the CONSIDERED position:

[nashville_brook]

(we are beyond making our case. when in the course of doing the work to right the wrong, there will be those who seek to find cracks in the case and those who work to solidify the base and move the ball down the field. my jersey is white. the skin's on the 20 -- first and 10. go for sack. feel the heat. play ball.)


We know Kerry led the pre-election state polls.
We know Kerry led the pre-election national polls.

We know Kerry led the post-election state exit polls, 51-48%.
We know Kerry led the post-election national exit poll, 51-48%

We know documented voting machine “glitches” favored Bush 99% of the time.

We know the media and E-M will not release detailed raw precinct data.
We know Blackwell refused to testify before Conyers.
We know Mitofsky refused to testify before Conyers.

We know that there were over 21 million new voters.
We know Kerry won the vast majority (57-62%) of new voters.

We know there were 3 million former Nader voters.
We kknow Kerry won Nader voters by 71%-21% over Bush.

We know Party ID averaged 39% Dem/35% Rep/26% Independent in the prior three elections.
We know Party ID was 38/35/27 for the first 13047 National Exit Poll respondents.
We know it was changed to 37/37/24 for the final 613 in the 13660 Final.

We know Kerry, like Gore, won the female vote 54/46% up until the final 660 respondents.
We know it was changed to 51% in the 13660 Final.

We know Bush 2000 voters represented an IMPOSSIBLE 43% of the 2004 electorate in the final 13660 Exit poll.
We know it was changed from 41% in the first 13047
We know that Bush had 50.456 mm votes in 2000.
We know that about 3.5% of them have since died.
We know, therefore, that the Bush percentage could not have been higher than 39.8% (48.69/122.26).
We know that with the 39.8/40.2% weighting, Kerry won by 52.4-46.7%, or SEVEN million votes.


We know the 2000 election was stolen - by Bush in Florida where 175,000 punch cards (70% of them Gore votes) were spoiled.
We know SCOTUS stopped the recount and voted 5-4 for Bush.

We know the 2002 election was stolen (ask Max Cleland).

We know that the National Exit Poll MoE is under 1%.
We know because we checked the NEP margin of error table.
We know because we did the simple MoE calculation.
We know that Kerry won the Natioanl Poll by over 3%, 51-48%.
We know the odds are astronomical that the deviation was triple the MoE.

We know that 42 of 50 states deviated from the exit polls to Bush. We know that includes ALL 22 states in the Eastern Time Zone.

We know that 16 states deviated beyond the exit poll MoE for Bush, and none did for Kerry.

We know that touch screen voting machines became widely used in 2004.

We know that Republicans fought against paper ballots for Diebold and ESS touch screens.

We know that ALL Diebold ATMs provide a paper receipt.

We know that the deviation trend from the exit polls to the vote was approaching ZERO until 2000, when there was a dramatic reversal.

We know that scores of newspapers which supported Bush in 2000 supported Kerry in 2004.

We know that Kerry won the Ohio Exit Poll, by at least 51-48%.

We know the media will not report in any of the above.


THEIR EVIDENCE:
Something we don't know.
The rBr hypothesis: Bush voters were reluctant to speak to exit pollsters.

But..
We know that many Republican voters deserted Bush for Kerry.
We know there were hardly any Gore Democrats who voted for Bush.

Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:
Have you reached a verdict?

[ck4829]

1. It's too late to change it

But, we know that the Bush Administration is illegitimate.

[nashville_brook]

2. change what?

[ck4829]

3. Throwing Bush out by saying he 'won' fraudulently.

[BeFree]

7. Oh, we can change things.

And that is our point. This illegitimate presidency can be altered in many ways by the convincing of the sheeple.

The Sheeple: myopic misanthropes, all. The only way they are topped in their stupidity is by those who continue to insist that the election was fair.

[foo_bar]

4. the considered position is plagiarism?

At least give consideration to the urban legend's author:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=366974&mesg_id=366974

We know Kerry led the pre-election state polls.
We know Kerry led the pre-election national polls.

We know both statements are false, unless we cherrypick the minority of polls that support the hypothesis:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x302159#302226

We know documented voting machine “glitches” favored Bush 99% of the time.

We know the 99% figure was invented out of thin air:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=376407

We know that ALL Diebold ATMs provide a paper receipt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

We know there were hardly any Gore Democrats who voted for Bush.

