Exit Polls Reveal that Every Single Bush Voter from 2000 Voted Again in 04

[chorti]

The final fixed exit poll shows how the electorate of 2004 broke down compared to 2000. And what it reveals is that in order for Bush to win, a virtually impossible thing happened: every single Bush voter from 2000 also went out and again voted in 2004. That is, no Bush voter passed away from 2000 to 2004 or for whatever reason, could not vote in 2004. It is perhaps the greatest electoral miracle that Karl Rove has ever performed!

Here are the numbers:

Total Votes, 2004
Bush ......... 60,934,251
Kerry ........ 57,765,291
Other ......... 1,105,242

Total ........119,804,784

The 'fixed' exit poll says that of these 120 million voters, 43 percent voted for Bush in 2000, 37 percent voted for Gore in 2000, 3 percent voted for Nader/Other in 2000, and 17 percent did not vote in 2000.

Translating this into numbers this means that of the 120 million voters in 2004, 51.5 million voted for Bush in 2000, 44.3 million voted for Gore in 2000, 3.6 million voted for Nader/Other in 2000, and 20.4 million did not vote in 2000. Sounds nice.

But in 2000, Bush received only 50,456,169 votes. So 102 percent of Bush's 2000 base returned to polls, compared to 87 percent of Kerry's base. This is impossible! And this is important, because the exit polls show that Kerry won new voters, Kerry won voters who did not vote in 2000 (54 to 45), and Kerry overwhelming won voters who voted for Nader or someone else in 2000 (71 to 21). Also, the exit poll shows that Bush and Kerry swapped about an equal number of voters in 2004 -- ten percent of Gore voters went for Bush in 2004 while nine percent of Bush (2000) voters went for Kerry in 2004.

So the only way that Bush won the election in 2004, was by having a better turnout of his base. His turnout was so good, that it was mathematically impossible! First, obviously some Bush voters passed away from 2000 to 2004. Let's be conservative and say that only 2 percent of Bush's 2000 voters died between 2000 and 2004 - that is, just over 1,000,000. That leaves us with at most 49,450,000 potential Bush-2000 voters. This means that even if every single Bush voter from 2000 returned to the polls in 2004, it could only be 41.3 percent of the electorate, not 43%. And even that assumption is highly unlikely.

The fixed exit polls are trying to convince of a Bush win based on a mathematical impossibility.

[KerryReallyWon]

1. Has this analysis been forwarded

to Rep Conyers and Cliff Arnebeck? Susan Truitt?

[many a good man]

2. Faith-based mathematics

As Jesus multiplied the loaves, KKKarl multiplied the votes...

[zann725]

47. Then well it matches their 'faith-based' budget...

same 'loave-crunching' there too.

[m.standridge]

3. Yeah--well remember that AP story about all those dead people

on the registered voter rolls?
It came out just before Christmas.
It was something like 100,000, just in the battleground states.
They were wondering, jokingly, if any of them ended up voting...

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. That why examining the absentee ballots and the poll books

is of the utmost importance.

[m.standridge]

12. so, see, some will argue

that means the exit polls were wrong, and let's forget this whole thing and get over it.
There really were all those extra votes for Bush, even though they couldn't actually speak to the exit pollsters!
Any "moderates" out there care to take me on on this?

[chorti]

17. no, this is using the exit poll data that was already fixed

to match the actual results. That is, this is using data that already was adjusted to account for actual results, i.e. "chatty" Democrats and "shy" Republicans.

[Verve]

4. Impossible! Republicans for Kerry would be one of the first of many

groups to say that Bush didn't get all his 2000 supporters back. Not even close!

Please make sure this info gets to Arnebeck and Conyers. I think Arnebeck's email is [e-mail].

[chorti]

9. to clarify ...

the exit poll does not say that all Bush voters from 2000 voted for him in 2004. Rather it is saying that more than ALL (102%) of Bush voters from 2000 returned to the polls in 2004 and that, of these, 91 percent voted for Bush and 9 percent voted for Kerry. It is not the 91 to 9 split that I am contending. Rather I am contending that Bush-2000 voters made up such a high percentage (43 percent) of the 2004 electorate.

My own best guess is that mathematically no more than 40 percent of the 2004 electorate could have been Bush-2000 voters. Even that would have been phenomenal!

[bj2110]

27. Hate to be devil's advocate here, but here's how the #'s actually break:

Based on current CNN exit poll data. Percentages assumed & adjusted to 1 decimal place in order to generate the backcheck of totals across the board both ways, i.e. 100% of the polled category and the total # of votes for each candidate. Numbers are in thousands.

