I find it incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical that....

[TruthIsAll]

I find it incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical that because I have analyzed the original data source, naysayers automatically assume that I'm biased to Kerry due to party loyalty, but in actuality they are the ones jumping to conclusions and making assumptions concerning the data's legitimacy because of their apparent lack of understanding that, since the media has refused to release the data, in order to determine the truth we must use the data that was initially funded and collected by the media, for which we now have and always will have access.

[Al-CIAda]

1. Nevermind them, keep on keepin-on. Thanks - eom

[molly]

2. You are doing a great job and illuminating most of us

I, for one, appreciate all of your hard work!

:yourock:

[Darknyte7]

3. That's what naysayers do...

Up is down, in is out, right is wrong, black is white, up is down...

In the words of the Great Jay-Z:

"A wise man told me don't argue with fools
Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who..." - "The Takeover"

Keep doing what your doing man.

[Stevepol]

4. What difference does it make who you're biased toward?

If your facts are legitimate, who cares? I might ask, tho, if you might publish some footnotes to the great post you had recently "You can believe Bush won if..." And you had about 9 statements of fact regarding the exit polls vs actual results etc. I've been passing that around hither and yon, but where would I go to find the source of each of your statements? I believe you, TruthIsAll, but what if somebody confronts me and claims my facts are wrong?

Incidentally, keep up the good work and don't get discouraged because it seems nobody is listening or doing anything.

[TruthIsAll]

8. I have always included the math functions in my probability posts.

For each statement in the list that you are referring to, you can find the post which proves the calculation.

I have always made it a point to display analyses and formulas in full, unlike others who display derision, but not formulas, in rebuttal.

Two Excel functions handle the probabilities:

1) The Normal distribution
2) The Binomial distribution.

Check out my posts and you will see how I use them.

[Salomonity]

46. Those don't apply

You can only use those statistical formulas if you have a RANDOM sample. Exit polls aren't a random sample. First, because the sampled individuals are clustered, and more importantly, because the precincts probably are not representative.

Also, there's the differential response problem--if more-eager Dems talked to pollsters even slightly more often than repubs, the poll's no good.

I'm sorry, but trying to do this sort of analysis on bad data makes no sense. This exit-poll analysis just makes it look like the left doesn't understand mathematics.

[TruthIsAll]

60. Mitofksky/Edison disagree with you. Read the notes at the bottom..

You are late to the party.
Your talking points have been totally discredited.
Others have tried, unsuccessfully, to build the same strawmen.
Even the Mystery Pollster can't refute my analysis.
What makes you think you can?

MARGIN OF ERROR: 1.0%
ACCORDING TO THE GUYS WHO DID THE POLL
SEE THE NOTES.

RANDOM-SELECTED SAMPLE:
ACCORDING TO THE GUYS WHO DID THE POLL
SEE THE NOTES.

13,047 POLLED.
ACCORDING TO THE GUYS WHO DID THE POLL
SEE THE NOTES.

I CALCULATED THE MOE: 1/SQRT(13047) = 0.87%
THEY SAY 1.0%.
SEE THE NOTES.

YOU BETTER QUIT NOW.
SEE THE NOTES.

TOOTPASTE.TUBE
CAT.BAG

[tritsofme]

61. This is what Mitofsky says:

How do you select sample precincts?

The polling places were selected as a stratified probability sample of each state. The purpose of stratification is to group together precincts with similar vote characteristics. A recent past election was used to identify all the precincts as they existed for that election. The total vote in each precinct and the partisan division of the vote from this past race are used for the stratification. In addition, counties are used for stratifying the precincts. The total vote also is used to determine the probability of selection. Each voter in a state has approximately the same chance of being selected in the sample.

[TruthIsAll]

62. I'll stick with the operative notes, thank you. n/t

.

[tritsofme]

63. So you're telling me you take the word of some obscure WaPo graphic

over Mitofsky's own site?

http://www.exit-poll.net/faq.html#a8

If you say so...

[electropop]

13. Standard GOP tactic: attack the messenger

when you can't attack the facts.

