THE MOST DEVASTATING STATISTIC OF ALL: 17% OF THE VOTERS WERE NEW

[TruthIsAll]

IT'S THE BIGGEST SMOKING GUN OF ALL.

Here's the unbelievable stat - right out of the National Exit
Poll:  SEVENTEEN (17) PERCENT of ALL 2004 voters were NEW
voters.

They chose KERRY by a 3-2 margin (59%-39%).

Using the 2000 voter mix as weights:
Kerry 50.90%, Bush 47.09%, Other 1.19%

.................VOTED FOR.........WEIGHTED CALCULATION
2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	Bush	Kerry	Nader
NEW	17%	39%	59%	1%	6.6%	10.0%	0.2%
Gore	38%	8%	91%	1%	3.0%	34.6%	0.4%
Bush	41%	90%	9%	0%	36.9%	3.7%	0.0%
Other	4%	13%	65%	16%	0.5%	2.6%	0.6%

	100%				47.09% 50.90%	1.19%


These are the official tallies:
Bush	62,028,194	50.732%
Kerry	59,027,612	48.277%

The Probability that Bush would go from 47.09% in the exit
poll to 50.73% in the vote: 1 in 2,043,375,511,511 
That's 1 in 2 TRILLION.

See for yourself. Enter this formula into a spreadsheet cell:
Prob = 1 -BINOMDIST(.5073,.4709,.01/1.96,TRUE)

The National Exit Poll margin of error was 1.0% according to
Mitofsky/Edison. 

Now let's calculate the total votes.

1) In 2000, 104 million voted:
Gore: 50.99 mm
Bush: 50.45 mm
Nader: 2.88 mm

So Kerry had a built-in .50 million vote margin.

2) In 2004, 122.2 million voted and 17% (20.74 mm) were new. 
Kerry won 59% (12.4 mm), Bush 39% (8.3 mm).
That's a net gain to Kerry of 4.1 million votes.

3) Kerry won 65% (2 mm) of the 4% who voted for Nader et al. 
Bush won 13% (0.5 mm).
That's a net Kerry gain of 1.5 million votes.

Kerry's total net gain: .5 +  4.1 + 1.5 = 6.1 million votes. 

Assume the other 79% voted as they did in 2000.

Then of the 122.2 million total votes, we calculate: 
Kerry: 63.65 mm (52.08%) 
Bush:  57.55 mm (47.09%) < EXACTLY THE SAME AS ABOVE
Other:   1.0 mm (0.83%)

[autorank]

1. Damn you're good. Thanks for keeping the flame roaring!!!

Hey, TIA: Many, many of these people on 1/6/05, DC Rally/March were there largely because ot the TRUTH you tell. Believe it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=272275

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=255393

[jimfromthebronx10469]

3. I second your comment...

this guy is good !!! I picture him crunching numbers for all to see.I do appreciate his research.
:hi: :dem: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :toast:

[TruthIsAll]

29. SO MUCH FOR THE "RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER"

According to Mitofsky's fact-free hypothesis, Democrats were
more inclined to speak to exit pollsters than Republicans, who
were for some unexplained reason, reluctant to do so.

These demographics from the National Exit poll, posted on the
NEP/Washington Post site, seem to say otherwise.
There were 13,047 respondents.
The margin of error was 1.0%.

Note the following:
1) The 38/35/27 party ID split is the same as in prior
elections.

2) 41% of voters said they voted for Bush in 2000.
Only 38% of voters said they voted for Gore.
But Gore won the popular vote by over 1/2 million votes.

So how can Mitofsky claim the "Reluctant Bush
Responder" theory, especially when close analysis of his
own report reveals just the opposite and is in agreement with
the exit poll results below:


		      HORIZONTAL			WEIGHTED		
PARTY ID	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	Bush	Kerry	Nader
Democrat 	38%	9%	90%	1%	3.4%	34.2%	0.4%
Republican 	35%	92%	7%	0%	32.2%	2.5%	0.0%
Independent	27%	45%	52%	2%	12.2%	14.0%	0.5%
	        100%				47.77%	50.69%	0.92%
				Probability: 1 in	303,538,508
2000
VOTE           Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	         17%	39%	59%	1%	6.6%	10.0%	0.2%
Gore	         38%	8%	91%	1%	3.0%	34.6%	0.4%
Bush	         41%	90%	9%	0%	36.9%	3.7%	0.0%
Other	          4%	13%	65%	16%	0.5%	2.6%	0.6%
	        100%				47.09%	50.90%	1.19%
				Probability: 1 in	2,043,375,511,511

[TruthIsAll]

32. TYPO: It's NORMDIST, not BINOMDIST (probabilities are correct)

.

