"Freeman is wrong" - Baker defends his investigation here:

[cyberpj]

Rebutting the Ohio Vote Conspiracy
Tue, 1 Feb 2005
Blackwell: The mastermind at work? By Russ Baker

Baker defends his investigation into allegations of election fraud
Oh, dear. Rebutting a rebuttal. Seldom a constructive use of time. But then, to ignore Steve Freeman’s published comments about my Ohio election research (the story first ran on Tompaine.com, and then here on GNN) would be to acquiesce in the ongoing degradation of serious debate over real problems that bedevil the nation’s elections apparatus—and to endorse this distraction from fashioning viable systemic solutions.

Freeman is a leading proponent of the theory that the election in Ohio was deliberately stolen, and that proof of this lies both in a gap between exit poll results and final tallies, and in anecdotes of election day irregularities. In my article, I expressed doubts about Freeman’s argument, and in his rebuttal, he dismissed what I had to say.

I won’t go into everything Freeman says, although everything he says is either partially or completely wrong. (snip)

(snip)
I won’t explore here the limitations of some of my own cocksure college professors, other than to say that academia has as many bad eggs as good, and that mere titles, positions and accolades don’t necessarily qualify someone to declare an election stolen.

The rest is here if you can stand it:

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=1113

[Hugin]

1. I don't have any problem with Freeman. n/t

(Edit: Wrong wording.)

[cyberpj]

3. Just one of the problems Baker mentions with Freeman -

Did you read the article? --It's totally on Baker's problems with Freeman.

"Freeman et al miss another key reality about exit polls. You can’t say that the exit poll results were right, in that there are no actual “results.” The canvassers working for the exit pollsters go to selected precincts, not to all precincts, and so whatever they report must then be massaged through a variety of processes designed to correctly adjust and extrapolate in order to ensure that reported totals accurately reflect the will of the voters. Therefore, what the Mitofsky people were doing was sending across, privately, to their media clients, a flow of numbers reflecting different calculations and variables. The numbers that Freeman and his acolytes have spread, virus-like, through the Internet are but a small drink from a steady, evolving stream from Mitofsky."

And now we see that many statisticians and professionals have challenged Mitofsky's excuses, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=311138&mesg_id=311138

[Helga Scow Stern]

4. This tone is so derisive....

and in the article he makes a big deal of Freeman overstating his academic credentials...but that's because Baker discredited them in the last article.

He doesn't talk at all about the other articles refuting Mitofsky, especially the latest. The point he wants to make is "there was no massive fraud, period." He is the one being unreasonable, and couching it in the very soul of balanced reporting.

[cyberpj]

6. I agree. And I should be used to it by now but I still get angry -

I'm just so sick of that tone - the one that constantly infers that you don't know anything ... you're a sore loser or a nut case. I'm so so very tired of today's news people printing anything they're given without INVESTIGATING anything fully any more.



Sorry for shouting. Just having another bad day here I guess. Need to take another break from DU, CSPAN, MSM etc.....

Sigh!

[Hugin]

8. Cute animation... How I feel sometimes too! :) n/t

[Hugin]

7. Yes, and I was commenting on...

... the fact I have less of a problem with a theory (Freeman)
than someone trying to discredit a theory (Baker).

I've read some things about Mitofsky that perhaps Baker
doesn't or chooses not to know.

=)

[nodictators]

17. Forget Baker. He doesn't understand polling

The paragraph posted by cyberpj illustrates his ignorance:

You can’t say that the exit poll results were right, in that there are no actual “results.” The canvassers working for the exit pollsters go to selected precincts, not to all precincts, and so whatever they report must then be massaged through a variety of processes designed to correctly adjust and extrapolate in order to ensure that reported totals accurately reflect the will of the voters.

For someone who doesn't even have the vocabulary of polling down (boldfaced phrases above), let alone the statistical concepts used in polling, Baker is not qualified to criticize Dr. Freeman and the other statisticians who agree with him.

Furthermore, Baker's original article was the worst I've seen. For instance, he claimed there was no problem with the distribution of voting machines in Franklin County, Ohio, since both a Dem and a Repub were in charge of the distribution.

He also dismissed other allegations of rigging and fraud on the word of one person per allegation.

Mitofsky's poll was resonably accurate in many states. Look at the states that had a flip of more than 2 percentage-points, and you'll see the suspicous states.

[Helga Scow Stern]

2. Interesting. This is the same criticism

from Fairvote.org, criticizing questioning the 2004 election as distracting us from the "real work" of reforming future elections.

http://www.fairvote.org/righttovote/2004summary.htm

Now I will read what he has to say. He was pretty vehement in his last article.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. Why, I wonder, would Baker

feel this burning para-messianic zeal for achieving a systemic reform of the electoral system, if he doesn't believe fraud occurred on a massive scale? Strange priorites, strange geezer.

[papau]

5. I like Baker - but he is wrong on Ohio not being stolen, IMHO

Can we say that Baker's testing methods were almost as flawed as the election, as he focuses on making a case rather than a comprehensive consideration of facts?

