Up-to-date compendium of TIA's work on 2004 election fraud.

[bleever]

As fresh news continues to come out about the 2004 presidential election (most notably the felony convictions of two Ohio election officials for rigging the recount), people who have followed the statistical work of Truth Is All and the discussions that have followed may be interested in the current state of his work.

While it's a whole lot to read at one sitting, people interested in the debates about the statistical evidence that John Kerry actually received more votes (nationwide and in key states) will find detailed discussions about the various arguments on both sides. It was last updated January 28, 2007.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

Anyone looking to rebut various arguments that there is not statistical evidence pointing to massive fraud will find plenty to read.

Agree with him or not, his work is exhaustive and has been very influential, and the value of understanding what really happens in our elections has never been higher.

:patriot:

[ClassWarrior]

1. Thanks Bro...

:hi:

Miss Landers is gonna be impressed with your work and stuff.

NGU.

[bleever]

4. Hey Wally?

Didja ever notice that even when you get really tired from fighting fascism, instead of being less angry, you feel even angrier? It's like the more you fight, the angrier you are that you can't just go throw the ball around, or just goof off and stuff.

How did Eddie Haskell ever get elected president? Oh yeah: he didn't. I guess we gotta take care of things ourselves. Mom and Dad will be sore if we don't.





NGU.

[Kurovski]

8. ..

:D

[autorank]

143. ..

!

[L. Coyote]

78. NEW Jan. 27, 2007. OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study

OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study
Sun Jan-28-07 02:24 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=259620&mesg_id=259620

Defining the vote outcome probabilities of wrong-precinct voting has revealed, in a sample of 166,953 votes (1/34th of the Ohio vote), the Kerry-Bush margin changes 6.15% when the population is sorted by probable outcomes of wrong-precinct voting.

The Kerry to Bush 6.15% vote-switch differential is seen when the large sample is sorted by probability a Kerry wrong-precinct vote counts for Bush. When the same large voter sample is sorted by the probability Kerry votes count for third-party candidates, Kerry votes are instead equal in both subsets.

Read the revised article with graphs of new findings:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes

http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

[glengarry]

140. Latest Update: April 15

Part I: Analytic Summary

Introduction

Dec.12, 2000 is a day that will live in infamy. Bush needed the help of five right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop the recount in Florida and enable him to steal the election. There has been an ongoing controversy regarding the 2004 election. State and national pre-election and exit polls pointed to a Kerry victory. Those who claim that Bush won fair and square are relentless in their attempts to thrash polling analyses which suggest that fraud occurred. Since the media will not release tell-tale precinct-level data, analysts must rely on publicly available polling data. And they have determined that the polls provide powerful statistical evidence of fraud. “Voter fraud” has been shown to be a non-existent distraction from the evidence of massive “election fraud”. Voters don’t fix elections, election officials do. The corporate media was quick to dismiss claims of election fraud as a left-wing “conspiracy theory” and the statistical polling analyses of “spreadsheet-wielding Internet bloggers”.

This is what Richard Morin , a Washington Post Staff Writer, wrote on Thursday, November 4, 2004:
“An Election Day filled with unexpected twists ended with a familiar question: What went wrong with the network exit polls?... In two previous national elections, the exit polls had behaved badly. Premature calls by the networks in Florida led to a congressional investigation in 2000. Two years later, a computer meltdown resulted in no release of data on Election Day…. Results based on the first few rounds of interviewing are usually only approximations of the final vote. Printouts warn that estimates of each candidate's support are unreliable and not for on-air use.….That is why the early leaks anger Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research, which conducted Tuesday's exit poll with Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool, a consortium of the major television networks and the Associated Press…. After the survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics”.

The media never considered the possibility that the votes may have been miscounted and that the exit polls were essentially correct. They just took it for granted that the vote count was accurate (i.e. the election was fraud-free). After all, isn’t that why the exit poll results are always adjusted to match the vote count? But they never asked why the National Exit Poll had Kerry leading by a steady 51-48% at 4pm (8649 respondents), at 7:30pm (1107 respondents) and 12:22am (13047 respondents) only to see Bush win the 2pm Final (13660 respondents) by 51-48%. Of course, they never did an analysis which would have shown that the adjusted Final NEP weights were impossible and that the adjusted vote shares were implausible. And they would have come to the same conclusion as the spreadsheet-wielding bloggers: the election was stolen.

A dwindling number of naysayers continue to maintain that the comprehensive statistical analysis of 2004 pre-election/exit polls by a number of independent researchers does not provide convincing evidence that the election was stolen. To debunk the analysis, they have resorted to tortured explanations: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; returning Gore voters lied or forgot when they told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000; pre-election and exit polls are not pure random samples; exit polls are not designed to detect fraud in the United States; early exit poll results were misleading because women voted early and Republicans voted late; Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry; the GOTV campaign headed by Karl Rove mobilized millions of Christian fundamentalists for Bush, etc. None of these explanations are supported by factual data and they have been thoroughly debunked.

They cited a post-election retrospective NES 600-sample survey in order to explain the impossible Bush/Gore 43/37% weights used in the 13047 sample Final 2004 National Exit Poll. Bush 2000 voters could not have comprised 43% of the 122.3mm votes recorded in 2004 since 43% of 122.3 is 52.6mm – and Bush only had 50.5mm votes in 2000. They claimed that the NES survey was evidence that 7% of former Gore voters lied in the Final 2004 NEP when they said they voted for Bush in 2000 -because Gore voters wanted to be associated with the previous “winner”. But Gore was the winner by 540,000 votes and Bush had a 48.5% approval rating on Election Day 2004. In the 12:22am NEP, Kerry captured 91% of those who voted for Gore in 2000 and 10% of those who voted for Bush. Bush won just 8% of Gore voters.

They noted a built-in Democratic bias in the exit polls. But in every election, approximately 3% of total votes cast are uncounted; the majority of them are in heavily Democratic minority districts. For example, in 2000 Bush “won” Florida by 537 “official” votes. The recount was aborted and approximately 180,000 spoiled (under and over-punched) ballots were never counted. Approximately 65% of them were intended for Gore, so he must have won the state by at least 60,000 votes. Assuming that 3 million votes were uncounted, Gore’s national margin was two million. In addition to the uncounted votes, it’s likely that Gore votes were switched to Bush. The 2000 election was not even close, unlike the 5-4 Supreme Court decision. In 2004, more than 90% of reported (EIRS) incidents of touch screen vote switching were from Kerry to Bush. An exhaustive statistical study of actual ballots in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County indicated that 6.15% of Kerry’s votes were switched.

They claimed that the vaunted 2004 Republican GOTV campaign brought Bush millions of new Christian fundamentalist votes. But they fail to note that according to the National Exit Poll, the Democrats have won first-time voters in the last four elections by an average 14% margin. Ruy Teixeira wrote about it in The Emerging Democratic Majority.

They rejected the assumption that late undecided voters would break for Kerry. But pollsters Zogby and Harris, who have a combined 60 years of polling experience, indicated they voted 67-75% for Kerry. The National Exit poll also reported that Kerry won a clear majority of undecided voters. But this was not unusual; historical evidence indicates that undecided voters break for the challenger over 80% of the time, especially when the incumbent is unpopular. Bush had a 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day.

They dismissed the significance of the Bush 48.5% approval rating on Election Day. But all presidential incumbents with approval below 50% lost re-election (Ford, Carter, Bush I) while all incumbents over 50% won (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton). The near-perfect 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly approval rating and national poll average share is further evidence. The correlation was confirmed by the 12:22am National Exit Poll which Kerry won by 51-48%.

They insisted that Bush led the pre-election polls. But they failed to consider undecided voters. Final Zogby polls had Kerry leading by 50-45% in nine battleground states. Assuming that he would capture 75% of the undecided vote, Kerry was projected to win all 9 states by 53-46%. He won just 5 and his average margin was only 50-49%. The margin of error was exceeded in six states - a 1 in 52 million probability.

They also failed to use weighted averages in calculating national vote share based on state polling, claiming that Bush led the weekly state poll (unweighted) average. But except for the first two weeks in September, Kerry led the national weighted average based on state voting population from July to Election Day. Kerry also led the monthly unweighted national pre-election polls all year. The final weighted average of 51 state polls (Kerry 47.88-46.89%) was confirmed by the unweighted average of 18 national polls (Kerry 47.17- Bush 46.89%).

They refused to accept the fact that both state and national projections in the Nov.1, 2004 Election Model had Kerry winning the popular vote by 51-48%. But the projections were confirmed by the 12:22am National Exit Poll which Kerry won by 51-48%. A Monte Carlo Simulation (5000 election trials) forecast that Kerry would win 320-337 electoral votes with 60-75% of the undecided vote - which he did if you believe the National Exit Poll and pollsters Zogby and Harris. The pre-election projections were confirmed in the Interactive Election Simulation Model by the state and national exit polls.

They overlooked the fact that 41 states switched to Bush from the final pre-election polls to the recorded vote. But none of the 10 which switched to Kerry was a battleground state. Forty-three states red-shifted to Bush from the 12:22am exit polls. Oregon was the only battleground state which blue-shifted to Kerry – by less than one percent. It’s also the only state in which voting is done by mail. Was this all just a coincidence, a case of bad polling or an indication that fraud occurred? You decide.

They cited “false recall” and non-response bias as explanations for the exit poll discrepancies. But they failed to account for the deviations between final pre-election state and national polls and the recorded vote. Exit poll non-response and false recall are not applicable to pre-election polls – and yet the pre-election polls matched the exits. The best evidence indicates that the “pristine” state and national exit polls were close to the true vote, unlike the final exit polls which were forced to match a corrupt vote count. All they can say is that the polls were wrong.

They hypothesized that the Final NEP 43 Bush / 37 Gore weights were due to “false recall” on the part of Gore 2000 voters who claimed to have voted for Bush 4 years earlier. But the weights were irrelevant and misleading since they were mathematically impossible. What is relevant is who the 2004 exit poll respondents said they voted for just minutes before. And 91% of Gore voters said they voted for Kerry.

They claimed that exit poll non-responders were Bush voters. But a linear regression analysis showed that exit poll non-response increased going from the strongest Bush states to the strongest Kerry states, indicating that non-responders were most likely Kerry voters.

They said that the margin of error used in calculating probabilities of the exit poll discrepancies was too low. But even assuming a 50% “cluster effect”, the probabilities were still near zero. The exit poll discrepancy exceeded the margin of error in 16 states - all in favor of Bush. The probability: 1 in 19 trillion. Not a single state deviated beyond the MoE for Kerry.

They ridiculed the near 100% probability of a Kerry popular vote victory, claiming that the exit poll “cluster effect” and response bias invalidates the theoretical 1.0% margin of error. But a probability sensitivity analysis showed that even assuming a 50% increase in MoE, Kerry still had a 98% probability of winning a majority of the popular vote.

They maintained that exit polls are not accurate indicators since they are not perfect random samples. But pollsters Edison-Mitofsky state in the National Exit Poll notes that respondents were randomly-selected and that the overall margin of error was 1%. This was confirmed in the NEP Methods Statement.

They claimed that the early exit polls were off and imply that the Final National Exit Poll was accurate. But the Final was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible weights and implausible vote shares. This implies that the recorded vote was fraud-free – not exactly a reality-based assumption.

They find nothing unusual about the fact that Kerry led the National Exit Poll by 51-48% at 4pm (8649 respondents), 7:30pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047). But Bush won the 2pm Final NEP (13660) by 51-48% through the use of impossible weights and implausible vote shares which were required in order to match the recorded vote. Is the Law of Large Numbers no longer operative?

They ignored the astounding fact that all 22 Eastern Time Zone states red-shifted from the exit poll to Bush and 12 deviated beyond the exit poll margin of error! But the East is a vote-rich Democratic region and is the most fertile ground vote stealing. The probability is 1 in 32 trillion that the exit poll margin of error would be exceeded in at least 12 of 22 states. Of the 28 states outside the Eastern Time Zone, “only” 20 deviated to Bush while the margin of error was exceeded in “just” 4 states.

They claimed that twice as many Gore voters (14.6%) defected to Bush than Bush voters (7.2%) to Kerry. But the 12:22am NEP timeline (13047 respondents) indicates that only 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush in 2004 while 10% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry. There was a near-ZERO probability of a 6.6% deviation in Gore defection. It was a feeble, last-ditch Hail Mary pass to justify the Bush “mandate”. And it means that they lost the Game.

They failed to explain how Bush found 16mm new voters (DNV2k) to reach 62mm in 2004. He had 50.5mm votes in 2000. But only about 46mm returned to vote in 2004. The decrease was due to two factors: 1) approximately 1.7mm Bush voters died (0.87% annual mortality rate) and 2) an estimated 2.5mm did not vote (95% turnout). According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, Bush won 41% or 10.8 of 26.3mm new voters. He needed 60% or 15.8mm to reach 62. The 19% discrepancy was 11 times the 1.72% margin of error. The probability of the discrepancy is ZERO. It’s important to note that a solid majority of new voters were Democrats and Independents who gave Bush an approval rating much lower than his total 48.5% average on Election Day 2004, a 1% monthly decline from Sept. 2001.

They need to explain how Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004, while winning a solid 57-41% share of new (DNV2k) voters. Of the DNV2k voters, Kerry won first-timer voters by 55-43% and other new voters by 61-37%. But Gore won the popular vote in 2000 even though Bush captured new (DNV96) voters by 52-44%. Quite strange, especially since Gore won first-timers (52-43%) and Bush won others (71-26%). How could there have been such a wide discrepancy in vote share?

They claimed that a long-term “bandwagon effect” was the reason why 7% of returning Gore 2000 voters wanted to associate with the “winner” (Bush) and told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000. But this was just a last-ditch attempt to explain the mathematically impossible “Voted in 2000” weights. Even if Gore voters lied, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is who they said they voted for just a few minutes earlier. And 91% said they voted for Kerry.

They claimed that it was standard operating procedure to re-weight the National Exit Poll based on the recorded vote. But the NEP “Voted in 2000” weights (Bush 43/Gore 37%) were mathematically impossible. How could 43% (52.6mm) of the 122.3mm who voted in 2004 have been Bush 2000 voters when he only had 50.5mm votes in 2000? Furthermore, since approximately 1.8mm Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election, the maximum number who could have voted in 2004 was 48.7 million, assuming an impossible 100% turnout. This physical, incontrovertible mathematical fact totally confounded the naysayers. And the longer they tried to refute the facts, the sillier they looked.

They finally had to accept an inconvenient truth: the Final National Exit Poll inflated the Bush tally by at least 4 million votes. The weights were contrived to force the exit poll to match a corrupt recorded vote. And even though the weights were mathematically impossible, the exit-pollsters had no choice but to use them, hoping that no one would notice.

After months of denial, they finally agreed that the Final 2pm NEP “How Voted in 2000” weights were impossible and replaced them with feasible weights. But they had to compensate for the change in weights in order to match to the recorded vote by inflating the Final Bush vote shares to implausible levels. This was necessary even though the 12:22am NEP Bush vote shares had already been inflated in the Final in order to match the recorded vote. With feasible weights applied to the “pristine” 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry won by 52.6-46.4% – a 7.7 million vote margin! With feasible weights applied to the Final NEP vote shares, Kerry won by 51.2-48.4%, a 3.4 million margin.

They were forced to suggest this implausible Bush win scenario in the Democratic Underground Game thread:
1) 14.6% of Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush. But the 12:22am NEP reported 8%; it was increased to 10% in the Final in order match the vote.
2) Kerry won 52.9% of voters who did not vote in 2000. But the 12:22am NEP reported he won by 57-41%; it was reduced to 54-45% in the Final.
3) 7.2% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry. But the 12:22am NEP reported 10%; it was reduced to 9% in the Final.

They belittled a comprehensive sensitivity analysis which indicated that Kerry won all plausible scenarios of voter turnout and new voter share. But assuming 12:22am NEP vote shares and 100% Bush 2000 voter turnout, Gore voter turnout had to be 73% for Bush to tie Kerry and 64% to match the recorded 62-59mm vote.

They need to explain these implausible changes in Bush NEP vote shares from 2000 to 2004:
-The Bush share of females increased by 4.2% while his share of males decreased by 0.2%
-His share of white females increased by 5.0% while his share of white males decreased by 0.9%
-His share of non-white females increased by 4.0% while his share of non-white males increased by only 0.76%
-His share of female independents increased by 1.8% while his share of male independents decreased by 5.6%
Didn’t females vote 54-45% for Kerry? Didn’t over 90% of blacks vote for him? Weren’t independents for Kerry by 52-44%? Why would independent males defect to Kerry at triple the rate that independent females defected to Bush? Didn’t Nader voters break 3-1 for Kerry?

They neglected to ask why six of the eight states which deviated to Kerry from the exit polls were strong Bush states: TN (1.63), TX (1.65), SD (1.67), ND (2.51), KS (2.37) and MT (0.22). The exit poll discrepancies (shown in parenthesis) were all within the exit poll margin of error. But only two competitive states deviated to Kerry: OR (0.75) and HI (1.25). Is it just a coincidence that Oregon is the only state which votes exclusively by mail (100% paper ballots), and that any discrepancy in that state would be small and could favor either Bush or Kerry? And is it just a coincidence that Hawaii was not exactly a critical state?

They agreed that the vote-rich battleground states would decide the election. But was it just a coincidence that six deep-red states deviated to Kerry and not a single blue state? Or was it because Bushco did not want to explain how 50 states red-shifted? Did they disregard the six states knowing that Kerry would not come close to winning them? Is that why they focused on thwarting a nationwide blue-shift in competitive states? The beast was in the East, the rest were in the West.

They claimed that the raw exit poll data which have not been made public indicates that there was no tendency for Bush to do better in 2004 relative to 2000 (“swing”) than he did in the 2004 exit poll (“red-shift”). They presented their analysis in a swing vs. red-shift scatter chart and concluded from the flat regression line that the exit poll discrepancies had little effect and therefore fraud was unlikely. But they did not considering the following factors: According to the 2004 National Exit Poll, Kerry won 71% of returning Nader voters compared to 21% for Bush. A similar split would have increased Gore’s margin by 1.4mm. Assuming that 75% of approximately 3 million uncounted votes were for Gore, his margin increases by another 1.5mm. When added to his recorded 540,000 vote majority, Gore’s adjusted margin becomes 3.4mm. And that does not consider the effects of vote-switching. Thanks to Ohio, we know a lot more about vote-switching than we did in 2000. It’s very likely that Gore votes were switched to Bush. If 3% (1.5 million) were switched, then his final adjusted margin is 6.4 million: 3mm switched + 1.5mm uncounted + 1.4mm Nader + 0.54mm recorded.

They never normalized the 2-party state vote shares in calculating “swing”. But adjusted swing (before vote switching) exceeded red-shift in 24 of the 43 states which deviated to Bush. Adjusted national swing was 3% (51.24-48.24). Based on the NEP “Voted in 2000” demographic, red-shift was 3.15% (51.24-48.09); based on Gender, it was 2.53% (51.24-48.71). But the red-shift was just 1.75% (51.24-49.49) based on the weighted average state poll. This clearly indicates that the naysayer swing vs. red-shift argument is just another ruse meant to divert, confuse and mislead. With 3% vote-switching, Bush’s adjusted vote swing exceeded red-shift in 34 of the 43 red-shift states. A realistic linear regression analysis of adjusted swing vs. redshift shows that for every 1% increase in swing, red-shift increased by 0.6% as opposed to the flat regression line in the naysayer scatter chart.

They argued that the Ohio exit poll does not indicate fraud. But they ignored the massive documented evidence of uncounted and switched votes, apart from voter disenfranchisement. And two election workers were convicted of rigging the recount. They criticized the 12:22am Ohio exit poll (1963 respondents) which Kerry won by 52-48%, yet believe the 2:06pm Final (2020 respondents) in which demographic category vote shares were changed in favor of Bush to match the miscounted recorded vote. This was just like the final NEP in which vote shares were also changed to match a miscounted national vote. If the original weights were used, it would have been necessary to inflate the Bush vote shares to implausible levels.

They need to explain these Ohio exit poll anomalies:
-When Decided: Of the 14% who were first-time voters, 55% were for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 47% of the other 86%? Of the 21% who decided in the month prior to the election, 62% voted for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 45% of the other 79% who decided before October 1? Were there any pre-October polls in which Bush led by 10%?
-Party ID: Democrat/ Republican weights changed from 38/35 to 35/40, a 7.9% shift. With the original 38/35 weights, Bush needed 17% of Democrats to match the recorded vote, as opposed to his 8% at 12:22am.
-Ideology: Liberal/Conservative weights changed from 21/32 to 19/34, a 9.5% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 23% of Liberals to match the recorded vote, as opposed to his 13% at 12:22am.
-Voted for Senate: Democratic/Republican weights changed from 43/57 to 36/64, a 16.3% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 14% of those who voted for the Democratic candidate, as opposed to his 7% at 12:22am.

They ignored Florida’s implausible vote count by machine type and party registration. Bush supposedly “won” by 52-47%, a 368,000 vote margin. But the Democrats had a 41- 37% registration advantage in Touch Screen (TS) counties and a 42-39% edge in Optical Scan (OS) counties. Kerry won TS counties (3.86mm votes) by 51-47%, but Bush won OS counties (3.43mm votes) by a whopping 57-42%. Florida voter registration by party is consistent across TS and OS counties, so it’s not comparing apples and oranges. The total TS county vote share matched the 12:22am NEP to within 0.43% for Bush and 0.31% for Kerry. But the Bush OS county share deviated by 9.0% (307,000 votes) while the Kerry discrepancy was 8.1% (278,000). But the low Democratic vote shares in the three most heavily populated TS counties (Palm Beach, Broward, Dade) were also highly suspect. In 2000, Bush supposedly “won” by 547 official votes. But given Gore’s 70% share of 180,000 uncounted under/over votes, he would have won by at least 60,000 votes if they had been counted.

Two separate models indicated that Kerry won Florida by 221,000 votes. The first was based on voting machine type (optical scanners and touch screens) and used 2004 NEP “How Voted in 2000” vote shares with party registration percentage weights. Kerry won by … 221,000 votes. The second was based on uncounted and switched votes assumptions applied to the 2004 recorded vote. Kerry won by…. 221,000 votes. Assuming that Kerry won 70,000 of 96,000 Nader 2000 votes (based on his 71% NEP share), he had a built-in 100,000 advantage on Election Day … if all the votes were going to be counted. The final Zogby pre-election poll had Kerry winning by 50-47%. Assuming a 1.0% margin of error, the probability is 1 in 12.7 trillion that Kerry's total TS county vote share would exceed his total Florida share by 4.2%.

They cited the final NY pre-election poll which Kerry won by 59-40 (matching the recorded vote) to support their argument that the pre-election polls did not match the exits (the NY exit poll was 64-35). But they failed to mention that the typical pre-election state poll has a 4% margin of error (600 respondents) while the corresponding exit poll has a 2-3% MoE, depending on the number of respondents so a 5% discrepancy between a given state pre-election and the corresponding exit poll is not unusual. In fact, the weighted average vote share of 51 state pre-election polls, adjusted for undecided voters, matched the weighted average exit poll vote share to within 1%.

They implied that the NY pre-election poll was accurate since it matched the recorded vote. But this is not plausible since the 2000 recorded vote was Gore 60-Bush 35-Nader 5 and the 2004 NEP reported that 10% of Bush2000 voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. Assuming conservatively that the Bush/Gore defection rates were equal, the 59-40 recorded vote implies that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush - an absolute impossibility. The NEP indicated that Kerry won Nader voters by 71-21. Allocating Nader 2000 votes and assuming equal defection rates, the 2004 recorded vote is Kerry 63-Bush 36. Allocating the 3% uncounted votes (75% Kerry/ 25% Bush) widens the vote split to 64-35, matching the exit poll. The True Vote Model determined that 7% of Kerry’s national votes were switched to Bush while a comprehensive analysis of total votes cast in Cuyahoga County (Ohio) showed that 6.15% were switched. Assuming that 4% of Kerry’s NY votes were switched, he won the state by 66-33%.

They have never explained why the Exit Poll Response Optimizer confirmed the USCV simulation. But both models analyzed summary exit poll data for 1250 precincts supplied by Edison-Mitofsky and independently debunked the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. The Optimizer employed the Excel Solver algorithm to obtain a feasible 2-party vote share solution (Kerry 52.15-Bush 47.85%). The data constraints include the actual recorded vote (Bush 51.24-Kerry 48.76%), along with response rates and within precinct error (WPE) categorized into five partisanship groupings: Strong Bush, Bush, Even, Kerry, Strong Kerry. The vote share solution exactly matched the 12:22am National Exit Poll “Voted in 2000” demographic. Two independent mathematical methods applied to two distinct sets of national and precinct summary exit poll data produced the identical result.

They can try to refute the True Vote Model. But the base case scenario determined that Kerry won by 66.1-58.4mm. The model used the 12:22am NEP vote shares with Voted 2000 weights adjusted for 1) the 2000 recorded vote, 2) 3.5% mortality rate and 3) 95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004. It assumes that 3.4mm (2.74%) votes were uncounted, given that 125.7mm were reported by the 2004 Election Census but only 122.3mm were recorded. The uncounted votes were allocated to Kerry and Bush in each state based on the racial mix. Assuming that Kerry won 2.6mm (75%) of the uncounted votes, then 4.5mm (6.8%) of total votes cast for Kerry must have been switched to Bush since the difference between his 66.1mm true vote and his recorded 59mm vote is 7.1mm (2.6 uncounted + 4.5 switched). The True Vote Model determined that Kerry won 336 electoral votes which matched the EV projected by the Monte Carlo Simulation in the Election Model.

Except for the notorious 2006 FL-13 congressional race in which 18,000 mostly Democratic votes were mysteriously missing, the evidence of massive fraud in the midterm elections is hardly mentioned in the corporate media. But a Pew 2006 Election Analysis describes voting “anomalies” and computer “glitches” that occurred in virtually every state. The fraud probably cost the Democrats 10-20 congressional seats.

The 2006 National Exit Poll “How Voted in 2004” weights were changed from 47 Bush / 45 Kerry at 7pm on Election Day to 49/43 in the Final NEP at 1pm on the following day. Once again, just like in 2004, the exit pollsters had to match the vote count by expanding the weight spread from 2% to 6%! This had a major effect in cutting the Democratic margin in half - from 55-43% to 52-46%. As noted earlier, the 2004 12:22am NEP “How Voted in 2000” Bush/Gore 41/39 weights were changed to 43/37 in the 2pm Final, turning a 51-48% Kerry victory into a 51-48% loss.

If plausible 49 Kerry/ 46 Bush weights (based on the 2004 NEP) are used, the TRUE Democratic margin becomes 56.7-42.1%, exactly matching the 120 pre-election Generic Poll trend line. Was this just a coincidence or another confirmation that the pre-election polls matched the 7pm National Exit Poll? You decide.

[glengarry]

142. 4/27 Update: A Recorded State Vote Smoking Gun ? (not a polling analysis)

Late Vote Anomalies

How does one explain these discrepancies in the recorded state vote shares? A total of 121.06 million votes were recorded for Bush and Kerry. Bush won 51.5% of the initial 115.81mm. But Kerry won 54.6% of the final 5.26mm. The probability of this discrepancy occurring due to chance is virtually ZERO. Kerry exceeded his initial vote share in 38 states, including 15 of 19 battleground states.

The state vote discrepancies were significant in the East but near zero in the Far West, strongly suggesting election fraud in early-reporting, vote-rich battleground states. A false impression was created as the first votes came in from the East that Bush was winning the popular vote. But at the same time, state and national exit polls indicated that Bush was losing.

The vote-rigging ended before the final 5 million votes were recorded. Bush had already “won” the electoral vote and led by 3.5mm in the popular vote so there was no need to steal more votes. After the final 5mm votes were recorded, the Bush “mandate” declined by 0.5mm to 3.0mm: 62-59mm.

View the discrepancies (6% total) between the initial and final recorded 2-party state votes...
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#LateVotes

[BeFree]

191. Kick

I'll have more to say later, but for now I hope TIA is doing great.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

187. Interesting note - this thread was never recommended, not by even one single person

but it keeps popping up like a rotting corpse, stinking up the place.

