Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
RFK Jr’s "Stolen Election" rebutted
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, June 06, 2006

I'm sure if you're a political junkie (what are you doing reading thsi blog if you're not) you're familiar with Robert F. Kennedy Jr's recent article in Rolling Stone in which he claims that the 2004 presidential election was "stolen" by various means but most centered in an effort in Ohio.

Of course when the article came out, I was sorely tempted to wade in and see what I could do in terms of a refutation. But time is limited, the article is long and involved and reluctantly I took a pass.

Thankfully Farhad Manjoo has taken up the slack and published a Salon article in rebuttal. While acknowleging voting irregularities in Ohio, Manjoo wonders how Kennedy arrived at the conclusion that they were manipulated by Republicans.
If you do read Kennedy's article, be prepared to machete your way through numerous errors of interpretation and his deliberate omission of key bits of data. The first salient omission comes in paragraph 5, when Kennedy writes, "In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots." To back up that assertion, Kennedy cites "Democracy at Risk," the report the Democrats released last June.

That report does indeed point out that many people — 26 percent — who first registered in 2004 did not find their names on the voter rolls at polling places. What Kennedy doesn't say, though, is that the same study found no significant difference in the share of Kerry voters and Bush voters who came to the polls and didn't find their names listed. The Democrats' report says that 4.2 percent of Kerry voters were forced to cast a "provisional" ballot and that 4.1 percent of Bush voters were made to do the same — a stat that lowers the heat on Kennedy's claim of "astounding" partisanship.

Such techniques are evident throughout Kennedy's article. He presents a barrage of seemingly important, apparently damning data to show that Kerry won the race. It's only when you dig into his claims that you see what thin ice he's on.
Read the whole thing if you're interested. I appears to be a pretty fair and balanced rebuttal which concludes:

"Was the 2004 election stolen? No."

But most rational people already knew that which is why, except in the extreme leftist fever swamps, the Kennedy article has produced hardly a ripple.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
But most rational people already knew that which is why, except in the extreme leftist fever swamps, the Kennedy article has produced hardly a ripple.
Well, with Kennedy joined by Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, and Sheila Jackson Lee, it appears that there’s a small leftist fever swamp in the US Congress.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Let me get this straight: You didn’t read the Kennedy article because it’s "long and involved," yet you endorse Manjoo’s rebuttal as "fair and balanced." Why should anyone care about your hollow opinion? Wouldn’t you have a bit more credibility if you actually read something or had an idea of your own?
 
Written By: mr
URL: http://
Wouldn’t you have a bit more credibility if you actually read something or had an idea of your own?
If I were worried about my credibility, you’d have a point, but when it came down to considering the the author of the piece, his credibility had me figure it wasn’t worth it.

So I deferred to Manjoo.

I take it, by your comment, you have nothing credible with which to rebutt Manjoo but you only have credibility issues with my deferral?

I can live with that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider