More post-hearing analysis gloating

[NWPT43] If there’s any indication of how yesterday’s rulings really went, I’d say it’s the predictable judge-bashing already coming from the other blog. I was particularly struck by this thoughtful piece of analysis from one (u)SP regular:

why does Judge Bridge wear an earing? Unless he’s a right wing Harley riding ex hippie I remain nervous about his politics…

Later in the same thread, one of our very own right-wing resident trolls, Jeff B., manages to cut straight through all the bullshit and and convincingly enunciate his own “bloody glove theory” of election fraud:

I suspect that when all is said and done, the outcome will be similar to that of the OJ trial. We all know he did it, but he got off because a very partisan jury was convinced of a reasonable doubt.

For the last time Jeff, even if OJ did vote in Washington’s November election… he was never actually convicted of a felony. (And besides, OJ’s vote would probably have been offset by that of convicted perjurer and Spokane talk radio host, Mark Fuhrman.)

Of course, I would hate to be judged by the content of my blog’s comment threads (I’d probably be judged mentally incompetent.) But this sort of paranoid emotional calculated lashing-out at the courts when decisions don’t go their way is de rigueur in Republican circles these days, and Stefan himself set the tone early when he dismissed Judge Bridges’ ruling on voter-crediting by implying that the Judge hadn’t bothered to read the depositions.

“Oy.”

In what I suppose serves as his final post-hearing analysis, Stefan comes back with a typically constructive critique, focusing on Judge Bridge’s firm statement that “Unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken, their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts.” To this, Stefan thoughtfully asks:

What might make an election “clearly invalid”?

I don’t know. Hundreds more ballots than voters? Ballots that appeared out of nowhere and were tabulated? Fraudulent ballot accounting statements? Election officials who knew about hundreds of unverified provisional ballots that went into the ballot boxes but somehow forgot to tell the canvassing board?

Maybe something will come up.

Oh… did I say “thoughtfully”…? I sometimes confuse thoughtfulness with sarcasm.

Well, yes Stefan, if you can prove that there were indeed hundreds more ballots than voters, and that ballots fell from the sky and into the Accuvote machines like manna from heaven, and that election officials committed fraud, then yes… the Judge might rule this election “clearly invalid.” But you can’t prove any of these allegations, and that’s why, dollars to doughnuts, Rossi’s attorneys won’t even try during the four days they’ve been alloted to present evidence.

And that is the extent of the post-hearing commentary from the blogosphere’s most celebrated, self-appointed election expert. I’d say that this atypical lack of loquaciousness might suggest that yesterday’s rulings have him feeling a little despondent, or even depressed… but I wouldn’t want to accuse Stefan of suffering from a mental disorder he clearly doesn’t suffer from.

The truth is, it’s hard to generate much spin when somebody nails your rhetorical dreidel to the floor.

And man did Stefan’s rhetoric get hammered yesterday by Judge Bridges… most devastatingly when he definitively ruled that voter crediting is a “post-election administrative exercise” and “does not bear upon the authenticity of election results.” That one ruling flushed months of Stefan’s hard work (and not so hard numbers) down the toilet, and with it, the last vestige of his “total mess” theory.

I can imagine how disappointed Stefan must be. All those tedious, quixotic hours pouring through election documents, compiling databases, and finagling spreadsheets… all those late nights emailing with the BIAW, and early mornings laying out his latest “findings” to the half dozen or so people listening to Mike Siegel at 6:30AM… all that hard work, only to be told by a lowly judge of all people, that he’s been looking at the wrong data set! (I tried to warn you, Stefan… tried to save you from this crushing heartbreak… but would you listen? No!)

Ah well. I had intended to discuss in detail some of my personal observations on how Judge Bridges’ rulings might ultimately effect the outcome of the trial… but it was just too much fun teasing Stefan. More analysis later….

Comments

  1. 1

    chardonnay spews:

    Gloating? Why was Crissy dodging questions about it then in NWCN?
    She is worried and “the berendt” is spinning out of control.

  2. 2

    Jon spews:

    Pretty good post, Goldy. I don’t know why there is all the heat and light on Bridge by anybody, as we all know no matter what he rules it’s going to be appealed, so save the subtext reading of his appearance…..

    I never did think the R’s had much of a chance in this case; as it’s been pointed out, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the election officals.

  3. 3

    Ivan spews:

    Hey, it’s Chardonnay! Where ya been, buddy? Still think Sims is going down? Still want to put your money where your mouth is and take me up on my $200 bet? Or are you all talk and no action?

  4. 4

    chardonnay spews:

    oh ya Ivan, King Ronny is toast he’s as wacked as algore if not more. ronny f’d up with his trumped up enviro BS. and his election dept debacle. stick a fork in him.

    I’ll tell ya what ivan, if ron wins I’ll donate money to Goldy’s beer fund. You ‘buddy’ get zip unless Goldy wants to share his beer with you. If David Irons wins you buy Goldy a beer.

  5. 5

    Erik spews:

    Ah well. I had intended to discuss in detail some of my personal observations on how Judge Bridges� rulings might ultimately effect the outcome of the trial� but it was just too much fun teasing Stefan.

    Yes, finally defrocking the spreadsheets was nice to see. I didn’t really know if they would get eliminated so clearly by the judge.

    As I stated yesterday, the attacks by the right wingers on the judge correlate perfectly with their own belief that they are going to lose. Nevermind that the judge was nearly hand selected by Rossi in a county leaning very strongly toward him.

    The right wing ranters had every legal tactical advantage in the election contest but their case is so weak that they still don’t look like they can win.

  6. 6

    N in Seattle spews:

    I’ve long thought there was something logically flawed in the Shark/Vance “statistical” method, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Today, though, it suddenly came clear.

    Statistics — real statistics, that is — is concerned with generalizing from the specific. Take a good look at a small number of appropriately-chosen individuals, and you can build a pretty close approximation of what will take place in the larger group that those individuals represent. That’s what polling does, for example.

    But Shark, (u)SP, and the Rossi/Vance crowd are trying to do exactly the opposite — ascribe the general behavior of a large group (a precinct) to a few individuals within that group. Friends, that is not statistical reasoning, not statistical modeling, not a scientific methodology in any way, shape, or form.

    What it is, is putting a shiny science-like patina on the straws they’re grasping at. They’re trying to sound like they know what they’re talking about, couching their absence of empirical evidence in big words that will impress a whole lot of people. But there’s no logic whatsoever behind their facade, no scientific reasoning that can support their false inferences.

    Hopefully, the Dems and/or the Chelan County court have retained a well-respected statistician or two, preferably someone who can put these concepts into terminology that Judge Bridges, David Postman, and even television reporters can follow. I’d add Stefan, Vance, Rossi, McCabe, et al. to those hopes, but I’m well aware that even if they could comprehend that their arguments are fallacious, they wouldn’t.

  7. 8

    Seattle SlugFest spews:

    fIRST, A NOD AND TRIBUTE TO THE gOLDSTER: “For the last time Jeff, even if OJ did vote in Washington’s November election… he was never actually convicted of a felony. (And besides, OJ’s vote would probably have been offset by that of convicted perjurer and Spokane talk radio host, Mark Fuhrman.)” NOW THAT IS FUNNY STUFF GOLDY. Maybe you could give Headless Lucy a few pointers.

    (I just couldn’t forget my good friends here at HA(hahahaha) and all the wonderful times we’ve had, so I had to share this post with you. Please enjoy.)

    An anagram search of Dean Logan returns NO-NAG LEAD, but he should have said, “NO DEAL, NAG”.

    An input of GOVERNOR GREGOIRE returns VEERING ERROR, GO, GO!

    GOVERNOR ROSSI returns OR SO ROVE GRINS.
    GOVERNOR OWEN returns WE NO GOVERNOR.

    One of my personal faves is DEMOCRATIC which returns COMEDIC ART or COMEDIC RAT or COMIC RATED (reference to Air America?), whichever you prefer.

    And DEMOCRATIC PARTY returns the phrases TRACED TO PRIMARY (Bingo! Direct hit!), DEMOCRACY PIT ART (our olympic majority) or PRIMACY COED TART (our new Governator)and PRIMARY CODE TACT (hah!) ATROCITY CRAMP ED works, too. DOC MIRE AT (sounds like an email address….), CACTI ROD ‘EM (a passing reference to their concern for their constituents), CREMATORY DIP ACT ( the shape of things to come? Go, Judge!)

    DEMOCRACY returns CREAMY COD, DECOY CRAM and COMEDY CAR (the new gas tax is sure to help….).

    Feel free to contribute.