2004 # Votes Represented by Returning Voters
(thou) Total Bush Gore Other None
TOTAL 119,804 51,516 44,327 3,594 20,367
BUSH 60,934 46,725 4,344 740 9,124
KERRY 57,765 4,533 39,762 2,534 10,937
OTHER 1,105 258 222 320 306


This actually shows that only 46.7 million voters who voted for Bush in 00 also voted for him in 04, although the % is higher than that of the Dems, 46.7/50.5 = 92.5% returning Bush vs. 39.8/51.0 = 78.0% returning Democratic. Not unreasonable at all. Of course, these are based on re-weighted and adjusted totals to match the actual vote. But in and of itself, I don't see anything conclusive.

Here are the adjusted candidate breakdown percentages:
2004 Exit Poll Results
Total Total % Bush % Gore % Other % None %
TOTAL 119,804 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
BUSH 60,934 50.9% 90.7% 9.8% 20.6% 44.8%
KERRY 57,765 48.2% 8.8% 89.7% 70.5% 53.7%
OTHER 1,105 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 8.9% 1.5%


Total Percentages:
Returning Voters from 2000
Bush Gore Other None Total
43% 37% 3% 17%
51,516 44,327 3,594 20,367 119,804

[chorti]

30. I don't mind a devil like you

who proves my point. BJ2110, in your last line you've got it - 43% of the voters in 2004 said that they voted for Bush in 2000. That would be 51,516,000 people, according to your calculations, which is about what I came up with.

I think you missed it in my post but only 50.5 million people voted for Bush in 2000. In other words, "102 percent of Bush voters from 2000 returned to the polls in 2004." Even the ones who died, RIP. All of them plus an extra one million out of thin air. It is not 92.5% as you suggest - it is 102%. Not all of them voted for Bush - that's not my point. My point is that the basis of the exit poll is impossible. No more than 40% of the voters could have been Bush-2000 voters, and if you carry out the math along the way, then Kerry wins the popular vote. Even using the 'fixed' exit poll.

[bj2110]

36. Ahh.. I see your point now.... but it's not impossible....

the 102 % figure could easily be adjusted down, considering the MOE of the poll and with accurate and complete rounding. Still, the largest adjustments we could make would only take the 102% down to 97% or 98%, while the Dem return could go up from 87% to 91% or 92%. There's still a 5% or 6% swing between # of returnng Bush voters vs. # of returning Gore voters. Not likely, but not impossible, either.

[skids]

38. MORE PROOF -- "they" could not have lied.

Thanks to the original poster, I've been posting this on relevant threads for the last two months now whenever the topic comes up, but apparently giving it it's own article was the only way to get a decent amount of feedback on it. (I was beginning to think people had me on ignore or something.)

Look at the U.S. mortality rates. Also adjust for the actual final number of voters:

how many people voted for President this year?

122188645

What's 43% of that?

122188645 * 0.43 = 52541117

OK, then how many people voted for Bush in 2000? What's that, you say? 50456002? My, my, now. That means 2 million extra people. National mortality would have brought that down by 3% over four years. So, MOE speaking, even with 100% of Bush2000 voters turning out, that 104% turnout, and with mortality factored in, that's 107% turnout. TIA, fire up your binomial distribution function? What's that, probably one in 1000?

The only way this could be wrong is if people lied. And the only ones in a position to lie about it and make the numbers work, were those who did *not* vote for Bush in 2000.

What's more likely in your mind -- that Gore2000 voters would switch, vote for Bush, and then would lie about their 2000 vote to exit pollsters, or that people told exit pollsters who they thought they voted for, but that their votes were not counted correctly?

Well, first let's see if the people that said they didn't vote last year were telling the truth:

105405100/122188645 = 86% At minimum, 14% of people who did voted in 2004 had not voted last year. Applying mortality again, that would make 17%. The "fixed" exit polls say 17% had not voted, which would
mean 100% of old voters returned, which is somewhat improbable to start with.

Keep in mind that these new voters didn't know who was going to win, and the general trend for liars would be to say they voted for the person who they think will win, or possibly for the person that they voted for in 2004. That should have generated lies for both Gore and Bush.

Let's do the numbers for Gore:
37% * 122188645 = 45209798 people saying they voted for Gore.
Adjust for mortality: 50999897 * 97% = 49469900 possible Gore voters.

It's extra 4.2 million Gore voters who would have had to have lied. The ones who voted for Kerry are very unlikely to lie. That would mean that almost as many "democrat defectors" would have lied about it than would have told the truth. This strains way past the bounds of credibility.

[chorti]

41. changing the weights throws the MOE off

Once you change the weighting of the poll, the whole thing, all the questions, need to be re-weighted. This can not be explained by the margin of error. Once you do the re-weighting, the reported results will be outside the margin of error of the exit poll. In other words, the national popular vote total is impossible. It is far outside the possible margin of error of the national exit poll survey.