[tiptoe]

188. The post received many recommendations...

but as with many other threads, the rec count was set to zero due to a system problem. If you read the posts immediately following yours, you would see that it was highly recommended.

Thanks for kicking the post. It's up over 20,000 views.

[OnTheOtherHand]

189. actually, TIA is doomed to be more recced than read

Almost no one agrees with him in the sense of being able to explain his side of any argument, but they like his Message.

But every time I watch Febble hand TIA his ass, with a great big Febble-hug, I just get happy. So if people want to kick the thread, I guess it's OK with me.

[kster]

2. KR...........nt

[tiptoe]

190. kick

[Peace Patriot]

3. Highly, highly recommended!

If there were an objective and just power in this country, the 2004 election would be nullified, and all Bush's actions and appointments since then voided. That's what the total picture of TIA's and other election studies is saying. And, really, you only have consider the belligerence, arrogance, hubris and deafness of Bush and Cheney to know that they are not legitimate rulers and do not owe their power to the people of this country.

But I always say, all you have to know is WHO "counted" the votes, and HOW they "counted" them, to know that something is not right. Just imagine that Josef Stalin was alive today, and devised a voting system to keep himself in power. That's what we have: Rightwing Bushite corporations "counting" all the votes with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls, in a system engineered by the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney (abetted by corporatist 'Democrats' Christopher Dodd and Terry McAuliffe), and funded by $3.9 billion, to fasttrack these crapass, insecure and extremely insider hackable voting systems all over the country, between 2002 and 2004. Made to order to keep Bush in power and to manufacture a phony endorsement of a war that 56% of the American people opposed from way back at the beginning (Feb. '03). You want to conduct an unjust, illegal war, in a democracy, you have to fix the elections. That's what they did.

And the fixers are:

DIEBOLD: Until recently, headed by Wally O'Dell, a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer," right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush-Cheney in 2004"; and

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture), initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship; until recently, they were run by two brothers, Bob and Tod Urosevich. (One of them got outa Dodge last year--can't recall which one.)

These are the people who "counted" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004, under a veil of corporate secrecy.

And what can you logically expect from such a rigged, secret, partisan vote counting system?

So when someone says to you "But there's no proof," ask them why there isn't? Aren't elections supposed to HAVE proof of who won? Isn't that the whole point--transparent vote counting, so that all are agreed on who the chosen leaders are?

They eliminated the evidence--or tried their damnedest to. We lucked out on some things--fast-thinking statistical experts and bloggers who captured screen shots of the exit polls, for instance, before the corporate news monopolies altered them to force them to fit Diebold/ES&S "results."

What TIA has done is an exhaustive analysis of the inferential evidence, which needs to be reviewed with knowledge of the rigged voting system that was fast-tracked into place by thieves and felons. And once you put these two things together in your head, you stop asking for "proof" and you start asking for impeachment.

[truedelphi]

11. Remembered Conversation - Susan Truitt, Andy Stephenson

and me

Circa Dec 2004 or January 2005

I'm saying to first one and then the other one over the phone (they are in Ohio - I am in California) - Look all we need is the phone bills of Andy Card, Karl Rove and Blackwell - the work line numbers, the cell phone numbers and the home numbers. Just those pieces of information - see who was talking to whom and at what time...

Then we could prove the set-up.

Abut two days later, ANdy calls me back - sounding troubled. "After all, since Secretary of State Blackwell was the Ohio Chairman of the Republican Party, he would have had the right to be on the phone with Card or Rove." Not until several months later and fighting his fatal cancer would he ever again sound so disheartened.

How WEIRD is that? How damn weird. They did more than destroy evidence - there was so little sense of conflict of interest - that it is not considered an INFRACTION of the highest order that the SAME PERSON that was the Secretary of State for Ohio was also the Ohio Chair Person of the Republican Party.

And yet this type of thing is now Business as Usual.

I wan tthis type of nonsense to be seen for what it is - criminal.

[bleever]

14. That's a memory

that really hits home. Thanks for sharing it.

[tiptoe]

163. type of nonsense = "...officials, under color of law, depriving citizens of consitutional rights..."

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

“The secretary of state is supposed to administer elections -- not throw them,” says Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Cleveland who has dealt with Blackwell for years. “The election in Ohio in 2004 stands out as an example of how, under color of law, a state election official can frustrate the exercise of the right to vote.”

To help prevent a repeat of 2004, Kerry has co-sponsored a package of election reforms called the Count Every Vote Act. The measure would increase turnout by allowing voters to register at the polls on Election Day, provide provisional ballots to voters who inadvertently show up at the wrong precinct, require electronic voting machines to produce paper receipts verified by voters, and force election officials like Blackwell to step down if they want to join a campaign.²⁰⁵ But Kerry says his fellow Democrats have been reluctant to push the reforms, fearing that Republicans would use their majority in Congress to create even more obstacles to voting. “The real reason there is no appetite up here is that people are afraid the Republicans will amend HAVA and shove something far worse down our throats,” he told me.

(the "no appetite" amongst Dems was PRE-2006 midterm Election results...)

[mod mom]

5. TIA-a true patriot!

:patriot:

[troubleinwinter]

6. Who is this person?

Does he have a name?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

65. he was banned from DU n/t

[galloglas]

101. His name is "Truth" !! Do you need more than that?

So, let Truth be known!

[troubleinwinter]

103. Not only was TIA tombstoned, so was his sockpuppet, "caruso". How's that for truth?

[galloglas]

104. Your point is??

Animus??

I can think of many who were tombstoned, in a maner of ways.

Neimoller, two Kennedys, Lincoln, Guevara, Martin Luther King... but I suppose you "get" the idea?

The bigger question (possibly answered by your retort) is "Do you approve?" or "Do you feel that Truth is best dealt with by burying it?"

[troubleinwinter]

107. The point is that a sockpuppet- pretending to be someone other than who you are-

is not being truthful.

[galloglas]

111. That fails to answer

the question I left you with,

"Do you feel that Truth is best dealt with by burying it?"

regardless of whether that Truth comes from the original source, a book, or a "sock puppet"?

The Truth should be self-evident. But it cannot be neither self-evident or blatantly ridiculous on-its-face, if it is kept locked underground, can it?

For a more egregious example of the "offensiveness" you deride, check out this link:

https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1645136000578449262&postID=1224033928746047894

[troubleinwinter]

112. You have lost me.

What "offensiveness" did I "deride"? Gimme a clue here so I can try to follow your silliness.

Why are you sending me a link to a site totally unrelated to this?

As for "truth", what TIA posts is not "truth", it's nonsense.

His posting as a sockpuppet, pretending to be other than himself is dishonest = opposite of truth.

[galloglas]

113. You once were lost, but now you're found.

Tell you what, you answer my question, (This is twice)

"Do you feel that Truth is best dealt with by burying it?"

and I'll answer yours.

"What "offensiveness" did I "deride"? Gimme a clue here so I can try to follow your silliness."

BTW, can you refrain from ad hominen personal attacks, i.e., "your silliness" (above)?

[troubleinwinter]

114. Nope.

All done here with your silliness.

You state that I "derided" "offensiveness", but won't give any clue what you're talking about.

Aparently you think I am trying to assasinate or bury TIA, or something, I'm not sure.

"His name is "Truth"!!" "Do you feel that Truth is best dealt with by burying it?"

If you are done with your time-wasting silliness and want to make sense, maybe we can converse. Til then carry on entertaining yourself.

[galloglas]

116. Nope is correct.

You persist in the ad hominems, and fail to answer the question I asked.

I'll not call you any names of creatures from Fairy Tale books, but I will set you on ignore.

If that option doesn't any longer work digitally, the I'll do it myself, as the Little Red Hen would do. And I will.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

120. he is confused about "ad hominem," too

Suggesting that TruthIsAll should be believed because Truth is in his name -- that's an ad hominem argument of sorts, and indeed a silly one. Likening TIA to Niemoller, JFK, or Martin Luther King -- that's mega-meta-ad hominem, or something. It sure isn't an argument about election fraud.

Calling silliness silliness isn't ad hominem. (Even calling good sense silliness isn't ad hominem.)

But it would make things more interesting if someone actually defended TIA's arguments and stuck around to explain why.

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. what a remarkably inapposite analogy

TIA was banned from DU for repeated violations of DU rules. Whether or not one agrees with the banning, it hardly seems to parallel politically motivated assassinations. As admin EarlG posted back in August 2005, "...I would encourage those of you who are pissed off about his banning to direct your comments to TIA himself. He made the decision to ignore repeated Admin warnings, and we see no reason why he should not be held accountable for his behavior just like anyone else who posts on DU."

But the irony here is that no one besides TIA himself has lifted a finger to support TIA's actual arguments. It's an odd sort of "Truth" that doesn't bear defending. If TIA's arguments are any good, why can no one else make them? Why the heavy reliance on misappropriated victimhood?

[galloglas]

110. Moved to proper spot

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

106. what about these new sock puppets?

why are they posting his stuff?

why are they commenting for him?

why why why?

is this a pretend ban?

[autorank]

7. A big K&R...That's quite a recource...and it's free!

:hi:

[bleever]

100. Too bad there's more money in stealing elections

than protecting them.

:hi:

[bleever]

9. Also a section on the 2006

midterm elections.

:thumbsup:

[kster]

10. kick.nt

[Melissa G]

12. Thanks Bleever! TIA Rocks and so do you! K&R! n/t

[bleever]

13. Takes one to know one!

We ARE overcoming!

:7

[caruso]

15. KICK FOR FEB 4 UPDATE

.

[caruso]

16. Contents and Introduction to the FAQ response

TIA: Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ
Updated: Feb. 6, 2007

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

Part I: Analytic Summary

Introduction
Smoking Gun: The Final National Exit Poll
The Democratic Underground “Game” thread
National Pre-election Polls
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
Pre-Election State Polls vs. Exit Polls Vs. Actual Vote
The National Exit Poll Timeline
National Exit Poll Sensitivity Analysis
Uncounted and Switched Votes
The 2004 True Vote Model
Where did Bush find 16 million new voters?
Exit Poll Response Optimization

The 2006 Mid-terms
Generic 120-Poll Trend vs. the 7:07pm and Final Exit Poll
Uncounted and Switched Votes
Generic 120-Poll Trend vs Final 10 Poll Average

Election Models

Part II: Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ
A Introduction to the TruthIsAll (TIA) FAQ
The Pre-Election Polls
The "Rules": Did They Favor Kerry?
Explaining the Exit Poll Discrepancies
Comparing 2004 to 2000
Miscellaneous
_______________________________________________________________

Introduction
There has been an ongoing controversy regarding the 2004 election. Those who still believe that Bush won maintain that the early state exit polls and the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP), which Kerry won by 51-47%, are not convincing evidence of fraud. They provide no statistical evidence to back up there claim. The media-controlled exit pollsters will not release raw precinct-level data.

On the other hand, they invent hypothetical theories to explain why the polls are wrong. Debunk one theory and they quickly come up with another. Tortured explanations for exit poll discrepancies include but are not limited to the following: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; Bush voters lied or forgot who they voted for in 2000; polls are not true random samples; exit polls are not designed to expose fraud in the U.S. They point out that Democrats always do better in the polls than in the vote count because of this endemic bias.

They never consider that in every election, a significant percentage of total votes cast are never counted and overwhelmingly Democratic. They never consider that the discrepancies could be due to fraud. They dismiss the pre-election and early exit polls. They disregard the fact that the 2004 pre-election polls matched exit polls. They ignore the experience of world-class pollsters who claim that undecided voters break for the challenger, especially when the incumbent is unpopular. They dismiss Bush’s election-day 48.5% approval rating as not relevant.

They never consider that the final exit polls (both State and National) are always forced to match the recorded vote. They never consider the possibility of a fraudulent vote count. If they did, they would be forced to admit that the early polls were closer to the true vote.

Mark would have us believe that the Final National Exit Poll (NEP) weightings were due to “false recall” on the part of Gore voters. He constantly refers to an NES post-election survey as evidence that 7% of former Gore voters lied or forgot when they told exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000 and that voters tend say they voted for the winner of the prior election. But 2000 was different; Gore won by over 540,000. Why would Gore (or Bush) voters lie in a confidential survey? Why would Gore voters forget who they voted for just four years later? Why would they claim to have voted for Bush, when they knew he stole the election?

In fact, Gore’s margin had to be much higher than 540k. It’s well-known that approximately 3% of total votes cast are uncounted in every presidential election - and that the vast majority of them are Democratic. Therefore Gore’s winning margin probably exceeded two million votes. In Florida alone there were 180,000 spoiled (over/under-punched) ballots and other missing and absentee ballots. About 65% of the spoiled ballots were Gore votes, so he probably won Florida by over 60,000 votes.

In 2004, documented EIRS evidence indicated that over 90% of electronic vote switching incidents were from Kerry to Bush. In the 2006 mid-terms, the great majority of recorded vote switches were from the Democrats to Republicans. Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that in addition to the 3 million uncounted votes in 2000, an unknown number were switched from Gore to Bush. Dec.12, 2000 is a day that will live in infamy: Bush needed the help of five right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop the recount and help him steal the election. The issue in 2004 is whether pre and post-election polls prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush stole the election.

In the Nov.1 Election Model, the final pre-election state poll weighted average closely matched the average of 18 national polls. Kerry had a slight lead in both of these independent poll sets. The state and national Kerry/Bush poll averages were 47.17–46.89% and 47.88-46.89%, respectively. After allocation of undecided voters, the state and national models both projected a 51-48% Kerry victory. The state and national exit polls confirmed the pre-election polls.

But when the 12:22am “How Voted in 2000” weights were changed to realistic, plausible values based on the factual 2000 and 2004 recorded vote, the factual 0.87% annual mortality rate, Kerry was a 52.6-46.4% winner. The margin was at least 7 million votes. The only assumptions: a 95% turnout of 2000 election voters and 12:22am NEP vote shares. The Final National Exit poll overstated the Bush vote by more than 4 million through the use of impossible weights and implausible vote shares!