[madison2000]

5. TIA you're the best, we just ignore the rest!

:thumbsup:

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

6. Fuck them. TIA, you have done a lot to show us

how things just don't add up in this election. Your work is hard, thorough and outstanding. It is appreciated, and those of us who can see what you are doing know what an asset you are. Thanks for your hard work.

:yourock:

[understandinglife]

7. As I see it, you are accomplishing at least four critical objectives:

1. You are doing the analysis that needs doing;

2. You are providing an opportunity for legitimate peer-review and have been responsive to it;

3. You have placed no restrictions on dissemination; you have not "pushed" it yourself, beyond posting here: and you have encouraged others to send it to all who should have an interest;

4. You are providing an endless source of entertainment and enlightment as to the extremes of foolishness and the types of bs that everyone needs to be prepared to address.

Thank you.

Peace.

We will in_DEED prevail.

[euler]

26. Referencing "legitimate peer-review,"

how do you define legitimate ?

Also

<snip>

4. You are providing an endless source of entertainment and enlightment as to the extremes of foolishness and the types of bs that everyone needs to be prepared to address."

</snip>

Here, I think there has been an oversight. I haven't seen a strategy here on DU on how to counter the expert witnesses that will be brought out to testify for the other side. It is these experts that "everyone needs to be prepared to address", not trolls, freepers and fakes.

It shouldn't be too difficlt to make educated gueses on who the other side will rely on as expert witnesses, and what they are going to say under oath. Someone needs to come up with the tactic we will use to defend our arguments. The tactics for defending arguments here on DU won't work well in court.

[Machiavelli05]

50. Exactly!

Except we dont need to worry about how to counter expert witnesses - hopefully the lawyers on the suit will be knowledgable and clever enough.

[Chi]

9. The naysayers arn't interested in Truth.

Most of us here are.
Thanx for all your posts.

Don't let them bait ya.

A form letter answer might work well, like...

I use the best info I have.
It is my understanding that my info is accurate.
If you have more accurate info, or proof that my info is inaccurate, I would really like to read it.
Thanx in Advance

[Wilms]

10. Truth is all, for some. For others, it's occaisionally a pain in the ass.

So they wave it, and worse.

You think "freepers" have the market cornered on denial, refusing logical arguments, knee-jerk flame throwing, etc?

[Not a Sheep]

11. Taking your comments one at a time.........

"I find it incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical that because I have analyzed the original data source, naysayers automatically assume that I'm biased to Kerry due to party loyalty.."

Personally I don't see how anyone can call your analysis of the data biased (not that I'e actually read people saying that). Numbers don't lie. I think your analysis of the the data is fine. ANyone could do it and get the same results.

"...in actuality they are the ones jumping to conclusions and making assumptions concerning the data's legitimacy because of their apparent lack of understanding that, since the media has refused to release the data, in order to determine the truth we must use the data that was initially funded and collected by the media.. "

Because I did not want to jump to conclusions and make assumptions (as you say above), I asked in another thread if we knew the data had ben confirmed as legit and I got attacked. In fact you replied and told me it had been leaked. I again asked, so it's been confirmed as the real data? Again I was attacked by other forum members and you simply refused to answer.

Why didn't you simply tell me in the begining that no, it hadn't been confirmed and the media has refused to the release the data (as you say above)?

[merh]

16. Your question was answered over and over again. You just

didn't like the way the answer was provided. I read those posts and you were provided an answer, the media won't release the info, some of the info used by TIA was leaked, what is so hard to understand. I have been reading your constant attempts to provoke not just TIA, but many other posters on DU and I politely ask you to stop trying to pick fights. If you want to fight, go over to another forum or to GD or GD Politics. You are bound to find someone to argue with you there.

Stop trying to provoke people, it is not nice. :mad:

[keepthemhonest]

19. hey merh

looks like we have something in common.arrrgh:mad:

[merh]

33. Tired of the folks bringing up crap from other threads and

not paying attention to the replies that have been provided. Certain folks just want to start things. How boring! :boring: and how frustrating! :argh:

Thanks for understanding! It is nice to share! ;-) We have to keep a united front and protect the folks that are willing to work and provide us with the truth! :grouphug:

[keepthemhonest]

36. exactly

he said this and then I said this and blah blah blah:cry:

Keep an eye on em merh.Good job.