Let's say that at most, 97 percent of Bush voters from 2000 returned to the polls in 2004, due to 2 percent passing away and another 1 percent who could/did not vote for some reason. This would mean that at most, 40.85% of the 2004 electorate were folks who voted for Bush in 2000, rather than the 43% used in the national weighting. This is a significant difference and means that the entire exit poll needs to be re-weighed. It would throw off all the questions, such as 'Are you a liberal, moderate, conservative?' etc.

And what does it do to the question of how folks voted in 2000? Let's split the 2.15% subtracted from Bush-2000 voter portion of the electorate, placing an additional 1 percent in the new voter category (those who didn't vote in 2000) and an additional 1.15% in the Gore-2000 category. (This seems like a conservative adjustment favoring Bush). Then we have the following, looking only at the Bush and Kerry portions:

How did you vote in 2000?
..............Portion of..........................Bush......Kerry
..............electorate....Bush...Kerry......partile....partile
Did Not Vote...18%........45%.....54%..... 0.081.... 0.097
Gore ...........38.15%.....10%.....90%..... 0.038.... 0.343
Bush ...........40.85%.....91%..... 9%..... 0.372.... 0.037
Other ........... 3%.........21%.....71%..... 0.006.... 0.021

Total ............................................... 0.497... 0.498

Kerry wins 49.8% to 49.7%. In other words, even in the best-case scenario for Bush, where he gets 97 percent of his 2000 voters to return to the polls in 2004 (but loses 9% to Kerry), he basically tied Kerry in the popular vote. With a margin of error of 1%, this would produce a range of -1.9 to +2.1 for Kerry over Bush.

The actual reported margin of 2.7 percentiles in favor of Bush falls well outside this margin. In fact it would produce a T-score of 3.33, which has a 0.09 percent probability of happening. This means that there is a less than one out of a thousand chance that the reported popular vote total is accurate. And this is using the "fixed" exit poll data which had already been adjusted in Bush's favor and using assumptions along the way that favor Bush.

[TruthIsAll]

54. Chorti, I shall pass the Number Crunching mantle to you.Great Work!

Another confirmation (not that we need it) but its a great, unique analysis.

But I think your odds of 1 out of 1000 are way to HIGH.

I assume you are familiar with my calculation based on the Red shift to Bush (16 states exceeding the MOE). None to Kerry.

************* 1 in 13.5 trillion *************

Maybe it falls somewhere in the middle, like 1 out of 7 Trillion

Kerry won.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. self-delete

.

[tridim]

6. Some more "No evidence of fraud" for all the Dem Senators

who are rolling over for King Dubya. Great work Chorti.

[baby_bear]

7. I wonder how this differs from what's going on in WA state

It just so happened that this popped into my inbox about two minutes ago:

Rossi, Republicans Reveal Voting Irregularities
State GOP leaders say it's clear something wrong with election
Last updated: Monday, January 03rd, 2005 03:13:47 PM

http://www.kvewtv.com/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=182791

Washington State Republican Party leaders say they've found 8400 more ballots cast than the number of voters registered in the state's five largest counties. State GOP Chairman Chris Vance says the mismatching numbers in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Clark and Kitsap are troubling.

Republican Dino Rossi won the first two counts in the governor's race, then lost a hand recount to Democrat Christine Gregoire by a mere 129 votes. Republicans are mulling a possible legal challenge to the election, and Vance says discrepancies like the ones they found so far are clear indications that things went wrong. County auditors have said it typically takes a while for election results to be reconciled with voter registration records.

</snip>

I don't understand any of this. Is this a matter of "reconciliation" in Washington and fraud nation-wide in Bush's name or what? I am totally confused. How will this ever get resolved?

b_b

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. When the SOS certifies the election

it means the the local SOE's have done their job and have verified every vote. If they did not properly verify every vote and certified the election anyway then they should face criminal charges.

[understandinglife]

11. Two dominoes are falling in WA State; here's a glimpse of ..

....what they look like as they started to tumble last week:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x208547

Peace.

"US tax $$$ fund exit polls to protect Ukrainian democracy: talk about out-sourcing!"

[Der Blaue Engel]

18. Wouldn't it be freakin' hi-larious

if they fully investigated these WA discrepancies and found that the extra votes were all Repubs?

[skids]

40. I have the canvass for King County, and that's bullcrap

...and I don't know where they are getting 8400 "extra voters". There are only a very few, mostly small, precincts with turnout more than the "Registered Voters" listed in the canvass, and I asked King County people about it and they said that "Registered Voters" was really "Active Voters", meaning it did not count those people legally allowed to vote, but who had not voted for several elections (new registrations are also considered "active".)

The newspaper may be talking about ballots that "turned up" during the recount and may just have their facts wrong and be saying "registered voters" when that's not what that complaint is about at all.