"Nixon couldn't have won; no one I know voted for him!"
- Pauline Kael

Have you reached a verdict?

As Fly by Night beseeched:

As valuable as your work is, it would be more valuable if you would footnote your "Things you must believe if you believe Bush won" lists. As we have discussed in a PM, those lists could be very useful for suggesting the host of improbable "coincidences" that occurred in the last election, every one of which strains credibility. But most Americans (and most journalists) are not DUers and many I have shared your lists with have asked me -- "what are the bases for these statements? What are the primary sources?" and I can't tell them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=388864#388964

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. actually, what I think happened with the pre-election polls was...

The author decided that the Likely Voter projections were Wrong and the all-registered-voters numbers were Right.

So, for instance, he can take a Pew poll that Pew headlined as "Slight Bush margin" and record it as a narrow Kerry margin.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=232

I guess it's not surprising that he doesn't offer that particular link. ;) But I don't think he cherry-picked polls. Instead, from my point of view, he cherry-picked assumptions so that he wouldn't have to. Of course he thinks his assumptions are right. But not everyone is willing to take his word for it.

(EDIT: OK, it's not even that straightforward -- as so often, the harder I try to figure out exactly what he did, the harder it is to figure. Certainly his preelection enumeration of "recent national poll(s)" shows Kerry ahead in the Pew poll by using the Registered Voter numbers. http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel , graph #8.)

I would hate to send an election reform activist into the world with the message that "Kerry led the pre-election polls." Anyone who remembers the pre-election polls will say, "Huh?" Anyone who is prepared for the argument can refute it at length. The author doesn't even give people a talking point about why the LV numbers should be ignored.

[BeFree]

6. So, what's your point?

You picked three things from that whole list and seem to claim it voids the whole. You don't even really prove any thing was wrong, because you can't. Just as you can't prove the vote was counted correctly.

But the data can point to many, many ways that the vote was counted incorrectly, yet you can't prove (no one can, except in paper balloted races), that the vote was counted correctly.. So, again, what is your point? Are you suggesting the election was fair and square? Are you claiming the vote was counted correctly?

[foo_bar]

8. my point is, none of it ("that whole list") is sourced

My orthogonal point is that it's easily debunked, which explains the lack of attribution:

"We know Kerry led the pre-election national polls."
Source: TIA's butt

TrogL: FOX, CNN/Gallup. AP polls are not included. Why not? Isn't leaving them out biased?

TIA: No, I leave them out because they are BIASED for Bush.

These organizations are notoriously pro Bush. They constantly prop him up and thrash the Democrat, whether it was Gore in 2000 or Kerry today.

Taking them out of the averages can only improve the forecast.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1998204#1998844

Are you claiming the vote was counted correctly?

That's a false dilemma. I'll claim the election wasn't fair, and the OP has as much validity as a Clinton Body Count email.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. OK, ya got me -- that's cherry-picking

Although it's not precisely on point (it pertains to approval ratings, not election polls), "Professor Pollkatz's" comment should be noted here:

"I, like many others, have long suspected that some pollsters may have their thumb on the scale, favoring Bush, in their polls.... I was mistaken. I finally rolled up my sleeves and tested the hypothesis directly; not only were none of the results significant, none of them even suggested the swings I expected."

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com (scroll down -- the anchor link appears to be broken)

Let's hear it for reality-testing!

[BeFree]

10. As I recall

The pre-election polls did not pick a clear winner. None picked * as a 52 - 49 winner.

Ya see, common sense, and a sense of history, tell the story about pre-election polls leaning Kerry. The history is that an incumbent who does not clearly lead loses, since the undecideds have historically gone for the challenger. So Kerry was the leader of the pre-election polls.

Look, if ya don't like us using common sense and are going to be so prickly about what we know, and what we believe, based on common sense and history and the gawd damned machines... maybe yall should just move on?

This is not a court, nor a for profit newspaper, it is a forum of people struggling against all odds to reclaim our country. Yall are of no help at all.

[foo_bar]

11. "common sense" isn't an argument

so much as a reaction to an argument.

maybe yall should just move on?

Dot org?

[anaxarchos]

12. Well, I would argue with you but...

...It doesn't seem to do any good.

I've decided to go for musical refrains, instead.

The LV / RV rathole was explored here 6 months ago. None of the LV models hold up at nearly 123 million votes. Search on it. IMO, TIA was right to quote the RV polls. But I have no music for that...

The "move on" thing? That's another matter....




Hit The Road Jack
Ray Charles


(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more.)
(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more.)
What you say?
(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more.)
(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more.)

Woah Woman, oh woman, don't treat me so mean,
You're the meanest old woman that I've ever seen.
I guess if you said so
I'd have to pack my things and go. (That's right)

(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more.)
(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more.)
What you say?
(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more.)
(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more.)

Now baby, listen baby, don't ya treat me this-a way
Cause I'll be back on my feet some day.
(Don't care if you do 'cause it's understood)
(you ain't got no money and you just ain't no good)
Well, I guess if you say so
I'd have to pack my things and go. (That's right)

(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more.)
(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more.)
What you say?
(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more.)
(Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more.)
Well
(don't you come back no more.)
Uh, what you say?
(don't you come back no more.)
I didn't understand you
(don't you come back no more.)
You can't mean that
(don't you come back no more.)
Oh, now baby, please
(don't you come back no more.)
What you tryin' to do to me?
(don't you come back no more.)
Oh, don't treat me like that
(don't you come back no more.)

[foo_bar]

13. "stand by your man"

Well, his bread it was corn dodger,
and his meat you could not chaw,
and he nearly drove me crazy
with the wagging of his jaw,
and the telling of his stories,
I mean to let you know,
that there never was a rounder
who could lie like Diamond Joe.

Well, I tried three times to quit him, boys,
but he did argue so,
and I'm still punching cattle
in the pay of Diamond Joe,
and when I'm called up yonder,
and it is my time to go,
give my blankets to my buddies, boys,
and give the fleas to Diamond Joe.

[anaxarchos]

14. Well, your title and lyrics don't match but...

That'll Be the Day
Buddy Holly

Well, that'll be the day, when you say goodbye
Yes, that'll be the day, when you make me cry
You say you're gonna leave, you know it's a lie
'Cause that'll be the day when I die

Well, that'll be the day, woo hoo
That'll be the day, woo hoo
That'll be the day, woo hoo
That'll be the day, when I die

[foo_bar]

15. DJ's license

I believe it's called a "segueway".

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you

[anaxarchos]

16. You're startin' to lose me...

so, let me end on this...


The Times They Are A-Changin'
Bob Dylan (1964)


Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

[foo_bar]

17. "Whatever Gets You Through The Night"

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. let's try to look at this clearly

First of all, in ordinary English, one can't get from "an incumbent who does not clearly lead loses" to "Kerry was the leader of the pre-election polls." I think you know this, and that is why you are doing all this hand-waving about "common sense," and complaining about people being "prickly."

If you want to make an argument that the pre-election polls indicated that Kerry was more likely to win than Bush, that's fine. Some people agree, some people disagree, but it's a defensible position.

To say that "We know Kerry led the pre-election national polls" -- not so defensible. As I said above, I don't think election reform activists should be offered that as a talking point, certainly not without an iota of justification.

I have no idea what you are doing to reclaim the country, you probably have no idea what I am doing to reclaim the country, and it actually has no bearing whatsoever on whether "We know Kerry led the pre-election national polls." If you want to say that, hey, maybe it will work. I will continue to caution people that it is incredible. And when people make bad arguments about the exit polls, I will caution about those, too.

[BeFree]

22. Thanks, I needed that

The english lesson, that is.

Since it is well known that an incumbent who does not clearly lead in the days just before the election fails to get the majority of the undecideds, one can certainly say that Kerry had a lead in the polls.

Then too, on election day, up until the exit polls had been altered, just about everyone knew Kerry had won. I still remember the long faces on Faux at 5 o'clock that day. They all knew that the $10 million dollar exit polling, backed up by pre-election polls, showed Kerry the winner.

Interesting that yall still harp on just a few minor points while the rest of he OP list grinds away at the the rest of yalls case.

[BeFree]

23. What we know

7/13/05 copied from DU post
.
The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won in 2004?

The Essential Evidence

According to the vote tabulators, in the 2004 presidential election George W. Bush won a stunning victory that defied all odds, particularly those applied by unbiased statisticians. He won despite trailing in most state and national polls. He won despite an approval rating of less than 50%, usually the death knell for an incumbent presidential candidate. He won despite trailing in the three National Exit Polls three timelines from 4pm to 12:22 am (13047 respondents) by a steady 48%-51%, miraculously winning the final exit poll (with only 613 additional respondents, totaling 13,660). This poll was ?weighted? (altered) to meet the reported election result on the assumption that the reported result was accurate -- quite an assumption. The final poll showed a stunning reversal of the Kerry 51%-48% poll margin, which had been measured consistently all day by the same polling group: major news/networks and polling firm Edison-Mitofsky.

The analysis of exit polls and documented fraud in this election began on the Internet. A number of academics posted detailed work showing the near-impossible odds of Bush overcoming deficits in the state exit polls and the National Exit Polls. Much of this analysis comes from ?TruthIsAll? (TIA), a poster on DemocraticUnderground.Com. TIA has a background and several degrees in applied mathematics. Using various elements of the national and state exit polls and other data sources, he produces results that are thorough, detailed, sober and compelling. He shows ALL data and calculations, while encouraging others to check his math. Only once did he make a minor math error, after asking DUers to check his calculation of probability that at least 16 states would deviate beyond their exit poll margin of error and go for Bush. The answer turned out to be one in 19 trillion! The debates on DemocraticUnderground?s ?2004: Election Results and Discussion? forum are legendary and have attracted observers from all over the Net.

Before the election, TIA produced a daily update of his Election Model site. On 11/1/04, based on extensive statistical analysis, he projected a Kerry win of 51.63% to 48.38% using a combined average of national polls, and of 51.80% to 48.2% using a Monte Carlo simulation of individual state polls. After the polls closed, data from the Edison Mitofsky NEP survey (sponsored by the major television networks and CNN) was unintentionally released over the Internet. This was internal network data, embargoed from public use, data with statements like ?Estimates not for on-air use? and ?This page cannot be displayed.? The networks had locked down this data for their own use in an ?electronic cover-up? that was offensive to those who knew the story. Luckily for all of us, Jonathan Simon downloaded the exit poll data and saved the CNN screen shots! The Edison-Mitofsky (EM)-Corporate Media (CM) ?embargoed data? was available for anyone with eyes to see it and a mind to review it.

TruthIsAll immediately began analyzing and publishing analyses on the forbidden data. Looking at the demographics on the second to last E-M major network poll, He laid out the set of improbable circumstances needed for Bush to win: ?To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe?.? This post was cited by Will Pitt in a major blog, which gave it wide visibility on the Net. ?KERRY WON THE FEMALE VOTE BY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN BUSH WON THE MALE VOTE?AND MORE WOMEN (54%) VOTED THAN MEN (46%).? It was all right there, polling results that we were never intended to see. But this was only the beginning. There are over 100 individual analytical postings that demonstrate the tremendous odds against a Bush win. This high-level analysis dovetailed with and was confirmed by on-the-ground stories of voting rights violations all over the country, particularly in Ohio.

The key data sources for TIA?s analysis are the four EM National Exit Polls and the 50 state exit polls. For those who doubt the reliability of exit polling, there has been a trend toward accuracy within 0.4% since 1998. These Exit polls are endorsed heartily by international voting rights activists -- the Carter Center, for example -- and even the Bush administration, which used them, ironically, in the Ukraine elections to demonstrate fraud and call for a new election. There has been a trend toward accuracy within 0.4% since 1998.

At 12:22 am on November 3, the national exit poll of 13,047 respondents showed Kerry to be the winner by 51% to 48%, matching TIA?s pre-election projection. The poll was ?un-weighted,? meaning the EM and CM had yet to apply weighting ?adjustments?: percentages and weights applied to all the demographic categories to match the poll results to the reported vote count! Imagine if this technique had been applied by exit pollsters in the first Ukrainian election to show victory for the incumbent, who had committed gross election fraud. Yet this odd technique of turning a poll into a ratification of the actual voting results was applied in the American election. The final exit poll, with 13,660 respondents, showed a stunning reversal of fortune for Bush. The poll results were ?re-weighted? to create a Bush ?victory margin.?

The odds against the deviations from the state and national exit polls to the final vote count are astronomical. In addition, there is the consistency of the ?pristine? exit poll timeline from 4 pm (8349 respondents) to 7:30 pm (11,027) to 12:22 am (13,047).

In addition to the gender-based evidence cited above, TIA has shown that some weightings for the question ?How did you vote in 2000? are mathematically impossible. For example, the final poll claims that 43% of all 2004 voters were former Bush 2000 voters. But 43% of 122.3 million, the number of votes in the 2004 presidential election, is 52.59 million, and Bush only got 50.46 million votes in 2000, approximately 1.75 million of them from voters who have since died. Therefore, Bush?s final poll exit poll numbers, WHICH WERE MATCHED TO THE VOTE, had to be off by 4 million votes.

The analysis also demonstrated that other voter statistics make it impossible for Bush to have won. Even if all Bush voters from 2000 showed up and voted for him, he still needed an additional 13 million votes. He didn?t get them from new voters and those who did not vote in 2000; those voters preferred Kerry by an almost 3-to-2 margin. Because of this, a Bush victory required that he must win a whopping 14% of Gore 2000 voters, all of whom had to return to vote in 2004. But Gore voters were angry; they came back to defeat Bush once again after having the election stolen from them.

Logical absurdities and inconsistencies in Election 2004 abound. The data, analysis, and narrative are available at (insert link) for open-minded individuals who want to form their own conclusions about ?Stolen Election 2004.?

This work is just part of a comprehensive set of election fraud work and analysis provided by the dedicated voting rights activists in DemocraticUnderground.Com?s ?2004: Election Results and Discussion? forum, a unique Net resource.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. "trend toward accuracy within 0.4% since 1998"??

Such a telling point, apparently, that the original author used it twice -- although it looks suspiciously like a typographical error. Do you have any supporting documentation?

This piece is riddled with factual errors, many of which have been discussed repeatedly on DU. (The business about the "electronic cover-up," the nonsense about "miraculously winning the final exit poll," the mistaken implication that the Ukraine exit polls were the main evidence of fraud there, the assumption that people report their past votes accurately....) Some of the points at least rise to the level of the controversial.

Surely the argument depends on the assumption that the exit poll is highly accurate, so I am brought back to the subject header and the argument behind it. The argument seems to be, "Well, maybe U.S. exit polls were wrong in the past, but by 2000 They had fixed all the problems!" It would be worth knowing whether you endorse that view, since many ERDers argue instead that exit polls are intrinsically accurate.

OK, maybe you would like to lay out for us the basic evidence about the past accuracy of U.S. exit polls and why you think they are likely to have been highly accurate in 2004. I have a pretty expansive view of "evidence," but it should be something I wouldn't be embarrassed to post on a professional list. The vague, unsubstantiated, and apparently erroneous assertion I've quoted in the subject header doesn't make it.

EDIT: Again, this is not a game. You can believe that Kerry won, and maybe you can even prove it -- but you haven't given me anything I could use to convince my peers (or myself). Indeed, a lot of what you've copied and pasted here undermines the credibility of your views. I regret it. I think it's bad for election reform.

[BeFree]

32. Election reform, eh?

And what do you suggest for election reform?

(The business about the "electronic cover-up,"

There was no coverup? Seriously? Secret code, no recounts, and errors all over the place. Coverup!

the nonsense about "miraculously winning the final exit poll,"

The final additions to the exit polls were miraculous. Those final additions did some impossible things.

the mistaken implication that the Ukraine exit polls were the main evidence of fraud there,

Really, you have sources to that? Show us three sources which show Ukraine exit polls had no bearing on proof of fraud. Just three.

the assumption that people report their past votes accurately....

Hogwash. I can remember every vote for president I made. You, sir, are stretching things. All unsupported assertions. Nothing but cheap and fancy words. If you are representative of the professional class, is any wonder we are in such a mess?

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. you are flailing

If you have no opinion on the past (or present) accuracy of exit polls, then I think you've conceded most of the content of the post. But even though you fled my questions, I will take on a few of yours.

For election reform, paper ballots and/or op-scan with random recounts, rein in partisan secretaries of state, reenfranchise ex-felons... hey, there are quite a few lists out there, but your question wasn't serious, so let's move on.

It would be really, really nice if you gave some indication of having read the post you copied and pasted. "Electronic cover-up" referred to the assertion that cnn.com leaked exit poll results that they weren't supposed to. Actually, cnn.com posted exit poll results as the polls closed, which was fair use.

The final 613 people included in the exit poll were basically irrelevant. The results, as you and I probably agree, changed because they were reweighted to the official returns. There's nothing "miraculous" about it; it is E/M's standard practice.

Speaking of really, really nice, how about you read the text that you are quoting and responding to? Me: "that the Ukraine exit polls were the main evidence of fraud there"; you: "which show Ukraine exit polls had no bearing on proof of fraud." Nevertheless, you may find the contemporaneous remarks of Richard Lugar instructive:
http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=228223
Strangely, no exit polls.