  8. 9

    Unkl Witz spews:

    I must say, it is almost painful to see the gleeful response and retorical high fives on Stefan’s blog comments whenever he posts another one of his breathtaking revelations.

    I guess it just goes to show you that when your mind is made up, nothing like an objective point of view on the facts is going to change it. It will be a sour, rueful day when the good judge finally rules.

    But then, off to the Supremes for another go-round and its attendant spinning. Right or left, politics in this country is high comedy indeed.

  9. 10

    JCH spews:

    Perhaps the Democrats could bus in a few thousand Mexicans to help “boost” the Democrat vote. Democrats: third world domestic terrorists!

  10. 11

    Another TJ spews:

    But Shark, (u)SP, and the Rossi/Vance crowd are trying to do exactly the opposite – ascribe the general behavior of a large group (a precinct) to a few individuals within that group. Friends, that is not statistical reasoning, not statistical modeling, not a scientific methodology in any way, shape, or form.

    N in Seattle,

    This is known as the “ecological fallacy,” and it’s been discussed in the social sciences pretty thoroughly for decades now. If you look up the works of Gary King (careful, that’s a HUGE list), you’ll find some of the best work around on identifying and overcoming this problem.

  11. 12

    headless lucy spews:

    Would it be valid to round off the amount of mistakes in the election and divide that by the number of ballots cast, come up with the percentage of errors and check with a statistics book to find out if the margin of error is tolerable? Can I get a $150,000 grant to do that? Like the Boss said: “This gun’s for hire…” even if some might argue that it’s a peashooter—-but a very accurate one.

    Most of the pros in the Social Science biz have warned about “the Bong Effect”. Don’t let it happen to you!

  12. 15

    chardonnay'sjealous spews:

    josef @ 13, your sweet ‘mamaduke look alike’ needs to seriously get some plastic surgery……or perhaps a ‘sex change’

  13. 16

    N in Seattle spews:

    Another T3 @11:

    As I was driving home from work, I realized that it’s indeed the ecological fallacy. As I now recall, the example my professors used was Durkheim’s analysis of suicide rates and religious denominations in late 19th century Germany (aha, I see that it’s still in use).

    As a trained epidemiologist, I should have realized right away that that’s what Stefan is doing. It’s been a long, long time since my basic statistics and basic sociometrics coursework, so please excuse my brain cramp.

    Next question — is he intentionally muddying the waters with the ecological fallacy, or does he just not know very much about statistical analysis?

  14. 17

    jppatches spews:

    N. I believe his statistical knowlege is acceptable, but he is totally blinded by his ‘vicious and partisan’ political view.,

  15. 18

    Another TJ spews:

    please excuse my brain cramp.

    No problem at all. Time has a way of blocking that which was once easily recalled.

    Next question – is he intentionally muddying the waters with the ecological fallacy, or does he just not know very much about statistical analysis?

    Based upon his analyses that I have seen (which is, admittedly, just a sample of his writings), I’d say he knows a few things about statistics, but I’m hesitant speculate how much. There’s an old saying that’s popular in methods courses about giving a man a hammer and pretty soon everything starts looking like a nail. I may be wrong, but it appears that’s what’s going on here. He seems to have learned a few things, but he doesn’t seem to know when they are appropriate and inappropriate to use.

    Or maybe he’s just sloppy. Or maybe he doesn’t know as much as he lets on. Or maybe he lets his partisanship out-race his judgment. I really don’t know.

    Ultimately, it doesn’t matter why he does what he does. At the end of the day, the result is the same.

  16. 20

    Erik spews:

    I must say, it is almost painful to see the gleeful response and retorical high fives on Stefan’s blog comments whenever he posts another one of his breathtaking revelations.

    The difference is that few of them believe it anymore. The conversation had moved from Orange hopes of a re-vote to just another vote to now just calling the judge, judiciary and Gregoire corrupt and how much they hate Washington.

  17. 22

    Diggindude spews:

    earlier, i stopped by.
    The usual 30 posts in a row, kicking dems, turned into 5 or 6 posts, licking wounds.

  18. 23

    chardonnay spews:

    Is the Judge interested in the king county election workers that printed a buttload of ballots and took them home? I’ll bet those same people were also the moveon volunteers that went door to door with blank ballots.

  19. 25

    Erik spews:

    What difference does all this make? It’s not life or death…

    Yes that’s true. But it makes a difference as to whether Washington state will be ruled by Windermere.

