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:<be28ut$ic$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snipped>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CNN is no friend of GWB. If it is partisan, it should skew
> against
> > > > > him.
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > doesn't because the facts are plain. GWB beat your loser,
> just
> as
> > > > > he'll
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > again in 2004.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear Ms. Smoker,
> > > > > > > > I hold no brief for Mr. Gore and have no interest in him.
> If
> you
> > > > > > > > have Googled "NORC" you know that when all valid Florida votes
> are
> > > > > > > > counted Mr. Bush does not win. Your best bet in learning from
> the
> > > > > > > > post-election ballot studies is more than a website--it's the
> full
> > > > > > > > NORC study, available at your library.
> > > > > > > > --Russ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Available at my library? Do they have those documents here in
> > > Germany?
> > > As
> > > > > > > for the Google search, I did do one. How did you think I found
> the
> CNN
> > > > > > > article? I first tried the NORC web site, but it gives no real
> indication
> > > > > > > either way, as far as I saw.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Try again, Ms. Smoker. NORC reported the results of nine
> > > > > > scenarios, each undertaken in response to specific questions
> raised in
> > > > > > the Florida fiasco of 2000. One of these gives the results of what
> > > > > > happens had Mr. Gore gained a recount only in the four Florida
> > > > > > counties he chose, with nothing done elsewhere--the reult is that
> he
> > > > > > still loses. But the scenario that really counts for you and me as
> > > > > > citizens and for history is the one in which the ballots in all
> > > > > > precincts, in all counties, are studied. In that, Mr. Bush does
> not
> > > > > > win.
> > > > > > Yes, very likely the materials are available in U. S. Armed
> > > > > > Forces Libraries in Germany. If not, they are most likely
> obtainable
> > > > > > through interlibrary loan.
> > > > > > I'm not interested at all in Mr. Gore nor in the past. We
> need to
> > > > > > look ahead, to prevent future fiascos like 2000. Any suggestions?
> > > > > > --Russ
> > > > >
> > > > > They do not have those items at my library. I wish they did,
> because
> I'm
> > > > > not prepared to take your word for it. Not that you'd lie about it,
> but
> > > > > maybe you misunderstood, remembered it inccorrectly, or whatever.
> Give
> me a
> > > > > URL and I'll look at it.
> > > > >
> > > > > About fixing things so the fiasco cannot happen again, that has 2
> possible
> > > > > answers.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) they need to upgrade, modernize, and standardize voting
> registration,
> > > > > procedures, and machinery.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) they will never prevent this sort of thing from happening again
> because
> > > > > leftists are whiners by nature; every time one of them loses an
> election
> by
> > > > > a narrow margin, they whine and moan about everything from imagined
> > > > > registration irregularities to poor ballot design (though I think it
> was
> a
> > > > > leftist who designed the ballot that tricked the stupid people in
> Palm
> Beach
> > > > > County into voting for Buchannan).
> > > > >
> > > > > I think answer #2 is the correct one, though I'd still like to see
> as
> much
> > > > > of answer #1 as possible.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware that leftists whine any more or any less than
> > > > rightists do.
> > > > As to getting believable results, I think there are lots of
> > > > possibilities. One is to bar partisans from vote-counting
> > > > responsibilities (Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State,
> > > > charged with "certifying" the results in 2000, was Mr. Bush's campaign
> > > > co-chair for the state.) Florida law requires full recounts in certain
> > > > close elections. In 2000, as close an election as ever, no full
> > > > statewide recount was ever undertaken (and still has not been). The
> > > > NORC study showed that a full state-wide recount indicated that Mr.
> > > > Bush did not win.
> > > > If you're looking for NORC results, try googling again on NORC.
> > > > They should at least give you the nine scenarios and their results.
> > > > There's no need to take my word for anything; your library can get you
> > > > the full NORC study through interlibrary loan.
> > > > --Russ
> > >
> > > Look, Russ. You're starting to make me feel like I'm talking with a
> broken
> > > record. I know my situation, and the library here will not provide me
> with
> > > the document you seem sure they will. I'm not going to go into
> specifics
> > > about where I live, but I will tell you that the library is very small,
> with
> > > a tiny staff, and does not do interlibrary loans of the kind you keep
> > > insinuating they will. In a larger library, yes, I know they would.
> But
> > > not in mine.
> > >
> > > Then there's the Google thing. I did Google NORC, and the results it
> sent
> > > back do not contain the claims you're talking about. If it's so easy to
> do,
> > > surely you would have rolled your eyes at my density, taken 3 minutes of
> > > your own time, and pasted the URL into a reply in this thread to prove I
> am
> > > off base. You have not done so because you cannot "Google NORC" to get
> the
> > > results you claim, either. You know, there always comes a time to "put
> up
> > > or shut up" and Russ, I think that time has come. Post the URL you keep
> > > assuring me is easy to look up, please. Or admit you lied.
> >
> > Dear Ms. Smoker,
> > Here you go: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp
> > will take you directly to NORC's online "Florida Ballot Project."
> > Because this version is necessarily much shorter than the full print
> > study, I continue to recommend getting that through any library; I've
> > never heard of one that didn't offer interlibrary loan service, not
> > even a library with a staff of just one librarian. Germany, as you
> > know, has an excellent library system, and German librarians know how
> > to get English-language materials. I also don't understand how you
> > could miss the ballot study when you googled. Instead of partisan
> > argument or insult, how about telling us what went wrong for
> > you--maybe other NG subscribers are having the same trouble or similar
> > ones.
> > --Russ
>
> I found that web site. That still does not tell me where the 9 scenario
> thing you mentioned is. And please drop the library option. I know my
> situation, and you don't. I cannot get the item here. Please take my word
> for it.

