Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts but lost ALL of the 54 largest

[TruthIsAll]

Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts but lost ALL of the largest 54 precincts (more than 187 votes).

What are the odds of THAT?

The Graph


Link to thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x387600


In Clermont:
Hackett TotVote Pct over187
12439 29889 41.6% 54


1 46 61 75.4%
2 36 57 63.2%
3 83 136 61.0%
4 62 103 60.2%
5 42 70 60.0%
6 50 85 58.8%
7 74 127 58.3%
8 49 86 57.0%
9 43 76 56.6%
10 22 39 56.4%
11 46 82 56.1%
12 48 86 55.8%
13 54 97 55.7%
14 72 130 55.4%
15 75 136 55.1%
16 44 81 54.3%
17 72 134 53.7%
18 37 69 53.6%
19 46 86 53.5%
20 71 133 53.4%
21 47 89 52.8%
22 94 178 52.8%
23 68 130 52.3%
24 31 60 51.7%
25 63 122 51.6%
26 73 142 51.4%
27 37 72 51.4%
28 65 127 51.2%
29 49 96 51.0%
30 49 96 51.0%
31 55 108 50.9%
32 57 112 50.9%
33 94 185 50.8%
34 95 187 50.8%
35 43 85 50.6%
36 69 137 50.4%
37 27 54 50.0%
38 40 80 50.0%

39 52 105 49.5%
40 46 93 49.5%
41 113 229 49.3% 1< indicates over 187 total votes
42 36 73 49.3%
43 119 242 49.2% 1
44 23 47 48.9%
45 75 154 48.7%
46 89 183 48.6%
47 34 70 48.6%
48 81 167 48.5%
49 48 99 48.5%
50 71 147 48.3%
51 68 141 48.2%
52 35 73 47.9%
53 49 103 47.6%
54 76 160 47.5%
55 52 110 47.3%
56 25 53 47.2%
57 73 155 47.1%
58 40 85 47.1%
59 54 115 47.0%
60 74 158 46.8%
61 51 109 46.8%
62 42 90 46.7%
63 46 99 46.5%
64 77 166 46.4%
65 54 117 46.2%
66 60 130 46.2%
67 72 156 46.2%
68 115 250 46.0% 1
69 17 37 45.9%
70 73 159 45.9%
71 70 153 45.8%
72 86 188 45.7% 1
73 79 174 45.4%
74 59 130 45.4%
75 111 245 45.3% 1
76 28 62 45.2%
77 23 51 45.1%
78 64 142 45.1%
79 54 120 45.0%
80 183 408 44.9% 1
81 56 125 44.8%
82 38 85 44.7%
83 42 94 44.7%
84 63 141 44.7%
85 84 188 44.7% 1
86 54 121 44.6%
87 94 211 44.5% 1
88 60 135 44.4%
89 46 104 44.2%
90 41 93 44.1%
91 89 202 44.1% 1
92 48 109 44.0%
93 51 116 44.0%
94 61 139 43.9%
95 43 98 43.9%
96 146 333 43.8% 1
97 78 178 43.8%
98 69 158 43.7%
99 58 133 43.6%
100 117 269 43.5% 1
101 30 69 43.5%
102 36 83 43.4%
103 99 229 43.2% 1
104 41 95 43.2%
105 42 98 42.9%
106 81 189 42.9% 1
107 96 224 42.9% 1
108 55 129 42.6%
109 65 153 42.5%
110 82 194 42.3% 1
111 92 218 42.2% 1
112 81 192 42.2% 1
113 83 198 41.9% 1
114 36 86 41.9%
115 28 67 41.8%
116 114 275 41.5% 1
117 96 232 41.4% 1
118 51 124 41.1%
119 53 129 41.1%
120 78 191 40.8% 1
121 82 201 40.8% 1
122 41 101 40.6%
123 30 74 40.5%
124 49 121 40.5%
125 59 146 40.4%
126 99 245 40.4% 1
127 46 114 40.4%
128 44 110 40.0%
129 46 115 40.0%
130 74 186 39.8%
131 69 175 39.4%
132 59 150 39.3%
133 110 280 39.3% 1
134 82 209 39.2% 1
135 85 217 39.2% 1
136 16 41 39.0%
137 32 82 39.0%
138 59 152 38.8%
139 79 204 38.7% 1
140 103 266 38.7% 1
141 96 248 38.7% 1
142 57 148 38.5%
143 90 234 38.5% 1
144 157 410 38.3% 1
145 37 97 38.1%
146 85 223 38.1% 1
147 56 147 38.1%
148 112 296 37.8% 1
149 42 112 37.5%
150 63 168 37.5%
151 99 264 37.5% 1
152 146 391 37.3% 1
153 32 86 37.2%
154 52 140 37.1%
155 134 363 36.9% 1
156 23 63 36.5%
157 95 264 36.0% 1
158 49 137 35.8%
159 158 442 35.7% 1
160 112 314 35.7% 1
161 57 160 35.6%
162 53 149 35.6%
163 29 82 35.4%
164 75 213 35.2% 1
165 85 242 35.1% 1
166 87 252 34.5% 1
167 86 250 34.4% 1
168 48 140 34.3%
169 132 385 34.3% 1
170 13 38 34.2%
171 45 132 34.1%
172 86 254 33.9% 1
173 61 182 33.5%
174 83 248 33.5% 1
175 30 90 33.3%
176 69 209 33.0% 1
177 49 149 32.9%
178 55 169 32.5%
179 80 247 32.4% 1
180 64 199 32.2% 1
181 63 196 32.1% 1
182 23 73 31.5%
183 140 445 31.5% 1
184 57 182 31.3%
185 38 127 29.9%
186 55 190 28.9% 1
187 25 88 28.4%
188 28 101 27.7%
189 20 77 26.0%
190 114 446 25.6% 1
191 128 549 23.3% 1
Sum 12439 29889 41.6% 54

[fasttense]

1. So in layman's terms, you are saying????

If the precinct in Clermont was over 187 voters it was more likely to go for Schmidt and less likely to go for Hackett?? Or it always goes for Schmidt if it is over 187 voter turnout?

Help, I'm having trouble following your numbers.

[helderheid]

2. me too - sorry

[TruthIsAll]

3. ALL 54 precincts with over 187 votes went for Schmidt.

How is the wording unclear?

Look at the table. All 54 precincts which recorded more than 187 total votes are indicated by the "1". And Schmidt won them all.

[helderheid]

7. I haven't had coffee since Tuesday.

[roseBudd]

9. That may mean that in Clermont precincts that had white flight...

subdivisions voted for Schmidt, and rural poor precincts voted for Hackett.

Part of the reason I am so suspicious of Hackett results is because I did not expect him to kick ass in the most rural counties, and he did. Those are god, guns, gays counties. I am going to call a dem who lives in Hillsboro today to see what she thinks.

Truthisall, whatever you come up with for Hackett I am hand delivering to his law office. I already included your initial turnout by precinct graph in the packet of info I delivered Friday.

