Home 2016 elections Dominion Power-Sponsored Blog Defends Trump Conspiracy Theory; Claims “Credible Evidence” of “Large...

Dominion Power-Sponsored Blog Defends Trump Conspiracy Theory; Claims “Credible Evidence” of “Large Scale” “Illegal Voting”

680
21
SHARE

Yep, this blog is sponsored by your theoretically state-regulated monopoly utility, Dominion Power. I say “theoretically state-regulated” because, actually, it’s the other way around, with Dominion Power actually controlling the state/telling it what to do and not do, rather than vice versa.  As for Bacon’s Rebellion, they have done this sort of thing before regarding “illegals” (check this out, for instance), are also big “climate skeptics” (aka, climate science deniers) and clean energy bashers who regularly cite “studies” by fossil-funded “think tanks.” All sponsored by Dominion Virginia Power, using the money YOU send them every month to pay for your electricity. Great deal, eh?

P.S. See Peter Galuszka’s scathing comment to this latest Bacon’s Rebellion post, below the screen shot.

Galuszka:

Actually, there is a simple answer to voter fraud: none or next to none.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an extremist group based in Indiana, came up with several largely bogus studies in Virginia and several other states just before the election alleging non citizen voting. It kinda came up with a lot of nothing.

The other material you brought up is likewise suspect.”There are uncertainties”…”dangers in extrapolating numbers” and so on. You hit the nail on the head there, Jim.

Trump may be nuts alleging widespread voter fraud in an election he actually won. But it sure isn’t preventing the right-wing echo chamber from pretending it is a massive issue…

  • A_Siegel

    Bacon’s Rebellion post’s last paragraph begins “The simple fact is there is credible evidence that illegal voting does occur on a fairly large scale.” Simple challenge: produce that “credible evidence”.

    Now, of course, we can parse the Bacon’s Rebellion wording. After all, for what is “credible” and what is “evidence”. For Trump-istas, despite the ample documentation of the serial falsehoods, evidently Trump tweets meet that criteria. And, if that is the ‘credible evidence’ that Bacon’s Rebellion is citing, the conversation is simply over as they do live in an alternative reality and are subservient to propaganda and have little-to-no interest in anything resembling a ground truth.

    As a window on this, see this troubling CNN interview with a number of Trump supporters aggressively asserting millions of illegal votes. Literally head-slapping moment as the journalist is unable to get the people to realize that they are simply ranting about/pushing falsehoods (#FakeNews): https://twitter.com/A_Siegel/status/804370111654199297

    • Flat-out lies, spread on social media – and as evidenced in the video of Trump true believers spewing bull**** about supposed “voter fraud” by “illegals” – will be the death of America. It’s already played a huge role in electing Trump, so here we go…

  • Audio: This is the facts-are-all-relative, “there are no facts” world we now live in, and that apparently Bacon’s Rebellion subscribes to. For more, click here and here</a

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80cVigoCtvo

  • Jabacon

    Haha, Lowell and A_Siegel, is that the best you’ve got? Your arguments consist of mockery, name calling, and misrepresenting what the other guy says. I cited two studies in my column. Have you read the studies? Did you trouble to understand their arguments in order to point out their flaws and limitations? No, you didn’t. You don’t have the faintest idea what evidence they marshal or what conclusions they draw from that evidence, and you don’t care.

    I invite Blue Virginia readers willing to engage in civil debate to visit Bacon’s Rebellion at http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2016/11/no-simple-answers-illegal-voting.html and tell me where I’m wrong. Maybe I overlooked something important. I want to hear and understand your counter-arguments, as long as they’re based on fact and logic. Who knows, we both might learn something from the exchange.

    • Yes, let’s have a civil debate with a person who a) denies and/or is “skeptical” about climate science, b) makes dangerously false claims about non-existent voter fraud and c) is sponsored by Dominion “Global Warming Starts Here!” Power? No thanks.

      • Jabacon

        More name calling. Can’t you do better?

        • Do you accept climate science or not? If you don’t, then it’s not “name calling,” it’s simply your (false) stance on the topic. As for Dominion sponsoring your blog, that’s also factual. So where’s the name calling? Because Dominion is a major polluter contributing to anthropogenic climate change and fighting the growth of clean energy in Virginia?