OK, gladly.
I don't know why the NORC's "Florida Ballot Study" site
would give you trouble finding the results of the nine scenarios and
how those results were arrived at. There are several different pages
within the site, so site navigation issues may have arisen somehow.
Earlier I gave you a link to the index to the study. Perhaps
you got no farther, so here's a link to the beginning of the "results"
section: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results that will even give
you a tabulator if you have a serious interest in the actual ballots
But if you prefer only the "horse race" element though still
seeking results for all scenarios, here's a media report that shows
the "who won?" information for each, all in one convenient color-coded
page.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...w.storygallery
What I'd recommend is that you ignore the hype and spin in the media
story and then look up any particular scenario that's of interest to
you in the actual study. I'd ask your special attention to statewide
scenarios 1 and 4.
--Russ

"rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:7e483417.0307070823.1402a11b@posting.google.c om...
> "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
news:<be9i1d$c29$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > news:7e483417.0307060621.52d9eb9a@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<be8mgp$c7c$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:7e483417.0307051848.1dd79a46@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<be7a0d$q9a$03$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:7e483417.0307051053.c3fa96c@posting.google.co m...
> > > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<be4524$395$05$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:7e483417.0307031753.14f2a3fb@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:<be28ut$ic$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > >

<snipped>

> > I found that web site. That still does not tell me where the 9 scenario
> > thing you mentioned is. And please drop the library option. I know my
> > situation, and you don't. I cannot get the item here. Please take my
word
> > for it.
>
> OK, gladly.
> I don't know why the NORC's "Florida Ballot Study" site
> would give you trouble finding the results of the nine scenarios and
> how those results were arrived at. There are several different pages
> within the site, so site navigation issues may have arisen somehow.
> Earlier I gave you a link to the index to the study. Perhaps
> you got no farther, so here's a link to the beginning of the "results"
> section: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results that will even give
> you a tabulator if you have a serious interest in the actual ballots
> But if you prefer only the "horse race" element though still
> seeking results for all scenarios, here's a media report that shows
> the "who won?" information for each, all in one convenient color-coded
> page.
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...w.storygallery
> What I'd recommend is that you ignore the hype and spin in the media
> story and then look up any particular scenario that's of interest to
> you in the actual study. I'd ask your special attention to statewide
> scenarios 1 and 4.
> --Russ

You gotta love it. The first link is the one that I found some time ago. I
cannot open the tabulator link, and I see nowhere else that it makes the
case you claim it does. Your intentionally being vague is starting to show
clearly. The second link does open a page, but many of the links there are
expired. One link there that is not expired was this one:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4664373.story

An excerpt follows:

The latest and most comprehensive review was conducted by independent
researchers hired by a consortium of newspapers that includes the Orlando
Sentinel.