[TruthIsAll]

10. Probability Hackett would lose ALL of the largest 54 precincts, assuming..

Hackett won 38 of the smallest 137 precincts (27.74%)

Without any other information, if we assume that 27.74% is the probability of winning any precinct, then the probability that Hackett would LOSE all of the remaining (largest) 54 precincts by chance alone is:

=BINOMDIST(0,54,38/137,FALSE)
= 2.40652E-08

or 1 in 41,553,740

That is the same odds as a baseball player with a .277 BA having a hitless streak of 54 consecutive at-bats.

[jmaier]

12. Sadly truth

Making this assessment hinges on your statement "without any other information". I suspect that these suburban and ex-burban precints in Clermont county have trended strongly Republican in most recent elections and that the Democratic candidate did "better" in the rural counties. You'd have to see where Sanders competed better against Portman in 2004, but I think you'd find your explanation there and not from some statistical inference of possible fraud.

[autorank]

37. This is all exploratory so no reason to be sad. Actually, rejoicing is

in order since there is already study going on. The data's there and the qualifications count. As more data becomes available and more information from DUers and other activists on the ground emerges, this can all be refined.

Why did Hamilton alone drop so many precincts (they're suburban Cincinnati)? That's a good question to research.

Why was there a humidity crisis only in Clermont County? There were over 500 other precincts using paper ballots (punch card) known to be humidity sensitive. Did those 500 all have AC, dehumidifiers, etc.

Why were there just 91 precincts with humidity problems and why are they the largest precincts where Schmidt really kicks some tail?

The questions need to be formulated, answered, and explained before fraud is ruled out. As far as I'm concerned, based on the 2004 evidence from Ohio, it's quite reasonable to ask a whole bunch of logical questions and assume nothing is accurate.

You're right, 2004 data is necessary and that will come along. My suspicion is that District 2 is like the rest of the USA. We do better the closer we are to downtown. Rural America does not dig us, not at all, because of our presumed "heathen" nature, e.g., supporting civil rights for gays, etc. But this is just speculation between you and me. There are people who can answer this and also data to show some better comparisons.

Don't get sad yet. Hackett did great, got tons of support from bloggers, and the Republicans are running scared. It's like we'd feel if a real Republican almost beat a Democratic candidate for mayor in the home of America's Team, Oakland, CA.

[JDPriestly]

43. I have family near that area.

The extreme fundamentalists live in the rural areas. They tend to be the die hard Republicans.

Here is how I would look at it. (I'm trying to make it simple.) Hackett won about 20% of the total precincts I believe. (5 x 38 = 190; 20% of 191 = 38.2% of 191 precincts) That's one out of five precincts. It doesn't take a statistician to understand how highly unlikely it is that not one of that 20% would fall within the 54 (28% of 191 = 53.48) most populated precincts (meaning that 1 in about 3.5 to 3.6 precincts was among the largest precincts). So, even if your theory is true and the larger precincts contained the white flight voters, it is statistically likely that with Hackett winning 20% or one of 5 precincts, he would win at least one or two of the 54 of the 191 or (1 in 3.5 - 3.6) most highly populated precincts, let's say at least by a narrow margin.

To get an inaccurate but quick hold on this, round off the number of precincts to 200, the number of precincts Hackett won to about 40, or 1 in 5 and then drop the number 54 and instead of the top 54, just consider the top 50 or 1 in 4. It is absurd that there was no overlap at all.

Why would hackers just change the votes in the most populated precincts?

First, the fewer the number of voters in the precinct, the easier it would be to prove fraud by hacking. An investigator could track down and interview a reasonable number of voters in small precincts, but probably not in the larger ones.

Second, the Republicans may have expected the smaller, rural precincts to vote en masse for Schmidt because those voters are reliably conservative and fundamentalist.

Has anyone compared the Hackett election results precinct by precinct based on precinct size with the outcome of the Bush election? How do those results compare proportionately speaking? That would be key to placing these statistics in perspective.

[helderheid]

14. hope you don't mind

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4274072

Edit to say please help keep kicked in GD

[kevsand]

17. That sort of reasoning only works if the chances

of winning any individual precinct are uniform across an entire county or district. Anyone who's actually worked in an election will tell that is obviously not the case.

[TruthIsAll]

24. Of course, there is no such thing as absolute uniformity.

But divergence on either side of the mean is a common occurrence.
The fact that the largest 54 precincts ALL moved in the same direction for Schmidt should raise a red flag.

In another example, all of the 16 states which deviated beyond the MoE from the exit poll to the vote favored of Bush.Forty-two states deviated to Bush from the exit polls. All 22 Eastern Time Zone states deviated to Bush from the exit polls. Each of these occurrences was extremely improbable, from one in a few million (42 states to Bush) to one in 19 trillion (16 states beyond the MoE).

Observations such as these which trend uniformly and improbably in one direction, such as the increase in Schmidt vote share for corresponding increase precinct size, should raise a red flag.

[kevsand]

26. That sort of "movement" happens all the time in elections.

First of all, it is inaccurate to even describe what happened in Clermont county as "movement." All of the polls were open at the same time and closed at the same time. The apparent movement over time during the counting is an artifice created by the fact that it takes varied amounts of time for each precinct to be collected and tabulated and added to the total.

Secondly, while divergence on either side of a mean is common statistically in other settings, in a sample this small, a lack of such bilateral symmetry is also very common, and should not be surprising. Rather, it is a marker of the homogeneity of the sample population, and those of us who do targeting look for such markers all the time. We expect to find direct correlations between precinct size and partisan performance, because it usually is reflective of other factors like urban vs. rural geopolitical preferences.

What is important is not any abstract statistical theory, but the actual performance of the self-selecting voters in Clermont County. These aren't numbered ping pong balls or coin flips, they're people with dispositions and attitudes.

In my county, the largest precincts always trend the heaviest Democratic, by substantial margins. We have a Republican county clerk for our election authority. By your analysis, we should be suspecting him of deliberately throwing the elections year after year. That would be absurd.

[TruthIsAll]

29. I did not mean "movement" in the time line sense you are using it.

I am referring to the percentage deviation from the smaller to the larger precincts.

I have stated that I have not analyzed precinct demographics or prior elections. However, the statistical deviations are interesting, to say the least. Especially since they appear to correlate consistently with precinct size.

[Carolab]

32. Didn't this also happen in November?

I seem to remember a discussion along those lines--precinct size being a variable in some of the arguments around the exit polling arguments?

[kevsand]

39. Okay, that usage of "movement" makes more sense.

And yes, the deviations are interesting. In fact, they're downright fascinating, but also not particularly surprising. When we do targeting analyses, we are very interested in this sort of thing, and we frequently find strong correlations between precinct size and partisan performance in places where there's not even a hint of corruption. The precinct size is usually just a reflection of other geographical factors like population density.

It's certainly worth looking at, if only as a guide to future elections there, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if a historical and demographic comparison explains it all satisfactorily.

[autorank]

41. That's a very interesting point.

Is there a generic notion on precinct size (breaks one way or the other) or a specific record in Clermont that you know of. What strikes me about these numbers, particularly as presented in post 27 by TIA is the uniform consistency -- wins in some small but NO large. What's that about? Well, I guess that's the key question. Thanks for the info.

[TruthIsAll]

42. If there is one thing I have learned since the 2000 selection, it's this:

Don't be surprised if historical and demographic comparisons are totally at variance with the recorded vote.