Mark does not agree that the pre-election state and national polls projected a Kerry win or that the pre-election polls matched the exits. He cites discrepancies between individual state pre-election and exit polls. He often refers to the New York State polls. Kerry officially won the state by 58.4-40.2%. The final NY pre-election poll favored Kerry by 57-39%. After allocation of undecided voters, he was projected to win by 59-40%, closely matching the recorded vote. Kerry won the exit poll by 63-36%. To Mark, this was proof that the exit polls did not match the pre-election polls. But he fails to consider several facts.

In 2000, Gore won NY by 60-35% (with 5% to Nader). In 2004, Kerry won over 70% of returning Nader voters. Allocating the Nader vote, the true vote should have been close to the 63-36% exit poll result. So why was there a 4% exit poll discrepancy from the recorded vote? In 2004, as in all prior elections, approximately 3% of total votes cast (mostly Kerry) were uncounted. A recent analysis of the Ohio election indicated that 6.15% of Kerry votes were switched to Bush. Assuming a) 1.5% net Kerry loss due to uncounted votes, and that b) 4% of Kerry votes were switched to Bush, the true vote matched the exit poll. He may have done even better than that.

Mark also ignores the fact that the typical state pre-election poll (600 sample-size) had a 4% margin of error. The corresponding state exit poll MoE was 2-3%, depending on the number of respondents. Therefore, in any given state, a 2-4% discrepancy between the pre-election and exit poll could very well occur. But in the aggregate, the weighted average state pre-election poll (i.e. the national vote), adjusted for undecided voters, should (and did) match the state exit poll weighted national average.

The Law of Large Numbers (applied to the weighted average) overcame the individual state pre-election/exit poll deviations. The pre-election polls matched the exit polls to within 1%.

Given the 0.87% annual mortality rate and assuming a 95% turnout of Bush 2000 voters in 2004: where did Bush find 16 million (62-46) new voters? That was quite a feat considering that his job rating was in a steady decline from 90% on Sept.11, 2001 to 48.5% on Election Day 2004.

The 2006 Final NEP “How Voted in 2004” demographic weights were manipulated just like they were in the 2004 Final NEP. In 2004, the 12:22am “How Voted in 2000” 41 Bush/ 39 Gore weights were changed to 43/37 in the 2pm Final - and the 51-47% Kerry win magically turned into a 51-48% loss.

In 2006, it was déjà vu. The 7:07 Election Day NEP weights were changed from 47 Bush / 45 Kerry to 49/43 in the 1pm Final the next day! The net result was to cut the 12% Democratic margin in half - from 55-43% to 52-46%. Once again, applying realistic, feasible weights to the 7pm 2006 NEP, the true Democratic margin was 56.7-42.1%, exactly matching the 120 Generic poll projection trend.

Was it just a coincidence or confirmation? You decide.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. fact check

There is considerable misinformation in this post. I will touch on a few points.

Critics of TIA's arguments have offered extensive statistical evidence to explain why the exit polls are not convincing evidence of fraud. TIA mostly ignores it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Maybe TIA actually thinks that things he disagrees with do not exist?

TIA's repeated assertions that his critics "never consider that the discrepancies could be due to fraud" undermine his credibility. I do not know why TIA is committed to repeating this canard. I am happy to have people read my work and raise questions about it; I am not at all happy to have people invent or distort my positions. Of course I and others have considered that the discrepancies could be due to fraud. Could we please keep it real around here?

Similarly, TIA alleges that critics "dismiss" the pre-election polls. In fact, I and others have discussed these polls extensively; TIA just doesn't like what we have to say.

(Nor do I "dismiss" Bush's 48.5% approval rating. Actually, I demonstrate that extrapolating from previous elections, the break-even point is around 45%: on average, an incumbent with an approval rating over 45% would be expected to win. That isn't to say that a victory was foreordained -- I don't recommend predicting election results from approval ratings alone.)

TIA asks, "Why would Gore (or Bush) voters lie in a confidential survey? Why would Gore voters forget who they voted for just four years later?" Here, TIA fails to engage the evidence to which he is supposedly responding. As I have explained repeatedly, we know that in the 2000-2004 NES panel, some respondents who said in 2000 that they had voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they had voted for Bush in 2000. I have no way of knowing whether they were lying, or forgetting, or what. But whatever exists, is possible. No number of rhetorical questions can wish those respondents away.

TIA asserts as a "fact" that "the 2004 pre-election polls matched exit polls." This claim is, charitably, tortured, for reasons that I have explained in detail. Even on average, the pre-election polls showed Bush ahead, nationally and in the state of Ohio. Even if one believes that these polls should be interpreted to give Kerry an advantage, it misrepresents the work of the researchers to claim that their polls "matched" the exit poll results. Repeated and deliberate misrepresentations of other researchers' work violate scientific ethics.

TIA's comments on New York err in several respects. The New York exit poll gave Kerry a 31.3-point lead, not a 28-point lead. There were four pre-election polls in the last week, each showing Kerry ahead by 15 to 18 points; the Siena and SurveyUSA polls alone had a combined N of almost 1700, not 600. These results do not "match." Worse, while TIA strains to make these results "match," he sets aside all the other state results that likewise infirm his assumptions. TIA did not predict, and has not accounted for, the lack of correlation between exit poll "red shift" and deviations from pre-election polls at the state level. This is one of the many lines of statistical evidence that, for whatever reason, he apparently prefers to claim don't exist.

All these points and more are made in my FAQ, in considerable detail. It is not feasible to rebut repeated misstatements each time they are made. I recognize that some people regard it as uncharitable, unhelpful, and/or unpatriotic to subject TIA's arguments to scientific scrutiny. If such people read carefully the criticisms of TIA in the GD thread that begins here, they will find much food for thought, or for rage, as they prefer. I associate myself with the remarks of RoyGBiv regarding TIA's 2004 analysis in post #216, here:

My friend then forwarded the presentation to a colleague whose life is statistical analysis. His conclusion? I'm paraphrasing here, but it boiled down to something similar to what Skinner said regarding this presentation, "The underlying assumptions are false. This is a case of a conclusion being sought and the methods and assumptions fixed to surround what is sought. This is the kind of thing that makes people distrust statistical analysis." And all this took place well before the election.

Since then I have paid little attention to any of this, except to offer my own little bit here, which I'm sure will draw the ire of many. The point for me is simply this. The worthy goal of exposing election fraud is not aided by bad statistical analysis and in fact works exactly in the opposite direction.

I likewise agree with Skinner's judgment of TIA's analysis of 2006, offered in post #126 in that thread: "This analysis is an embarrassment." Again, I have presented my reasons in detail; again, I have been told that I just don't consider the possibility of fraud; again, TIA has disregarded or cherry-picked the data and prior research. Arguing with TIA is like battling the Black Knight, except that TIA never even offers a draw.

(EDIT: formatting)

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. this ad hominem rant doesn't respond to the content of my post

Basically, all TIA seems to have to say is that he just knows I'm wrong, and therefore he feels entitled to insinuate that I am paid to lie.

Anyone can spew numbers. That isn't science. Sorry.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

115. soon they will be able to do this same thing over 2008 election

when it gets stolen again because of paperless voting.

[OnTheOtherHand]

119. or even if it isn't -- unverified voting is a no-win

Paperless: no good. Paper that isn't audited: no good. (Paper that isn't auditable: also no good.)

I want to see audits in every state in 2008.

[Febble]

18. Well...

Those who still believe that Bush won

I think the evidence suggests that he won the popular vote - I'm less sure about the EC vote, butI do indeed

maintain that the early state exit polls and the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP), which Kerry won by 51-47%, are not convincing evidence of fraud.

However far from this being the case:

They provide no statistical evidence to back up there claim.

I have provided extensive statistical evidence to back up my claim.

The media-controlled exit pollsters will not release raw precinct-level data.

as long as you discount the raw precinct-level questionnaires that have been archived at the Roper Center since January 2005, and were available for public download for more than a year, as well as the precinct-level vote shares for Ohio, which were "blurred" to prevent voter identification, and published in a paper by ESI. In addition, of course, state-level close-of-poll estimates based on a) raw, stratified exit poll data and b) raw stratified exit poll data weighted by pre-election polls have also been published, and publicly available since January 2005.

On the other hand, they invent hypothetical theories to explain why the polls are wrong.

bit of tautology here - sure, to test a hypothesis, you "invent" - propose - a hypothesis, based on a theory, possibly several.

Debunk one theory and they quickly come up with another.

All conclusions should be subjected to rigorous testing, and further disambiguation, and, to my knowledge (seeing as I did a fair bit of myself), were.

Tortured explanations for exit poll discrepancies include but are not limited to the following: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; Bush voters lied or forgot who they voted for in 2000; polls are not true random samples; exit polls are not designed to expose fraud in the U.S. They point out that Democrats always do better in the polls than in the vote count because of this endemic bias.

None of which are "tortured" at all, and many of which are supported both by the 2004 data and by data from other elections.

They never consider that in every election, a significant percentage of total votes cast are never counted and overwhelmingly Democratic.

This is simply untrue. Not only did "they" consider it, but "they" actively investigated whether this was a likely contributor to the exit poll discrepancy.

They never consider that the discrepancies could be due to fraud.

And again, this is not simply untrue, but a lie. TIA knows it is untrue; in any case it clear from the Edison-Mitofsky report that at least one fraud hypothesis was actually tested. I myself tested more.

They dismiss the pre-election and early exit polls.

"They" certainly do not dismiss the pre-election polls, and if by "early exit polls" TIA means the estimates made on the basis of the polling data alone (and not weighted by the vote returns) this is not true either, as he would know if he had read the E-M evaluation, and indeed, if he'd bothered to read any of my posts.

They disregard the fact that the 2004 pre-election polls matched exit polls.

Not only do "they" NOT disregard this, but they have pointed out that the pre-election polls do not support TIA's case.

They ignore the experience of world-class pollsters who claim that undecided voters break for the challenger, especially when the incumbent is unpopular.

And TIA ignores the experience of world-class pollsters who disagree with him.

They dismiss Bush’s election-day 48.5% approval rating as not relevant.

Again "they" do not. "They" looked very carefully at the historical precedent for incumbents fighting re-lection on a low approval rating, and came to a different conclusion from TIA.

They never consider that the final exit polls (both State and National) are always forced to match the recorded vote. They never consider the possibility of a fraudulent vote count.

:rofl:

If they did, they would be forced to admit that the early polls were closer to the true vote.

Well, no.

The truth is that the exit poll evidence does not stack up to evidence of a stolen election - if anything, it contra-indicates the case for theft on a scale of millions of votes. But it does not rule out corruption, and it does not rule out unjust disenfranchisement, particularly of those who had most to gain from a Kerry win. I don't know whether Kerry would have won on a level playing field, but I do know that the playing field wasn't, and isn't, level. And I also know that had it been level in 2000, Gore would be your president now.

But I see absolutely no point in using bad statistical arguments to advance a good cause. TIA's statistical arguments are bad. They don't stand up to scrutiny, and his characterisations of those who have attempted to try to find out what the exit polls actually DID mean are actually dishonest. Good people have spent a lot of time looking at that data. Those people include people who demonstrated conclusively that Gore won Florida in 2000. They do not concur with TIA's conclusions. This is NOT because they were unwilling to consider fraud as a possible source of the exit poll discrepancy. As for me, it was precisely because I was willing to consider fraud as a possible source of the exit poll discrepancy that I ended up analysing the data to try to find out. But the hypothesis was not supported by the data.

Cheers

Lizzie

[caruso]

21. TIA: A response

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

FEBBLE:
I think the evidence suggests that he won the popular vote - I'm less sure about the EC vote, but I do indeed maintain that the early state exit polls and the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP), which Kerry won by 51-47%, are not convincing evidence of fraud.

TIA:

You think? Show us the evidence.
Here's mine.
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm
Let's see yours.

While your'e at it, could you provide a "convincing" case of where Bush found 16 million new voters from 2000? He had 50.5 million votes in 2000. About 2 million died. Assume 95% (46 million) of those STILL ALIVE came out to vote. He had 62 million "recorded" votes in 2004.

So how did he make up the 16 million (62-46) difference?

Was it from first-time voters and those who did not vote in 2000?
Kerry won that group by at least 5-4.

Was it returning Nader voters?
Kerry won those by 3-1.

Was it returning Bush voters?
Give us a percentage - and justify it.

Was it returning Gore voters?
Give us a percentage - and justify it.

Let's see. Anybody left? No that's it.
Let's see whatcha got.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#_Where_did_Bush

FEBBLE:
I have provided extensive statistical evidence to back up my claim.
TIA:
Show us the evidence.


FEBBLE
as long as you discount the raw precinct-level questionnaires that have been archived at the Roper Center since January 2005, and were available for public download for more than a year, as well as the precinct-level vote shares for Ohio, which were "blurred" to prevent voter identification, and published in a paper by ESI. In addition, of course, state-level close-of-poll estimates based on a) raw, stratified exit poll data and b) raw stratified exit poll data weighted by pre-election polls have also been published, and publicly available since January 2005.

TIA
Why don't you download it for us?



FEBBLE:
All conclusions should be subjected to rigorous testing, and further disambiguation, and, to my knowledge (seeing as I did a fair bit of myself), were.


Tortured explanations for exit poll discrepancies include but are not limited to the following: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; Bush voters lied or forgot who they voted for in 2000; polls are not true random samples; exit polls are not designed to expose fraud in the U.S. They point out that Democrats always do better in the polls than in the vote count because of this endemic bias.


None of which are "tortured" at all, and many of which are supported both by the 2004 data and by data from other elections.

TIA:
Explain why these assumptions are not "tortured".
Explain the rational for the derived Bush vote shares.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#_The_Democratic_Underground_1


TIA:
They never consider that in every election, a significant percentage of total votes cast are never counted and overwhelmingly Democratic.

FEBBLE:
This is simply untrue. Not only did "they" consider it, but "they" actively investigated whether this was a likely contributor to the exit poll discrepancy.

TIA:
It is untrue? Where has it been shown to be untrue?


FEBBLE
And again, this is not simply untrue, but a lie. TIA knows it is untrue; in any case it clear from the Edison-Mitofsky report that at least one fraud hypothesis was actually tested. I myself tested more.

TIA:
Are you saying there was no fraud? I may be mistaken but I never lie. Show us some examples aof where you and Mitofsky considered fraud.

Febble
They dismiss the pre-election and early exit polls.

