Nashville's uninformed "move on" editorial to Obrador -- DUers respond

[Fly by night]

DUers, please help us Orange Staters respond to this editorial that appeared in yesterday's Nashville Tennessean, the paper of record for the Volunteer State. If you are like me, you have taken heart from the heart shown by the small "d" democrats south of Tejas who refuse to accept a stolen election. Our Mexican brethren must continue to receive our support, particularly when it comes to refuting editorials like the one below that call Obrador a "sore loser" and encourage him and the Mexican people to just "move on".

So please read this editorial and respond here with facts and opinions that I can forward to Sandra Roberts, the Tennessean's editorial page editor. To her credit, Sandra has run several extended pieces about the fragility -- and fraudfulness -- of our own election process, and we sincerely appreciate her for that. However, we need to impress upon Sandra that the not-yet-stolen election in Mexico is but a piece of the same "Corrupt Bastards Club" plan to subvert the will of the people, regardless of which language they speak. You can post your response here or look below in the thread to get the email address to send your comments directly to Sandra. If you do the latter, please post your comments here also. It would be particularly valuable to bombard Sandra with missives from the reality-based community that review the evidence (not just the conjecture) about what we know about Mexico's stolen election. Linking this thread to previous DU threads which have reviewed that evidence would also be extremely valuable. However, please don't hesitate to weigh in with your own reasoned opinions about why ANY election -- whether it be in Mexico or in San Diego -- where fraud appears to have reigned should not be allowed to stand until every vote is re-counted. VOTE BY VOTE!!!

Thanks, amigos. Now to the Tennessean editorial -- we need to set them straight, and fast. Our own democracy depends on it.
------------------

Nashville Tennessean (September 1, 2006): Mexico has a winner -- Candidate’s call for anarchy won’t help provide for nation’s poor

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador billed himself as a populist but it turns out that he is much more of an egotist.

Lopez Obrador came in a strong second in Mexico's July 2 presidential race. The candidate of the Democratic Revolution Party, Lopez Obrador charged immediately after the election that the voting was marked by fraud, and that he — not Felipe Calderon, the nominee of the National Action Party — had rightful claim to the presidency. His call for civil resistance, demonstrations and street closings has tied much of Mexico City in a knot for weeks.

A careful review of the voting was conducted, and on Monday, the Mexico's Federal Election Tribunal unanimously said that Calderon had won. Still, Lopez Obrador won't accept defeat; he now says he will establish a parallel government unless the election is annulled. He also has called upon his party's members not to recognize the legitimacy of Calderon's win.

There was much to admire in Lopez Obrador's message of lifting up the poor and opposing privatization. Yet at this point, his call for protest and civil disobedience could send Mexico into chaos.

The best way for him to further his laudable goals is to drop the threat of anarchy and work with his party members who have been elected to Congress to bring about reforms.

Otherwise, Lopez Obrador won't be remembered for trying to lift up the poor, but for trying to further his own political ambitions.

[Fly by night]

1. A patriotic Orange Stater's first response to the Tennessean

David Earnhardt is a good friend of democracy. Many of you who attended the National Election Reform Conference in Nashville (April, 2005) will remember David and his crew as the folks who filmed the entire conference. David has gone on to cover the Atlanta march, to interview Athen Gibbs' family and to travel to Ohio for followup interviews on the stolen 2004 election. He is now working on a documentary based on that footage, an excerpt of which we Orange Staters will be fortunate to get a chance to see this week following Andrew Gumbel's book-signing in Nashville. Here's what David had to say about the Tennessean editorial: (Thanks again, David, for being first out of the chute. And for being my friend).
-------------
To the Editor:

In your editorial Friday, you claim that Andreas Manuel Lopez Obrador is an egotist for continuing to challenge the results of Mexico's presidential election. Yet, why should he give up, when the compelling statistical evidence shows that Lopez Abrador actually won?

Consider this - Mexico's thousands of precincts report their results in a random order. Statistically, that tells you that election results will remain relatively unchanged as the vote totals add up. News reports showed that Lopez Obrador, as expected, was ahead of his opponent by an unchanging margin - until midnight, when precincts started reporting results of 5 to 1 and 10 to 1 against Lopez Obrador - even 100 to 1 by the end of the night.

Statistically, the odds of vote totals changing this dramatically, especially when precincts report in a random fashion, are ridiculously astronomical. In other words, it just didn't happen. And then when you factor in the lax security and the evidence of ballot stuffing already reported by countless media sources, it's easy to see that this election was stolen.

So, if you were Lopez Obrador, would you accept that your opponent won and simply give up, even if you knew that the election had been stolen? I admire the guy for hanging in there and making sure that everybody's vote gets counted fairly. John Kerry could learn a lesson or two from him.

David Earnhardt
Nashville 37204

[OnTheOtherHand]

4. unfortunately, I have to question the premise

Look, folks, I'm sorry, but I don't know many if any political scientists who could climb on board with this "compelling statistical evidence." Lopez Obrador may have won, but this argument isn't a winner.