[TruthIsAll]

44. The same odds as the Red Sox being no-hit in two consecutive games.

HAS ANY TEAM EVER BEEN NO-HIT TWICE IN A ROW?

[TruthIsAll]

45. BASEBALL QUIZ: DID ANYONE EVER PITCH TWO CONSECUTIVE NO-HITTERS?

Those are the same odds.

The answer is yes. It happened ONCE.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0109720.html

[TruthIsAll]

49. Kick to the probability thread that 86/88 machines would switch K to B...

1 in 41 million is rather tame compared to
1 in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[fasttense]

16. Thanks, but the graph (which I misread) threw me off.

It's been a long morning, thanks for the clarification.

Wow, now what does that mean? It's easier to hide the rigging in larger numbers? If the repukes picked a round number instead of 187, would it be more evident? Just thinking out loud. I'm going to study this.

[JDPriestly]

46. Easier to talk to voters and ask them how they voted

in smaller precincts. Republicans thought the rural precincts were a slam dunk for Schmidt. They are most heavily fundamentalist and most conservative on tax issues.

[Botany]

4. kick

:kick:

[rzemanfl]

5. What do you know about the demographics of these

precincts that might explain such huge swings between them? Remember that in 2004 Kerry did better by percentage of votes where the vote count was low because (I believe) Kerry votes were being switched to Bush.

[TruthIsAll]

6. Hackett percentage by Clermont precinct group size...

Hackett percentage by precinct group size:
46.9% in precincts under 100 votes
43.5% in precincts of 100-200 votes
39.6% in precincts of 200-300 votes
34.6% in precincts of 300 + votes

HVote	TVote	HCum	TCum	HCumPct
17	37	17	37	45.9%
13	38	30	75	40.0%
22	39	52	114	45.6%
16	41	68	155	43.9%
23	47	91	202	45.0%
23	51	114	253	45.1%
25	53	139	306	45.4%
27	54	166	360	46.1%
36	57	202	417	48.4%
31	60	233	477	48.8%
46	61	279	538	51.9%
28	62	307	600	51.2%
23	63	330	663	49.8%
28	67	358	730	49.0%
37	69	395	799	49.4%
30	69	425	868	49.0%
42	70	467	938	49.8%
34	70	501	1008	49.7%
37	72	538	1080	49.8%
36	73	574	1153	49.8%
35	73	609	1226	49.7%
23	73	632	1299	48.7%
30	74	662	1373	48.2%
43	76	705	1449	48.7%
20	77	725	1526	47.5%
40	80	765	1606	47.6%
44	81	809	1687	48.0%
46	82	855	1769	48.3%
32	82	887	1851	47.9%
29	82	916	1933	47.4%
36	83	952	2016	47.2%
50	85	1002	2101	47.7%
43	85	1045	2186	47.8%
40	85	1085	2271	47.8%
38	85	1123	2356	47.7%
49	86	1172	2442	48.0%
48	86	1220	2528	48.3%
46	86	1266	2614	48.4%
36	86	1302	2700	48.2%
32	86	1334	2786	47.9%
25	88	1359	2874	47.3%
47	89	1406	2963	47.5%
42	90	1448	3053	47.4%
30	90	1478	3143	47.0%
46	93	1524	3236	47.1%
41	93	1565	3329	47.0%
42	94	1607	3423	46.9%
41	95	1648	3518	46.8%
49	96	1697	3614	47.0%
49	96	1746	3710	47.1%
54	97	1800	3807	47.3%
37	97	1837	3904	47.1%
43	98	1880	4002	47.0%
42	98	1922	4100	46.9%
48	99	1970	4199	46.9%
46	99	2016	4298	46.9%

41	101	41	101	40.6%
28	101	69	202	34.2%
62	103	131	305	43.0%
49	103	180	408	44.1%
46	104	226	512	44.1%
52	105	278	617	45.1%
55	108	333	725	45.9%
51	109	384	834	46.0%
48	109	432	943	45.8%
52	110	484	1053	46.0%
44	110	528	1163	45.4%
57	112	585	1275	45.9%
42	112	627	1387	45.2%
46	114	673	1501	44.8%
54	115	727	1616	45.0%
46	115	773	1731	44.7%
51	116	824	1847	44.6%
54	117	878	1964	44.7%
54	120	932	2084	44.7%
54	121	986	2205	44.7%
49	121	1035	2326	44.5%
63	122	1098	2448	44.9%
51	124	1149	2572	44.7%
56	125	1205	2697	44.7%
74	127	1279	2824	45.3%
65	127	1344	2951	45.5%
38	127	1382	3078	44.9%
55	129	1437	3207	44.8%
53	129	1490	3336	44.7%
72	130	1562	3466	45.1%
68	130	1630	3596	45.3%
60	130	1690	3726	45.4%
59	130	1749	3856	45.4%
45	132	1794	3988	45.0%
71	133	1865	4121	45.3%
58	133	1923	4254	45.2%
72	134	1995	4388	45.5%
60	135	2055	4523	45.4%
83	136	2138	4659	45.9%
75	136	2213	4795	46.2%
69	137	2282	4932	46.3%
49	137	2331	5069	46.0%
61	139	2392	5208	45.9%
52	140	2444	5348	45.7%
48	140	2492	5488	45.4%
68	141	2560	5629	45.5%
63	141	2623	5770	45.5%
73	142	2696	5912	45.6%
64	142	2760	6054	45.6%
59	146	2819	6200	45.5%
71	147	2890	6347	45.5%
56	147	2946	6494	45.4%
57	148	3003	6642	45.2%
53	149	3056	6791	45.0%
49	149	3105	6940	44.7%
59	150	3164	7090	44.6%
59	152	3223	7242	44.5%
70	153	3293	7395	44.5%
65	153	3358	7548	44.5%
75	154	3433	7702	44.6%
73	155	3506	7857	44.6%
72	156	3578	8013	44.7%
74	158	3652	8171	44.7%
69	158	3721	8329	44.7%
73	159	3794	8488	44.7%
76	160	3870	8648	44.8%
57	160	3927	8808	44.6%
77	166	4004	8974	44.6%
81	167	4085	9141	44.7%
63	168	4148	9309	44.6%
55	169	4203	9478	44.3%
79	174	4282	9652	44.4%
69	175	4351	9827	44.3%
94	178	4445	10005	44.4%
78	178	4523	10183	44.4%
61	182	4584	10365	44.2%
57	182	4641	10547	44.0%
89	183	4730	10730	44.1%
94	185	4824	10915	44.2%
74	186	4898	11101	44.1%
95	187	4993	11288	44.2%
86	188	5079	11476	44.3%
84	188	5163	11664	44.3%
81	189	5244	11853	44.2%
55	190	5299	12043	44.0%
78	191	5377	12234	44.0%
81	192	5458	12426	43.9%
82	194	5540	12620	43.9%
63	196	5603	12816	43.7%
83	198	5686	13014	43.7%
64	199	5750	13213	43.5%