It shows Bush still would have prevailed in Florida, had the statewide
hand-count ordered by the Florida Supreme Court run its course. The court
ordered a hand count of so-called "undervotes," ballots for which machines
couldn't detect a presidential vote.

Now it does go on to mention a scenario in which Gore would have won, one
where overvotes were counted, but that scenario was not allowed for under
contemporary election law. No, the most important thing in that article YOU
pointed out to me was the above, that the Florida State Supreme Court's
ruling would not have changed a thing even if it had been illegally allowed
to go procede.

Chain Smoker wrote:

<snip>

> > OK, gladly.
> > I don't know why the NORC's "Florida Ballot Study" site
> > would give you trouble finding the results of the nine scenarios and
> > how those results were arrived at. There are several different pages
> > within the site, so site navigation issues may have arisen somehow.
> > Earlier I gave you a link to the index to the study. Perhaps
> > you got no farther, so here's a link to the beginning of the "results"
> > section: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results that will even give
> > you a tabulator if you have a serious interest in the actual ballots
> > But if you prefer only the "horse race" element though still
> > seeking results for all scenarios, here's a media report that shows
> > the "who won?" information for each, all in one convenient color-coded
> > page.
> > http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...w.storygallery
> > What I'd recommend is that you ignore the hype and spin in the media
> > story and then look up any particular scenario that's of interest to
> > you in the actual study. I'd ask your special attention to statewide
> > scenarios 1 and 4.
> > --Russ
>
> You gotta love it. The first link is the one that I found some time ago. I
> cannot open the tabulator link, and I see nowhere else that it makes the
> case you claim it does. Your intentionally being vague is starting to show
> clearly. The second link does open a page, but many of the links there are
> expired. One link there that is not expired was this one:
>
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4664373.story
>
> An excerpt follows:
>
> The latest and most comprehensive review was conducted by independent
> researchers hired by a consortium of newspapers that includes the Orlando
> Sentinel.
>
> It shows Bush still would have prevailed in Florida, had the statewide
> hand-count ordered by the Florida Supreme Court run its course. The court
> ordered a hand count of so-called "undervotes," ballots for which machines
> couldn't detect a presidential vote.
>
> Now it does go on to mention a scenario in which Gore would have won, one
> where overvotes were counted, but that scenario was not allowed for under
> contemporary election law. No, the most important thing in that article YOU
> pointed out to me was the above, that the Florida State Supreme Court's
> ruling would not have changed a thing even if it had been illegally allowed
> to go procede.

Let it be noted that none of the many scenarios run by NORC,
likely to proposed by the Florida Supreme Court, involved any
legal method of counting ballots. Florida statute requires that
all ballots in the same county be counted by the same method,
preferably by all machine, or otherwise all by hand. Florida
statute makes no allowance for any mixed recount, some ballots
counted by machine but others by hand.

The NORC results are interesting, but that can not be definitive,
because NORC did not simulate a legal method of counting votes.
NORC simulated every conceived FSC scenario. Yet no scenario
likely to be approved by the FSC would have been a legal recount,
all ballots counted by the same method.