[Not a Sheep]

25. Actually, I was simply asking TIA a question above since he has...

... brought this up again.

I would answer the other things you've brought up in your post but I want to try and stick to my post above and not be dragged into an argument once again.


--------------------------
Feel free to send me a private message if you have anything to say to me personally however. That way we can try and keep the Forum as clean as possible.

[fooj]

12. I want to be a giant hemorrhoid if truth is a pain in the ass!! Way to go!

Thanks for hanging tough through all of this, TIA!

"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-Orwell



WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???:think: :think: :think:

[keepthemhonest]

17. Hey fooj

go figure eh?Look who showed up for dinner?

I have a simple question.Can you naysayers get lost?

These simple questions were apparently already answered yesterday and the naysayer was completely content with the one persons opinion.still not sure what the credentials of that Duer's post so credible to the naysayer.Maybe because it is what the naysayer wants to hear.

Keep up the good work TIA.



PEOPLE WHO UNDERTSTAND MATH GET IT and THE REST ARE IN DENIAL.

[fooj]

20. You have no idea how tempted I was...

NO FREE MEALS HERE!! You, of course, are always welcome at my table! :pals: I've made a conscience decision to focus ALL OF MY ENERGY ON THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF OUR NOBLE AND JUST FIGHT!!! Truth will be our most effective weapon! Rock On!


WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???:think: :think: :think:

[keepthemhonest]

27. LOL

Here is an idea,everytime you are annoyed with naysayers go to this PDA site and email the senators.It only takes a minute and it turns a negative into a positive for us in the good fight.

http://www.pdamerica.org

[fooj]

52. most excellent!!!!

Like the positive "flip-floppin"...ha ha! Think it's a great idea!


WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???:think: :think: :think:

[donkeyotay]

14. Biased??? Our whole country is one big pro-bidness-as-usual bias

No matter how small the voice in the wilderness, the mind-guards call for everyone to take one more step to the right.

I think the attacks on you show the the right is afraid that people might turn to statistics as a reality check. Why, consider that just after we allegedly re-elected the Chimperor, polls showed negative approval ratings for bush, people not approving of the war, the direction of the country, opposed to changes in social security and opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade... but they voted for more of the same. hmmm.

If bush wanted legitimacy, they should have had a fair and transparent election. They didn't, and I, for one, don't find the result very believable.

[Old Mouse]

15. This whole affair is awash in irony

but please believe your unselfish efforts are appreciated.

[mamalone]

18. Don't get drawn into conflict

with these people. Most of us here admire you and the work you are doing. As I tell my kids... *Someone* has to be the mature one, let it be you.:-)

[fooj]

22. Well said!!!

Welcome to DU!!!B-)


WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???:think: :think: :think:

[Pathwalker]

21. Hi, TIA!

I just wanted to say HI!, and offer this, :grouphug:

Thanks for everything you do!

[Cadence]

23. The media is biased to support

of their manufactured numbers, why aren't they as upset about that? The work you do speaks for itself, the truth is in the numbers.

[Broken Acorn]

24. Dude, you're awesome

The numbers don't lie, only people.

TIA, I read every one of your original posts and I have a great respect for your passion with numbers.

I am a partial math guy myself, but nowhere near your experience.

Keep up the great work, because the more you shed light on all of us, the harder it will be for the 'naysayers' to refute the truth.

[Mistwell]

28. It's your language

TIA, I don't think you are biased in your analysis because you analyzed the original data source. I just find you biased in the language you use in your analysis. When you repeatedly use words like "conclusively" and "certainly" and "proves" and "absolutely" and "clearly" and other language implying 100% certainty, I see massive bias.

Because you know, I know, and everyone (should) know that we do NOT have sufficient data to draw a conclusion with 100% certainty. Our data is incomplete. The amount of data missing is well beyond the margin of error. Therefore, there is NO way to have 100% certainty based on the exit poll data we have alone.