82	201	82	201	40.8%
89	202	171	403	42.4%
79	204	250	607	41.2%
82	209	332	816	40.7%
69	209	401	1025	39.1%
94	211	495	1236	40.0%
75	213	570	1449	39.3%
85	217	655	1666	39.3%
92	218	747	1884	39.6%
85	223	832	2107	39.5%
96	224	928	2331	39.8%
113	229	1041	2560	40.7%
99	229	1140	2789	40.9%
96	232	1236	3021	40.9%
90	234	1326	3255	40.7%
119	242	1445	3497	41.3%
85	242	1530	3739	40.9%
111	245	1641	3984	41.2%
99	245	1740	4229	41.1%
80	247	1820	4476	40.7%
96	248	1916	4724	40.6%
83	248	1999	4972	40.2%
115	250	2114	5222	40.5%
86	250	2200	5472	40.2%
87	252	2287	5724	40.0%
86	254	2373	5978	39.7%
99	264	2472	6242	39.6%
95	264	2567	6506	39.5%
103	266	2670	6772	39.4%
117	269	2787	7041	39.6%
114	275	2901	7316	39.7%
110	280	3011	7596	39.6%
112	296	3123	7892	39.6%

112	314	112	314	35.7%
146	333	258	647	39.9%
134	363	392	1010	38.8%
132	385	524	1395	37.6%
146	391	670	1786	37.5%
183	408	853	2194	38.9%
157	410	1010	2604	38.8%
158	442	1168	3046	38.3%
140	445	1308	3491	37.5%
114	446	1422	3937	36.1%
128	549	1550	4486	34.6%

[rzemanfl]

13. Looks like vote-switching to me, but I am no math wiz. n/t

[Nederland]

8. Answer

Given that there is absolutely no relationship between precinct size and party affliation, I'd say the question is irrelevant.

[TruthIsAll]

11. The fact that there is no relation is exactly what makes it relevant.

You have it backwards.

[Botany]

15. ? TIA

In a smaller size of sample (as long as you get a viable sample) don't
you have more confidence in the stats? Because don't you have a better "chance"
of getting a true reflection of real statistical make up?

So the 45% returns for Hackett in the smaller precincts shouldn't that
lead one to think that level of support for him is more widespread?

[TruthIsAll]

22. All I can say is that the pattern looks very suspicious...

The precinct data should be compared to prior elections to see if the pattern of increasing Repub vote percentages in the larger precincts is a new phenomenon.

[TruthIsAll]

23. GRAPH: No correlation between Precinct Registration and Voter Turnout

The regression line has zero slope.

Voters turned out at a fairly constant rate across precincts.
So turnout wasn't a factor in explaining why the Schmidt vote percentage increased as precinct size increased.

[Cocoa]

50. comparing to previous elections

that district typically went 70% republican, so I'm sure someone, if they wanted to for whatever reason, could run some numbers and prove that the odds of Hackett coming within 5% of Schmidt were 9,845,823,293,676,910,779,225,383,345,290,666 to 1.

That is, if they had some reason for doing a totally meaningless analysis that comes to a conclusion that the author thinks his audience wants to hear.

[TruthIsAll]

51. Next time, respond to the point of my post.

AS usual, you only show your mathematical incompetence.

The analysis had nothing to do with Vote percentage.
It had everything to do with the vote trend from the SMALLEST to the LARGEST precincts.

I am not trying to convince you.
You are a lost cause.

[Cocoa]

52. but one COULD compare vote percentages

if they wanted to make a fallacious probabilistic argument that Hacket committed vote fraud, they could easily do it.

How willing people would be to buy such a fallacious argument is another question. How easily dazzled people would be by a lot of numbers and technical terminology and bluster about people's mathematical competence is anyone's guess.

Any insights on that?

[adolfo]

19. Ohio registration data is almost useless

Because of how they handle registrations most voters are listed as "non-partisan".

[autorank]

21. Same thing in Virginia...people know about these precincts.

I'm very interested in seeing how the Ohio people weigh in, those with knowledge of Clermont and District 2. This trend is very curious. My guess, total guess, would be that the larger districts would be more city/town like andthe smaller more suburban. Strange stuff. It is a shame that party ID is not part of the registraiton process in OH, VA, etc. like it is in CA.

[Carolab]

33. The smaller precincts would also be more rural, wouldn't they?

And aren't the rural areas generally considered more "red"?

[autorank]

38. My thought exact.y! Let's get some facts out of these folks...

I would think that rural Ohio would be a real anti-gay rights, anti "librul" area and Major Hackett haulled ass in the smaller ones. Cool!

[autorank]

18. This graph and the regression line showing -0.05 for Hackett as the...

...evening progressed raise interesting questions.

Why did Schmidt votes go up more than expected and Hacket's down (compered to earlier in the day)?

Was this related to the "special event" humidity (which did not occurr in the 500 plus other precincts in District 2 with paper ballots (punch card and optiscan)?

Why does Hackett do so poorly as the size of the precinct increases?

This is great stuff along with the other speculation here because questions are being raised in real time!!!

How can we ever not raise these questions again.

It's been only 9 months since the nastiest election in modern times.

We are obligated to question.

[wli]

20. yep, it was rigged

[minvis]

25. For what it's worth

Kerry did not win a single precinct in Clermont county in 2004. I'm not sure if there was any other county in Ohio where this was the case. If Hackett won 34 of them, that's a hell of lot better than Kerry did.

I do agree however that the large precincts going all for Schmidt is a bit fishy. Do you know which precincts Hackett won. There was only 1 precinct that Kerry was even close.

[TruthIsAll]