[Niche]

2. Truth you rule!

too upset to say anything else.

[Calvinist Basset]

4. Thank you.

I appreciate the hard work you continue to do!

[ISUGRADIA]

5. I cannot find any page to link but didn't 110,000,000 or so people

actually go to the polls in 2000? I thought I read stats to that effect, a few million voters who either "overvoted" or "undervoted" as we read about in Florida and whose votes were disenfrachised and not part of that 104 million. My point being, these non-counted votes were probably overwhelmingly for Gore so Gore actually had a 2-3 million vote margain in 2000 if all votes had been counted.

I have not been able to find similar stats for 2004 yet nationwide 122 million presidential votes v xxx voters actually turning out at the polls.

[TruthIsAll]

7. Very True. If you add the disenfranchised to the spoiled votes...

the total could very well be in the range of 4-6 million.

It happens every election.

[juajen]

6. Thanks, TIA

You never fail to make me think. Of course, this election result is ludicrous.

Thank you for keeping it out there. No one could do it better than you.
We all need to keep talking about this and spreading it far and wide. We are making inroads.

[Pooka Fey]

8. Thanks again, TIA. You rule.

:bounce::-) :bounce::-) :bounce::-) :bounce::-) :bounce::-) :bounce::-) :bounce::-) :bounce:

[skids]

9. I appreciate the art of propaganda...

I understand, TIA, that you are trying to boil this down to something simple enough for joe six-pack to impress his friends with over a few drinks at the bar. I appreciate that.

At the same time, though, I cringe every time I read one of your posts, because "the answer just isn't that simple." This time I just can't help myself, so I apologize for bleaching the fun out of this.

First, you shouldn't expect the numbers to add up that precisely. Gore and Kerry are different candidates, and Bush was running as an incumbant not a challenger.

Second, that you found a way to rub some numbers together and find a close match to some other numbers is nice, but it doesn't really say much. There are lots of ways to do the same thing using other questions from the NEP poll, and more than many ways to rub the numbers together. Do those all add up too? Just picking the one (or few) that add up the closest and use the simplest formula to do so is not a logical treatment of the subject.

Third, if you really want to prove that the weighting of the exit polls was flawed, all you have to do is look at the "who did you vote for in 2000" question and the proof is right there. No poll, after being weighted to match the results, should have a sub-group that is THAT far out of whack with reality. The job of the weighting is to try to figure out who was under-represented, and where there was error, and performing the smallest possible adjustment to the numbers, get the data to match. Plainly they could not do so, or they would not have left such a glaring error in the final polished results. That means there was no way to make the numbers fit without assuming one or more of their internal factors was impossibly far outside its expect MOE, so they had to crank up the weight on conservative Christian (and conservative Jewish, if the new Pew survey is to be believed) voters. When they did so, they failed to look at how many Bush 2000 voters actually in fact existed, and they overshot by a whole lot. Poor them.

And you don't even have to expose yourself to the criticisms against which batch of exit poll numbers you use. The final weighting is just plain wrong.

Of course I just used a bunch of four-syllable words and lost a good number of the people here. I'd love to see you apply your skill in writing propaganda to this, the real elephant in the room, to boil it down so that it can impress people over beer. Because then I might have a social life.


(EDIT - confusing sentence and an extra point.)

[Peace Patriot]

11. The biggest factor is the new voters--that fat 4.1 million for Kerry in...

the center of TruthIsAll's calculation. And it has more meaning that just a dry number. It means that Kerry inspired an astonishing increase in Democratic voter registration--especially given the heavy-handed suppression of Democratic voter registration by Republican election officials in Ohio, Florida and other places. And that new voter registration did not take place in a vacuum. It must often have involved and been affected by and been initiated by repeat voters. Relatives, friends, co-workers urging others to register and vote. (I know many cases of this myself--people who never voted before being encouraged, prompted, dragged to the polls, this time.)

And with new people flocking to the Democrats, in unprecedented numbers, to register and vote for the first time--many highly motivated to oust Bush & Co.--it doesn't make much sense that long time Democratic voters would then turn around and vote for Bush in large numbers.