Here's what the European Union had to say (very boring, but nope, no exit polls there, either) :
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/ukraine/in...

Here's the OSCE's report, which is somewhat more interesting; exit polls might be in there somewhere, but I don't see them.
http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2004/11/3811_en.pdf

As a side note, you might want to revise the following wikipedia article to rectify its inexplicable failure to mention exit polls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_ele...

Gawd! how widely does this coverup extend?

I am pleased to learn that you can remember every vote for president you made, as can I. However, I've rather extensively (although not comprehensively) documented apparent false recall in General Social Surveys, National Election Studies, and exit polls. Sorry, I don't have time to point you to all those posts this evening. Here's one you can try at home:

http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS /
--click on "Analyze"
--choose "Frequencies or crosstabulation (with charts)", then click "Start"
--enter "pres88" for the row variable and "year" for the column variable, then click "Run the Table"
--gawk at the incredible disappearing Dukakis voters. Poor guy, in 1988 one of the exit polls said he won, but by 1993 he was down over 40 points!

[BeFree]

37. Three links

One from Lugar. geez, that's pretty bad.
Second...a 404
Third was about the second round of voting. Have you no shame?

You wrote:
For election reform, paper ballots and/or op-scan with random recounts, rein in partisan secretaries of state, reenfranchise ex-felons... hey, there are quite a few lists out there, but your question wasn't serious, so let's move on.

Not serious? You should not over-estimate me. Why do you want paper ballots? Don't you trust e-voting? If not, why defend it so?

The final 613 people included in the exit poll were basically irrelevant. The results, as you and I probably agree, changed because they were reweighted to the official returns. There's nothing "miraculous" about it; it is E/M's standard practice.

It was miraculous that all those dead bush voters rose from the grave.
Otherwise, your words are tripe. No basis in fact. 404s and Lugar's second round voters. Sad.

[foo_bar]

38. I counted five

Is arithmetic now off-limits?

Otherwise, your words are tripe.

I miss TIA too.

[BeFree]

40. You? Again?

You can count, eh?

I asked him for three links about exit polls not being used in the FIRST Ukraine election. One, two, three. One a Lugar(hah!), two, a 404, and three, a Ukraine FINAL election. All tripe.

The other two links had zilch to do with my request. They were just tripe.

What? Are yall playing tag team here?

[foo_bar]

41. OTOH has a life

I'm on until Febble Live at nine hours GMT.

They were just tripe.
Tripe, tripe, tripe. What of flapdoodle? :tinfoilhat:

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. actually, I thought it was pretty remarkable

that you misstated my argument (even though you had just quoted me), asked me to prove your version of my argument, and I was able to come up with anything relevant at all.

But I'm not sure how many U.S. statements I would have to present that don't mention Ukraine exit polls before you would consider it evidence. As the saying goes, one can't prove a negative. However, if the U.S. did use the exit polls to demonstrate fraud in the Ukraine, that should be pretty easy to prove, I would have thought.

(As I pointed out elsewhere, you seem to be gravely confused about the timeline of the Ukraine election. The "FIRST Ukraine election" led to the run-off.)

If you say that false recall of past votes is "hogwash," and I point you to evidence of false recall of the 1988 presidential vote, and you say that is "just tripe," is it fair to conclude that one of us is working harder than the other?

(EDIT: really I should say "false reporting"; "false recall" is just one interpretation of what might cause the result I pointed to. And the results don't literally prove "false reporting," although I think it's hard to avoid that conclusion.)

Now, I will encourage you to step back and consider carefully something that both Febble and I have attempted to explain. We never argued, and we do not argue, that we can prove Bush won in 2004.

Febble and I (and many others!) agree that individual arguments should be assessed on their merits. An argument is not good, or bad, simply because it is offered in support of something we believe, or reject, or are unsure about. This is elementary logic. "Bush is a space alien, ergo the 2004 election was stolen." Whether or not one accepts the conclusion, one is entitled to question both the warrant for the premise, and the logical connection between premise and conclusion. In fact, if one is trying to convince people of the conclusion, it would seem Really Important to sort out these pesky details. If you cannot defend the premises, it is merely evasive to complain that we haven't refuted the conclusion.

[Febble]

42. OK, I'm back on

Cite me a single source where OTOH, or I have defended e-voting.

Look, you are clearly convinced by TIA's arguments. So are many people on this forum.