Did he did not view the books, but walked away have with a few words from BOE official - did he expect a BOE official to provide a less than credible explanation of how and why absentee voters' names were not on the poll books?

Does he see no problem with voting machine software being owned by a Republican - software that no one else can review?

Why is Russ so hot to put down the work by Phillips in Ohio, and the research of Freeman and others on the disconnect between the "exit polls" and the "reported" vote in Ohio and elsewhere?

Did Russ ever read the lawyer's black box voting statements, discussion of voter suppression, the incorrect info. given about where to vote, the provisionals not counted and the lack of security for the ballots, or the tampering by Triad and the fact that Diebold won't give us their software or code to look at.

Now he wants to argue credibility. LOL :-) And he read a polling 101 cheat sheet on technical complication that could have affected the numbers and the perceptions— never realizing that the years of planning the exir poll were done so as to avoid those problems.

And he feels their is a "quality-control issue" with this years survey folks - more so that in other years - and in a way that biased the results - based on what he has no clue.

Why is denying the probability that some Republicans may have felt disinclined to say that they voted for Bush unreasonable in the absense of any data that GOPers actually did so feel - indeed the higher response rate in areas that voted for Bush would seem to contradict the arguement.

But the best reason to think that Bush was elected and that the pollester is incompetant or a liar is that he is a lifelong liberal who had no use for Bush. LOL - This should be on Fox News!

And this statistics expert says you can not say exit poll results were right, because there are no actual “results.” ! Does he have a clue? I liked the exit polls aren’t intended to be a check against election fraud - despite there use as such being a reasonable use.

And he faults the statements that have been collected as "not fully vetted for their accuracy or for the likelihood that specific cases could be broadly extrapolated" - and ignores the fact that at his time they are as we sat the "best estimator" of what happen.

Besides it doesn't matter because the margin of victory was too large - per "leading figures",

sigh

:-)

[cyberpj]

9. You should ask him those questions - here's contact info:

I already asked him a few of my own. I feel that's all I can do but if we all do it, it could make a bigger impact. (Shades of Arlo Guthrie's "Alison's Restaurant" here.... "but if TWO people sing it, with harmony....."

PJ

http://www.russbaker.com/

[e-mail]

[papau]

13. Copy of email that was sent is below.

What were the Baker testing methods for OHIO not stolen - were you not just making a case rather than presenting a comprehensive consideration of facts?

You did not the books, but walked away after a few words from BOE official - did you expect a BOE official to provide a less than credible explanation of how and why absentee voters' names were not on the poll books? So looking at the books was an unnecessary effort?

Do you see no problem with voting machine software being owned by a Republican - software that no one else can review? If you do how can you suggest that you know the size of the fraud - saying that if there was a fraud it was not enough to change the election.

Why is it important to you to recite the polling 101 cheat sheet on problems that can occur with exit polling - as if you have proof those problems did indeed occur? You argue credibility never discussing the years of planning for the exit poll that were done so as to avoid those polling 101 possible problems. And where is the evidence that there was a "quality-control issue" with this years survey folks - more so that in other years - and in a way that biased the results? Is that statement based on more than anecdotal evidence? I assume you have read the lawyers' black box voting statements, discussion of voter suppression, the incorrect info. given about where to vote, the provisionals not counted and the lack of security for the ballots, or the tampering by Triad and the fact that Diebold won't give us their software or code to look at, since you seem to acknowledge these things were "bad".

You ask for evidence (which the statements by folks and the statistical analysis certainly are), but find that denying the probability that some Republicans may have felt disinclined to say that they voted for Bush to be unreasonable - despite the absence of any data that GOPers actually did so feel - indeed the higher response rate in areas that voted for Bush would seem to contradict the argument.

But the best reason to think that Bush was elected and that the pollster is incompetent or a liar is that he is a lifelong liberal who had no use for Bush. LOL - This should be on Fox News! And there is a statistics expert that says you can not say exit poll results were "right" (OK - no stat is "right" - so what?), "because there are no actual “results.” - just hypotheses testing! I really liked the "exit polls aren’t intended to be a check against election fraud" (true only as to primary purpose) - despite their use as such being a reasonable use.

How in the world can you proclaim the statements that have been collected are proving little if you also state they were "not fully vetted for their accuracy or for the likelihood that specific cases could be broadly extrapolated"? Given the lack of evidence that they are "wrong" or of an obvious reason they should not be extrapolated -they are as we say the "best estimator" of what happen.

And if all else fails - "Besides it doesn't matter because the margin of victory was too large" - per "leading figures",

Have a great day - and better luck with future columns.

[Helga Scow Stern]

11. Yes. His "investigation" in Ohio is based on interviewing a few

sources, all Democrats, so supposedly solid. Even Mitofsky should not be questioned because he is "a solid liberal with no use for Bush." And it really bothers me how he uses an unnamed source as his main refutation of Freeman. Well, this source knew what he was talking about and he said Freeman was all wrong, therefore, Freeman must be all wrong. And the Dem in Cuyahoga County was an African American who "worked his butt off" during the election, so no intentional wrong doing there. Talk about selective use of the "facts".