There is plenty of reason to suspect fraud without exagerating. There is plenty of evidence of fraud without misrepresenting the exit poll data as more complete than it is. The exit poll data we have is additional evidence of fraud, but alone it is not conclusive of fraud.

If this were a discussion of a non-political nature, I strongly suspect you would agree with me on this. If we were looking at a lab sample that was as incomplete as the exit poll data we have, I strongly suspect you would not be claiming we could make 100% certain conclusions about the sample.

I know you think I am a naysayer (though I am not - at least not on the issue of fraud), and I'm sure you think I am a hypocrite as well for challenging your views while still believing that fraud took place, but really I feel I am the consistent one here. If the Bush folks were making claims like "80% of the data PROVES Bush won" I would be consistent in telling them they are wrong as well. Because, if your handle is correct and Truth Is All, then I am the one supporting the most important thing, by remaining truthful to the mandates of scientific analysis.

[TruthIsAll]

30. Please cite the posts where I allegedly used that language...

When did I ever say 100% "certainty"?
When did I ever say "absolutely"?
When did I ever say "conclusively"?

I have said 1 out of 13.5 trillion are the odds that 16 states would deviate beyond the exit poll MOE to Bush..

I have said the odds of 86 out of 88 touch screens turning Kerry votes to Bush votes as "close to zero as you get get".

You can attempt to refute my analysis with your own analysis.
But don't misrepresent what I have said.
Don't put words in my mouth.

[SicTransit]

34. Here is an example:

"I have said 1 out of 13.5 trillion are the odds that 16 states would deviate beyond the exit poll MOE to Bush."

You forget to give the "ifs". Like "If it is assumed that each deviation is an independent event". And "If it is assumed that the methodology of the exit polls was correct". And "If it is assumed that raw exit polls can be relied upon to make predictions about election results."

[TruthIsAll]

35. Oh, I see. Sic Transit Gloria n/t

.

[Mistwell]

38. How about your new posts

Where you declare "THE CNN NATIONAL EXIT POLLS PROVE KERRY WON!"

Or "BREAKING. WASHINGTON POST DECLARES KERRY WON!"

Both titles are INCREDIBLY misleading. The CNN poll did not "prove" Kerry won. There is an argument that you have made from the data released in their analysis of the preliminary poll...but it isn't "Proof".

The "breaking" news is not "breaking", but in fact very old news and your own analysis. Nor did the Washington Post "delcare Kerry won", but your own analysis of the Washington Post analysis of the preliminary exit poll "declares" that Kerry won.

Come on TIA...you KNOW you are using intentionally exagerated language, to the point that some of it is intentionally misleading. You know it is hyperbole. Who are you trying to kid here? Are you just that hard up for attention that you need to resort to these kind of tactics to get more people to read your posts? It might get you more attention in the short term. But long term this kind of stuff isn't good for your credibility.

How about you cut back on the exagerations and just post straight analysis without the emotional embellishments for a change. I think, in the long run, more people will believe in what you say if you do that, which means more people will hear the truth. And, isn't that all that matters, the Truth?

[TruthIsAll]

43. And you actually believe them? Very gullible. No sense of humor.

Is that your best shot?
To say I'm intentionally misleading?
Try to convince DUers of that.

Grasping at straws to dent my credibility at DU, aren't you?

And don't expect me to change my style just because you dissaprove.
If you don't like it, put me on your ignore list.

Or is something else bothering you?

[Mistwell]

44. I *AM* A DU'er!

Look, I may be a somewhat newer poster, but I *AM* a DU'er, and your putting ME off. I'm not trying to convince any others to be be put off by you...you're doing that all on your own.

Nor am I trying to dent your credibility...I'm asking you to do a very small thing to drastically IMRPOVE your credibility.

The thing that is bothering me is that I *LIKE* your analysis...I just don't like your use of outrageous exagerations to get people to read your analysis, and your hyberbolic conclusions to get people fired up.

It's better to tell people the truth up front then to mislead them to get them enthusiastic.

If something is persuasive evidence but not "proof", say so. If there are holes in your analysis that you are aware of, say so. If something is not quite as certain as you would like, say so. We're adults. We can take it. The truth is more important than cheerleading.