I am not. Many other people who also desperately care about the parlous state of your democracy are not. Now, let's stop the circular firing squad.

I think I can safely say that virtually everyone on this forum believes:

1. That the vote-counting software is insanely insecure and must be made both secure and transparent.

2. That some kind of paper voting, either all paper, hand-counted ballots, or randomly audited optically scanned ballots are essential to ensure the security of future elections and restore the faith of the American people (and the the world) that their president is legitimately elected.

3. That investigation is required into all anomalies from 2004, including the suppression of minority votes and apparent attempts at deliberate vote corruption.

Now, that may not be much common ground, but it is common, I think. The division, it seems to me, is between those of us who think that progress on these fronts is best served by a dispassionate weighing of the evidence, including the rejection of evidence that does not support the case very well (and in some case is contradictory, and thus undermines it) and those who feel that all evidence that points at election fraud, however easily debunked, is grist to the mill, and thus worth publicizing.

I can sort of understand the second view, but most emphatically do not hold it. I do not believe that providing straw men for the other side is good strategy. The list cited (unattributed) in the Original Post is full of unsourced assertions. Many of them are demonstrably false. Pointing out that they are false does NOT amount to "defending e-voting". It amounts to sifting the truth from the flim-flim and refining a case that will stand up to serious scrutiny.

(edited for clarity)

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. sorry about the broken link

Before I fix that, I had better fix your other two points.

Lugar was Bush's representative at the election, so if we are considering the claim that "the Bush administration" used exit polls "in the Ukraine elections to demonstrate fraud," his statement seems salient, yes. I've googled the whitehouse.gov site, and haven't found any references to the Ukraine exit polls. So the claim remains unsubstantiated at best. If you have evidence that the Bush administration or any other diplomatic player relied on the exit polls, bring it on; it would be good to know.

"Third was about the second round of voting. Have you no shame?"

I don't know whether you are completely unaware of the facts about the Ukraine presidential election, or whether you simply missed the dates. The second round = the first run-off = the round that was rerun amidst allegations of massive fraud.

As for the broken link, I will try again:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/ukraine/intro/faqs_ua_elections.pdf

The money graf:

1) Why did the EU not recognise the results of the presidential elections, which were held in Ukraine on 21 November?

The International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) for the second round of the Ukrainian Presidential elections issued its preliminary conclusions on the 22 November. These stated that the second round of the Ukrainian Presidential election “did not meet a considerable number of OSCE commitments and Council of Europe and other European standards for democratic elections” as had also been the case for the first round. The IEOM noted that the authorities failed to take remedial action between the two rounds of voting to redress the biased coverage on state media, misuse of state resources, and pressure on certain categories of voters to support the candidacy of Mr Yanukovych. The IEOM also pointed out that State executive authorities and the Central Election Commission displayed a lack of will to conduct a genuine democratic election process. Against this background the EU indicated that it was seriously questionable whether the official results could fully reflect the will of the Ukrainian electorate. The EU called on the Ukrainian authorities to review together with OSCE/ODIHR the electoral process and results.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. nope, sorry

You are spinning like all get-out, and on ERD it might work, but I don't think it will fly in the real world. But, as I said, you can try it.

You seem to think this is some sort of game about whether you can defend your case that Kerry won. It isn't. You can defend your case until doomsday. The question is how many other people you can convince of it. So far, it isn't going well. With arguments like 'Kerry led because he wasn't clearly behind,' it will not go well.

I know my way around the exit polls pretty well. Again, you might impress some folks on ERD with the "$10 million dollar (sic) exit polling," but the problem is, almost no one who knows anything about exit polls agrees with your position, which is why the argument is getting killed in well-known conservative bastions like Salon and DonkeyRising.

I don't think it's a "minor point" to open an essay with screeching factual inaccuracies or, at best, claims that rest on controversial assumptions that are completely unexplained. If you were paying attention to the National Guard story last year, I think you should know that one screeching mistake can be enough to sink an entire true story.

It might be enlightening to have you state what you think "yalls case" is, so we all can determine whether the OP list "grinds away at" it.

For that matter, maybe you could clarify what your case is. The OP list seems to imply that a key change in 2004 is that touch screens were in wide use. But in your colloquy with Febble on the graphic thread, you sort of equivocate: "not DREs... recorded and/or tabulated electronically... electronic voting is the number one altering condition...." You should also study Febble's #13 in that thread, where she points out that there has been a significant bias favoring the Democrat in four of the last five presidential exit polls. It seems to me that to demonstrate an association between "altering conditions" and exit poll error would require considerably more sustained work than you have mustered so far in our conversations.