27. FULL PRECINCT DATA BY HACKETT WIN %

N	          Prec	Reg	Votes	Turn	Hack	HPct	Schm	SPct
1	FELICITY VILLAGE	456	61	13.38%	46	75.41%	15	24.59%
2	BETHEL VILLAGE B	344	57	16.57%	36	63.16%	21	36.84%
3	NEW RICHMOND VLG C	562	136	24.20%	83	61.03%	52	38.24%
4	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP L	608	103	16.94%	62	60.19%	41	39.81%
5	NEW RICHMOND VLG B	384	70	18.23%	42	60.00%	27	38.57%
6	WAYNE TOWNSHIP D	538	85	15.80%	50	58.82%	34	40.00%
7	PIERCE TOWNSHIP 0	613	127	20.72%	74	58.27%	53	41.73%
8	MONROE TOWNSHIP G	510	86	16.86%	49	56.98%	37	43.02%
9	FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP A	398	76	19.10%	43	56.58%	33	43.42%
10	MONROE TOWNSHIP I	464	39	8.41%	22	56.41%	17	43.59%
11	WASHINGTON TOWN C	402	82	20.40%	46	56.10%	36	43.90%
12	BATAVIA VILLAGE B	261	86	32.95%	48	55.81%	37	43.02%
13	FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP B	412	97	23.54%	54	55.67%	43	44.33%
14	OWENSVILLE VILLAGE	521	130	24.95%	72	55.38%	57	43.85%
15	STONELICK TOWNS F	491	136	27.70%	75	55.15%	60	44.12%
16	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP 1	818	81	9.90%	44	54.32%	37	45.68%
17	BATAVIA VILLAGE A	384	134	34.90%	72	53.73%	62	46.27%
18	TATE TOWNSHIP B	423	69	16.31%	37	53.62%	31	44.93%
19	MILFORD CITY C	302	86	28.48%	46	53.49%	40	46.51%
20	UNION TOWNSHIP L	1184	133	11.23%	71	53.38%	60	45.11%
21	BATAVIA VILLAGE C	412	89	21.60%	47	52.81%	42	47.19%
22	MILFORD CITY E	574	178	31.01%	94	52.81%	84	47.19%
23	WASHINGTON TOWN A	672	130	19.35%	68	52.31%	62	47.69%
24	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP M	586	60	10.24%	31	51.67%	28	46.67%
25	WILLIAMSBURG TWP D	479	122	25.47%	63	51.64%	59	48.36%
26	UNION TOWNSHIP K	1218	142	11.66%	73	51.41%	68	47.89%
27	MONROE TOWNSHIP D	298	72	24.16%	37	51.39%	35	48.61%
28	WILLIAMSBURG TWP C	546	127	23.26%	65	51.18%	62	48.82%
29	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP F	505	96	19.01%	49	51.04%	47	48.96%
30	NEW RICHMOND VLG A	545	96	17.61%	49	51.04%	46	47.92%
31	FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP C	517	108	20.89%	55	50.93%	53	49.07%
32	WILLlAMSBuRG VLG B	498	112	22.49%	57	50.89%	55	49.11%
33	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP C	1035	185	17.87%	94	50.81%	90	48.65%
34	PIERCE TOWNSHIP K	622	187	30.06%	95	50.80%	90	48.13%
35	LOVELANDCITYA	447	85	19.02%	43	50.59%	42	49.41%
36	OHIO TOWNSHIP C	574	137	23.87%	69	50.36%	67	48.91%
37	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP A	358	80	22.35%	40	50.00%	39	48.75%
38	W1LL1AMSBURG VLG A	344	54	15.70%	27	50.00%	27	50.00%
39	UNION TOWNSHIP A1A	490	105	21.43%	52	49.52%	54	51.43%
40	MIAMI TOWNSHIP E1E	590	93	15.76%	46	49.46%	47	50.54%
41	UNION TOWNSHIP B1B	995	229	23.02%	113	49.34%	116	50.66%
42	TATE TOWNSHIP I	427	73	17.10%	36	49.32%	36	49.32%
43	MILFORD CITY G	808	242	29.95%	119	49.17%	122	50.41%
44	UNION TOWNSHIP F	383	47	12.27%	23	48.94%	22	46.81%
45	MILFORD CITY B	575	154	26.78%	75	48.70%	76	49.35%
46	PIERCE TOWNSHIP G	710	183	25.77%	89	48.63%	94	51.37%
47	BETHEL VILLAGE C	523	70	13.38%	34	48.57%	36	51.43%
48	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP B	1061	167	15.74%	81	48.50%	86	51.50%
49	AMELIA VILLAGE B	770	99	12.86%	48	48.48%	51	51.52%
50	FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP D	782	147	18.80%	71	48.30%	75	51.02%
51	UNION TOWNSHIP X	610	141	23.11%	68	48.23%	72	51.06%
52	UNION TOWNSHIP M1M	543	73	13.44%	35	47.95%	37	50.68%
53	PIERCE TOWNSHIP D	625	103	16.48%	49	47.57%	53	51.46%
54	UNION TOWNSHIP 1	906	160	17.66%	76	47.50%	84	52.50%
55	MILFORD CITY F	720	110	15.28%	52	47.27%	57	51.82%
56	MOSCOW VILLAGE	207	53	25.60%	25	47.17%	28	52.83%
57	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP E	984	155	15.75%	73	47.10%	81	52.26%
58	PIERCE TOWNSHIP L	360	85	23.61%	40	47.06%	45	52.94%
59	UNION TOWNSHIP S	578	115	19.90%	54	46.96%	60	52.17%
60	UNION TOWNSHIP J	865	158	18.27%	74	46.84%	83	52.53%
61	WAYNE TOWNSHIP C	475	109	22.95%	51	46.79%	57	52.29%
62	UNION TOWNSHIP H	1093	90	8.23%	42	46.67%	48	53.33%
63	TATE TOWNSHIP D	532	99	18.61%	46	46.46%	53	53.54%
64	OHIO TOWNSHIP A	667	166	24.89%	77	46.39%	88	53.01%
65	OHIO TOWNSHIP B	399	130	32.58%	60	46.15%	68	52.31%
66	TATE TOWNSHIP H	789	156	19.77%	72	46.15%	81	51.92%
67	UNION TOWNSHIP T	551	117	21.23%	54	46.15%	63	53.85%
68	UNION TOWNSHIP E1E	834	250	29.98%	115	46.00%	133	53.20%
69	MONROE TOWNSHIP A	431	37	8.58%	17	45.95%	19	51.35%
70	WILLIAMSBURG VLG C	596	159	26.68%	73	45.91%	86	54.09%
71	UNION TOWNSHIP C	707	153	21.64%	70	45.75%	82	53.59%
72	WILLIAMSBURG TWP A	619	188	30.37%	86	45.74%	102	54.26%
73	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP L	812	174	21.43%	79	45.40%	95	54.60%
74	MILFORD CITY D	472	130	27.54%	59	45.38%	68	52.31%
75	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP G	950	245	25.79%	111	45.31%	134	54.69%
76	NEWTONSVILLE VILL	219	62	28.31%	28	45.16%	34	54.84%
77	UNION TOWNSHIP G1G	300	51	17.00%	23	45.10%	28	54.90%
78	UNION TOWNSHIP K1K	722	142	19.67%	64	45.07%	78	54.93%
79	STONELICK TOWN A	424	120	28.30%	54	45.00%	64	53.33%
80	MIAMI TOWNSHIP F	1218	408	33.50%	183	44.85%	222	54.41%
81	MIAMI TOWNSHIP V	734	125	17.03%	56	44.80%	69	55.20%
82	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP]	290	85	29.31%	38	44.71%	47	55.29%
83	STONELICK TOWN D	411	94	22.87%	42	44.68%	51	54.26%
84	UNION TOWNSHIP U	641	188	29.33%	84	44.68%	104	55.32%
85	UNION TOWNSHIP Z	492	141	28.66%	63	44.68%	78	55.32%
86	UNION TOWNSHIP N	574	121	21.08%	54	44.63%	67	55.37%
87	UNION TOWNSHIP B	1144	211	18.44%	94	44.55%	117	55.45%
88	UNION TOWNSHIP P	946	135	14.27%	60	44.44%	75	55.56%
89	STONELICK TOWN G	359	104	28.97%	46	44.23%	57	54.81%
90	MIAMI TOWNSHIP H	568	93	16.37%	41	44.09%	52	55.91%
91	STONELICK TOWN B	583	202	34.65%	89	44.06%	111	54.95%
92	UNION TOWNSHIP ML	526	109	20.72%	48	44.04%	61	55.96%
93	UNION TOWNSHIP J1J	598	116	19.40%	51	43.97%	62	53.45%
94	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP B	736	139	18.89%	61	43.88%	78	56.12%