"They" certainly do not dismiss the pre-election polls, and if by "early exit polls" TIA means the estimates made on the basis of the polling data alone (and not weighted by the vote returns) this is not true either, as he would know if he had read the E-M evaluation, and indeed, if he'd bothered to read any of my posts.

TIA
Would you care to comment, in detail, on these final national pre-election polls?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#_National_Pre-election_Polls_2

Would you care to comment, in detail, on these state pre-election polls?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#StatePrePollTrend



FEBBLE
Not only do "they" NOT disregard this, but they have pointed out that the pre-election polls do not support TIA's case.

Would you care to comment, in detail, on these state pre-election polls?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#PreElectEXitActual


FEBBLE
And TIA ignores the experience of world-class pollsters who disagree with him.

TIA
Name them. And explain exactly what they disagree with.


FEBBLE

Again "they" do not. "They" looked very carefully at the historical precedent for incumbents fighting re-lection on a low approval rating, and came to a different conclusion from TIA.

TIA:
"They" don't agree? Exactly who are "they"?

This is what Zogby had to say about undecided voters and Bush approval ratings a few days before the election:

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/37588.htm

And here is what Lou Harris, a world-class pollster with over 40 years experience, said about undecided voters on election day:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris%5Fpoll/index.asp?PID=515

Are you saying you don't believe these world-class, INDEPENDENT pollsters?
Are you questioning their experience, data, expertise?
If so, tell us why.



FEBBLE
The truth is that the exit poll evidence does not stack up to evidence of a stolen election - if anything, it contra-indicates the case for theft on a scale of millions of votes. But it does not rule out corruption, and it does not rule out unjust disenfranchisement, particularly of those who had most to gain from a Kerry win. I don't know whether Kerry would have won on a level playing field, but I do know that the playing field wasn't, and isn't, level. And I also know that had it been level in 2000, Gore would be your president now.

But I see absolutely no point in using bad statistical arguments to advance a good cause. TIA's statistical arguments are bad. They don't stand up to scrutiny, and his characterisations of those who have attempted to try to find out what the exit polls actually DID mean are actually dishonest. Good people have spent a lot of time looking at that data. Those people include people who demonstrated conclusively that Gore won Florida in 2000. They do not concur with TIA's conclusions. This is NOT because they were unwilling to consider fraud as a possible source of the exit poll discrepancy. As for me, it was precisely because I was willing to consider fraud as a possible source of the exit poll discrepancy that I ended up analysing the data to try to find out. But the hypothesis was not supported by the data.

TIA
Well, then, scrutinize.
Point out each and every statement and tell us why it is a "bad" argument.
Justify the Lindeman spreadsheet assumptions.

In order to match the recorded vote in the Final National Exit Poll ”How Voted in 2000” category, the exit pollsters had to: 1) use impossible Bush 43/ Gore 37 weights and 2) increase the Bush vote shares from the 12:22am NEP (which Kerry won 51.4-47.6%). Mark was challenged to provide a mathematically plausible Bush win scenario. It took him several months before he responded to the challenge in the famous Democratic Underground “Game” thread. Mark did to the “How Voted in 2000” vote shares exactly what the exit pollsters did to the weights AND vote shares in the Final NEP: he changed them to implausible levels in order to match the recorded vote.

In order to comply with the rules of the “game” (to use feasible weights) Mark finally presented a spreadsheet in which he hypothesized how Bush achieved his 3 million vote “mandate”. The calculation of feasible weights was based on 1) the recorded 2000 and 2004 vote, 2) the annual 0.87% mortality rate and 3) an estimated 2000 voter turnout of 95% in 2004. So far, so good. Unfortunately, although his weights were now feasible, his assumed vote shares were implausible. Using feasible weights, Mark had no choice but to increase the already-inflated Bush vote shares to ridiculous levels.

Mark’s implausible Bush win scenario was based on the following assumptions:

1) One in 7 (14.63%) Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush in 2004.
The 12:22am NEP reported 8% (10% in the 2pm Final).

2) Kerry won just 52.90% of DNV (new voters and others who did not vote in 2000).
The NEP reported 57% (54% in the Final).

3) Just 7.20% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry.
The NEP reported 10% (9% in the Final).

Are we to believe the implausible 14.63% vote share or the impossible 43 Bush/ 37% Gore weights? The weights imply that 3 million (7.5%) of Gore voters forgot or lied and told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush in 2000.

Was the exit poll match to the recorded vote based on a) the use of plausible 37.84 Gore/ 37.44% Bush weights (see the Lindeman “Game” model ) and an implausible 14.63% Gore voter defection rate, or b) the impossible 43 Bush / 37% Gore weights (“false recall”) and plausible 8-10% defection rate?

Mark had to replace the already-debunked reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis with Gore voter “false recall”. His rationale: an NES post-election survey taken a few years after the election. But Mark contradicted himself when he agreed that the original weights were impossible; it's irrelevant whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters when they said they voted for Bush.

What is relevant is who they voted for in 2004 - and 91% said it was Kerry. The 2000 and 2004 recorded vote and annual mortality rate are historical demographic facts. They are necessary and sufficient to determine the maximum number of Bush and Gore voters who could have voted in 2004. Bush and Gore 2000 voter turnout in 2004 is unknown. Turnout must be estimated in order to determine plausible weights ( 95% in the True Vote Model).

On the other hand, the TrueVote model indicates that Kerry won a 52.56-46.43% landslide - a 7.7 million vote margin. The assumptions were plausible and feasible: 1) only Gore, Bush and Nader 2000 voters still living could vote in 2004, 2) the 12:22am NEP vote shares, 3) 0.87% annual mortality rate, 4) 95% turnout of Gore, Bush and other 2000 voters, 5) 125.74mm total votes cast (Census).

We already know the weights; they are the 2000 recorded vote shares, reduced by mortality and turnout. Once we have determined these feasible weights, we can use the exit poll response to the question "who did you just vote for" to calculate the national vote share. That's why the only exit poll response which matters is the answer to the question: "Who did you vote for in 2004". It follows that "false recall", even if it exists, is irrelevant. On the contrary, we are justified in believing that voters did not falsely recall who they voted for just five minutes earlier. What would be their motivation to lie? Survey responses are confidential.

........TIA True Vote Model The Lindeman “Game” Model
.......Weight Kerry Bush Other........... Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNV 21.49% 57% 41% 2%............. 21.72% 52.90% 46.50% 0.60%
Gore 38.23% 91% 8% 1%............. 37.84% 84.83% 14.63% 0.54%
Bush 37.83% 10% 90% 0%............. 37.44% 7.20% 92.31% 0.49%
Other 2.45% 71% 21% 8%............. 3.00% 65.90% 18.10% 16.00%

Share 100% 52.56% 46.43% 1.01%... 100% 48.26% 50.74% 1.00%
Votes 125.7 66.09 58.38 1.27............. 122.3 59.02 62.05 1.22


Did the exit poll respondents also lie about their SEX?
GENDER Weight Kerry Bush Other
Male 46% 47% 52% 1%
Female 54% 54% 45% 1%

Share 100% 50.78% 48.22% 1.00%
Votes 122.3 62.10 58.97 1.22

[Febble]

22. Well, I already addressed these, prolifically, but....

FEBBLE:
I think the evidence suggests that he won the popular vote - I'm less sure about the EC vote, but I do indeed maintain that the early state exit polls and the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP), which Kerry won by 51-47%, are not convincing evidence of fraud.

TIA:
Ok, then where did Bush find 16 million new voters?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...

That is not a response to my point. I don't know the answer to your question, but I can suggest some places to look.

FEBBLE:
I have provided extensive statistical evidence to back up my claim.
TIA:
Show us the evidence.

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/slides.html
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/3
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/7

Plus the finding I mentioned here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=203&topic_id=467048&mesg_id=467102

Plus the the strong correlations I found (as also reported in E-M evaluation document) between the magnitude of precinct level discrepancy and methodological variables, including the interviewing rate.

FEBBLE
as long as you discount the raw precinct-level questionnaires that have been archived at the Roper Center since January 2005, and were available for public download for more than a year, as well as the precinct-level vote shares for Ohio, which were "blurred" to prevent voter identification, and published in a paper by ESI. In addition, of course, state-level close-of-poll estimates based on a) raw, stratified exit poll data and b) raw stratified exit poll data weighted by pre-election polls have also been published, and publicly available since January 2005.

TIA
Why don't you download it for us?

Too late. You had a year to do it in for free, but it seems you didn't bother. I don't have a subscription. If you want one you will have to pay for one. I gave you the URL on numerous occasions.

FEBBLE:
All conclusions should be subjected to rigorous testing, and further disambiguation, and, to my knowledge (seeing as I did a fair bit of myself), were.


Tortured explanations for exit poll discrepancies include but are not limited to the following: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; Bush voters lied or forgot who they voted for in 2000; polls are not true random samples; exit polls are not designed to expose fraud in the U.S. They point out that Democrats always do better in the polls than in the vote count because of this endemic bias.


None of which are "tortured" at all, and many of which are supported both by the 2004 data and by data from other elections.

TIA:
Explain why these assumptions are not "tortured".
Explain the rational for the derived Bush vote shares.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...

I have explained before, on countless occasions. I see no particular reason to do so yet again. But in short:

There are only two reasons why there should be an discrepancy between an exit poll and the count:

1. the votes were miscounted in favor of one candidate (i.e Bush, over all in 2004)
   
2. voters for one candidate participated in the poll at a higher rate than voters for the other (i.e. voters for Kerry, overall, in 2004).

Frankly, I suspect some of both, but the evidence strongly supports (2), only weakly supports (1), and actually contra-indicates (1) by DREs, or on a scale of millions. So that leaves (2). Why Kerry voters should have participated at a higher rate than Bush voters cannot, of course be determined. However, there is strong evidence that they did so. This evidence lies in the strong correlations between the magnitude of the discrepancy and methodological factors that would have tended to make departures from strict Nth voter sampling protocol more likely. It is also borne out by actual experimental evidence, in which exit poll discrepancies (in the redshift direction) have been associated with certain methodological factors. It is also borne out by an opinion poll conducted shortly before the 2006 election that indicated that Democrats were more likely to take part in an exit poll than Republicans. It is also borne out be evidence from Steve Freeman's exit poll (you'll have to google for that, I'm afraid, don't have the link to hand). It is also borne out by a study of exit poll discrepancy by Michael Butterworth (on data from 2006). There is massive evidence that the polls are not true random samples - this is evidenced by the non-response data apart from anything else. No pollster can assume a random sample. Your own pre-election polls data indicates that polls have a substantial amount of non-sampling error. There are vast text books written on the subject. There is also substantial evidence both from longitudinal panel data, and from past exit polls, that people tend to over-report having voted for the incumbent. There is also evidence to suggest that they over-report having voted at all.

TIA:
They never consider that in every election, a significant percentage of total votes cast are never counted and overwhelmingly Democratic.

FEBBLE:
This is simply untrue. Not only did "they" consider it, but "they" actively investigated whether this was a likely contributor to the exit poll discrepancy.

TIA:
It is untrue? Where has it been shown to be untrue?

Well, I'm part of "they" and I investigated it - for Warren Mitofsky, so he can be "they" as well. Yes, I considered it, and yes I reported my findings to Mitofsky who was interested in the result.

FEBBLE
And again, this is not simply untrue, but a lie. TIA knows it is untrue; in any case it clear from the Edison-Mitofsky report that at least one fraud hypothesis was actually tested. I myself tested more.

TIA:
Are you saying there was no fraud? I may be mistaken but I never lie. Show us some examples aof where you and Mitofsky considered fraud.

The Edison-Mitofsky evaluation reports findings from an investigation into the correlation between voting technology and exit poll discrepancy. I repeated this investigation, rather more rigorously, I think (see above). Also check out the swing-shift correlation above. That was a direct test of the hypothesis that fraud was responsible for the exit poll discrepancy. Of course I do not say "there was no fraud". What is untrue is the assertion that "They never consider that the discrepancies could be due to fraud." They did. I have posted prolifically on this. If you are not lying then the only alternative interpretation is that you haven't bothered to read my analysis. In which case, I suggest you do so.

Febble
They dismiss the pre-election and early exit polls.

"They" certainly do not dismiss the pre-election polls, and if by "early exit polls" TIA means the estimates made on the basis of the polling data alone (and not weighted by the vote returns) this is not true either, as he would know if he had read the E-M evaluation, and indeed, if he'd bothered to read any of my posts.

TIA
Would you care to comment, in detail, on these final national pre-election polls?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...

Would you care to comment, in detail, on these state pre-election polls?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...

No. I'd much rather comment (as I have done, extensively) on the actual estimates made by E-M on the basis of the raw exit poll data, as well as the actual raw exit poll data collected at the precinct. As for your pre-election polls, my only comment is that even on your very generous (to Kerry) interpretation of them, the discrepancy between them and the official result is completely uncorrelated with the exit poll discrepancy, suggesting that the discrepancies arise from different causes.

FEBBLE
Not only do "they" NOT disregard this, but they have pointed out that the pre-election polls do not support TIA's case.

Would you care to comment, in detail, on these state pre-election polls?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...

Done.

FEBBLE
And TIA ignores the experience of world-class pollsters who disagree with him.

TIA
Name them. And explain exactly what they disagree with.

Done already. Ad nauseam. By not only me but many other commentators.

FEBBLE

Again "they" do not. "They" looked very carefully at the historical precedent for incumbents fighting re-lection on a low approval rating, and came to a different conclusion from TIA.

TIA:
"They" don't agree? Exactly who are "they"?

Dunno. Who the hell were you talking about?

This is what Zogby had to say about undecided voters and Bush approval ratings a few days before the election:

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/37588.htm

And here is what Lou Harris, a world-class pollster with over 40 years experience, said about undecided voters on election day:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris%5Fpoll/index.as...

Are you saying you don't believe these world-class, INDEPENDENT pollsters?
Are you questioning their experience, data, expertise?
If so, tell us why.

No, I am saying that there is more than one reason for a prediction to be in error. And your second link doesn't work

FEBBLE
The truth is that the exit poll evidence does not stack up to evidence of a stolen election - if anything, it contra-indicates the case for theft on a scale of millions of votes. But it does not rule out corruption, and it does not rule out unjust disenfranchisement, particularly of those who had most to gain from a Kerry win. I don't know whether Kerry would have won on a level playing field, but I do know that the playing field wasn't, and isn't, level. And I also know that had it been level in 2000, Gore would be your president now.