And if you do it, it will be a public service. But if you don't do it, well, you haven't done it.

[BeFree]

31. That's some fancy writing there, fella

But totally unconvincing. Your words here can be metaphored thusly: " A little dutch boy with his finger in the dyke."

Could it be as soon as your finger is removed, the dam breaks? You could be the one.

All I've read from you is nay-nay-nay. No facts, no sources (besides pollkatz on a free site. Hah!) no supporting evidence except Mitofsky, the Great Million Dollar Liar, and nothing that seriously contradicts the stuff that this forum has seen written since day one. Oh yeah, I was here on day one. Had you, you'd a pulled your finger from the dyke by now.

If you think the machines did not steal the vote, prove it. You can't.

[foo_bar]

33. I think you meant "dike" :)

If you think Bigfoot didn't steal your slippers, prove it. You can't.

A classic example comes from Criswell's final speech at the end of Ed Wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space: "My friends, you have seen this incident, based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?". Considering that the incident in question involved grave robbers from space, the burden of proof is being incorrectly assigned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

edited for slightly less snark.

[BeFree]

36. Yeah, you can tell what's on my mind, eh?

Question: Why are you butting in here?

You can't prove the election was fair and square. You have no evidence that proves it was fair. But there is a ton of evidence that it was stolen.

That's all you need to know. Now, get to work to keep it from happening again, ok?

[foo_bar]

39. you did reply to me first

Question: Why are you butting in here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x395592#395609

[autorank]

19. This is a grat list. It's a keeper. Should be widely circulated.

It should have been on greatest. Why don't you post it on GD Politics. People will appreciate it greatly.


Thanks.

[foo_bar]

20. it was on "greatest"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=366974&mesg_id=366974

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. well, that version didn't have the cool football intro

although I'm not quite sure what the intro means. "we are beyond making our case" -- so the post is, what, sort of a really long pep rally cheer?

[anaxarchos]

25. So, Master Foo...

Do you have a scenario you would like to "discuss", yet?

[foo_bar]

26. is that like fantasy football?

In reality, * got 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 251. But in my scenario, the Electors read the Constitution first:

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

That's 34 fewer EVs for */Cheney in Texas alone. So-called faithless electors were designed to be the last bulwark against tyranny, but instead they're a hotbed of rest:

Margaret Leach, a nurse from Huntington, WV, was pledged to the Democratic Party. During the Electoral College process, Leach learned that members of the Electoral College were not required to vote for the candidates they were pledged to.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm#1

So I call Gore 300 EVs, Kerry 275-285. Since we're already in a fictitious timeline, Kerry also wins the popular vote, and the 4PM exit polls are just as perfect as the 12am ones, since fantasy exit polls measure the consent of the governed much better than the wild 'n wooly one man-one vote thing (as Colin Powell would attest).

[anaxarchos]

27. Pretty far afield, I'd say...

I'm actually doing the Diogenes thing.

If it happened (Bush), tell me how it happened. If it ain't cold fusion, we should be able to duplicate it.

Of course we could talk about melting watches instead...

[foo_bar]

28. I thought you were doing the Anaxarchos thing

3) We keep it really simple, just as you said.

Here's how it happened:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/ascertainment_ohio_01.html

Sen Boxer and Rep Tubbs Jones asked the right questions, but they were shouted down 74-1 and 267-31 respectively. So Bush happened, 286-251, and for loads of reasons: disenfranchised voters, corrupt Secretaries of State, complacent Congresscritters, ignorant Electors, not to mention the millions of people who actually voted for Bush. Is that a palatable scenario, or does it need more exit poll cowbell?

[anaxarchos]

30. Diogenes or Anaxarchos...

Cynics or Skeptics... All the same to me. What's in a name?

I'm more curious about how disappointment about the 2004 outcome translates into saying nay.... How come?

I buy what you said upstairs in spades.... but, so what?

Hell, I'm still pissed off about Reconstruction... but why the black mood?

I get Dr. Bored. He's on a mission. I get Mr. Hand. He's just doin' his job...

But... et tu Brute?

[foo_bar]

34. didn't you mention the game was "deadly serious"?

I thought I was adopting the somber tone of this forum.