95	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP F	570	98	17.19%	43	43.88%	55	56.12%
96	MILFORD CITY H	954	333	34.91%	146	43.84%	187	56.16%
97	WAYNE TOWNSHIP B	772	178	23.06%	78	43.82%	99	55.62%
98	MIAMI TOWNSHIP U	461	158	34.27%	69	43.67%	88	55.70%
99	MONROE TOWNSHIP F	455	133	29.23%	58	43.61%	74	55.64%
100	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP A	1307	269	20.58%	117	43.49%	152	56.51%
101	WASHINGTON TOWN 6	305	69	22.62%	30	43.48%	38	55.07%
102	TATE TOWNSHIP E	321	83	25.86%	36	43.37%	46	55.42%
103	UNION TOWNSHIP W	824	229	27.79%	99	43.23%	129	56.33%
104	UNION TOWNSHIP R	448	95	21.21%	41	43.16%	54	56.84%
105	JACKSON TOWNSHIP C	757	189	24.97%	81	42.86%	107	56.61%
106	MONROE TOWNSHIP B	513	98	19.10%	42	42.86%	55	56.12%
107	UNION TOWNSHIP C1C	842	224	26.60%	96	42.86%	128	57.14%
108	UNION TOWNSHIP O	684	129	18.86%	55	42.64%	72	55.81%
109	WILLIAMSBURG TWP B	446	153	34.30%	65	42.48%	88	57.52%
110	MONROE TOWNSHIP E	899	194	21.58%	82	42.27%	112	57.73%
111	STONELICK TOWN E	716	218	30.45%	92	42.20%	123	56.42%
112	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP N	929	192	20.67%	81	42.19%	111	57.81%
113	AMELIA VILLAGE A	1431	198	13.84%	83	41.92%	113	57.07%
114	UNION TOWNSHIP G	422	86	20.38%	36	41.86%	50	58.14%
115	MIAMI TOWNSHIP T	420	67	15.95%	28	41.79%	39	58.21%
116	UNION TOWNSHIP R1R	1304	275	21.09%	114	41.45%	159	57.82%
117	BATAVIA TOWNSH IP J	969	232	23.94%	96	41.38%	135	58.19%
118	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP J	559	124	22.18%	51	41.13%	72	58.06%
119	TATE TOWNSHIP C	484	129	26.65%	53	41.09%	76	58.91%
120	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP D	1085	191	17.60%	78	40.84%	111	58.12%
121	MIAMI TOWNSHIP N	826	201	24.33%	82	40.80%	119	59.20%
122	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP H	486	101	20.78%	41	40.59%	60	59.41%
123	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP G	715	74	10.35%	30	40.54%	44	59.46%
124	UNION TOWNSHIP M	608	121	19.90%	49	40.50%	72	59.50%
125	MIAMI TOWNSHIP P	489	146	29.86%	59	40.41%	87	59.59%
126	UNION TOWNSHIP P1P	878	245	27.90%	99	40.41%	146	59.59%
127	TATE TOWNSHIP A	529	114	21.55%	46	40.35%	68	59.65%
128	MIAMI TOWNSHIP O	349	110	31.52%	44	40.00%	66	60.00%
129	BETHEL VILLAGE A	644	115	17.86%	46	40.00%	68	59.13%
130	MIAMI TOWNSHIPS	724	186	25.69%	74	39.78%	110	59.14%
131	PIERCE TOWNSHIP F	570	175	30.70%	69	39.43%	106	60.57%
132	PIERCE TOWNSHIP A	536	150	27.99%	59	39.33%	91	60.67%
133	MIAMI TOWNSHIP K	774	280	36.18%	110	39.29%	170	60.71%
134	UNION TOWNSHIP D	931	209	22.45%	82	39.23%	127	60.77%
135	LOVELAND CITY B	852	217	25.47%	85	39.17%	131	60.37%
136	PIERCE TOWNSHIP H	278	41	14.75%	16	39.02%	25	60.98%
137	UNION TOWNSHIP V	245	82	33.47%	32	39.02%	50	60.98%
138	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP H	592	152	25.68%	59	38.82%	93	61.18%
139	MIAMI TOWNSHIP W	592	204	34.46%	79	38.73%	121	59.31%
140	MIAMI TOWNSHIP B	1427	266	18.64%	103	38.72%	160	60.15%
141	STONELICK TOWN C	645	248	38.45%	96	38.71%	150	60.48%
142	MILFORD CITY A	554	148	26.71%	57	38.51%	90	60.81%
143	MIAMI TOWNSHIP Q	684	234	34.21%	90	38.46%	143	61.11%
144	MIAMI TOWNSHIP A	1434	410	28.59%	157	38.29%	251	61.22%
145	WAYNE TOWNSHIP A	496	97	19.56%	37	38.14%	59	60.82%
146	MIAMI TOWNSHIP dC	770	223	28.96%	85	38.12%	138	61.88%
147	MIAMI TOWNSHIP H1H	507	147	28.99%	56	38.10%	91	61.90%
148	MIAMI TOWNSHIP F1F	1018	296	29.08%	112	37.84%	183	61.82%
149	MIAMI TOWNSHIP R	854	264	30.91%	99	37.50%	165	62.50%
150	MIAMI TOWNSHIP S	553	112	20.25%	42	37.50%	70	62.50%
151	PIERCE TOWNSHIP J	906	168	18.54%	63	37.50%	103	61.31%
152	UNION TOWNSHIP E	1514	391	25.83%	146	37.34%	245	62.66%
153	UNION TOWNSHIP Y	590	86	14.58%	32	37.21%	54	62.79%
154	UNION TOWNSHIP D1D	839	140	16.69%	52	37.14%	88	62.86%
155	MIAMI TOWNSHIP J	1412	363	25.71%	134	36.91%	228	62.81%
156	MONROE TOWNSHIP J	450	63	14.00%	23	36.51%	40	63.49%
157	MIAMI TOWNSHIP G1G	806	264	32.75%	95	35.98%	167	63.26%
158	MIAMI TOWNSHIP I	459	137	29.85%	49	35.77%	88	64.23%
159	PIERCE TOWNSHIP B	1188	442	37.21%	158	35.75%	282	63.80%
160	MIAMI TOWNSHIP Y	1151	314	27.28%	112	35.67%	201	64.01%
161	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP E	954	160	16.77%	57	35.63%	102	63.75%
162	MIAMI TOWNSHIP J1J	386	149	38.60%	53	35.57%	96	64.43%
163	TATE TOWNSHIP F	376	82	21.81%	29	35.37%	53	64.63%
164	MIAMI TOWNSHIP K1K	861	213	24.74%	75	35.21%	137	64.32%
165	PIERCE TOWNSHIP I	929	242	26.05%	85	35.12%	157	64.88%
166	UNION TOWNSHIP F1F	920	252	27.39%	87	34.52%	165	65.48%
167	BATAVIA TOWNSHIP K	1286	250	19.44%	86	34.40%	162	64.80%
168	TATE TOWNSHIP G	468	140	29.91%	48	34.29%	92	65.71%
169	UNION TOWNSHIP A	1518	385	25.36%	132	34.29%	253	65.71%
170	MONROE TOWNSHIP H	208	38	18.27%	13	34.21%	25	65.79%
171	JACKSON TOWNSHIP B	387	132	34.11%	45	34.09%	87	65.91%
172	MIAMI TOWNSHIP M	829	254	30.64%	86	33.86%	165	64.96%
173	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP D	751	182	24.23%	61	33.52%	121	66.48%
174	PIERCE TOWNSHIPS	862	248	28.77%	83	33.47%	165	66.53%
175	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP K	596	90	15.10%	30	33.33%	60	66.67%
176	MIAMI TOWNSHIP B1B	679	209	30.78%	69	33.01%	139	66.51%
177	WAYNE TOWNSHIP E	557	149	26.75%	49	32.89%	99	66.44%
178	MIAMI TOWNSHIP E	464	169	36.42%	55	32.54%	114	67.46%
179	MIAMI TOWNSHIP L	748	247	33.02%	80	32.39%	165	66.80%
180	UNION TOWNSHIP Q	713	199	27.91%	64	32.16%	134	67.34%
181	JACKSON TOWNSHIP A	724	196	27.07%	63	32.14%	129	65.82%
182	GOSHEN TOWNSHIP C	312	73	23.40%	23	31.51%	50	68.49%
183	MIAMI TOWNSHIP X	1600	445	27.81%	140	31.46%	303	68.09%
184	MIAMI TOWNSHIP D1D	711	182	25.60%	57	31.32%	125	68.68%
185	MIAMI TOWNSHIP 111	359	127	35.38%	38	29.92%	89	70.08%
186	MIAMI TOWNSHIP A1A	648	190	29.32%	55	28.95%	135	71.05%
187	MIAMI TOWNSHIP D	490	88	17.96%	25	28.41%	62	70.45%
188	MONROE TOWNSHIP C	408	101	24.75%	28	27.72%	72	71.29%
189	UNION TOWNSHIP 111	422	77	18.25%	20	25.97%	57	74.03%
190	MIAMI TOWNSHIP Z	1356	446	32.89%	114	25.56%	330	73.99%
191	MIAMI TOWNSHIP C	1545	549	35.53%	128	23.32%	418	76.14%

