Kobach witness can’t support claim that illegal votes helped Hillary Clinton

[GMDino]

I tried to search for an appropriate thread to post this in.

http://www.cjonline.com/news/20180313/kobach-witness-cant-support-claim-that-illegal-votes-helped-hillary-clinton

Quote:KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Jesse Richman endured a blistering critique Tuesday of his estimate of 18,000 noncitizen voters in Kansas and said he couldn’t support claims by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because more than 3 million illegal ballots were cast in the 2016 presidential election.

Richman, who teaches political science at Old Dominion University, testified as an expert witness for Kobach in a trial over the state’s voter registration law. Kobach, who is seeking the GOP nomination in this year’s governor’s race, has referred to the 18,000 figure as the best available estimate for showing proof of citizenship is needed to address widespread voter fraud.

American Civil Liberties Union attorneys took aim at shortcomings in Richman’s methods and presented two experts to refute his conclusions.

Varying estimates from Richman are based on small-sample surveys, including one in which six of 37 noncitizens said they tried to register to vote. Under questioning by ACLU attorney Dale Ho, Richman acknowledged he had no way of knowing if those six were successful in their efforts.

In another survey, Richman looked at suspended voters — those who didn’t provide proof of citizenship — and flagged any names that appeared to be foreign. Ho asked if, for example, a name like “Carlos Murguia” would be flagged. When Richman said yes, Ho informed him Murguia is a federal judge in the same courthouse where the trial is taking place.
Eitan Hersh, a political science professor at Tufts University, looked at comparable data and found five examples of people who voted before becoming citizens.

Hersh also discovered 400 people on the voter rolls who registered to vote before their recorded birth dates. In an allusion to voter fraud claims, Hersh said it would be ridiculous to suggest there is a widespread problem with parents registering their unborn children, calling it obvious administrative error.

Ho and Richman squabbled throughout the morning over Richman’s attempts to explain yes or no answers.

ADDITIONAL TRIAL COVERAGE
Woman describes help from Kobach’s office, using Bible to prove citizenship
‘Incredible and offensive’: Retired attorney feels sorry for Kobach team in voter fraud trial
Kobach prepared for ‘eventuality’ of losing voter registration case
ACLU: Report to Kris Kobach shows 5 illegal voters out of 1.3 million ballots
Kansas Democratic Party official instructed KU student not to provide documents to vote
Kris Kobach defends Kansas voter registration law, battles ACLU witnesses

“Let’s try to stick with the question I’m asking, rather than these things you try to volunteer,” Ho said.

Richman confirmed his research is intended for a popular audience, none of it has been reviewed by peers, and 200 political scientists signed a letter condemning his work.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson allowed Ho to show a video of Kobach talking to reporters in November 2016. In the video, Kobach said a survey revealed 11.3 percent of noncitizens reported voting, which means 28 million noncitizens nationwide would produce more than 3 million illegal voters. Richman said his study doesn’t support that claim and he isn’t aware of any research that does.

Casting further doubt on the merits of Richman’s surveys, Hersh noted the likelihood that people claim socially desirable responses. He likened someone claiming to be a voter to a single, 20-year-old man exaggerating his sexual prowess.
Stephen Ansolabehere, a professor of government at Harvard who developed a data source Richman used for some estimates, said Richman’s analysis of suspended voters actually shows the majority are legal residents who were denied the right to vote.

Tuesday was the sixth day of testimony in the trial, which is scheduled to resume Monday.

[CKwi88]

Of course he can't. It all stems from Trump's insecurity that he lost the popular vote.

Our problem is not with people voting that shouldn't be. Our biggest problem is that people who should vote dont,.

[*michaelsean*]

no the real problem is all the weak willed women who were forced by their husbands to vote for Trump.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 01:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: no the real problem is all the weak willed women who were forced by their husbands to vote for Trump.

Eh, you can only account for a certain percentage of "proper" Christian wives that do as they are told. 

But the rest of Hillary's statement about not doing well with white men and women in general was okay.

Back to the delusion that started this in Kansas now?

[*bfine32*]

Of course nobody can support claim that illegal votes helped Hillary. She lost

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 01:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course nobody can support claim that illegal votes helped Hillary. She lost

Sorry you had not heard that she won the popular vote.

But not surprised that your source of information never mentioned this.

[*bfine32*]

Sure I heard that. Matter of fact I have heard more about the popular vote in the last 18 months than I had in my entire adult life. How did winning it help her?