But I see absolutely no point in using bad statistical arguments to advance a good cause. TIA's statistical arguments are bad. They don't stand up to scrutiny, and his characterisations of those who have attempted to try to find out what the exit polls actually DID mean are actually dishonest. Good people have spent a lot of time looking at that data. Those people include people who demonstrated conclusively that Gore won Florida in 2000. They do not concur with TIA's conclusions. This is NOT because they were unwilling to consider fraud as a possible source of the exit poll discrepancy. As for me, it was precisely because I was willing to consider fraud as a possible source of the exit poll discrepancy that I ended up analysing the data to try to find out. But the hypothesis was not supported by the data.

TIA
Well, then, scrutinize.
Point out each and every statement and tell us why it is a "bad" argument.
Justify the Lindeman spreadsheet assumptions.

I have been trying to tell you for a couple of years now. I see no point in wasting any more time on it. You show no evidence of actually reading any of my posts anyway.

And aren't you a ghost?

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. the Harris link worked for me, but it isn't Lou Harris

As I already pointed out, Lou Harris hasn't actually worked with Lou Harris & Associates for over a decade. In any case, whoever did write this says that the election is "still too close to call" using telephone polls, that the Internet poll "suggests" a narrow Kerry victory, and that undecideds "frequently" split 2:1 to 4:1 for the challenger. I'm not sure why TIA thinks this helps his case very much. And of course he continues to ignore my analysis of the historical data on undecideds, because TIA just Doesn't Do discrepant data.

As for Zogby, here's a tasty tidbit:

The key reason why I still think that Kerry will win, perhaps, possibly (laughter) -- have I made myself clear here? Okay.

Not to TIA, I guess. TIA claims that the pre-election polls support over 99% confidence that Kerry would win. I guess he is just way, way smarter than the "world-class pollsters."

The rest of this does seem to boil down to (1) demanding that we repeat ourselves, and (2) claiming that everything we say is obviously wrong, although never explaining why.

[caruso]

24. TIA: Many words, no numbers....

This is the Harris link.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris%5Fpoll/index.asp?PID=515

FEBBLE:
There are only two reasons why there should be an discrepancy between an exit poll and the count:
-the votes were miscounted in favor of one candidate (i.e Bush, over all in 2004)

-voters for one candidate participated in the poll at a higher rate than voters for the other (i.e. voters for Kerry, overall, in 2004).

Frankly, I suspect some of both, but the evidence strongly supports (2), only weakly supports (1), and actually contra-indicates (1) by DREs, or on a scale of millions. So that leaves (2). Why Kerry voters should have participated at a higher rate than Bush voters cannot, of course be determined. However, there is strong evidence that they did so.

TIA:

Once again, you have AVOIDED the core issue.

We KNOW how many votes were recorded for Bush in 2000 (50.46mm)
We KNOW how many votes were recorded for Bush in 2004 (62.04mm)
We KNOW how many votes were recorded in 2004 (122.3mm)
We KNOW that approximately 1.76mm (3.50% of 50.46mm) Bush 2000 voters died prior to 2004.

Therefore,
We KNOW that approximately 48.7mm Bush 2000 voters were still alive in 2004.

We can ESTIMATE that 95% (or 46.27mm) of Bush voters STILL ALIVE came to vote in 2004.

NOTICE I HAVE SAID NOTHING ABOUT EXIT POLL RESPONSE OR FALSE RECALL.

GIVEN THE ABOVE FACTS, WHERE DID BUSH GET 15.7MM NEW VOTERS?

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.
PROVIDE US WITH NUMBERS, NOT WORDS.
YOU ARE A SCIENTIST, AREN'T YOU?

[Febble]

25. Clearly

there were about 17 million more voters in 2004 than in 2000, and if only 95% of 2000 voters were alive in 2004, then that would make about 22 million voters in 2004 who didn't vote in 2000. And you are asking me where they came from. Well, I dunno. Why should I know? I expect some of them were young, first-time voters, and some of them were voters who don't vote very often.

FWIW, here's a plot of the total votes cast for each candidate by year from 1968:



Knit your own inferences. But as you say, this has nothing to do with whether the exit polls are evidence of fraud.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. ah, the wit and wisdom of TIA

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.
PROVIDE US WITH NUMBERS, NOT WORDS.
YOU ARE A SCIENTIST, AREN'T YOU?

Febble, stop using your words. Words are used to explain things. Everyone knows that scientists don't explain things. If they had to explain things, they wouldn't be scientists.

I think you missed TIA's question. He is asking about 'new' Bush voters, not new voters in general. I figure that most likely about 6.5 million of them voted for Gore in 2000. Let's see if TIA can explain how he knows that is untrue. Oh, I forgot: scientists don't explain things. Hmmmm.

Are we done?

[Febble]

27. Well, I didn't exactly miss it

but they could have been new voters, voters who didn't vote in 2000, but voted in previous elections, or Gore voters. I'd like to know how TIA comes up with his answer. I don't know the answer.

ETA, although from that plot, it looks to me as though while the Democratic vote has expanded pretty steadily over the years, blipping upwards briefly for Carter against Ford, post Nixon, the Republican vote has been more volatile, suffering after Nixon, and losing to Perot. So my hunch would be that at least some of the "new" Bush voters in 2004 would have been Perot voters in the nineties. But who am I to say? I'm not even an American.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. sure, I'm just trying to skip the step where

...TIA quotes himself, WHERE DID BUSH GET 15.7MM NEW VOTERS?, and accuses you of ignoring his question. I don't think TIA has really thought about the intellectual work required to attempt to answer his question.

As you say, it's some combination of first-time voters, other folks who didn't vote in 2000 but did vote in 2004, and Gore voters -- plus a relatively small number of 'other' voters. And as I said, if we had more reliable estimates of how many people were in the first two groups (no matter whom they voted for), the other numbers would be less speculative.

I don't think TIA grasps the concept of scientific uncertainty. Evolutionary theory and climate science must drive him nuts.

[BeFree]

31. Hardly likely

that new voters would lean to bush, or that more than a few Gore voters would. Given the democratic turnout against bush it belies either of those two estimates you've given. Maybe if you could find a plausible explanation for new voters and Gore voters to kiss bush's ass then the numbers could become valid, but no one can.

As to scientific uncertainty: It is fairly certain that the exit polls - before being crossed with the fraudulent official numbers - were good science backed by a firm with extensive experience and a good reputation. For which the firm received a $10 million dollar payday from the consortium.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. well...

As far as I know, no one has asserted that new voters leaned to Bush -- but even by TIA's own analysis (i.e., his faith-based acceptance of the "original" exit poll results), 10% of Gore voters (who voted at all) voted for Bush. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it's plausible that 10% did, but unthinkable that 13% or 14% did.

As I think you know already, there is no relationship between whether the exit polls are "good science" and whether the results are infallible.

[caruso]

33. TIA: Not 10%, it was 8% Check the NEP time line

You are misquoting. In fact, 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush at each time line up to the Final NEP, where it was changed to 10% in order to match the final vote miscount. You might want to check the National Exit Poll Time line.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#_The_National_Exit_1

My analysis includes the bogus Final NEP for reference purposes. You stretched the Final NEP vote shares to match the Bush vote because you had no choice; you had to comply with the rules of the "game"- the mathematical requirement of feasible weights.

Your implausible scenario was based on some very TORTURED assumptions. It represents EXIT POLL FUNDAMENTALISM at its worst.

ACCORDING TO YOU AND NO ONE ELSE:

1) One in 7 (14.63%) Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush in 2004.
The 12:22am NEP reported 8% (10% in the 2pm Final).

2) Kerry won just 52.90% of DNV (new voters and others who did not vote in 2000).
The NEP reported 57% (54% in the Final).

3) Just 7.20% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry.
The NEP reported 10% (9% in the Final).

Your "Game" thread spread sheet "analysis" was truly an act of DESPERATION. There was NO WAY you could provide a PLAUSIBLE rationale for it. However, it did serve one purpose: it proved to any reasonable observer that you had no case. So you're going to have to live with it. And we will never stop bringing it up.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#_The_Democratic_Underground_1

[Febble]

34. Here's an interesting analysis,

for you, TIA.

http://www.ou.edu/policom/1501_2005_winter/commentary.htm

Interesting about Texas.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. well, I think they are both wrong

Yup, I grabbed a Scoop document that I thought was a leaked "early" result, but it's a late result. I don't see how it matters to the argument, however. You (TIA) have offered no basis for judging what level of defection is plausible or implausible. If you didn't have exit poll tables at all, how many Gore voters would you consider likely to have voted for Bush? and on what would you base that judgment?

Now, the rest of this is just bunk. First of all, here's what I wrote:

OK, here are some numbers on my laptop. Nothing sacred about them.

Currently working with 94.0% turnout among Gore2K and Bush2K voters, 97% among Other2K voters -- gives a decent number of DidNotVote2K voters under my other assumptions.
So: I've got

Gore 2000 46.275M 84.83% Kerry, 14.63% Bush
Bush 2000 45.782M 7.20% Kerry, 92.31% Bush
Other 2K 3.701M 65.90% Kerry, 18.10% Bush
DNV 2K 26.535M 52.90% Kerry, 46.50% Bush

which yields, within a few hundred, the official result of Bush winning by about 3 million votes.

Which you (TIA) render as, "ACCORDING TO YOU AND NO ONE ELSE: 1) One in 7 (14.63%) Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush in 2004."

That leaves me with a Hobson's choice, TIA. Are you deliberately misrepresenting my position, or are you a bad reader? (Presumably you know that my conference paper supplies five other sets of possible proportions.)

Now, the problem is, you are citing the exit poll tables. As Febble already explained (and as I have, many times), that would work better if we could assume that people report their past votes accurately. My conference paper (extending my comments on the game thread) presents page after page of evidence that people do not report their past votes accurately, and you haven't laid a glove on it. So what on earth makes you think that you are winning this argument?

Really, TIA, it's hard for me to believe that you are even trying to be honest about this. How many times do we have to go through the argument before you at least acknowledge its existence, instead of making up this BS about "desperation"?

(EDIT to clarify attribution)

[BeFree]

38. Bad numbers?

My conference paper (extending my comments on the game thread) presents page after page of evidence that people do not report their past votes accurately, and you haven't laid a glove on it.

People do not report their past votes accurately. Hmmmm. That would mean that all your math about the vote switchers has no bearing. Either the numbers can be worked with, or they can't, but you keep using those "bad" numbers. Hmmmm. Ok.

But you believe 14% Gore voters went bush, and half that, 7% went Kerry. That is simply implausible. On what basis can you establish your assumption? Now, it wouldn't be fair, would it, to use your numbers, because, as you stated, "people don't report their past votes accurately." So what political scenario could possibly explain the 2 to 1 ratio?

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. you might try actually reading the paper

Look, if you are interested in understanding things, I can explain them. If you aren't, I can't. Your choice.

As I said in the other post, there are an infinite number of possibilities even if we assume that the official count is right. Once we set aside infallibility, we are left with uncertainty.

"That is simply implausible."

Why? I've presented evidence; you haven't.

I have no clue what the rest of your post means, so I will leave it there.

[BeFree]

41. But your evidence

... by your own hand, has been denied. Because you say people don't accurately recall. But I like that "we are left with uncertainty". Ain't that the truth?

Of course, no one should assume the official count was right. There is just too much evidence and uncertainty to make that assumption.

So, all we're left with is why, as you believe, 14% of Gore 2000 voters went bush. That is the politically implausibility. Why, indeed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. as I said, you might try reading the paper

No, my evidence hasn't been denied at all. And, as I said, if you don't want to understand, then I can't explain. You can amuse yourself playing ping-pong with my words as long as you choose.

I am left looking at evidence, and you are left believing whatever you want to believe. OK.

[BeFree]

45. Your paper?

Has:"...page after page of evidence that people do not report their past votes accurately."

But you use those past vote claims to support the exit-polls. Don't you see the hole you put yourself in?

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. you can't intelligently criticize an argument you won't read

What, you think they answer at random?

Good luck out there.

[BeFree]

36. Faith based?That's a laugh.

No, I don't know... If the exit-polls weren't good science are you saying the polls were bad science? Of course they are fallible, but gosh, they cost $10 million, and the people who paid that sum sure had a lot of faith that the polls would be good science. So, I'm gonna stick with that.

Of course, nothing has proved the polls to have failed. Or that the science was bad. Where the problem lies is with the political switcheroo of numbers after midnight, and that is what we are discussing, not whether the science is fallible or not.

As you well know, the switcheroo from the raw poll numbers, to the matched up with the fraudulent official results, is where the problem is best uncovered. And one key is that, as you are claiming, there were 13% of Gore voters who went bush. That is simply implausible as caruso has pointed out.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. actually not

There are many (in fact infinite) permutations of values that would approximately match the official results, which is what I was actually challenged to do in that thread. (Maybe TIA has forgotten that, and that is why he keeps falsely claiming that I assume the official results are correct?)

But also, as I have pointed out repeatedly: (1) There is substantial evidence that poll respondents, including exit poll respondents, tend to overstate having voting for the previous winner; (2) in the 2000-2004 National Election Study, applying the 2004 weights, over 14% of people who reported voting in both elections, and voting for Gore in 2000, reported having voted for Bush in 2004.

"If the exit-polls weren't good science are you saying the polls were bad science?"

No. Perhaps if you read the post a few more times?

"as you are claiming, there were 13% of Gore voters who went bush and no bush voters who went Gore. That is simply implausible."

Well, that is simply inaccurate. Actually, what I suggest is that about twice as many Gore voters went Bush as Bush voters went Kerry. (Somewhere around 14%, versus somewhere around 7%.) Now, if you think that is "simply implausible," perhaps you could explain why. I find it plausible, among other reasons, because it actually happened in the NES panel. Whatever is, is possible.

[BeFree]

39. I edited that post

The very idea that 14% of Gore 2000 voters would be so happy with bush to vote for him four years later is what is hardly possible.