So, skids, your statement that, "...you shouldn't expect the numbers to add up that precisely. Gore and Kerry are different candidates, and Bush was running as an incumbent not a challenger," ignores this reality. Democrats who got other Democrats who never vote, to vote this time--and who undoubtedly bumped into yet additional new and enthusiastic Democratic voters--did not go into the polls to vote for Bush. There was great passion and determination in the Democratic ranks. It was palpable. And the candidates were indeed different this time. Kerry prompted a huge turnout of Democrats. And Bush's "incumbency" certainly did him no good with Democrats, with Nader voters, and with those who just plain hated Bush--for stealing the 2000 election, and for all his rotten policies, mass murders, tortures, lies and other crimes since 2000.

Bush was whacko in the debates. There was absolutely nothing about him, or his record in office, that would endear him to Democrats, and much to loathe.

It is you who are not paying attention to real conditions and likelihoods. And even, by a great stretch, granting that some Gore voters might not have voted for Kerry, that great big fat 4.1 million new voters that Kerry garnered, plus the Nader voters, would mean a huge defection of Gore voters to Bush would be needed for Bush to win, which there is no evidence for, and does not make any sense at all.

TruthIsAll estimates about 6 million as Kerry's real margin. Steven Freeman, using the same categories of data (but slightly different figures), estimated somewhere between 4 and 8 million.

Really, I do not see how Bush could have overcome that new Democratic voter registration blowout, except by illicit means.

[skids]

14. Those numbers aren't hard.

"Really, I do not see how Bush could have overcome that new Democratic voter registration blowout, except by illicit means."

...me neither. Let me be clear: I don't believe the national vote results are anywhere near correct either. Now that we have that cleared up...

My point is, which is better: math that has to be prefaced with "assuming", or math that is hard. This question above has real-world, hard numbers it can be (and has been) checked against. They don't rely on anyone's personal assessment of how much fervor Kerry supporters did or did not have.

Why go with assumptions, however valid, when you can go with hard numbers?

[TruthIsAll]

13. You are making something simple complex.

Just look at the NEP numbers.
AND....its a 1% MOE.

Add them up.
Do the math.

Of course, the numbers are not precisely right. NEP Rounding, etc.
But its VERY close.
If you believe the Exit poll.
I do.

1% MOE..1% MOE..1% MOE..1% MOE..1% MOE..1% MOE..1% MOE..


KISS

[skids]

15. Here's my point, TIA...

The formula you used wasn't simple to start. You made it that way.

Why don't you do the same for the Bush 2000 figures? I can't. It's just against my nature.

[TruthIsAll]

18. What formula are you referring to? The weights? The probability? The MOE?

1) The weights are correct, if you believe the exit poll.

2) There were 17% new and 4% non-Bush, non-Gore voters, if you believe the exit poll.

3) The assumption that 79% voted as they did in 2000 is a fair one, if you believe the exit poll.

4) The probability is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, if you believe the exit poll weights are correct, because then the deviation from exit poll to vote tally must be accurate.

5) The MOE is correct, if you believe the formula is correct: Actually, MOE= 0.875%= 1/sqrt(N), where N= 13,074= exit poll sample size.

Mitofsky states that the MOE is 1.0%. Is he applying the "Cluster Effect" or is he just rounding up to the nearest percent?

I was conservative and used his MOE of 1.0% in the probability calculation. If I had used an MOE of 0.875%, the probability would have been as close to ABSOLUTE ZERO as you can get.

So, it comes to this: Do you believe the exit poll?

If you do, game over.
If not, why not?

[skids]

19. Try it again, without the ifs. The other stat doesn't need ifs. n/t

[Pooka Fey]

39. Here's a couple 4+ syllable words for you: "Insufferable Pomposity" n/t

[davidgmills]

10. Good job again, TIA

"Assume the other 79% voted as they did in 2000."

I know this statement is true. But others may question it so you may want to give support for it.

[TruthIsAll]

12. Assume the rest voted as they did in 2000. This is why.

Look at the exit poll:

91% of Gore voters voted for Kerry, only 8% for Bush.
Net 83% Kerry.
90% of Bush voters voted for Bush, 9% for Kerry.
Net 81% Bush.

Net 2.0% for Kerry.

This virtually negates the 41%-38% Bush edge over Gore voters for Kerry.

Even in the best case, the net is 1% Bush for those who were not NEW voters or who did NOT vote for Bush OR Gore. Big deal.