The problem is that precincts almost certainly don't report their results in a random order. They certainly don't in the United States. Some areas report before others, and areas vary a lot in their underlying partisanship. If we could treat the first 50,000 votes tallied as a "random" sample of the entire election, most of the time we could all go to bed early. But it doesn't work that way.

I'm not saying that Lopez Obrador should concede defeat -- just reacting to one particular argument. As far as I can tell, if I were him, I wouldn't think I had lost either.

[Fly by night]

2. Addresses to write the Tennessean yourself

In addition to posting your comments here (which will be forwarded to Sandra Roberts later today), you can write the Tennessean yourself. It would be most gratifying to hear that small "d" democrats from across the country flooded our state's lead paper with indignant (and accurate) responses to their unfortunate "Obrador, move on" editorial. From my experience, DUers are articulate, passionate and very capable of writing LTTEs at the drop of a "Corrupt Bastards Club" hat. (See "Greatest" page for an explanation to that last reference.)

You can write Sandra Roberts, the editorial page editor of the Nashville Tennessean at [e-mail]. Since she has announced that she is resigning, you should copy your letter to [e-mail]. Who knows, we may be lucky to read your (250 words or less) response in next week's papers. Thanks.

[fasttense]

3. How is appeasement going to change anything?

Felipe Calderon stole the election. How would bowing down to fraudulent results help democracy and improve elections? Felipe Calderon knows the rigging has put him in power and he would have absolutely no incentive to ever have fair elections again. Appeasing criminals has never worked. They will just come back and steal from you again. Obrador needs to continue to fight because criminals and bullies down back down.

[bullimiami]

5. the simple fact is either you believe in democracy or you do not.

WE obviously hold 'democracy', government freely chosen by the majority of the people, to be of supreme importance. Win or lose, WE believe in democracy and law.

It has been demonstrated that there are many who do not believe in democracy or law. They believe in the rule of the jungle, might makes right.

This is the same old battle of the primitive vs the civilized. Animal vs Man.

WE are not Animals. WE are civilized.

[acmejack]

6. I suppose the photos of ballots in the dump count for nothing?

The compelling evidence of fraud in the Mexican Presidential election should not be ignored, especially not on the advice of an American newspaper. After all the American people listened to advice from those such as you and allowed three questionable elections to pass by unchallenged. Three questionable elections conducted on voting machines completely lacking in auditablity, transparency or legitimacy. We should be taking notes, not offering advice to those with more courage than ourselves.

[Fly by night]

7. "A careful review of the voting was conducted..." (NOT)

Once again, I am relying on you DUers (autorank et al) who have posted threads regularly on the Mexican (s)election to post links in this thread that will allow the Tennessean editor to read what we know and what we have discussed here in recent weeks to refute comments like the one above. For example, I am aware (from following DU) that only 9% of the precincts were reviewed and even the evidence from that review was not properly assessed and presented. That's like saying that the "re-count" (sic) of the Ohio 2004 votes conducted by Katherine Blackwell was a "careful review". It was careful only in the sense that they were careful to select recounted precincts in a non-random fashion (a violation of Ohio election law) and to otherwise cook the books to hide the considerable evidence of fraud that we may still uncover in the Buckeye State (thanks to Cliff Arnebeck and others).

I am also aware (from the NarcoNews threads) that large numbers of discarded ballots were found in dumpsters in several Mexican states. Since I have very limited access to the internets (and to DU) myself these days, I would sure appreciate folks linking to these earlier threads on this thread.

As for OTOH's comment above re: nonrandomness of precinct reporting, was there a single precinct anywhere in the US where George Bush or John Kerry enjoyed a 100-to-1 ratio in the last election? If so, please tell us where they were -- I would like to avoid the former and move to the latter, when I am free to move. Peace out. BOP # 16502-075.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. yes, indeed there was

In Cleveland 5F, the vote was 415 to 4 in favor of Kerry. In 7N it was 399 to 4. In Cincinnati 17G, it was 76 to 0.

Also, please let's be intellectually rigorous and consistent -- or, if that's just my hangup, let's at least consider possible risks of not being intellectually rigorous and consistent. Evidence of election tampering speaks for itself. I don't see how it is the least bit helpful to muddy the waters with implausible claims about the returns arriving at random. We've seen over and over again how people will seize on the weakest link in an argument and use it to discredit the whole.

In Mexico, the PREP and the count obtained similar totals -- but in the PREP, Calderon led the entire way, and in the count, AMLO led most of the way. It makes perfect sense to suspect that late returns in favor of Calderon evince last-minute ballot stuffing, but the existence and pattern of the PREP complicates that story. There's a good chance that if the election was stolen, it was stolen before the count, and quite possibly before the PREP.

I hope that this week/end in Philadelphia, someone is presenting a brilliant analysis of the Mexican election. I don't know.