Anyone who wants to take a look at King County I posted some charts in this article here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=229854&mesg_id=229854

[TruthIsAll]

13. Chorti, you'll know you are on to something when the naysays come...

Get your fly-swatter ready.

[seabeyond]

14. hubby voted bush 2000, kerry 2004

a friend voted bush 2000, kerry 2004. there are two i know about. so they are wrong. go figure

[Imagevision]

15. Bush said the exit polls were all wrong!?!?!!!!!!!!!

[Botany]

16. A man called by God can expect mircales.

When is enough, enough?

Kerry Won!

and check this out. Even though Bob F. is sometimes over the top ......
every precinct in Ohio that used Opti Scan went for bush.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/10...

:kick:



We need just one Senator.

[chorti]

20. lucas county had optical scan

Kerry won big in Toledo and Lucas County which had optical scan. It was not so simple as that.

[Botany]

21. Not Counties ...... Precincts

:kick:

[mulethree]

24. bad link?

Israeli police/soldiers closing palestinean schools at random?

I think Bob F. has gotten it right more than the other fellow - Wasserman, who was repeating some 'cry wolf' kinda stuff on Democracy Now! recently.

[StephanieMarie]

19. I just sent it to KO n/t

[mdb]

22. I thought it was..

8% from Gore's voters went for Bush. Not ten percent.

[chorti]

31. perhaps in the preliminary exit poll

when they 'corrected' the exit poll, it was 10 percent. My point is that even using the corrected exit poll, Kerry wins the popular vote since there is an obvious error in the makeup of the poll. It is impossible that 43 percent of 2004 voters happened to vote for * in 2000.

[mdb]

45. I was just looking at

this post of Washington Post and they actually have a 2% difference. 10% of Bush voters going Kerry, and 8% of Gore voters going Bush. If you take a 1% switch from Repub to Dem of 50mil voters your looking at 500,000 voters leaving Bush. A 2% would be 1 mil leaving Bush. What gives because we all heard of many Repubs leaving Bush and voting Kerry this election. Wouldn't this prove it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=229251&mesg_id=229251

[mgr]

23. I must be missing something

Didn't Gore win the popular vote in 2000? I think there is typo with Bush's 2000 vote total.

That swap of votes is telling, since the magnitude of the change would favor Bush.

God, I hope this did not make it out, because there are some real problems with the numbers here.

Mike

[chorti]

32. yes, gore did win popular vote

Gore had 50.9 million votes to 50.5 million for Bush. But the 2004 exit poll says that only 87 percent of those 50.9 million Gore voters voted in 2004. That seems a little low but is possible. It also says that 102% of the 50.5 million Bush (2000) voters voted again in 2004 - mostly for Bush but 9% for Kerry. 102% is impossible. It's not even close to possible.

[elperromagico]

33. He's not saying that Gore won 44 million votes in 2000.

He's saying that, using the exit poll figures, 44 million of those who voted for Gore in 2000 voted in 2004.

Using figures from http://www.uselectionatlas.org, I get the following election results for 2000:

Bush: 50,460,110
Gore: 51,003,926

So, in other words, about 7.7 million people who voted for Gore in 2000 didn't show up at the polls on 2 November. Considering that turnout was very high last year, that's a bit odd in and of itself.

Conversely, all of Bush's 50 million voters from 2000 showed up to vote in 2004 - plus about 1.5 million who either claimed to have voted for him in 2000 and didn't, or somehow "magically" voted for him in a non-binding way... perhaps they voted for him for dogcatcher?

It's weird, no matter how you cut it.

[mgr]

49. Extrapolation that does not work.

Sorry about the previous post, I usually fact check and double check before I post, but was rushed to get my son. For some reason, I thought the total for Gore was below 50 million.

There are a number of peculiarities about the exit polls, that although the extrapolation is odd, suggest that maybe it should not have been done. From reviewing the pdfs at Scoop:

1. You have adjustments of the raw survey numbers to precinct numbers,

2. You have adjustments of adjusted numbers to election outcomes

I don't think you can do anything with them on a large scale.

Mike

[floridadem30]

25. That's strange since 10 people I know who voted for Bush in 2000 didn't

even vote this election, and the other 25 republicans I know voted democrat.