From the original article, "debunking" Freeman:

snip--
Charge: Exit poll results were more accurate than actual ballots
Finding: False
Explanation of Problem: Imperfect nature of polls

Now to the central issue: the claim that exit polls, which never lie, showed Kerry winning. Our understanding of this—and the argumentation in the Contest—is based largely on an analysis by Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D. But Freeman is not an expert in polling. According to his affidavit, he is a visiting scholar in the Graduate Division, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania Center for Organizational Dynamics.

To get some insight into this issue, I spoke with a source who, in the common parlance, is "familiar with the thinking of" Warren Mitofsky, the "father" of the exit poll.

Asked about Freeman's analysis, my source told me that it is "all wrong." We spent several hours going through Freeman's specific claims, and reviewed how exit polls—and Mitofsky's in particular—work.

Much of the belief that the election was stolen was based on "screen shots" of raw numbers provided by CNN. In exit polling, raw numbers mean almost nothing—since the essence of a successful exit poll is to interview a sampling of voters, and then apply a variety of methods in order to adjust to the most probable accurate assessment. "To say you want the raw data is ludicrous," said the source. "You can't use it until you do something with it. You're talking about a bunch of naïve people that had the first course in statistics."

Bill Leonard, a former CBS News VP who was a polling pioneer, has called exit polls "blunt instruments." The widely circulated notion that they are always right is dead wrong.

The notion that a single definitive number showing Kerry winning ever existed is also wrong. "We never had unadjusted unofficial totals," said the source. "As we get more data, we're always adjusting."

In this case, what most likely happened was that more Bush supporters failed to complete exit poll surveys than Kerry backers. The reason for that can be as trivial as a sampler skipping someone who looks unfriendly or voters not liking the race or demeanor of the sampler.

(For what it is worth, I learned that Mitofsky is a lifelong liberal and apparently holds no brief for Bush. But a job's a job, and a professional is a professional.)"

snip--


I'll bet that "source" is Mark Blumenthal, so called "Mystery Pollster." He is the source of a lot of this confusing debunking, and although he works for a Democratic polling firm, he is most often quoted by right-wing sources, except of course for liberal reporters anxious to debunk any claims of fraud. I wonder what his true agenda is....Has he written a response yet to the latest refutation of Mitofsky?

[Yellow Horse]

10. Need 2-prong approach, Reform for Future AND Keep Looking at '04 Vote.

There is no reason NOT to do both. One will only support the other, IMHO. For instance, IF the '04 Election was "fair and square" (albeit just a "narrow" victory for **) then I can just hear the naysayers crying "why the heck do we need election reform?"

So I say KEEP INVESTIGATING -- hard -- AND work for reform, too. I hope this is the approach fairvote.org and others will take. It is my understanding that Fairvote is holding invite-only, high level talks bringing together many groups, and I sure hope that is the direction everybody is heading.

All that said, I personally still can't believe '04 was a 'clean' election, not with all the "glitches'. 'irregularities', etc. and all going in favor of **. No way will I ever believe it was clean; will go to my grave thinking otherwise.

[Helga Scow Stern]

12. Yes, Fairvote is doing a lot of good work, it seems.

I just was somewhat shockecd by their summarial debunking of any claims of 2004 fraud, using all the same old talking point articles and arguments.

[Yellow Horse]

18. Can we find out where they stand now?

That article was posted 12/13/04, the day the Recount started in Ohio.

Surely Fairvote must have seen all that has happened since then (pre-chosen "ramdom" samples, Blackwell's crap, Triad crap, Petro going after the attorneys,etc. ESPECIALLY including Conyers Report) and considered it... I HOPE...

[anaxarchos]

15. Uh, what am I missing?

What man say?

Other than the stupid title and the simple assertion that "Freeman is wrong", I don't see a single rebuttal OF ANY SORT... What a yak job.

I don't like professors and people with PHDs... blah blah...blahditty blah.

A key reality is that the sun is higher in the sky in Arizona... blah... blah...

As my sainted grandmother in Tulsa used to say... blahbity blah.... blah blah blah.

WTF?

and WTF is with GNN???

What a piece of shit.

[RaulVB]

16. Where is the "rebuttal"?

I see a "man" cryng because he didn't like what was said about him!

This Baker guy is a very sad character...

[ClintCooper2003]

19. "I won't go into everything Freeman says" pretty much sums it up.

The mindless coward. Just a blanket, "everything he says is either partially or completely wrong." ha ha ha.

And he sasy, "I won't explore here the limitations of some of my own cocksure college professors..."

So bascially, Russ Baker just spends his time telling us what he WON'T do. Okay, fine then.

[seaclyr]

20. Mixture of the obvious, the anecdotal and the self-serving.......

I'm amused by his referring to his "own long, unsullied record of journalistic accuracy" - a dead giveaway, in my opinion, of BS. Come on, who's been around for a long time and hasn't made mistakes? This is just immature posturing. Remind you of anyone?