  20. 26

    Jeff B. spews:

    Goldy,

    Sorry it’s taken a while to respond, this is my first check in to HA today. I must say I’m honored to be featured in your post, as a troll no less!

    I would appreciate though, for the benefit of your readers if you quoted the full text of my analogy. I said roughly that like OJ, even though he got off scot-free, we all know he did it. And the same is true with the election which even you admit. It was a statistical tie. A tie because within the margin of error due to poor handling by King County and other counties, there’s enough reasonable doubt, that indeed the true winner may not be in office.

    I wouldn’t count your chickens yet though. The trial has not happened yet, and I predict now that it’s going to be much more interesting than what we’ve seen and heard so far.

    I always considered myself more of a contrarian and less than a troll of this blog. In my mind, Mr. Cynical is clearly a troll, but I guess being the blogger, you get to make that determination.

    But if you didn’t want to hear my comments you would either banish me as you have other commenters, or not allow comments at all like some of the more major blogs.

  21. 27

    Alan spews:

    “For the last time Jeff, even if OJ did vote in Washington’s November election… he was never actually convicted of a felony. (And besides, OJ’s vote would probably have been offset by that of convicted perjurer and Spokane talk radio host, Mark Fuhrman.)”

    Goldy, I think OJ did it, but I also think he votes Republican. Crime and Republicans often go together …

  22. 28

    Goldy spews:

    Jeff B @26,

    Truth is, I’m not really sure what the definition of a troll is. I hear others use it, and I’m trying to learn by context. So perhaps you are more a contrarian than a troll. I’ll buy that.

    But let’s get one thing straight, I have not banished other commentators… JCH has his posts held for approval, and that is it. Sometimes other posts get held in the blog spam filter, but that is unintentional and unavoidable.

    And I hate to disappoint you, but I only quoted you because I thought my rebuttal about OJ and Fuhrman was amusing.

    As to the trial… we’ll see… but I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were you.

  23. 30

    Alan spews:

    Jeff B. @ 26

    You need only 1 more vote than the other guy. “Certified” means “binding” not “perfect.” Subject to court challenge, to be sure, but … in Judge Bridges’ deathless words … that requires proving the election “is clearly invalid.” So there.

  24. 31

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Goldy–
    I think a troll is someone who’s only mission is to be disruptive. PERIOD!
    Frankly, I think troll is as overused as Liberal, Conservative, A$$hole, dickhead etc. etc.

  25. 32

    jpgee spews:

    OH OH Mr. C., now that makes three in a row. Let me send a note to Guinness Book of World Records

  26. 34

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Alan–
    Absolutely…unless your definition of disruptive is
    “anyone who disagrees with Alan/DonSux”.
    Perhaps you don’t like the way I deliver my messages but they have been pretty much right-on.

    For Example:
    Months ago, I challenged Dems to get off their lazy asses and look for illegal voters in this election. Now they are scranbling like a buch of crazed mo’ fo’s.

    I will also tell you this trial will turn out to be about way more than the felon issue….watch.

    Oh and one more thing I’ve done is consistently point out what a loser you are….couldn’t make more than $1000/yr. for 10 years in the real world, became guv’mint loser lawyer for 30 years keeping a seat warm for a salary and pension and now posting out of bitterness towards those of us who have made it in the real world. That’s important, isn’t it DonSux??

    I mean doesn’t ones perspective often evolve from where they are and have come from in life??? Yours is a bitter loser.
    So be it.

  27. 35

    righton spews:

    Judge Bridges and his earing; come’on guys, fair game. High correlation between voting Dem and being a middle aged man wearing an earing. For that matter any jewelry other than a single wedding band on the left hand is reason to question his politics.

  28. 36

    Scott spews:

    Bottom line to all this BS is this. The GOP were hopeful that by stacking this case in a GOP County with a GOP judge that they could force the rulings to go their way.

    Now how could they have known that there is one sort of honest republican left in America? That’s what they are pissed about.

    Vance et. al., never really thought they could win this. Their plan was to try to distract Dems with the high profile case. Didn’t work as we essentially steam rolled right over them in the Legislature. Their second plan was to use this as a fund raiser. That probably did work. But who cares? If a bunch of right wing fools want to give their hard earned money to the GOP let em. Won’t change the fact that Rossi STILL isn’t a real estate broker! HE HE!