[rumpel]

26. Thanks, chorti. I wonder what happens, if we do the same analysis by State

[chorti]

35. no results by state but by regions, yes

This question is deleted on the state-by-state exit polls. So until the raw data is released we do not know. But it is included in the regional exit polls. We find Bush's turnout at or above 100% in nearly every region.
..............Bush 2000..............Gore 2000
..............voters who voted ....voters who voted
..............again in 2004..........again in 2004
Northeast.....101.4%...............85.6%
Midwest....... 99.8%................87.5%
South.........106.7%................87.1%
West...........100.0%...............84.3%

Funny how both the Midwest and West Bush figures were almost exactly 100%. There has been in-migration to the west and south so you would expect those numbers to be higher - seems true in the south but not in the west. If there is fraud in the western states it is most likely taking away Gore voters. In all other regions, it is most likely adding Bush votes. Based on the above, the margin between Bush and Gore voter turnout is least in the Midwest and most in the South. The Northeast is especially hard to believe.

But in all the regions, the 'fixed' exit poll results are based on a false premisis - that 100% or more of Bush's 2000 voters returned to the polls in 2004, dead or alive.

[bj2110]

28. I'm not sure I buy it... See post #27 above. nt

[bj2110]

29. kick... I hope somebody can prove me wrong....

[elperromagico]

34. Let's carry this math a bit further.

I haven't looked at the exit polls since November, and I'm too lazy this time of night to look at them now, so I'll take your numbers at face value. That way, if I'm wrong, I can always blame you. ;)

Total votes: 119,804,784

Bush 2000 voters: 51,516,057 (43%)
To Bush: 46,879,612 (91%)
To Kerry: 4,636,445 (9%)
Gore 2000 voters: 44,327,770 (37%)
To Bush: 4,432,777 (10%)
To Kerry: 39,894,993 (90%)
Nader/Other 2000 voters: 3,594,143 (3%)
To Bush: 754,770 (21%)
To Kerry: 2,551,841 (71%)
To Other: 287,532 (8%)
Didn't vote in 2000: 20,366,814 (17%)
To Bush: 9,165,066 (45%)
To Kerry: 10,998,080 (54%)
To Other: 203,668 (1%)

Let's add those up.

Bush: 61,232,225 (51.11%)
Kerry: 58,081,359 (48.48%)
Other: 491,200 (0.41%)

Unfortunately, that's pretty close to the official result. But of course, you're dealing with "adjusted" exit polls, correct?

No matter how you cut it, that 102% turnout figure is weird.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

39. Not as close. The numbers you are all using are out of date

The current Bush total = 62,040,003
The current Kerry total: 59,027,335 and the total vote was about 122.3 million

.43* 122.3 = 52.5 million (so we are already outside the realm of possibility)

http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.php?year=2004&f=1

[chorti]

42. thanks for the updated numbers

I will re-do the math. It makes the whole thing even more improbable.

[chorti]

51. Re-doing the math

43 percent of 122.6 million voters is 52.6 million, which is 2.14 million more than Bush's 50.46 million in 2000. Even if the actual weight is 42.6 percent, we are left with 52.1 million, which is still a 103 percent turnout.

If we instead use an actual 97% turnout of Bush voters, we now see that the maximum proportion of Bush-2000 voters among the 2004 electorate is 40.0 percent. This means that the exit poll had a weighing error of at least 6.5 percent (2.6 divided by 40.0). This level of error is simply unacceptable. And it means that the entire 'fixed' exit poll data is useless until it is again re-weighted.

And, if we multiply out the partiles, we have a final result of Kerry with 50.4% of the popular vote and Bush, 49.2%. The reported popular vote margin of 2.46 percent falls well outside of the expected range (-0.8 to +3.2). In fact, if 1% = MOE at a 95% level, then the reported popular vote has a T-score of 6.00 and a probability of 2.06 x 10 to the -9th. Or about a 1 in 500 million chance of occurring.

Can some statistician help me out? Is there any way that Bush could actually have won the popular vote by 2.46 percent?

Even using the outside edge of the margin of error, i.e. a Bush margin of victory of 0.8 percent, would mean that just over 1,000,000 votes were switched over from Kerry to Bush or that just over 2,000,000 votes were fraudulently added to Bush's total nationwide (or, more likely, some combination of the two types of fraud).

[TruthIsAll]

55. CHORTI, HERE ARE SOME LINKS TO COMPARE YOUR ODDS

ON EDIT: YOUR 1 IN 500 MILLION IS GETTING CLOSER!
BUT YOU STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.
KEEP CHECKING YOUR NUMBERS.
YOU WILL FIND THAT IT WILL CLIMB TO THE BILLIONS.

After you recompute your odds, Check these out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x222660

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x197878

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x215526

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x213753

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1260245


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=112108

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=144155




tia

[TruthIsAll]

58. THE PROBABILITY IS ZERO WITH A 2% MOE

It makes it all so easy to raise the eyebrows of those who
refuse to believe.

Historically, exit polls have been much more accurate than
standard polls. In  prior calculations, I have
(conservatively) used the standard polling MOE methodology to
compute probabilities based on deviations from the Exit polls.
Using standard polling MOE's does not make much sense
intuitively. We should consider historically proven EXIT POLL
accuracy.