[TruthIsAll]

45. You are quite innocent. Headline grabbers are very common at DU.

The point is:

DID THEY READ IT?
IS IT TRUE?
DID KERRY WIN?

You want absolute proof?

THIS IS NOT A COURTROOM.
I AM NOT A PROSECUTOR.

I AM JUST POINTING TO A LITTLE HARMLESS SCREEN SHOT FROM THE WASHINGTON POST WHICH PUTS THE LIE TO MANY STRAWMEN WHICH WERE PUT FORTH BY YOUR FELLOW TAG-TEAMERS.

IF YOU KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT CHARACTERISTIC WEIGHTS, IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS TO YOU, AS IT IT IS TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF DUERS, THAT THIS "MISLEADING" SCREEN SHOT SHOOTS HOLES IN ALL THE STRAWMEN.

[Mistwell]

58. Tag teamers?

"The point is: DID THEY READ IT?"

No, that is not the point. It is not the point for you to hype your topics with outrageous statements just to trick people into reading your posts. If you think that IS the point, I'd like to know why.

"IS IT TRUE?"

It is NOT in fact true that "THE CNN NATIONAL EXIT POLLS PROVE KERRY WON!" or "BREAKING. WASHINGTON POST DECLARES KERRY WON!", among the dozens of other hyperbolic statements you have made recently. In fact, both those example statements of yours were intentionally misleading. And, that IS the topic, at least of this part of the thread.

"DID KERRY WIN?"

I think so. I hope so. I don't know for sure, at least not yet. Did you think posting your misleading titles to get people to read your posts would make a Kerry win more assured?

"You want absolute proof?"

I sure do. But I would settle for simply not intentionally misleading language by folks concerning this topic.

"THIS IS NOT A COURTROOM."

Nope. But, it IS statistics. And if you are going to post analysis about statistics, you give yourself an air of objectivity. It's not as strong a requirement as the courtroom perhaps, but it does requre a lot higher standard than the norm. And yet, as well demonstrated and so far not refuted, you have used outrageous subjectivity in coloring your analysis of those statistics while still shielding yourself in the air of objectivity.

"I AM NOT A PROSECUTOR."

You're the next best thing to it, given you have taken it on yourself to prosecute an objective statistical analysis of the exit poll data. And, also given that you imply higher knowledge about "CHARACTERISTIC WEIGHTS" in statistical analysis, you certainly appear to be putting yourself forth as some level of expert on the subject. So, isn't it fair that others hold you to the higher standard that you seem to be putting on yourself with your words and actions?

"I AM JUST POINTING TO A LITTLE HARMLESS SCREEN SHOT FROM THE WASHINGTON POST WHICH PUTS THE LIE TO MANY STRAWMEN WHICH WERE PUT FORTH BY YOUR FELLOW TAG-TEAMERS."

I don't have any tag teamers. I just value the truth, and I would like to get at the truth, wherever it might lead.

In addition, I don't think you actually understand the word strawman (and it's one of the most overused words on the net these days it seems, so not surprising). It's not a strawman if it is an argument that is actually on-point, but flawed or outright wrong. You are claiming to "shoot holes" in strawmen with your evidence, when that wouldn't actually be possible if the claims were actually strawmen (since you would have to be using something that is itself off-topic to do it...unless you are claiming that the exit poll data itself is not the issue, but a side issue meant to distract attention from the real issue).

"IF YOU KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT CHARACTERISTIC WEIGHTS, IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS TO YOU, AS IT IT IS TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF DUERS, THAT THIS "MISLEADING" SCREEN SHOT SHOOTS HOLES IN ALL THE STRAWMEN."

I know plenty about weighting statistics, though I have no idea how my knowledge compares to yours on the subject...given you have not bothered to even hint at your own level of knowledge on the subject.

I didn't call your screenshot misleading. I called your colored, subjective analysis misleading. And you damn well knew that, because we've already been over that ground and you quoted the relevant sections back to me and none of them were from the screenshot.