[Fly by night]

12. Please explain PREP. Thanks. And what's going on in Philly?

As I mentioned, I have less access to the internets these days, so I'm in need of more information on those two points. Thanks.

And no, I don't want to move to Cleveland or Cincinnati. But if you can find some 100-to-1 pro-Kerry precincts in New Mexico or Hawaii, let me know.

Out of curiosity, were there any 100-to-1 pro-Smirking Chimp precincts in 2004? I would like to avoid those. Of course, like the rest of the red states, they may have a different opinion of our "decider" these days.

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. a tip of the hat to you

I bitterly regret your personal circumstances.

The PREP was the preliminary count of returns on election day, which included most but not all voting stations. Then they went back and formally canvassed the results. Many people expressed surprise that AMLO led through much of the count because Calderon had led the whole way in the PREP, presumably because (for whatever reason) the first rush of tallies came from a different region.

The PREP and the count are broadly consistent, but that certainly doesn't rule out massive fraud. It does make the stories about the timing of the count less convincing, to me at least.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't thinking about climate or culture. Umm, I see 310 to 28 in Taos County #13, is that close enough? ;) I don't have a "flat file" of precinct returns everywhere, so once I get outside OH and a few other states I've spent virtual time in, I have to poke around.

As for 100:1 for Bush, there must have been some small precinct somewhere where Kerry got no votes -- but I can tell you that intensely Dem precincts far outnumber intensely Rep precincts nationwide. It's largely a side effect of racial polarization and segregation. (I know you're mostly kidding, but hey, since you asked.)

[Fly by night]

17. Thanks kindly. Don't know how much more of this "cheap spa experience" ...

... I have to look forward to. But if you'd like to receive periodic updates from the "house", drop me a note at [e-mail] and I'll add you to the list of folks who receive periodic updates. I have lost 60 pounds, which is a plus. And I now understand the realities of the criminal justice/rehabilitation complex much better than I did when I was setting up drug courts and jail-based treatment programs in Wyoming and New Mexico. That knowledge should come in handy if I am ever allowed to return to my previous profession. (If not, I'll make one hell of a grocery bagger for some organic foods store.)

[Febble]

14. Just to give a rough idea:

These are the 2004 exit poll precincts. The horizontal axis shows the proportion of vote cast for Bush in 2004, and the vertical axis shows the proportion in 2000. As you can see (if you peer at the thumbnail closely enough) there are quite a few precincts with near to 0 percent votes for Bush in both years. Solid Bush precincts are in shorter supply.

There's a bigger version of the plot here:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/slides.html

Re the randomness of precinct reporting:

I'd just echo OTOH's comment - there is no reason to assume that the precinct reporting order will be random. More to the point: there is no reason to assume that the reporting order will be uncorrelated with support for one or other candidate. Very few things in life are random, even when we try to make them so (even random number generators are remarkably hard to produce - nothing outside quantum physics is truly random, and perhaps not even quantum physics). But unless you actually have reason to suppose that some truly random (or near random) process produced the order of precinct reporting (which we don't) then the odds calculations are valueless, as the calculations depend on the assumption of randomness.

And there are several reasons to expect that reporting order might be related to demographics, and therefore correlated with partisanship.

Which is certainly not to argue that there is no evidence of corruption, just that this isn't it.

ETA: Nice to see you posting!

[Fly by night]

8. Autorank's excellent summary in "Scoop" published on Obrador's website

Thanks to katinmn for starting another thread now on the "Greatest" page and for providing this link to Obrador's website. As usual, autorank, katinmn and other DUers provide me the meat (and the ammunition) to educate the Tennessean editors about their ill-informed advice to "move on".

Here's the Obrador website link:

http://www.lopezobrador2006.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=0&PHPSESSID=c5cd8a22fb9ab2d0e2abafc184255524

[Fly by night]

9. The Nashville paper is a Gannett rag. Have similar editorials ...

... appeared in other Gannett rags around the country in the past few days? I would be curious to know if that has happened, since I am a certified (and certifiable) "coincidence theorist" myself.

[katinmn]

10. K&N! We need to keep setting them straight.

Obrador is standing up for his people! We should be taking notes.

[mopinko]

13. when the rightful winner of an election is not seated,

THAT is anarchy. what lopez obrador and the people filling the zocolo are doing is democracy. the people are leading. the leaders MUST follow.

[Fly by night]

15. It is encouraging to hear that Obrador's colleagues ...

... in the Mexican Congress prevented Vicente Fox from speaking last night. Instead of the Mexican contested election being a useless and egotistical effort by one man (as the Tennessean would have us believe), that action shows that it is the concerted and committed efforts of many leaders and many millions of aggrieved Mexicans who continue to demand that their votes be counted as they were cast that may become the most meaningful American revolution of the last three centuries.

Viva Mexico! Viva Obrador! Count them all -- VOTE BY VOTE.