[TruthIsAll]

28. .

.

[autorank]

30. This really contributes a great deal. A ?

Just so I'm clear, would 1-100 be the 100 that were counted with out the impediment of "humidity" and would 101-191 be the last ones counted that were "humidified?" My assumption is yes but I don't want to go off half-cocked here and I think this is very important data.

Nice trend line for Hacket, eh, 101-191. It's that Republican sweat equity they're earning in the election process, apparently with a special emphasis on vote tabulation.

Remarkable work. Muchos Gracias!

[TruthIsAll]

31. I have no idea, just ranked by Hackett pct. But dehumidifiers do work.

Do they sell them in OH?

[autorank]

34. They sell lots of them in LA, AL, & MS. Why not OH?

They might have suspected humidity. Afterall, it's summer. But that may be a bit harsh. The state of Louisiana's 2003 RFP for a voting system said it had to tolerate 98% humidity. They're not rolling in dough down there. Why couldn't Cleremont at least anticipate the weather and the impact on paper ballots. But wait, there was no imipact in the 500 other precincts with paper ballots. Hmm...

[Botany]

40. not only dehumidifiers but just about all firehouses ......

..... schools, churches, meeting halls, offices, and homes have A.C.
there. I live in Columbus, OH .... been to S.W. Ohio many times .....
A.C. is standard. And what about the other 600 precincts that had
the same weather but no humidity problems?

I wouldn't have paid the outcome as much attention because it is
a very red part of the state until the "glitch" that shut things down
and their bs story.


Your #s are damning ...... I have seen precincts in Claremont that
went to Gore in 2000 but even w/ an increase in registered dems
it went to * in 2004.

Funny, but some of the crooks killing are country are republican
women who seem like such "good people" but do the bidding of
the party.

[TruthIsAll]

47. Kerry won 9 of the largest 12 OH counties

County		Votes	K	B		KP	BP

Cuyahoga	648.9	433.3	215.6		66.8%	33.2%
Franklin	509.8	275.6	234.2		54.1%	45.9%
Hamilton	406.6	191.0	215.6		47.0%	53.0%
Montgomery	273.0	138.3	134.7		50.6%	49.4%
Summit	269.1	152.9	116.2		56.8%	43.2%

Lucas		214.3	128.9	85.4		60.1%	39.9%
Stark		182.2	92.3	89.9		50.7%	49.3%
Butler	160.9	54.2	106.7		33.7%	66.3%
Lorain	136.3	76.5	59.8		56.2%	43.8%
Mahoning	129.5	81.5	48.0		62.9%	37.1%

Lake		118.1	57.5	60.6		48.7%	51.3%
Trumbull	105.5	65.3	40.2		61.9%	38.1%
Warren	91.9	25.4	66.5		27.6%	72.4%
Clermont	87.0	25.3	61.7		29.1%	70.9%
Medina	83.2	35.7	47.5		42.9%	57.1%

Delaware	78.7	26.5	52.2		33.6%	66.4%
Licking	77.4	29.4	48.1		37.9%	62.1%
Greene	76.2	29.3	46.8		38.5%	61.5%
Portage	75.0	39.9	35.1		53.2%	46.8%
Clark		67.3	32.8	34.4		48.8%	51.2%

Fairfield	66.4	24.3	42.1		36.6%	63.4%
Wood		60.8	28.2	32.6		46.4%	53.6%
Richland	60.3	24.1	36.3		39.9%	60.1%
Wayne		50.9	19.5	31.4		38.2%	61.8%
Miami		50.1	17.0	33.0		34.0%	66.0%

Geauga	49.5	19.6	30.0		39.5%	60.5%
Columbiana	48.1	22.9	25.2		47.6%	52.4%
Allen		47.5	15.8	31.6		33.3%	66.7%
Ashtabula	44.2	23.5	20.6		53.3%	46.7%
Tuscarawas	41.8	18.5	23.4		44.1%	55.9%

Erie		38.7	20.7	18.0		53.4%	46.6%
Muskingum	38.0	16.1	21.9		42.3%	57.7%
Jefferson	35.6	18.7	16.9		52.5%	47.5%
Scioto	34.4	16.4	17.9		47.8%	52.2%
Hancock	34.3	9.9	24.3		29.0%	71.0%

Belmont	32.5	17.3	15.3		53.0%	47.0%
Sandusky	31.7	13.9	17.8		43.8%	56.2%
Ross		30.6	13.7	16.9		44.7%	55.3%
Washington	29.2	12.1	17.0		41.6%	58.4%
Marion	28.2	11.5	16.7		40.7%	59.3%

Athens	27.3	17.4	9.9		63.7%	36.3%
Lawrence	27.1	11.9	15.2		43.9%	56.1%
Seneca	26.4	10.8	15.6		40.8%	59.2%
Knox		26.3	9.6	16.7		36.6%	63.4%
Darke		25.5	7.7	17.9		30.0%	70.0%

Huron		24.9	10.4	14.6		41.6%	58.4%
Allen		24.2	8.3	15.8		34.5%	65.5%
Ottawa	22.7	10.9	11.8		48.0%	52.0%
Pickaway	22.3	8.4	13.9		37.7%	62.3%
Auglaize	22.2	5.7	16.4		25.8%	74.2%