Indeed, the rest of the voters who DNV 2000 went Kerry. There was a groundswell of democratic turnout and a great deal of disgust with bush, with his approval rating near 50%. So pulling an extra 4-5 million votes out of the black box is the most plausible scenario.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. why?

"The very idea that 14% of Gore 2000 voters would be so happy with bush to vote for him four years later is what is hardly possible."

What is your argument?

1. "Indeed, the rest of the voters who DNV 2000 went Kerry." I have no idea what that means. I certainly don't know what it tells us about Gore voters.

2. "There was a groundswell of democratic turnout..." So? There was also a groundswell of Republican turnout. But neither of those facts tells us whom Gore voters voted for.

3. "...and a great deal of disgust with bush, with his approval rating near 50%." Well, that indicates about equal amounts of disgust and non-disgust. And, again, doesn't tell us whom Gore voters voted for.

So, do you have any basis for your judgment about "hardly possible"? If so, please state it.

[BeFree]

44. My basis is as good as your's, even better

Correction: "Indeed, the rest of the voters who DNV 200 went Kerry",,, should have been written thusly: "The majority of the voters who DNV 2000 went Kerry." DNV= did not vote

There was a groundswell or republican turnout in 2004? That's news. But the Dem turnout helps to disprove your 2 to 1 belief in Gore to bush. Gore voters can be considered Dems, right, or do you want to quibble about that, too?

And the disgust with bush shows that voters were not keen on bush, yet according to your belief, bush actually got more than 50% of the vote. Making history.

The thing is, there were about 5 million votes (mol) stolen from Kerry in 2004. That's why you are having to keep trying to show bush won. Why you do, I don't know.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. of course I will "quibble" about that

Gore voters are not the same as Democrats.

Still nothing.

[caruso]

29. TIA: Historical NEP data you are probably unaware of

FEBBLE
there were about 17 million more voters in 2004 than in 2000, and if only 95% of 2000 voters were alive in 2004, then that would make about 22 million voters in 2004 who didn't vote in 2000. And you are asking me where they came from. Well, I dunno. Why should I know? I expect some of them were young, first-time voters, and some of them were voters who don't vote very often.

TIA
You dunno? OK, let’s find out.

First of all, there were 26 million voters who didn’t vote in 2000, when you consider that 3.4 mm votes were uncounted according to the Census and which Greg Palast breaks down as a combination of spoiled, absentee and provisional ballots. A majority (70-80%?) of these uncounted votes were Democratic. But I will disregard this point for the current discussion.

The TOTAL number of 2000 voters (including first-timers) who did not vote (DNV2k) comprised 17% of the total 2004 vote.

According to Mitofsky, Kerry won DNV2k by 57-41% in the 12:22am NEP.
First-time voters comprised 11% of the DNV2k 17% total.
Therefore, the remaining 6% were NOT first-time voters.

According to Mitofsky, Kerry won first-time voters by 55-43%.
Therefore, Kerry must have won 61% of DNV2k voters who were NOT first-timers.

Are you with me so far? Here is where things get interesting.

Let’s look at presidential elections since 1972. In particular, first-time and others who did not vote in the prior election.

According to the 1972-2004 National Exit Polls, the Democratic candidate won the DNV category in EVERY election, except for the Nixon and Reagan landslides.

Here's the graph:


But that’s not all.

In EVERY election since 1992, the Democrats won the VAST majority of first-time voters, so there has been a CUMULATIVE build-up of the Democratic base. Ruy Teixeira wrote about it in "The Emerging Democratic Majority"

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/

So how did Bush manage to win in 2004 after losing in 2000, if DNV2k (including first-timers) were solidly for Kerry?

2004F: 2pm Final NEP (13660 respondents)
2004P: 12:22am NEP (13047 respondents)

...... 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00 04F 04P
DNV2k
Dem 42 54 44 40 49 48 56 54 54 57
Rep 58 46 48 59 49 30 32 41 45 41

First-time
Dem na na na 38 47 46 54 52 53 55
Rep na na na 61 51 32 34 43 46 43

[Febble]

30. OK

The TOTAL number of 2000 voters (including first-timers) who did not vote (DNV2k) comprised 17% of the total 2004 vote.

I presume that you mean that the TOTAL number of voters in 2004 who did not vote in 2000 was 17% of the total 2004 vote.

How do you know? From the NEP "past vote" data? Do you assume that people correctly report having voted in 2000, just as you assume that people correctly report who they voted for?

TIA, all your analyses assume that exit poll sampling is unbiased, and that people correctly report what they did four years ago (e.g. whether they voted; who they voted for). While it is possible that these two assumptions are correct, there is no reason to believe that there are, and a fair bit of reason to believe they are not.

Contrary to your repeated assertions, I for one have never assumed that the vote count is correct. Even when I established that there was absolutely no correlation between increase in Bush's vote share and precinct-level redshift, I kept on analysing and reanalysing the data to see if there was any way that widespread fraud could both account for the even a substantial proportion of the total redshift and be consistent with that result. I have not succeeded. It is not for want of trying. Which is why I conclude that the exit poll data are NOT evidence of massive fraud, and, if anything, contra-indicate vote-switching fraud on a scale of millions.

Here is a plot of that analysis:



On the X axis is the precinct level discrepancy expressed in standard errors (positive values=redshift). On the Y axis is Bush's increase in voteshare in percentage points (negative values=decrease in voteshare).

You can see clearly, as you would expect, that the vertical zero line is to the left of centre, indicating that although many precincts had exit poll results that were well outside the MoE, substantially more of these were in the "redshifted" direction (count redder than poll) than in the "blueshifted "direction (count bluer than poll). Also note that the horizontal zero line is below centre, indicating that while in many precincts Bush's vote-share dropped, his vote-share rose in rather more.

Now, as you and many others have pointed out, vote-shifting fraud would tend to show up as an exit poll discrepancy - indeed what you and others allege is that vote-shifting fraud was responsible for the exit poll discrepancy in 2004. Note also that the exit poll discrepancy in 2000 was much smaller than in 2004.

OK. If vote-shifting fraud in 2004 occurred on a large scale, it would show up as an overall redshift, such as the one we see in this plot. It would also show up, as you surely must agree, as an overall improvement in Bush's vote share (you are, after all, alleging that Bush's increased vote share came from stolen votes, not real votes), again, such as we see in this plot. However, if Bush's increase in vote-share AND redshift both arose from the same cause (vote-shifting fraud), the two are likely to be positively correlated.

And they aren't. The upper confidence limit of the slope of the regression line is very low. This strongly suggests that the two phenomena (redshift; Bush's increase in vote-share) have not the same cause (fraud) but different causes (participation bias; increase in Bush's actual vote-share).

How else would you explain the complete absence of any discernable positive correlation between swing to Bush and redshift to Bush if both had the same substantial cause, namely, fraud? And how do you square this finding with your insistence that the NEP polls are a perfect random sample and that people accurately report their votes at the previous election?

So to address your question: given that IMO the exit poll data contra-indicate massive vote-switching fraud, then one possibility is that some of Bush's extra votes came from Gore voters, and voters who did not vote in 2000, and that of these, a proportion incorrectly reported having also voted for Bush in 2000. There is good evidence that this happens. I see no reason to think that it didn't happen in 2004, especially in the light of my findings that large scale vote-switching fraud is unlikely.

[caruso]

48. TIA Fact Refresher: 1) 2000/2004 recorded vote, 2) mortality, 3) 2000 voter turnout in 2004

FEBBLE
TIA, all your analysis assume that exit poll sampling is unbiased, and that people correctly report what they did four years ago (e.g. whether they voted; who they voted for). While it is possible that these two assumptions are correct, there is no reason to believe that there are, and a fair bit of reason to believe they are not.

TIA
Once again, you avoid the FACTS about the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I have stated the following over and over again. We already know the MAXIMUM "How voted in 2000" weights because we KNOW how many Bush and Gore voters were still alive and could vote in 2004.

Yet you still assume that the weightings are the result of a flawed sample. That is flawed reasoning. WE ALREADY KNOW THE WEIGHTS SINCE WE KNOW THAT ALL MEN ARE MORTAL.

THEREFORE, it is IRRELEVANT whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters IF they said they voted for Bush. What IS RELEVANT IS WHO THEY VOTED FOR FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THEY WERE EXIT POLLED - and 91% said it was Kerry.

The 2000 and 2004 recorded votes and the annual MORTALITY rate are historic and documented FACTS. They are both NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT to determine the MAXIMUM number of Bush and Gore voters who COULD HAVE VOTED in 2004.

Only Bush and Gore 2000 VOTER TURNOUT in 2004 is UNKNOWN. But turnout can be ESTIMATED in order to determine PLAUSIBLE WEIGHTS (95% is the base case used in the True Vote Model). The model indicates that Kerry won by 66-58 million votes, a 52.56-46.43% vote share.

TIA True Vote Model
Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNV 21.49% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 38.23% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 37.83% 10% 90% 0%
Other 2.45% 71% 21% 8%

Share 100% 52.56% 46.43% 1.01%
Votes 125.7 66.09 58.38 1.27

The assumptions were BOTH plausible (believable) AND feasible (mathematically possible):

1) only Gore, Bush and Nader 2000 voters still living could vote in 2004.
THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, BUT APPARENTLY IT IS NOT. IT IS A FACT, NOT AN ASSUMPTION. AND IT BLOWS ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS RIGHT OUT OF THE WATER.

2) 0.87% annual mortality rate (FACT)

4) 95% turnout of Gore, Bush and other 2000 voters
Regardless of the turnout ASSUMPTION, Kerry wins.

5) 125.7mm total votes cast (2004 Census). You can call it an assumption.
There are still those who claim the Census is inaccurate; it never matches the vote count. Of course it doesn't - millions of votes cast in every election (mostly Democratic) are never counted. And that's a FACT. For you to claim otherwise is pure propaganda.

But the Census total is NOT required for the analysis; the TRUE VOTE SHARES remain the same if we assume the 122.3mm RECORDED vote. Total votes CAST is used to determine a more accurate TRUE VOTE COUNT.

6) I assume the 12:22am NEP vote shares as the BEST EVIDENCE of who the voters ACTUALLY voted for FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THEY TOLD THE EXIT POLLSTER. If you disagree with the base case 12:22am vote shares, then consider this.

The following unlikely scenarios are further evidence that Kerry won, even when the base case assumptions (shown in parenthesis) are changed to favor Bush .

Scenario 1:
10% advantage in turnout of Bush 2000 voters over Gore voters.
Gore turnout: 90% (95%)
Bush turnout: 100% (95%)
Kerry wins by 3.62mm votes (51.0-48%).

Scenario 2:
Reduce Kerry share of DNV by 6% and Gore 2000 voter turnout by 4%.
DNV share: 51% (57%)
Gore turnout: 91% (95%)
Bush turnout: 95% (95%)
Kerry wins by 2.88mm votes (50.6%-48.4%).

Scenario 3:
Reduce Kerry share of Gore voters by 4% and Bush voters by 2%.
Assume: 95% turnout of Gore and Bush voters
Gore share: 87% (91%)
Bush share: 8% (10%)
Kerry wins by 1.97mm votes (50.3%-48.7%).

_________________________________________________________________

Sensitivity Analysis

DNV2k: first-time and other voters who did not vote in 2000
Base case assumptions and Kerry vote share are shown in bold print.

How does Gore/Bush 2000 voter turnout effect Kerry's national vote?
Assume:
100% Bush 2000 voter turnout
95% Gore voter turnout
Kerry wins by 51.6 - 47.4%, a 5.32 million vote margin.


KERRY VOTE SHARE
(sensitivity to Gore and Bush 2000 voter turnout)

Bush Gore Turnout
Turnout 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%

95% 52.6% 52.7% 52.8% 53.0% 53.1% 53.2%
96% 52.4% 52.5% 52.7% 52.8% 52.9% 53.1%
97% 52.2% 52.3% 52.5% 52.6% 52.7% 52.9%
98% 52.0% 52.1% 52.3% 52.4% 52.6% 52.7%
99% 51.8% 52.0% 52.1% 52.2% 52.4% 52.5%
100% 51.6% 51.8% 51.9% 52.0% 52.2% 52.3%

KERRY VOTE MARGIN (millions)

95% 7.72 8.06 8.40 8.74 9.08 9.42
96% 7.24 7.58 7.92 8.26 8.60 8.93
97% 6.76 7.10 7.44 7.78 8.12 8.45
98% 6.28 6.62 6.96 7.30 7.63 7.97
99% 5.80 6.14 6.48 6.81 7.15 7.49
100% 5.32 5.66 5.99 6.33 6.67 7.01
________________________________________________________

How do changes in Gore voter turnout and Kerry's share of DNV2k impact his national vote?
DNV2k are first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2000.

Assume:
Gore 2000 voter turnout: 91%
Bush 2000 voter turnout: 95%
Kerry share of DNV2k: 54%

Kerry's wins by 51.3 - 47.7%, a 4.62 million vote margin.

KERRY VOTE SHARE
(sensitivity to Gore 2000 voter turnout and share of DNV2k)

Gore Kerry Share of DNV2k
Turnout 54% 55% 56% 57% 58% 59%

100% 52.7% 52.9% 53.1% 53.2% 53.4% 53.6%
99% 52.5% 52.7% 52.9% 53.1% 53.3% 53.5%
98% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% 53.2% 53.4%
97% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% 53.3%
96% 52.1% 52.3% 52.5% 52.7% 52.9% 53.1%

95% 51.9% 52.1% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0%
94% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6% 52.9%
93% 51.6% 51.8% 52.1% 52.3% 52.5% 52.7%
92% 51.5% 51.7% 51.9% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6%
91% 51.3% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.5%

KERRY VOTE MARGIN (millions)

100% 7.95 8.44 8.93 9.42 9.91 10.40
99% 7.58 8.08 8.58 9.08 9.58 10.08
98% 7.21 7.72 8.23 8.74 9.25 9.76
97% 6.84 7.36 7.88 8.40 8.92 9.44
96% 6.47 7.00 7.53 8.06 8.59 9.12

95% 6.10 6.64 7.18 7.72 8.26 8.80
94% 5.73 6.28 6.83 7.38 7.93 8.48
93% 5.36 5.92 6.48 7.04 7.60 8.16
92% 4.99 5.56 6.13 6.70 7.27 7.84
91% 4.62 5.20 5.78 6.36 6.94 7.53
________________________________________________________________________
How does Kerry's share of returning Gore and Bush voters impact his national vote?