By the way, if you are going to state that something pokes holes in some claims others made, you might want to let us know what those other claims are. Simply fiating "I win" over all possible contentions to the contrary isn't very effective in communicating. Maybe you should try "I win, I Win, I WIN, INFINITY!!!" next time. Maybe that would be more convincing.

I'm being snarky to you, I know. :P But only because you've been snarky to me lately in this thread, and I find that the rules of negotiation work best when you reflect the attitude of the other person. If you don't like it, try being more respectful, and I will reflect that attitude back. :pals: If you don't care, well then, I'm game. :evilgrin:

[TruthIsAll]

64. You can't refute the facts, so you criticize the style. Good.

I don't give a damn what you say about my style.

As long as you agree that the facts are right, I'm satisified.

This is not about me.
Neither is it about you.

ONLY THE TRUTH MATTERS.

[nashville_brook]

29. they are weenies

[Verve]

31. Agree with you TruthIsAll! A True Democracy should have no party lines

when it comes to wanting fair and transparent elections.

[The Gigmeister]

32. I think that is the longest sentence I've ever seen...

And it's a 99.95% probability it IS the longest I've ever seen!

[autorank]

37. TIA, a compliment: That sentence is worthy of Max Weber!!!

[Carolab]

39. Bah! You're just crunching numbers!

And doing a bang-up job!

[bleever]

40. Since I forgot to wish you Happy New Year,

Happy New Year, TIA;
Promise us you'll always stay
When hounded by the Knights of Nay
Cuz we ignore them anyway.

:thumbsup:

ed: sp

[Bill Bored]

41. Hey TIA, reading this post, I don't know what's worse:

run-on statistics or run-on sentences! :)
(Just kidding.)

[Pooka Fey]

42. TIA - Love your work, as always. "Sic transit gloria"

I had to look this up: "Sic transit gloria mundi" for any other curious DUer, means "So the glory of this world passes away" or "worldly things do not last". I thought this was an especially ironic and coincidental moment, in your reply to posts 28, 34 & 38 - since one poster is called Sictransit. I felt that these particular posters represent educated people who love to use language to obscure knowledge. Thanks for your CLARITY and commitment to pure information, TIA. To my mind, there is no human discipline as clear, or as immune to corruption, as mathematics, though I have more trouble understanding math than any other academic discipline. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[txindy]

47. Not everyone is predisposed to judging your analysis fairly

People with a vested interest in seeing that your conclusions are denigrated and marginalized are rather busy these days, aren't they? Many without such an interest are simply afraid of the implications of the results. It's a bit like taking the red pill in 'The Matrix' - there's no going back to the 'Ignorance is Bliss' (such as it is) stage. Disappointment in a perceived loss is sometimes easier to handle than outrage over deliberate fraud/theft and horror at what it signifies for the future.

[mgr]

48. You no longer have the benefit of the doubt

1.) When only addressing the exit poll for this election, you obtain the benefit of the doubt because the methodology and sample design were unknown, and past outcomes were not known. This was based on the analogous reasoning that exit polls demonstrated fraud elsewhere

2.) No one has provided any of the numerical results from the Ukraine as evidence. (Don't go to Germany please, since they have not overturned an election based in part on exit polling)

3.) Past exit polls for presidential elections show a bias within the methodology. Results characterize Democratic party support well, but does not characterize Republican party support well.

4.) The recent report here from the WA hand recount indicated that Gregorie (and by inference Kerry) performed below exit poll expectations.

You need to stop defending your argument since is has at least two sources of refutation (and possibly more coming in)and one questionable key assumption. To continue to do so suggests you are not the disinterested investigator looking for truth, but a biased Democrat. Take it for the fruitful hypothesis it was, and accept it.

I have already argued elsewhere at DU that the appropriate technique to evaluate exit polls is to take the election day outcome (without absentee ballots and early votes) and do a goodness of fit test with the raw exit poll results. If the exit poll fails the goodness of fit test, then you may have irregularities of such magnitude that you may start looking around for intent.

I will suggest that by inspection, the sample number and slight variation between the national exit poll and the total population (election outcome), that voting irregularities may not be evident. But as a test, try it with the Ukraine election results that everyone cites as well. Maybe you will have something of interest to report.


