(Hands Pundy a roll of tinfoil)

Quote from: jgantsSorry, but correlation still != causation.

My hypothesis: Diebold machines are more likely to be installed in richer precincts than poorer ones.  Hillary probably has more appeal among the wealthy Democrats than the poor ones.  Therefore, precincts with Diebold machines are more likely to vote for Hillary.

That's an interesting theory; however, the results seemed to show that more affluent women in New Hampshire ended up voting more for Obama, whereas it was women in the lower income brackets that ended up voting for Hillary.

RPGPundit

I think simply looking at statistics can't prove deliberate vote-tampering - only looking at the actual software and physically examining the machines can prove that. It could be that the Diebold machines have an influence, but not a deliberate one: the experience of voting electronically may be tangibly different from casting a paper ballot, and thus have a subtle and not entirely predictable psychological effect on people who may not have decided precisely who they were going to vote for when they went to cast their ballot. Writing an "X" on a piece of paper may inspire a certain amount of thoughtfulness - it's like signing a contract, or taking a multiple choice test in school - whereas casting a vote electronically may feel more relaxed, like taking money out of an ATM machine or something. It could be that swing voters tended to vote for Obama if they took the time to stare at a blank ballot paper and consider where to put their "X", whereas presented with a list of names on a screen they tended to push the one for "Clinton".

Ok, as we are closing out here, its time for the predictions to be made:

What do each of you think: will there be a US-Iranian war next year?

RPGPundit

There will not be an invasion or occupation; the US has been burned once by that, and with Donald Rumsfeld gone there's less voices loudly supporting the idea that a high-tech low-personnel army can handle an occupation. There might be some sort of air war to take out the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, but I find that highly unlikely; there isn't the political will to back it up, and the CIA's latest report has left the "OMG Iranian nukes!" line in tatters.

If anything, Bush currently seems to be trying to get Israel and/or the various Sunni nations of the Middle East to deal with Iran instead.

Smartass answer: Only if a Republican is elected...  

Real answer: I doubt it.  Bush MIGHT try and force one this year (he's doing his best to use the speedboat thing as the 2008 model of the Gulf of Tonkin), but it's obvious to everyone else that our forces are already stretched too thin, and that more people are worried about the economy than Iran.

No, but it'll be fun to watch the leftwingnuts keep hoping for one.

Quote from: jgantsReal answer: I doubt it.  Bush MIGHT try and force one this year (he's doing his best to use the speedboat thing as the 2008 model of the Gulf of Tonkin)...

Really. REALLY?

Ok, so that's the end of this Political Panel. Thanks to everyone for participating.

Join me at the next political panel, when my guests will be an old-school Cylon from the original Battlestar Galactica, the frozen head of Walt Disney, and Joyce Dewitt from "Three's Company".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, so that's the end of this Political Panel. Thanks to everyone for participating.

Join me at the next political panel, when my guests will be an old-school Cylon from the original Battlestar Galactica, the frozen head of Walt Disney, and Joyce Dewitt from "Three's Company".

Now I'm wondering which one of those I'm meant to be...