So let's be a little more realistic this time and assume that
the Exit Poll margin of error in each state is 2.0%, even
though all historical evidence indicates that it's less than
half that (see Germany, Ukraine, France etc.) So we are still
being very CONSERVATIVE in this assumption.

Now let's take another look at the election results:
For Bush, vote tallies in 23 states were outside the 2.0% MOE
- all in his favor.
For Kerry, vote tallies in 2 states were outside the 2.0% MOE
- all in his favor.

So here we go again. I'm almost sorry to do have to do this. 
Let's calculate the probability (for Bush) of this occurring
under the 2.0% MOE criteria.

I ran the numbers in Excel as before, with a single input
parameter changed to calculate the odds that at least 23
states would be beyond the the MOE. 

We input 22 as the number of states inclusive. The
probability is still .025 that the MOE would be exceeded. See
the description of the BINOMDIST below.

So, once again, let's calculate the probability:
 Probability=  P = 1-BINOMDIST(22, 51, 0.025, TRUE)

             P =  0.000000000000000000000000000000E+00

IT'S A BIG FAT ZERO.ZILCH.NADA! THIRTY OF THEM. 
EXCEL WON'T PRINT ANY MORE THAN 30 DECIMALS! 

To compute the odds, we must calculate 1/P.
But wait!
P = ZERO
We can't divide by ZERO. No can do. 
What does this mean? 

It's BEYOND INFINITESMAL!
It's IMPOSSIBLE!

THE DEVIATIONS IN FAVOR OF BUSH COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED BY
CHANCE!

THE PROBABILITY THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO CHANCE IS
ZERO!

THANK YOU, BILL GATES, FOR GIVING EXCEL TO AMERICA.

OH, AND THANK YOU, TOO, LOTUS. 
I USED 1-2-3 LONG BEFORE EXCEL. 

********************************************************************
Notes:
BINOMDIST(number_s,trials,probability_s,cumulative)

Number_s   is the number of successes in trials = 22 (at most
22 would fall within the MOE, at least 23 above)

Trials  is the number of independent trials = 51
Probability_s   is the probability of success on each trial=
.025.

If cumulative is TRUE (which it is), then BINOMDIST returns
the cumulative distribution function, which is the
probability that there are at most number_s successes; if
FALSE, it returns the probability mass function, which is the
probability that there are number_s successes.

*********************************************************************


Size refers to the exit poll sample size for the given state.
The percentages are Kerry's Exit Polls and reported Votes.

State	Size	Exit	Vote	Diff	StDev	MoE	Prob  	>MoE?	Favor
DE	770	58.50%	53.54%	-4.96%	1.80%	3.53%	0.29	yes	Bush
NH	1849	55.40%	50.51%	-4.89%	1.16%	2.28%	0.00	yes	Bush
VT	685	65.00%	60.20%	-4.80%	1.91%	3.74%	0.60	yes	Bush
SC	1735	46.00%	41.41%	-4.59%	1.20%	2.35%	0.01	yes	Bush
NE	785	36.76%	32.32%	-4.44%	1.78%	3.50%	0.64	yes	Bush

AK	910	40.50%	36.08%	-4.42%	1.66%	3.25%	0.38	yes	Bush
AL	730	41.00%	37.00%	-4.00%	1.85%	3.63%	1.53	yes	Bush
NC	2167	48.00%	44.00%	-4.00%	1.07%	2.11%	0.01	yes	Bush
NY	1452	63.00%	59.18%	-3.82%	1.31%	2.57%	0.18	yes	Bush
CT	872	58.50%	55.10%	-3.40%	1.69%	3.32%	2.24	yes	Bush

RI	809	64.00%	60.61%	-3.39%	1.76%	3.45%	2.68	yes	Bush
MA	889	66.00%	62.63%	-3.37%	1.68%	3.29%	2.21	yes	Bush
PA	1930	54.35%	51.00%	-3.35%	1.14%	2.23%	0.16	yes	Bush
MS	798	43.26%	40.00%	-3.26%	1.77%	3.47%	3.29	yes	Bush
OH	1963	52.10%	49.00%	-3.10%	1.13%	2.21%	0.30	yes	Bush

FL	2846	50.51%	47.47%	-3.03%	0.94%	1.84%	0.06	yes	Bush
MN	2178	54.50%	51.52%	-2.98%	1.07%	2.10%	0.27	yes	Bush
UT	798	30.50%	27.55%	-2.95%	1.77%	3.47%	4.78	yes	Bush
ID	559	33.50%	30.61%	-2.89%	2.11%	4.14%	8.60	yes	Bush
AZ	1859	47.00%	44.44%	-2.56%	1.16%	2.27%	1.38	yes	Bush