          • Jabacon

            You asked, “Do you accept climate science or not?”

            Of course I accept climate science.

            Perhaps what you really mean to ask is, “Do you accept the theory that the human-caused increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is responsible for rising global temperatures?” Or perhaps you mean to ask, “Do you believe that the rise in atmospheric CO2 will have a calamitous impact on the environment and humanity within the next 100 years?”

            Yes, I do accept that human activity is responsible for increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Yes, I do accept that, all other things being equal, higher levels of CO2 will result in warmer temperatures.

            After that, it gets a lot more complicated, and there’s a lot of uncertainty. Does your version of “climate science” allow for any uncertainty in the projection of temperature increases over the next 100 years? Or do you know the future?

          • “Of course I accept climate science”

            Yep, that’s why you routinely use phrases like “skeptics of the Global Warming Orthodoxy”

          • Jabacon

            When people say that 97% of all scientists believe the same thing — not just that temperatures are rising, but that the consequences will be uniformly disastrous, and that the only way to combat it is to re-engineer the world’s energy economy, and so on — yeah, that’s an orthodoxy. Once you get past the physics of climate change, it’s no longer science, it’s economics and philosophy.

          • Not even worthy of a response; this is craaaazy stuff.

    • A_Siegel

      “HaHa” … One of the studies you used is based on internet survey (wow, tremendous credibility to those) and the other from an ideological think tank that has been shredded apart. You are well aware of this but wish to obscure the lack of substance for the material. I won’t waste time on this since we can just simply repost the first two comments to your post to provide a context for the highly suspect material that you reference.

      Peter Galuszka | November 30, 2016 at 11:53 am | Log in to Reply
      Actually, there is a simple answer to voter fraud: none or next to none.

      The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an extremist group based in Indiana, came up with several largely bogus studies in Virginia and several other states just before the election alleging non citizen voting. It kinda came up with a lot of nothing.

      The other material you brought up is likewise suspect.”There are uncertainties”…”dangers in extrapolating numbers” and so on. You hit the nail on the head there, Jim.

      Trump may be nuts alleging widespread voter fraud in an election he actually won. But it sure isn’t preventing the right-wing echo chamber from pretending it is a massive issue:
      See this from me in the Post:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/wp/2016/11/23/conservatives-are-still-beating-the-drum-about-voter-fraud-in-virginia/?utm_term=.c6a03164e062

      LarrytheG | November 30, 2016 at 12:07 pm | Log in to Reply
      The first study is clearly bogus – what non-citizen would “self-identify” on an internet-based survey and how would you verify that those who did self-identify as non-citizen – were?

      The PILF is a right-wing front group using a noble-sounding name to throw the gullible off … and as you can see – it works.

      Finally – I could accuse Bacon of beating the tar out of his wife and kids and require him to prove he did not… that’s the kind of “logic” in play here.

      the only thing “shrill” is the willful ignorance of those who give credence to Trump and his sources – the alt-right conspiracy theory idiots.

      One of the biggest problems of our school system – is that it does not teach “critical thinking” and it’s on massive display here.

      • A_Siegel

        Oh, yeah, while there are a few other cases being investigated, there are four documented cases of outright voter fraud so far in 2016 — three of the four by Republicans/Trump supporters (not surprising since it was Donald Trump who called on supporters to vote multiple times) and the four is unclear: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-000002-percent-of-all-the-ballots-cast-in-the-2016-election-were-fraudulent/

        “Cases of voter fraud
        A woman in Iowa who voted twice. Terri Lynn Rote had the enormous misfortune of bad timing. Right as the candidate she supported, Trump, was drawing attention to fraud cases, Rote decided to try to vote twice in Des Moines, and got caught. The case made national headlines simply by virtue of the fact that it happened when it did, and that she voted for Trump.

        For what it’s worth, she suggested that the fault lay with Trump. “The polls are rigged,” she said to a local radio station by way of explaining her multiple votes, echoing another of Trump’s complaints.