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 02:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure I heard that. Matter of fact I have heard more about the popular vote in the last 18 months than I had in my entire adult life. How did winning it help her?

It didn't.  But it upset the POTUS enough to claim that MILLIONS of people voted illegally.

Now we have had to waste time and resources because of his fevered dream and massive ego.

Did you hear about that too?

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 02:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure I heard that. Matter of fact I have heard more about the popular vote in the last 18 months than I had in my entire adult life. How did winning it help her?

If you knew she won then why did you say she lost?

And who said winning the popular vote helped her?

Perhaps you might want to read the OP before just making some more random anti-Hillary comments that makes you look ill informed.

[*bfine32*]

(03-14-2018, 03:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: It didn't.  But it upset the POTUS enough to claim that MILLIONS of people voted illegally.

Now we have had to waste time and resources because of his fevered dream and massive ego.

Did you hear about that too?

Simply responding to the title of the thread. You and "Fred " will have to find someone else to quibble with 

[Au165]

(03-14-2018, 02:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure I heard that. Matter of fact I have heard more about the popular vote in the last 18 months than I had in my entire adult life. How did winning it help her?

Were you around for Bush/Gore?

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 03:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Simply responding to the title of the thread. You and "Fred " will have to find someone else to quibble with 

Oh ffs.

Just when I say there has been less snark around here.

You commented and then asked a question.  If you don't like the answer I can't help that.

"quibble"

Carry on.

[*bfine32*]

(03-14-2018, 03:26 PM)Au165 Wrote: Were you around for Bush/Gore?

Absolutely . That's when I heard all about hanging chad.

[Au165]

(03-14-2018, 03:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Absolutely . That's when I heard all about hanging chad.

The other common theme there was the popular vote. It's kind of when the discussion about the popular votes roll in the presidential election first got some traction.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 03:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Simply responding to the title of the thread.

Everyone figured that out.

That is the exact reason I suggested you read the OP instead of posting comments that make you look ill informed.

[*bfine32*]

(03-14-2018, 03:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: The other common theme there was the popular vote. It's kind of when the discussion about the popular votes roll in the presidential election first got some traction.

Yeah, I think folks talked about it for about 45 seconds after it. Here we are going on 2 years later and folks still bring it up and then they say because POTUS cannot let it go 

[Au165]

(03-14-2018, 03:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I think folks talked about it for about 45 seconds after it. Here we are going on 2 years later and folks still bring it up and then they say because POTUS cannot let it go 

Actually there have been articles written about it years later, some up to 10+ years later. I think it is revisionist history to act as if it wasn't a big deal then, or even the years following the election. Honestly, there are a couple things at play that make the situation slightly different. Today's social media's environment is fueling partisan politics and negative outlooks of the opposite party. You're hearing about it 24/7, and all other topics too, because that is the age we live in constant media all the time. Another large things was that the topic just kind of went by the way side after 9/11 as the country actually came together and moved on with bigger issues at hand to deal with.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 03:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I think folks talked about it for about 45 seconds after it. Here we are going on 2 years later and folks still bring it up and then they say because POTUS cannot let it go 

Actually the article had nothing to do with Trump mentioning it.  It was brought up in a hearing over propsed changes in voter registration laws.

But no need for a guy like you to actually read what we are talking about, right?  You already have a set answer for everything.

[*bfine32*]

(03-14-2018, 03:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: Actually there have been articles written about it years later, some up to 10+ years later. I think it is revisionist history to act as if it wasn't a big deal then, or even the years following the election. Honestly, there are a couple things at play that make the situation slightly different. Today's social media's environment is fueling partisan politics and negative outlooks of the opposite party. You're hearing about it 24/7, and all other topics too, because that is the age we live in constant media all the time. Another large things was that the topic just kind of went by the way side after 9/11 as the country actually came together and moved on with bigger issues at hand to deal with.

I guess we'll just have to disagree if you feel this popular vote issue was as much as a deal after the Gore-Bush election as it was made to be in the Trump-Clinton election.  

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 07:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess we'll just have to disagree if you feel this popular vote issue was as much as a deal after the Gore-Bush election as it was made to be in the Trump-Clinton election.  

Three points.

1.  Gore/Bush it was explained away as something that "has not happened in over 100 years" and "almost never happens".  No one can say that now that it has happened twice in the last 5 elections.

2.  Bush was not so thin skinned that he made up huge lies to try and explain why he lost the popular vote.

3.  9-11 happened shortly after the '00 election which unified the country for a while.