In fact, many more Repubs left Bush for Kerry than did Dems who left Gore for Bush. Anecdotally, it was no contest. Many more stories of the former.

Also: many Repub newspapers which endorsed Bush in 2000 switched to Kerry. What does that tell you?

[davidgmills]

16. That is what I meant.

I knew you knew the numbers.

[helderheid]

17. TIA you truly rock

I hope you are sending all of this on to Michael Moore.

[emlev]

20. Some were so new they weren't even born yet!

They simply came into existence for the sole purpose of casting votes, then disappeared into the ether.

At least they had a clear sense of purpose in their short lives!

[farmbo]

21. Get over it! Rain-scared GOP voters were bullied by 20 yr old exit pollers

... into lying about who they voted for.

And tens of thousands of new GOP voters materialized after 5:00 pm Nov 2ND in those key western ohio counties to vote for Bush.

And those vote-flipping touchscreen machines in Ohio...just one of those silly ol' glitches that happen in any election.

:eyes:

[bleever]

22. There's just no way to get this election result to ever make sense,

and it gets harder and harder, the closer you look.

So we keep looking.

Thanks, TIA!

:thumbsup:

[dogindia]

23. just keep looking. the energy is great. TY TIA.

:bounce:

[msongs]

24. TIA have you ever gotten a response from an elected democrat?

or anybody with influence in putting a stop to evoting fraud? Or even non evoting fraud?

Marshall Songs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Wilms]

25. .

[Stevepol]

26. Keep the faith TruthIsAll, don't give up, keep fighting. n/t

[Melissa G]

27. Kick for TIA! n/t

[bleever]

28. Must kick.

What are they hiding?

How long can they hide it?

How long can everyone ignore it?

:thumbsup:

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

30. Kick for truth!

TIA, thanks for all your hard work

[bleever]

31. Kick

[MissWaverly]

33. If that is true then the Maryland election results are impossible

Kerry 1,334,493
Bush 1,024,703
reigstered Dems who voted 1,340,778
registered Rep who voted 733,643
registered Indepedents vot 299,529
I estimated that ALL the Republicans and all but 8,469 Independents
would have to vote for Bush for him to get 1,024,703 votes in Maryland but if you say that 59% of the independents voted for Kerry
then, that means that 255,721 votes went to Bush that should not have
so the real (still assuming that every single republican voted for him which I doubt.)

Then Kerry has 1,590,214 votes
Then Bush has 768,972 votes (which I believe to be inflated)
and which means that Kerry would have carried Maryland by an almost 2 to 1 margin instead of only a lead of 309,790 votes. I have heard
that in Colorado that George only won the state by 100,000 votes, we
need to open the machines/no more years!

[TruthIsAll]

35. That is an interesting result and should be investigated further...

According to the Maryland exit poll, there was only a 19,000
vote (0.79%) deviation to Bush.

Based on the poll, the final result was
Kerry: 1.345 million
Bush:  1.013
Diff:  0.332


Zone	Vote	Poll	Poll	Std	Exit	Final	Vote	Vote
St	Size	Size	MoE	Dev	Poll	Vote	PctDev	Dev
NY	7277	1452	2.62%	1.34%	63.97	58.79	-5.17%	-376
PA	5732	1930	2.28%	1.16%	54.41	51.13	-3.28%	-188
FL	7548	2846	1.87%	0.96%	49.93	47.47	-2.46%	-186
OH	5599	1963	2.26%	1.15%	52.06	48.75	-3.31%	-185
NC	3487	2167	2.15%	1.10%	47.31	43.72	-3.60%	-125
MA	2875	889	3.35%	1.71%	66.46	62.70	-3.76%	-108
NJ	3581	1520	2.56%	1.31%	56.13	53.13	-3.00%	-107
VA	3172	1431	2.64%	1.35%	47.96	45.65	-2.31%	-73
SC	1600	1735	2.40%	1.22%	45.79	41.31	-4.48%	-72
CT	1551	872	3.39%	1.73%	58.47	55.24	-3.24%	-50
GA	3280	1536	2.55%	1.30%	43.11	41.58	-1.53%	-50
MI	4793	2452	2.02%	1.03%	52.55	51.73	-0.82%	-39
IN	2448	926	3.29%	1.68%	40.97	39.46	-1.51%	-37
NH	672	1849	2.33%	1.19%	55.50	50.68	-4.81%	-32