        A man in Texas who voted twice. Phillip Cook was arrested on Election Day after voting twice. He claimed to be an employee of Trump’s campaign who was testing the security of the electoral system. He wasn’t an employee of the campaign — and the polling location’s security worked perfectly well, it seems.

        A woman who cast a ballot on behalf of her dead husband. Audrey Cook is a Republican election judge in Illinois. She and her husband applied for absentee ballots because he was ill. He died before completing his, so she filled it out for him and sent it in. The ballot will not be counted.

        A woman in Florida who marked absentee ballots. Gladys Coego was hired to open absentee ballots in Miami-Dade County. One of her co-workers noticed that she was going a step further, filling in the bubble for a mayoral candidate with a pen she had in her purse. She was caught in the act and arrested. There’s no evidence that she changed any presidential votes.

        • Also see this blistering rebuke of the “study” cited by Bacon’s Rebellion (bolding added by me for emphasis):

          The advent of large sample surveys, such as the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), has opened the possibility of measuring very low frequency events, characteristics, and behaviors in the population. This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES. The example for this analysis is Richman et al. (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections. The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.

          • And FactCheck.org writes:

            the authors’ results are contested by a number of academics, including those who administer and manage the data on which it is based.

            The study relied on data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which is administered by YouGov/Polimetrix and managed by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Richman and Earnest estimated the number of noncitizens who voted nationwide based on those in the survey who self-identified as noncitizens who voted.

            “Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010,” Richman and Earnest wrote in the Post.

            In a blistering rebuke of that study, the managers of the database on which the article by Richman and Earnest was based wrote in Electoral Studies that “measurement errors” in the survey led to a “biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections. The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.”

            “Their finding is entirely due to measurement error,” one of the authors, Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard and the principal investigator of CCES, wrote to us in an email. “Measurement errors happen. People accidentally check the wrong box in surveys. The rate of such errors in the CCES is very small, but such errors do happen. And when they do happen on a question such as citizenship, researchers can easily draw the wrong inference about voting behaviors. Richman and Earnest extrapolate from a handful of wrongfully classified cases (of non-citizens).”

          • Jabacon

            Good. We’re making progress. “Measuring error” is a legitimate issue to raise. I’d be interested to know how Richman et all responded to Mr. Ansolabehere.

          • Also see PolitiFact:

            Trump said, “14 percent of noncitizens are registered to vote.”

            Trump is citing a study that has been refuted by the experts who actually gathered the underlying data. Trump’s remark references an unreliable data point that uses a small sample size to represent an entire population.

            We rate Trump’s claim False.

          • Jabacon

            If you read my piece carefully, you would have seen that I essentially rated Trump’s claim false as well.

      • Jabacon

        Well, that’s a start.

        For the most part, you’re back to name calling: PILF is extremist, right-wing think tank, therefore it is wrong. By your logic, I could respond to every liberal/left study by tarring it as the product of an extremist, left-wing think tank and never have to engage in what it actually says. But I don’t do that. I seek to understand and address their facts and logic rather than dismissing them with an ad hominem attack.

        You do raise one legitimate issue — one of the studies was based upon an Internet survey conducted by a third party. Perhaps the survey sample of 50,000 or so in 2008 and 30,000 or so in 2010 was valid, perhaps it was not. In their study, the authors do address that issue. They make the argument that the survey was representative of the U.S. demographic profile and, therefore, a valid sample. You can go to their article and read their argument.

        If you did so, perhaps you could punch holes in their methodology. Perhaps you could make a reasonable case. What you’ve presented so far doesn’t come close.

        • Quizzical

          Wait a second here. You guys are talking about internet surveys in 2008 and 2010?

          But the PEOTUS was talking about massive voter fraud in the 2016 election, and he specifically mentioned Virginia as one of three states where this fraud occurred.

          So where is the evidence for 2016? Specifically, where is the evidence about people who are not eligible to vote getting caught at the polls by the voter ID checks?

          • There was no voter fraud in 2008 and 2010 either, certainly not among “illegal” immigrants. And none to speak of in 2016 either. Lies, lies and more lies by the right wingnuts, the same people who pushed strict voter ID laws to PREVENT voter fraud. Bizarro world.