Shelby	22.2	6.3	15.8		28.6%	71.4%
Union		22.1	6.5	15.6		29.6%	70.4%
Fulton	21.5	8.1	13.4		37.6%	62.4%
Crawford	21.3	7.6	13.7		35.8%	64.2%
Logan		20.7	6.6	14.1		32.1%	67.9%

Preble	20.7	7.2	13.5		34.7%	65.3%
Mercer	19.9	4.9	15.0		24.7%	75.3%
Brown		19.5	7.1	12.5		36.1%	63.9%
Putnam	18.5	4.3	14.2		23.4%	76.6%
Champaign	18.2	6.8	11.4		37.1%	62.9%

Highland	17.9	6.0	11.9		33.6%	66.4%
Clinton	17.9	5.2	12.6		29.3%	70.7%
Williams	17.9	6.2	11.6		34.9%	65.1%
Defiance	17.7	6.7	11.0		37.8%	62.2%
Madison	17.0	6.1	10.9		35.7%	64.3%

Guernsey	16.2	7.1	9.1		43.7%	56.3%
Morrow	16.0	5.7	10.3		35.4%	64.6%
Coshocton	15.9	6.8	9.1		42.6%	57.4%
Perry		15.0	7.2	7.8		48.1%	51.9%
Henry		14.8	5.0	9.8		34.0%	66.0%

Van Wert	14.5	4.0	10.5		27.7%	72.3%
Jackson	13.9	5.5	8.4		39.7%	60.3%
Carroll	13.7	6.2	7.5		45.1%	54.9%
Gallia	13.5	5.2	8.3		38.4%	61.6%
Hardin	12.9	4.7	8.2		36.6%	63.4%

Hocking	12.9	6.1	6.8		47.1%	52.9%
Pike		12.3	5.9	6.4		47.9%	52.1%
Adams		11.7	4.2	7.5		35.9%	64.1%
Fayette	11.5	4.2	7.2		37.0%	63.0%
Holmes	10.9	2.6	8.3		24.0%	76.0%

Wyandot	10.5	3.6	7.0		33.8%	66.2%
Meigs		10.5	4.3	6.2		41.3%	58.7%
Paulding	9.6	3.5	6.1		36.8%	63.2%
Harrison	8.1	3.8	4.3		47.0%	53.0%
Monroe	7.5	4.2	3.4		55.3%	44.7%

Morgan	6.5	2.8	3.7		43.2%	56.8%
Noble		6.4	2.6	3.8		40.8%	59.2%
Vinton	5.8	2.6	3.2		45.0%	55.0%

Total		5455.8	2659.7	2796.1	48.7%	51.3%

[TruthIsAll]

48. Regression Graph of County Vote split

Of course, Bush did better in the rural areas.
So how come Hackett did not win any of the largest 37 precincts?



N County KP BP
1 Cuyahoga 66.8% 33.2%
2 Franklin 54.1% 45.9%
3 Hamilton 47.0% 53.0%
4 Montgomery 50.6% 49.4%
5 Summit 56.8% 43.2%
6 Lucas 60.1% 39.9%
7 Stark 50.7% 49.3%
8 Butler 33.7% 66.3%
9 Lorain 56.2% 43.8%
10 Mahoning 62.9% 37.1%
11 Lake 48.7% 51.3%
12 Trumbull 61.9% 38.1%
13 Warren 27.6% 72.4%
14 Clermont 29.1% 70.9%
15 Medina 42.9% 57.1%
16 Delaware 33.6% 66.4%
17 Licking 37.9% 62.1%
18 Greene 38.5% 61.5%
19 Portage 53.2% 46.8%
20 Clark 48.8% 51.2%
21 Fairfield 36.6% 63.4%
22 Wood 46.4% 53.6%
23 Richland 39.9% 60.1%
24 Wayne 38.2% 61.8%
25 Miami 34.0% 66.0%
26 Geauga 39.5% 60.5%
27 Columbiana 47.6% 52.4%
28 Allen 33.3% 66.7%
29 Ashtabula 53.3% 46.7%
30 Tuscarawas 44.1% 55.9%
31 Erie 53.4% 46.6%
32 Muskingum 42.3% 57.7%
33 Jefferson 52.5% 47.5%
34 Scioto 47.8% 52.2%
35 Hancock 29.0% 71.0%
36 Belmont 53.0% 47.0%
37 Sandusky 43.8% 56.2%
38 Ross 44.7% 55.3%
39 Washington 41.6% 58.4%
40 Marion 40.7% 59.3%
41 Athens 63.7% 36.3%
42 Lawrence 43.9% 56.1%
43 Seneca 40.8% 59.2%
44 Knox 36.6% 63.4%
45 Darke 30.0% 70.0%
46 Huron 41.6% 58.4%
47 Allen 34.5% 65.5%
48 Ottawa 48.0% 52.0%
49 Pickaway 37.7% 62.3%
50 Auglaize 25.8% 74.2%
51 Shelby 28.6% 71.4%
52 Union 29.6% 70.4%
53 Fulton 37.6% 62.4%
54 Crawford 35.8% 64.2%
55 Logan 32.1% 67.9%
56 Preble 34.7% 65.3%
57 Mercer 24.7% 75.3%
58 Brown 36.1% 63.9%
59 Putnam 23.4% 76.6%
60 Champaign 37.1% 62.9%
61 Highland 33.6% 66.4%
62 Clinton 29.3% 70.7%
63 Williams 34.9% 65.1%
64 Defiance 37.8% 62.2%
65 Madison 35.7% 64.3%
66 Guernsey 43.7% 56.3%
67 Morrow 35.4% 64.6%
68 Coshocton 42.6% 57.4%
69 Perry 48.1% 51.9%
70 Henry 34.0% 66.0%
71 Van Wert 27.7% 72.3%
72 Jackson 39.7% 60.3%
73 Carroll 45.1% 54.9%
74 Gallia 38.4% 61.6%
75 Hardin 36.6% 63.4%
76 Hocking 47.1% 52.9%
77 Pike 47.9% 52.1%
78 Adams 35.9% 64.1%
79 Fayette 37.0% 63.0%
80 Holmes 24.0% 76.0%
81 Wyandot 33.8% 66.2%
82 Meigs 41.3% 58.7%
83 Paulding 36.8% 63.2%
84 Harrison 47.0% 53.0%
85 Monroe 55.3% 44.7%
86 Morgan 43.2% 56.8%
87 Noble 40.8% 59.2%
88 Vinton 45.0% 55.0%

[Carolab]

35. You don't know this is true.

"Kerry did not win a single precinct in Clermont county in 2004."

Allowing for the DISTINCT probability the election was rigged--how do we know he didn't?

[autorank]

36. Depends on how you "know" what you "know"...

Electile Dysfunction a go go!

"Did not win a single precinct" is the "know" statement here referencing the official record. Compared to 2004, Hackett is positively kicking ass. But what happened.

The table in Post 27 is pure gold, IMHO. Strange brew, don't you think.

[tommcintyre]

53. kick - In tribute to his tremendous contributions - WHY??? :( n/t

[bleever]

54. Kicking for truth, justice, and TIA's invaluable work.