MD	2359	1000	3.16%	1.61%	57.04	56.25	-0.79%	-19

VT	305	685	3.82%	1.95%	65.69	60.34	-5.35%	-16
RI	429	809	3.52%	1.79%	64.24	60.48	-3.76%	-16
KY	1782	1034	3.11%	1.59%	40.76	39.99	-0.76%	-14
WV	750	1722	2.41%	1.23%	45.19	43.48	-1.72%	-13
DE	224	770	3.60%	1.84%	58.44	53.82	-4.62%	-10
DC	372	795	3.55%	1.81%	91.63	90.63	-1.00%	-4
ME	727	1968	2.25%	1.15%	54.83	54.48	-0.36%	-3
								
Bush	60563	32351	2.78%	1.42%	55.11	52.31	-2.80%	-1724
								
								
								
IL	5239	1392	2.68%	1.37%	57.13	54.99	-2.14%	-112
MN	2792	2178	2.14%	1.09%	54.61	51.76	-2.85%	-80
AL	1870	730	3.70%	1.89%	41.08	37.08	-4.00%	-75
AR	1998	1402	2.67%	1.36%	46.93	44.74	-2.19%	-44
MS	1130	798	3.54%	1.81%	43.20	39.91	-3.30%	-37
LA	1922	1669	2.45%	1.25%	44.50	42.63	-1.87%	-36
MO	2715	2158	2.15%	1.10%	47.48	46.33	-1.15%	-31
NE	767	785	3.57%	1.82%	36.54	32.53	-4.01%	-31
IA	1494	2502	2.00%	1.02%	50.67	49.54	-1.13%	-17
OK	1464	1539	2.55%	1.30%	34.73	34.44	-0.29%	-4
WI	2968	2223	2.12%	1.08%	50.21	50.20	-0.02%	0
SD	382	1495	2.59%	1.32%	37.42	39.09	1.67%	6
ND	308	649	3.93%	2.00%	33.58	36.09	2.51%	8
KS	1171	654	3.91%	2.00%	34.60	36.97	2.37%	28
TN	2421	1774	2.37%	1.21%	41.15	42.78	1.63%	39
TX	7360	1671	2.45%	1.25%	36.84	38.49	1.65%	122
								
Bush	24359	17376	2.69%	1.37%	46.10	44.01	-2.08%	-467
Kerry	11642	6243	3.05%	1.56%	36.72	38.68	1.97%	203
								
								
CO	2103	2515	1.99%	1.02%	49.07	47.35	-1.72%	-36
UT	905	798	3.54%	1.81%	29.93	27.06	-2.87%	-26
AZ	1043	1859	2.32%	1.18%	46.60	45.03	-1.57%	-16
NV	816	2116	2.17%	1.11%	50.66	48.67	-1.99%	-16
ID	590	559	4.23%	2.16%	33.33	30.71	-2.63%	-15
NM	748	1951	2.26%	1.16%	51.34	49.42	-1.93%	-14
WY	238	684	3.82%	1.95%	32.07	29.70	-2.37%	-6
MT	440	640	3.95%	2.02%	39.28	39.51	0.22%	1
								
Bush	6443	10482	2.91%	1.48%	41.86	39.70	-2.15%	-130
Kerry	440	640	3.95%	2.02%	39.28	39.51	0.22%	1
								
CA	12255	1919	2.28%	1.16%	55.73	55.21	-0.53%	-64
WA	2815	2123	2.17%	1.11%	55.07	53.60	-1.47%	-41
AK	302	910	3.31%	1.69%	40.14	36.17	-3.97%	-12
HI	426	499	4.48%	2.28%	53.32	54.37	1.05%	4
OR	1810	1064	3.07%	1.56%	51.22	51.97	0.75%	14
								
Bush	15372	4952	2.59%	1.32%	50.31	48.32	-1.99%	-118
Kerry	2236	1563	3.77%	1.92%	52.27	53.17	0.90%	18

[MissWaverly]

37. Thanks TIA

According to the Maryland exit poll, there was only a 19,000
vote (0.79%) deviation to Bush.

Based on the poll, the final result was
Kerry: 1.345 million
Bush: 1.013
Diff: 0.332

I just want to be sure I understand your analysis, so you are saying
that based on the exit poll, 11,000 of these votes were switched from Kerry where they should have been according to the pollsters to
Bush (surprise, surprise)!

