"(I'm still determining my feelings on this site.)"

What? You're reading political stuff again?

The other day I heard him on the radio being interviewed about an article he wrote on the Huffington Post claiming the 2004 Presidential election was rigged.

Just like this steroid article, all he had to support his claims was some flimsy circumstantial evidence and innuendo.

But who needs proof these days? Proof is so 1972. Lampley is hip to the power of the web, man. You don't need to prove anything; just throw your theories out there, and if there's something to it, the Internet will fill in the missing pieces for you. This is 2005; the old journalism rules don't apply anymore. ;)

Ken: You know not of what you speak. There was PLENTY of circumstantial (and real) evidence that votes were rigged. The reason few people know about it is that the MSM refuses to cover it - - for reasons which have become all too clear in the last five to ten years. Lamps is one of the only people willing to broach the issue. (Keith Olbermann was another...Liberals - dammit!)

FYI - check out Conyers' posts on Huffington's blog to see evidence and Congressional hearings on the Ohio issue. (He can't get anything done, he's in the minority.) Also, Lamps' thoughts ARE acutally grounded in objectivism. His whole point is that Vegas (the people who know betting and these things inside/out - and a city of which he is intimately familiar with) had KE04 winning based on exit polling, etc. And if they were so of the belief that KE04 was going to prevail, why did the turn out to be so wrong?

The original Lampley posts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/jim-lampley/to-byron-york-and-other-ostriches.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/jim-lampley/to-byron-york-and-other-ostriches.html

BP predicted that all the hitters in the A's lineup would have above-average OBPs, but instead, nearly all of them suck. Just because the outcome defies the very best statistical predictions does not mean the A's are a victim of a conspiracy.

A statistical anomaly in and of itself is not the basis for a conclusion. It may, however, be the basis for an investigation.

In his radio interview, Lampley basically admitted he was too lazy to go dig up the proof himself; he just wanted to express his opinion and leave it to others to do the investigating.

Which is fine--as I said, that's how journalism works in 2005. I just get annoyed when either side, right and left, presents a hypothesis as if it were a conclusion.

Okay, a statistical anomaly is not a basis but what if every statistical anomaly in Ohio favored just one candidate?

http://tinyurl.com/5okdp... written by a guy who wouldn't have voted Kerry for dogcatcher.

You're right to be pissed at journalistic laziness--a byproduct of pundit-mania, if you ask me. But the Ohio election stunk to high heaven and Lampley was right to call attention to it.

Comparing the collective wisdom of BP and the billions of dollars at stake in Vegas on an election is not really an apt analogy. (Nothing against BP, mind you.) Also, because one thinks there were irregularities doesn't mean there is a "conspiracy". That's a straw man.

"a statistical anomaly in and of itself is not the basis for a conclusion."

exactly right. and I didn't hear the interview you are talking about, but I've heard Lampley on the subject and read his postings, I believe the gist of the issue is that there is enough circumstantial evidence to WARRANT a real investigation, not the one that has been waived at by the MSM. Not even Congress could investigate it. There may be sociological reasons, economic, political, etc that it wasn't investigated, all of which may be legit, but to NOT look at it seems all too absurd.

Also, and this is a frequent issue between Will and I; putting out an issue without "proof" is absoltely OK. Not by a journalist, mind you, which Lampley isn't. If we waited until everything was "proven", we'd be nowhere in this society - - including the current form of government under which we operate.

TFD says - down with pure objectivism, it's absolute hogwash.

He's Jim Lampley! He's smart. He's on HBO. He must be smart.

QED

What is a journalist any more? It's an issue of responsibility and ethics. "Judge not, lest you be judged." - Luke 6:38

Crap - really close. Luke 6:37 - "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."

I'm from SoCal and live in Scottsdale so I'm not exactly a Bible Belter - but can you say "crap" and then type scripture?

I think lightning strikes or the end of Raiders' of the Lost Arc stuff comes out...

Sure you can - it's possible the original Aramaic used words like "crap" that were translated away as it went to Greek and Latin, then English.

If nothing has smote me yet - I think Will's fine!

yikes, so much for that discussion on secular humanism, i guess. ;-)

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/

Didn't the futures market have a Bush victory pegged?

There's an old saying that opinions are like a certain body part, and that everybody has one. Some of us have opinions that people will pay to read, watch, or listen too. I suppose your chances of agreeing with a given commentator are proportional to how much respect you give his opinions. This not only applies to media types, but to futures brokers, oddsmakers, and politicians. A media type can be wrong, and pay little penalty for it. The others, may pay with financial losses. In either case, they are all just opinions, and we've all got them. Just because the oddmakers and the brokers of the world have somewhat better intellegence than the rest of us, only makes them a little less likely to guess wrong.

The example of Las Vegas and Ohio is flawed because of the garbage in/garbage out problem. When the exit polls were posted, money followed. If the exit polls were flawed and Las Vegas had no other information (which I believe is correct), then the money chased an error. There has been extensive writing about the problems of the exit polling at mystery pollster.

As a side note, 1 out of every 20 polls (even if done correctly) will be worthless. It's all done at a two standard deviation level, so there's always a 5% chance that any predictive analysis will be worthless.