David

"Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message news:<bechnh$n80$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
> "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:7e483417.0307070823.1402a11b@posting.google.c om...
> > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be9i1d$c29$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7e483417.0307060621.52d9eb9a@posting.google.c om...
> > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be8mgp$c7c$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:7e483417.0307051848.1dd79a46@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be7a0d$q9a$03$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:7e483417.0307051053.c3fa96c@posting.google.co m...
> > > > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be4524$395$05$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:7e483417.0307031753.14f2a3fb@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:<be28ut$ic$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > > >
>
> <snipped>
>
> > > I found that web site. That still does not tell me where the 9 scenario
> > > thing you mentioned is. And please drop the library option. I know my
> > > situation, and you don't. I cannot get the item here. Please take my
> word
> > > for it.
> >
> > OK, gladly.
> > I don't know why the NORC's "Florida Ballot Study" site
> > would give you trouble finding the results of the nine scenarios and
> > how those results were arrived at. There are several different pages
> > within the site, so site navigation issues may have arisen somehow.
> > Earlier I gave you a link to the index to the study. Perhaps
> > you got no farther, so here's a link to the beginning of the "results"
> > section: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results that will even give
> > you a tabulator if you have a serious interest in the actual ballots
> > But if you prefer only the "horse race" element though still
> > seeking results for all scenarios, here's a media report that shows
> > the "who won?" information for each, all in one convenient color-coded
> > page.
> > http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...w.storygallery
> > What I'd recommend is that you ignore the hype and spin in the media
> > story and then look up any particular scenario that's of interest to
> > you in the actual study. I'd ask your special attention to statewide
> > scenarios 1 and 4.
> > --Russ
>
> You gotta love it. The first link is the one that I found some time ago. I
> cannot open the tabulator link, and I see nowhere else that it makes the
> case you claim it does. Your intentionally being vague is starting to show
> clearly. The second link does open a page, but many of the links there are
> expired. One link there that is not expired was this one:
>
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4664373.story
>
> An excerpt follows:
>
> The latest and most comprehensive review was conducted by independent
> researchers hired by a consortium of newspapers that includes the Orlando
> Sentinel.
>
> It shows Bush still would have prevailed in Florida, had the statewide
> hand-count ordered by the Florida Supreme Court run its course. The court
> ordered a hand count of so-called "undervotes," ballots for which machines
> couldn't detect a presidential vote.
>
> Now it does go on to mention a scenario in which Gore would have won, one
> where overvotes were counted, but that scenario was not allowed for under
> contemporary election law. No, the most important thing in that article YOU
> pointed out to me was the above, that the Florida State Supreme Court's
> ruling would not have changed a thing even if it had been illegally allowed
> to go procede.

Please check scenarios 1 and 4 against the NORC study, and ignore the
hype and spin in the media story. Especially, run the "horse-race"
results in the media story against the actual ballots. Even the
"horse-race" results show you that as to going "on to mention a
scenario in which Gore would have won," there are more than one such
scenarios statewide.
Among the interesting items in the study is the fact that Judge
Lewis had ordered the statewide recount of all valid votes when the
USSC intervened. The study shows that in that recount, Mr. Bush does
not win. You now have access to the media report that gives you the
"horse-race" results for each of nine scenarios, and, if you choose to
follow up with the NORC data, the actual data for each, and how the
comprehensive work was done.

"Nine scenarios were used in the Florida ballot study. Below is a
quick breakdown of the results, followed by Orlando Sentinel coverage
of the recount project:

1. Prevailing Statewide Standard
GORE WINS
2. Supreme Court ‘simple' scenario
BUSH WINS
3. Supreme Court ‘complex' scenario
BUSH WINS
4. 67-county custom standards scenario
GORE WINS
5. 2-corners-detached statewide scenario
GORE WINS
6. ‘Most inclusive' statewide scenario
GORE WINS
7. ‘Most restrictive' statewide scenario
BUSH WINS
8. Gore 4-county recount strategy scenario
BUSH WINS
9. ‘Dimples when other dimples present' scenario
GORE WINS"


I don't know why you chose to go to
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4664373.story
which gives you only the media spin, rather than going to the same
newspaper's list of the results of all nine scenarios, at the link I
gave you:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...w.storygallery
at the Sentinel, which shows you the results of all nine as shown
above. Those are very different links, one with spin, one with results
of nine scenarios.
And if you are really interested in the ballot study and how it
arrived at the result of each of the nine scenarios you can certainly
do so: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results.
--Russ

"rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:7e483417.0307071845.50dac94@posting.google.co m...
> "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
news:<bechnh$n80$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > news:7e483417.0307070823.1402a11b@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<be9i1d$c29$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:7e483417.0307060621.52d9eb9a@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<be8mgp$c7c$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:7e483417.0307051848.1dd79a46@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<be7a0d$q9a$03$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:7e483417.0307051053.c3fa96c@posting.google.co m...
> > > > > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<be4524$395$05$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > news:7e483417.0307031753.14f2a3fb@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > news:<be28ut$ic$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > > > I found that web site. That still does not tell me where the 9
scenario
> > > > thing you mentioned is. And please drop the library option. I know
my
> > > > situation, and you don't. I cannot get the item here. Please take
my
> > word
> > > > for it.
> > >
> > > OK, gladly.
> > > I don't know why the NORC's "Florida Ballot Study" site
> > > would give you trouble finding the results of the nine scenarios and
> > > how those results were arrived at. There are several different pages
> > > within the site, so site navigation issues may have arisen somehow.
> > > Earlier I gave you a link to the index to the study. Perhaps
> > > you got no farther, so here's a link to the beginning of the "results"
> > > section: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results that will even give
> > > you a tabulator if you have a serious interest in the actual ballots
> > > But if you prefer only the "horse race" element though still
> > > seeking results for all scenarios, here's a media report that shows
> > > the "who won?" information for each, all in one convenient color-coded
> > > page.
> > > http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...w.storygallery
> > > What I'd recommend is that you ignore the hype and spin in the media
> > > story and then look up any particular scenario that's of interest to
> > > you in the actual study. I'd ask your special attention to statewide
> > > scenarios 1 and 4.
> > > --Russ
> >
> > You gotta love it. The first link is the one that I found some time
ago. I
> > cannot open the tabulator link, and I see nowhere else that it makes the
> > case you claim it does. Your intentionally being vague is starting to
show
> > clearly. The second link does open a page, but many of the links there
are
> > expired. One link there that is not expired was this one:
> >
> >
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4664373.story
> >
> > An excerpt follows:
> >
> > The latest and most comprehensive review was conducted by independent
> > researchers hired by a consortium of newspapers that includes the
Orlando
> > Sentinel.
> >
> > It shows Bush still would have prevailed in Florida, had the statewide
> > hand-count ordered by the Florida Supreme Court run its course. The
court
> > ordered a hand count of so-called "undervotes," ballots for which
machines
> > couldn't detect a presidential vote.
> >
> > Now it does go on to mention a scenario in which Gore would have won,
one
> > where overvotes were counted, but that scenario was not allowed for
under
> > contemporary election law. No, the most important thing in that article
YOU
> > pointed out to me was the above, that the Florida State Supreme Court's
> > ruling would not have changed a thing even if it had been illegally
allowed
> > to go procede.
>
> Please check scenarios 1 and 4 against the NORC study, and ignore the
> hype and spin in the media story. Especially, run the "horse-race"
> results in the media story against the actual ballots. Even the
> "horse-race" results show you that as to going "on to mention a
> scenario in which Gore would have won," there are more than one such
> scenarios statewide.
> Among the interesting items in the study is the fact that Judge
> Lewis had ordered the statewide recount of all valid votes when the
> USSC intervened. The study shows that in that recount, Mr. Bush does
> not win. You now have access to the media report that gives you the
> "horse-race" results for each of nine scenarios, and, if you choose to
> follow up with the NORC data, the actual data for each, and how the
> comprehensive work was done.
>
> "Nine scenarios were used in the Florida ballot study. Below is a
> quick breakdown of the results, followed by Orlando Sentinel coverage
> of the recount project:
>
> 1. Prevailing Statewide Standard
> GORE WINS
> 2. Supreme Court 'simple' scenario
> BUSH WINS
> 3. Supreme Court 'complex' scenario
> BUSH WINS
> 4. 67-county custom standards scenario
> GORE WINS
> 5. 2-corners-detached statewide scenario
> GORE WINS
> 6. 'Most inclusive' statewide scenario
> GORE WINS
> 7. 'Most restrictive' statewide scenario
> BUSH WINS
> 8. Gore 4-county recount strategy scenario
> BUSH WINS
> 9. 'Dimples when other dimples present' scenario
> GORE WINS"
>
>
> I don't know why you chose to go to
>
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4664373.story
> which gives you only the media spin, rather than going to the same
> newspaper's list of the results of all nine scenarios, at the link I
> gave you:
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...w.storygallery
> at the Sentinel, which shows you the results of all nine as shown
> above. Those are very different links, one with spin, one with results
> of nine scenarios.
> And if you are really interested in the ballot study and how it
> arrived at the result of each of the nine scenarios you can certainly
> do so: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results.
> --Russ

Dude, you are not as intelligent as I had taken you to be. I explained why
I went to the top link you listed, and why the other one was less useful --
most of its subsequent links are expired! I guess it's time for you to pull
out the old, "go to your local library" song and dance again. Whatever, the
link you provided leads to a story about how Bush would have won anyway.
It's not CNN. It's the media outlet you provided the link for. Post
whatever you want after this. I will not read your reply, first, because I
will be gone for a few weeks, second, because I am done hearing you repeat
yourself disputing your own references. I sincerely wonder if you have
dementia.

Anyway, good bye. Hope you get better.