[TruthIsAll]

41. The 11,000 is due to roundoff, based on my 2.35 million.

It should have been 2.359 million.

According to the deviation between exit poll and vote, 19000 shifted to Bush.

Vote deviation = total vote * deviation%.

Your discrepancy is very big, but it appears valid, based on voter registration, etc. So the question is: why?

Could Kerry have done better than the exit polls indicated?

[MissWaverly]

42. thanks TIA

I think Kerry did do better, the reason is that this is a heavily democratic state, we have a Republican Governor, but our state government is still ruled by Democrats, this Republican governor is the only one that I can remember in say the last 20 years. The No Child Left Behind program left our Baltimore schools with a 68 million dollar deficit which our Republican governor and the Federal Government saddled on our backs to pay thru local taxes in Baltimore City and our governor has thought up a way to pay for corporate polluters of the Chesapeake Bay. He's making us pay a tax for using the toilet. It's called the flush tax so the republicans are not popular in Maryland. I know that George is not popular here in Baltimore, we did not have the glamor of a swing state, so I remember only 1 visit by George where he called our city a dump.

[Imagevision]

34. Kerry said last week he lost due to Osama video {bogus}

Really disappointed in that remark from Kerry, it's like the countless millions around the world who were watching Ohio and and the antics of Blackwell that there was no fraud or voter machine probs. dienfranchisemnets up the gazoo and Kerry it seems was never informed...

Something really strange with that one.

[GoSolar]

36. Thanks, TIA.

[Bluebold]

38. Cuckoo

"The National Exit Poll margin of error was 1.0% according to
Mitofsky/Edison. "



No it wasn't. This entire paranoid delusion is based on bad information, plain and simple.

[TruthIsAll]

40. Cuckoo? You seem very sure of yourself. What's your proof it wasn't 1%?

I see that you are new to DU, so perhaps you are unaware of the facts.

Mitofsky/Edison said it was 1% on the NEP/WP site. I guess you never saw it. That's what this "paranoid delusion" is based on.

And you can figure it out for yourself.
MOE = 1 /sqrt(N), where N= number of respondents = 13,047.

The National Exit Poll was based on a randomly-selected sample, in case you didn't know. So what's cuckoo about it?

[althecat]

45. Someone needs to tabulate the state by state answers of new voters...

Then we can compare the results to that particular poll question to the result errors in the final vote (i.e. the red shift) this would take this thesis considerably further forward.

The raw data for the state by state polls is now available so this should not be too hard.

al

[TruthIsAll]

46. I would like to see the state breakdowns for all the NEP categories.

The only "pure" national exit poll is the one with 13,047 respondents.

I would bet that the state exit polls they provide are contaminated - and not the ones Simon downloaded at 12:22am.

[skids]

48. It would just get jeered at.

The problem here is that the poll is designed for demographics. They intentionally chose specific precincts because of their demographic makeup, and knew that they would have to weight the results from the start because of the precincts they chose. Raw numbers don't help in this case (except if we can manage to identify specific precincts and link them to NEP raw numbers, then we might be able to identify a few places where NEP effectively audited.)

What we are dealing with is a polling methodology that doesn't use brute force. They basically figured out how to tweak things to get the same accuracy without nearly as many interviewers, in order to cut costs. (After all, it is payed for by corporations -- what do you expect?) If they had not been so aggressive in reducing the cost of the survey, we would have to argue back and forth whether or not it can be used to indicate fraud, that would be self-evident. That was not in the interests of the people who did the poll, though, so the integrity of democracy took a back seat to sound bites about how many Cubans voted for such and such.

We have three weights to play with in the NEP file. I understand one, don't know the whole story of another, and the third to me is a total mystery. It isn't explained in the docs. If I understood them, I might be able to break some of the questions in the national survey out state-by-state (the MOEs would be rather large, but in a 50 point set a trend might be identifiable.)

[lonestarnot]

43. Well I'd be more pissed than if it was may last voting experience!

I would be determined NEVER to let it happen AGAIN! I would be paying attention to EVERYTHING political, down to the most finite detail...Let nothing get by me! Hope first time voters are not discouraged and are even more determined to have a voice.

[althecat]

44. I agree... I always thought this was the most damning piece in the exit...

poll.

Go TIA

:YOUROCK:

[GOPBasher]

47. They went to Kerry by a 3-2 margin? That's not what Diebold says. n/t