VA	1000	47.96%	45.45%	-2.50%	1.58%	3.10%	5.66	yes	Bush
LA	1669	44.50%	42.42%	-2.08%	1.22%	2.40%	4.49	yes	Bush
IL	1392	57.00%	55.00%	-2.00%	1.34%	2.63%	6.78	yes	Bush
WI	2223	52.50%	50.51%	-1.99%	1.06%	2.08%	3.00		Bush
WV	1722	45.25%	43.43%	-1.82%	1.20%	2.36%	6.54		Bush

NM	1951	51.30%	49.49%	-1.81%	1.13%	2.22%	5.54		Bush
CO	2515	49.10%	47.47%	-1.63%	1.00%	1.95%	5.15		Bush
IN	926	41.00%	39.39%	-1.61%	1.64%	3.22%	16.42		Bush
GA	1536	43.00%	41.41%	-1.59%	1.28%	2.50%	10.69		Bush
MO	2158	47.50%	46.00%	-1.50%	1.08%	2.11%	8.17		Bush

NJ	1520	55.00%	53.54%	-1.46%	1.28%	2.51%	12.67		Bush
WA	2123	54.95%	53.54%	-1.41%	1.09%	2.13%	9.70		Bush
IA	2502	50.65%	49.49%	-1.15%	1.00%	1.96%	12.41		Bush
AR	1402	46.60%	45.45%	-1.15%	1.34%	2.62%	19.55		Bush
KY	1034	41.00%	40.00%	-1.00%	1.55%	3.05%	26.01		Bush

OK	1539	35.00%	34.00%	-1.00%	1.27%	2.50%	21.63		Bush
MI	2452	52.50%	51.52%	-0.98%	1.01%	1.98%	16.47		Bush
NV	2116	49.35%	48.48%	-0.87%	1.09%	2.13%	21.29		Bush
ME	1968	54.75%	54.08%	-0.66%	1.13%	2.21%	27.80		Bush
MD	1000	57.00%	56.57%	-0.43%	1.58%	3.10%	39.18		Bush

DC	795	91.00%	90.91%	-0.09%	1.77%	3.48%	47.96		Bush
MT	640	39.76%	39.80%	0.04%	1.98%	3.87%	50.72		Kerry
OR	1064	51.20%	52.00%	0.80%	1.53%	3.00%	69.91		Kerry
HI	499	53.30%	54.55%	1.25%	2.24%	4.39%	71.10		Kerry
TX	1671	37.00%	38.38%	1.38%	1.22%	2.40%	87.10		Kerry

TN	1774	41.50%	43.00%	1.50%	1.19%	2.33%	89.68		Kerry
CA	1919	54.00%	55.56%	1.56%	1.14%	2.24%	91.35		Kerry
SD	1495	37.76%	39.39%	1.63%	1.29%	2.53%	89.65		Kerry
ND	649	34.00%	36.36%	2.36%	1.96%	3.85%	88.58	yes	Kerry
KS	654	35.00%	37.37%	2.37%	1.96%	3.83%	88.76	yes	Kerry

Avg	1450	49.18%	47.38%	-1.80%	1.42%	2.79%	21.67		Bush
Med	1507.5	49.23%	47.47%	-1.81%	1.29%	2.52%	6.66		Bush
				

[elperromagico]

44. And the idea that so many Gore voters would stay home,

or that so many had died since 2004, while EVERY Bush voter and then some made it to the polls - is laughable.

What kept those Gore voters from casting ballots in an election that boasted the highest turnout in several decades? Did they try to vote and were prevented from doing so? Or did they vote, only to have their vote "altered"?

This is some weird shit, no matter how you cut it.

[elperromagico]

46. Let's take these new figures and do a bit of deductive figuring.

Please bear in mind that this is just speculation based on an attempt to make both the Bush 2000 and Gore 2000 turnout figures more realistic. I am simply playing with numbers to see what happens.

We'll leave the Nader/Other figure the same, and add all extra voters to the Didn't Vote in 2000 pile.

But we can't leave that Bush 2000 voter figure like that, now can we? 102% is ludicrous. And the roughly 76% rate for Gore voters seems rather anemic, doesn't it? So, let's just average them out. 87% of Gore 2000 voters. To play devil's advocate, let's give Bush an advantage. 92% of Bush 2000 voters.

Total Vote: 122,293,278

Bush 2000 Voters: 46,423,301 (38%)
To Bush: 42,245,204 (91%)
To Kerry: 4,178,097 (9%)
Gore 2000 Voters: 44,373,416 (36%)
To Bush: 4,437,342 (10%)
To Kerry: 39,936,074 (90%)
Nader/Other 2000 Voters: 3,594,143 (3%)
To Bush: 754,770 (21%)
To Kerry: 2,551,841 (71%)
To Other: 287,532 (8%)
Didn't Vote in 2000: 27,902,418 (23%)
To Bush: 12,556,088 (45%)
To Kerry: 15,067,306 (54%)
To Other: 279,024 (1%)

Let's see what our speculation produces:

Bush: 59,993,404 (49.06%)
Kerry: 61,733,318 (50.48%)
Other: 566,556 (0.46%)

Well - that's a difference, certainly.

[helderheid]

37. FRAUD

I know the election was stolen. I wish the mojority of voters were ignorant scared freaks that voted Bush so I felt some inkling that we still had a democracy but I know this isn't the case.

[chorti]

43. which states were fraudulent?

Tonight I will publish a report documenting which states are the most likely to have fraudulent results. This may be at the county level (only one or two counties in some cases). A bit of a preview indicates these possibilities:

Red Battlegrounds - Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, Colorado
Blue Battlegrounds - Pennsylvania, New Jersey

Blue States: - California, Massachusetts (maybe), Rhode Island, Connecticut

Red States: Nebraska and Tennessee (the worst two). Also, Alabama and Georgia. Maybe more.

[bmoney07]

48. I know of several former "W" voters from 2000

that switched to Kerry in 2004, funny how I do not know of voter who switched the other way.

Maybe I am just crazy!

[flintdem]

50. 102% Explained by "Social Desirability"

People always overreport voting. Because things like voting and attending church are viewed as something that people should do- reported percentages of these activities are always inflated.

Post-election polls usually find 70-75% of respondents reporting voting in the presidential election (when the actual number is usually closer to 50%)and they report voting for the winner at a higher margin than the election results (everybody likes a winner!).

At least some of both the reported bush 2000 and Gore 2000 voters in the 2004 exit poll never voted in 2000.

Bernstein, Robert, Anita Chadha, and Robert Montjoy. 2001. "Overreporting Voting: Why It Happens and Why It Matters." Public Opinion Quarterly 65:22–44.

[spooked911]

53. well this is a good point--- but can it explain the whole thing away?

In general I still don't see where Bush got 8 million extra votes in 2004.

We know there weren't that many dems voters who switched and voted for Bush, and we know that the new voters broke more for Kerry. Thus it really doesn't add up.

This aspect of the voting result has been suspcious since Nov. 3rd.

Where did his new votes come from if not from fraud?

[flintdem]

57. First time voter breakdown

First time voters when 57-42% for Kerry (LA Times exit poll)- 11% of the total vote. That means of the 13 million new voters Kerry got 7.5 million and bush got 5.5 million.

Persons who voted at any other time in their life went 53-46% bush- 89% of the total vote. That 89% does not mean that they all voted in 2000, just some other time in their life.

The numbers in post #1 say 20.4 million didn't vote in 2000. Subtract the 13 million new voters and divide the remaining 7.4 million (non-new and didn't vote in 2000) by 53-46% bush-Kerry. bush gets 3.85 million, Kerry gets 3.4 million.


Bush 5.5 million new voters plus 3.85 million non-2000 voters = 8.35 million

[spooked911]

59. That doesn't sound right

"Persons who voted at any other time in their life went 53-46% bush- 89% of the total vote. That 89% does not mean that they all voted in 2000, just some other time in their life."

Do you have a link for that?

Thanks.

[flintdem]

60. Link to LA Times Exit Poll

Here is the link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-110404superchart-g,1,6130757.acrobat?coll=la-news-times_poll

The LA Times only asked "are you a first time voter or have you voted before?" They didn't ask about the 2000 election.

[TruthIsAll]

61. In the WP/Mitofsky/NEP exit poll, 17% did not vote (20 mil): 57%-41% Kerry

So your numbers are off.

.57*20 = 11.4 million Kerry
vs.
.41*20 = 8.2 million Bush.

Kerry's net = 3.2 million

[flintdem]

62. Huh?

I was answering the question (Reply #50), "Where did 8 million new bush voters come from?" I wasn't dealing with totals between the two candidates, just bush's total.



Both Mitofsky and LA Times say 11% were new voters. So of the 17% percent that did not vote in 2000, 11% were new voters who either went 53-46 Kerry (Mitofsky) or 57-42 Kerry (LA Times). That gives bush 5.5 million of that total or better. That leaves 6% (didn't vote in 2000 but voted some other year) or approx 7 million from which bush only needs 2.5 million to arrive a 8 million.

Even your math says 8 million. What's the deal?

[spooked911]

52. VERY NICE! A highly convincing and straight-forward analysis!

Great job!

:toast:

[bunny planet]

56. This is such a lie. I personally know at least 50 people who changed their

vote to Kerry having voted * in 2000. I'm sure most of you do too.