Mike

[TruthIsAll]

53. Then for goodness of fit sake, do it yourself. If you dare. n/t

.

[mgr]

68. What parameters do you think are appropriate

It sounds as if you may not have the wherewithal to perform this action, I doubt that I have for about two weeks. As I have stated before, I am posting at work, and cannot contact other governmental entities without raising suspicion.

I doubt that much of the data necessary for a precise analysis is available, but I may be able to approximate to the nearest 100,000. I think we can presume that chi square or G test may be most appropriate, I don't think we need to do the K-S test.

I don't know what luck I may have getting absentee break downs for all 51 voting governments, but would an approximation using Texas and California do to at least address the order of magnitude that absentee ballots may have played?

I may also consider running analysis or variance for kicks.

The other problem is the exit polling being a double approximation, but I will see what I can do with that. Any suggestions are welcome.

Mike

[Machiavelli05]

49. BREAKING NEWS ON WASHINGTONPOST.COM - KERRY WON

ring any bells?

[Brundle_Fly]

55. welcome to Irony 101

you didn't get that?

crystal clear here, keep it up TIA.

[flintdem]

51. "Original Data" not what you think

Slate and Mickey Kraus are reporting that the exit poll numbers were weighted wrong by Mitofsky and company at 7:30pm (and perhaps even earlier in the day?):

" As late as 7:33 P.M. on Election Day, Mitofsky and Lenski were apparently telling their clients (NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, etc.) that after "weighting" Kerry was beating Bush by 9 points among women and losing by only 4 among men. By 1:24 P.M. the next day revised results revealed that, in fact, Kerry won women by only 3 points while Bush won men by 11 points. Whoops! ... It wasn't the dumb bloggers who didn't understand on Nov. 2 that they were being leaked "complex displays intended for trained statisticians," as Mitofsky would have it--or the dumb Kerry aides and dumb Bush aides who believed the same numbers. It was that the weighted results Mitofsky's statisticians put out were full of it! ..."

If they weighted the data to increase the percentage of Kerry women voters and/or decrease bush male voters, they did more than adjust the gender percentages. They may have also weighted by party, race, etc. It leaves suspect all of the analysis of the so-called "unweighted data".

Here is the slate article: http://slate.msn.com/id/2111460 /

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/pdfs/Mitofsky4zonedata/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

[TruthIsAll]

56. National. State. Data. Downloaded. Toothpaste. Tube. Cat. Bag.

Kerry wins at every stage:

state exit polls
2pm sample
4pm sample
8pm

National exit poll
7:33pm (1127)
12:22pm (1347-final)

All polls confirm: Kerry won.

To scatter the votes in Cyberspace is one thing. To jerry-rig the national and state exit polls for hundreds of charactersitics is something else.

That is, until they were mixed with the rigged votes early Wed. AM to make it appear that the exit polls were right after all.

Sorry. Slate and Mickey are spinning.

DOES NOT PASS SMELL TEST.
THEY WERE CAUGHT RED-HANDED.
THEY CAN'T RELEASE THE RAW DATA.
IT WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO A CONFESSION.

[RaulVB]

54. Hypocritical is an understatement (n/t)

[corbett]

57. They Can't Handle The Truth!

[GetTheRightVote]

65. Good comparison, I really like it, coping photo

:kick:

[super simian]

59. Just wonder...

...what the relentless naysayers on this thread are getting out of it? Hey! Bush didn't win, don't get over it! What are you doing here?

[saracat]

66. Do you DO anything with this info TIA? Have you gotten it to Conyers or

someone? I don't see how most of us can really do much with your work but forward it. Does Conyers have it? Thanks for all you do. Your work is awesome.

[earth mom]

67. Don't get mad...

get even!

TIA-I think your posts are great...Keep on posting them!

I know for a fact that the more you prove "them" wrong, the madder "they" get. Get your satisfaction from knowing that you are on the right path and don't let them win in their never ending attempts to steer you off of it.

HTH! :)

[GOPBasher]

69. Thanks for doing what you're doing, Truth. And nevermind their bull. nt