Assume (per the Final Exit Poll):
Kerry won 89% of Gore voters
Kerry won 9% of Bush voters

Kerry wins by 51.4 - 47.6%, a 4.85 million margin.

KERRY VOTE SHARE
(sensitivity to Kerry share of returning Gore and Bush voters)

Assume 2000 Voter Turnout: 95% Gore; 95% Bush

Bush Gore Voter Share
Voter 89% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94%
Share
10% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7%
9% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0% 53.3%
8% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0%
7% 50.7% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6%

6% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2%
5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4% 51.8%
4% 49.5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4%
3% 49.2% 49.5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1%

KERRY VOTE MARGIN (millions)

10% 5.80 6.76 7.72 8.68 9.64 10.60
9% 4.85 5.81 6.77 7.73 8.69 9.65
8% 3.89 4.86 5.82 6.78 7.74 8.70
7% 2.94 3.90 4.87 5.83 6.79 7.75

6% 1.99 2.95 3.91 4.88 5.84 6.80
5% 1.04 2.00 2.96 3.93 4.89 5.85
4% 0.09 1.05 2.01 2.97 3.94 4.90
3% -0.86 0.10 1.06 2.02 2.98 3.95


http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#NatExitPollSens

To repeat, we already KNOW the weights; they are based on the 2000 and 2004 recorded votes, with 2000 voters reduced by voter mortality and voter turnout in 2004.

Since we have determined FEASIBLE (mathematically possible) weights, we just need the response to ONE question in order to calculate the national vote share. That's why the ONLY exit poll response which MATTERS is the answer to THIS question: "Who did you JUST VOTE FOR 5 MINUTES AGO"?

It follows that "false recall" of the 2000 vote, even IF it exists, is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. On the contrary, we ARE justified in believing that voters DID NOT not falsely recall who they voted for JUST FIVE MINUTES earlier. What would be their MOTIVATION to lie? Survey responses are CONFIDENTIAL - AS YOU KEEP REMINDING US.

I strongly suggest that you look over this extensive NEP sensitivity analysis for all essential demographics. KERRY EMERGES AS THE WINNER, REGARDLESS OF THE COMBINATION PAIR OF PLAUSIBLE VOTE SHARE ASSUMPTIONS.

THE REASON KERRY COMES OUT A WINNER IS THAT WE HAVE CALCULATED FEASIBLE WEIGHTS WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR IN 2000?

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#NatExitPollSens

ONCE AGAIN, FROM THE PEAK OF TRUTH MOUNTAIN SO THAT YOU DON'T FORGET IT:

***********************************************************************
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF GORE, BUSH AND NADER 2000 VOTERS WHO COULD HAVE VOTED IN 2004 (I.E. THE WEIGHTS) IS A FUNCTION OF 1) (F)ACTUAL 2000/2004 RECORDED VOTE DATA, 2) THE ANNUAL 0.87% MORTALITY RATE AND 3) AN ESTIMATED 2000 VOTER PERCENTAGE TURNOUT IN 2004. THAT'S IT.
***********************************************************************

Do us all a favor and accept the reality of the above statement. Your avoidance of this COMPELLING evidence for almost two years is truly astounding,being that you are an extremely intelligent individual.

So why do you do keep doing it?

[Febble]

49. Weights....

FEBBLE
TIA, all your analysis assume that exit poll sampling is unbiased, and that people correctly report what they did four years ago (e.g. whether they voted; who they voted for). While it is possible that these two assumptions are correct, there is no reason to believe that there are, and a fair bit of reason to believe they are not.

TIA
Once again, you avoid the FACTS about the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I have stated the following over and over again. We already know the MAXIMUM "How voted in 2000" weights because we KNOW how many Bush and Gore voters were still alive and could vote in 2004.

I have no idea, TIA, what you mean by "weights". If you had bothered to download the actual questionnaire data, from which the crosstabulations you use were actually derived, you might have a better understanding of the term. But to explain briefly: in that spreadsheet - the spreadsheet containing all the answers to the exit poll questions with a line for each respondent, and a column for each question - there is also a column marked "weights". Each respondent has a positive number in this column. A number less than 1 means that that respondent's answers will be downweighted in the crosstabulation, and indicates that respondents like him/her were deemed to be over represented in the poll, while a number greater than 1 means that that respondent's answers will be upweighted in the crosstabulations, and indicates that respondents like him/her were deemed to be under-represented in the poll.

A number of factors are taken into consideration when computing the weights (and if you had downloaded the spreadsheet while it was available you could have computed the crosstabs with and without weights and you could even have experimented with your own weights). One factor is the geographical stratification of the sample. Another is the reported values for the age, race and sex of non-respondents. If, say, white middle aged men are better represented amongst non-responders than in the sample, then white middle aged men will be upweighted in the sample.

These weights are changed at intervals on election night (as you know) as the vote count comes in. I will not debate here the rights or wrongs of this process, merely that it is done.

What is NOT a factor in computing the weights is answers to the question "how voted in 2000". I do not know what you mean by "weights" in this context. You are either confused as to how the weights are computed, or you are using the term in a different sense. If the latter, you need to make it clear what you mean. It is not at all clear to me what you mean.

Yet you still assume that the weightings are the result of a flawed sample. That is flawed reasoning. WE ALREADY KNOW THE WEIGHTS SINCE WE KNOW THAT ALL MEN ARE MORTAL.

THEREFORE, it is IRRELEVANT whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters IF they said they voted for Bush. What IS RELEVANT IS WHO THEY VOTED FOR FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THEY WERE EXIT POLLED - and 91% said it was Kerry.

And so these two statements make no sense. It is true that the fact that the weights are not equal to 1 for every respondent indicates that the pollsters do not consider that the sample bears a 1:1 relationship with the electorate. Indeed, they know for sure that it does not (from their age, race and sex data on non-respondents) and they also base their stratification on past vote-count data which they do not assume is a flawless predictor of patterns of vote-count in the current election. And if, after reweighting their sample in the light of what they think (on the basis of data from many sources) is a better apportioning of the electorate, the proportion of those who indicate that the voted in 2000 scales up to a larger number than could have possibly voted, then there are three possible inferences that could be made. One is the one you draw, that the vote count itself was inaccurate. A second is that the weighting process itself was too crude. And a third is that some people did not report accurately whether they voted in 2000, or who they voted for.

You may choose to consider the second and third possibilities implausible, and that is your right. But it does not come out of the math. It comes out of conviction. The math works just fine. Even if we assume that the weighting process was broadly correct, all one needs to do to square the resulting cross-tabulations of the 2000 vote with what could actually have happened is to postulate that a small proportion of voters misreported their 2000 vote (whether they voted or for whom). And we know, from the work Mark Lindeman has done on longitidinal data (data that actually tracks answers from the same voters over time), that this actually happens, in the pattern required to solve the problem. Why should they do this? Who knows. Can it happen? Yes, and Mark's evidence is strong evidence that it does.

The 2000 and 2004 recorded votes and the annual MORTALITY rate are historic and documented FACTS. They are both NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT to determine the MAXIMUM number of Bush and Gore voters who COULD HAVE VOTED in 2004.

Indeed.

Only Bush and Gore 2000 VOTER TURNOUT in 2004 is UNKNOWN. But turnout can be ESTIMATED in order to determine PLAUSIBLE WEIGHTS (95% is the base case used in the True Vote Model). The model indicates that Kerry won by 66-58 million votes, a 52.56-46.43% vote share.

Well, until you say what you mean by "weights", this statement is not comprehensible. I will therefore snip a bit...

THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF GORE, BUSH AND NADER 2000 VOTERS WHO COULD HAVE VOTED IN 2004 (I.E. THE WEIGHTS) IS A FUNCTION OF 1) (F)ACTUAL 2000/2004 RECORDED VOTE DATA, 2) THE ANNUAL 0.87% MORTALITY RATE AND 3) AN ESTIMATED 2000 VOTER PERCENTAGE TURNOUT IN 2004. THAT'S IT.

Do us all a favor and accept the reality of the above statement. Your avoidance of this COMPELLING evidence for almost two years is truly astounding,being that you are an extremely intelligent individual.

Gee, for a ghost you shout pretty good.

"THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF GORE, BUSH AND NADER 2000 VOTERS WHO COULD HAVE VOTED IN 2004" does not equal "THE WEIGHTS". It is, however, a function of the actual recorded vote data and the mortality rate. And if you want to throw in an estimate of turnout into your estimate of the maximum, that's fine (although I suggest you read the piece I linked to when estimating turnout).

So your assertion that I "avoid this COMPELLING evidence" is false. I am perfectly happy to accept that there were a large number of voters in 2004 who could not have voted (and did not) in 2000. What I don't find is that this is "COMPELLING" evidence of fraud. It is simply evidence that there were more voters in 2004 than in 2000. Which is not in dispute.

[caruso]

51. TIA: Still not clear to you? OK, let's try again.

FEBBLE
I have no idea, TIA, what you mean by "weights".

--------

What is NOT a factor in computing the weights is answers to the question "how voted in 2000". I do not know what you mean by "weights" in this context. You are either confused as to how the weights are computed, or you are using the term in a different sense. If the latter, you need to make it clear what you mean. It is not at all clear to me what you mean.

TIA
Still not clear? After all these months?
OK. Let's try again.

Please answer the following very simple questions. They are very straightforward. If it's not too much to ask, keep your responses short and simple. Just answer the questions.

1. Do you agree that no more than the Bush, Gore, and Nader voters still living could have voted in 2004?

Yes or No

2. Do you agree that the above number of Bush, Gore and Nader voters is a maximum and assumes 100% turnout?

Yes or No

3. Do you agree that since 100% (maximum) turnout is unrealistic, it makes sense to assume a certain percentage turnout of those who actually voted in 2004? Let's call this the 2000 voter turnout percentage.

Yes or No

4) Do you agree that we have now derived a good approximation of the number of Gore, Bush and Nader voters who actually came out to vote in 2004?

Yes or No

5) Do you agree that given a) the number of Gore, Bush and Nader 2000 voters who came out to vote in 2004 and b) the total 2004 recorded vote, we must subtract (a) from (b) in order to approximate the number of first-time and other voters (DNV2k) who did not vote in 2000?

Yes or No

6) Do you agree that we now have the data needed to calculate the following feasible vote share "multipliers"?

GW = Gore 2000 voter turnout in 2004 as a ratio of the total 2004 recorded vote
BW = Bush 2000 "
NW = Nader 2000 "
DNVW = Others who did not vote in 2000 "

Can we call these multipliers weights?

Yes or No

7) Do you agree that we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll, much less sampling error or voter response?

Yes or No

8) Do you agree that the ONLY remaining unknowns are Kerry and Bush vote shares of returning Gore, Bush, Nader and DNV2k voters?

Yes or No

9) Do you agree that the 12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares can be considered to be the base case assumptions in calculating the National vote shares?

Yes or No

10) Do you agree that since there is a margin of error (which we need not argue about here) for the base case vote share assumptions, it makes sense to "stress test" the base case by analyzing alternative vote shares?

Yes or No

11) Do you agree that the best way to "stress test" the base case is to employ a sensitivity analysis (two-way table) for the vote shares? In other words, to play what-if?

Yes or No

Well, that is what I have done. It's all right here.
________________________________________________________________________

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#NatExitPollSens

Sensitivity Analysis I
Effect of changes in demographic vote shares on Kerry’s national vote.

The base case scenario assumes the following:
1) 12:22am National Exit poll vote shares
2) annual 0.87% mortality rate
3) 95% voter turnout of Gore, Bush, Nader voters
Kerry wins the base case by over 7 million votes: 52.56-46.43%
________________________________________________________________________

I hope that my use of the following in the above context makes sense to you now: weights, feasibility, sensitivity analysis, stress test, plausibility, scenario, turnout, base case, mortality, maximum, multipliers, vote shares, assumptions, facts.

On the other hand, I'm confident the above logic will make sense to unbiased viewers of this thread who remember from Junior High how their teacher calculated the number of students attending class on any given day: It was simply the total who were registered in the class minus those who were sick or just decided not to show up.

[Febble]

53. OK

FEBBLE
I have no idea, TIA, what you mean by "weights".

--------

What is NOT a factor in computing the weights is answers to the question "how voted in 2000". I do not know what you mean by "weights" in this context. You are either confused as to how the weights are computed, or you are using the term in a different sense. If the latter, you need to make it clear what you mean. It is not at all clear to me what you mean.

TIA
Still not clear? After all these months Ok. Let's try again.

1. Do you agree that no more than the Bush, Gore, and Nader voters still living could have voted in 2004?

Yes or No

Yes.

2. Do you agree that the above number of Bush, Gore and Nader voters is a maximum if we assume 100% turnout?

Yes or No

Yes.

3. Do you agree that since 100% (maximum) turnout is unrealistic, it makes sense to assume a percentage of those who actually voted in 2004? Let's call this the 2000 voter turnout percentage.

Yes or No

Yes.

4) Do you agree that we have now derived a good approximation of the number of Gore, Bush and Nader voters who actually came out to vote in 2004?

Yes or No

Yes.

5) Do you agree that given the number of Gore, Bush and Nader 2000 voters who came out to vote in 2004 and the total 2004 recorded vote, we must subtract the number of returning 2000 voters from the recorded 2004 vote in order to approximate the number of first-time and other voters (DNV2k) who did not vote in 2000?

Yes or No

Yes.

6) Do you agree that we have now determined feasible vote share weighting "multipliers"?

Yes or No

Well what do you mean by "feasible vote share weighting "multipliers" "? What are you multiplying? The only thing that makes sense is that you are "weighting" some cross-tabulation from the National Exit Poll, and you say below that "we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll".

7) Do you agree that we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll, much less sampling error or voter response?


Yes or No

Well, what on earth are you multiplying ("weighting") if not the NEP?

8) Do you agree that the ONLY remaining unknowns are Kerry and Bush vote shares of returning Gore, Bush, Nader and DNV2k voters?

Yes or No

Well, assuming that what you are trying to calculate is the proportion of voters who voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004, no, of course I don't agree, because we have no way of knowing the voteshares for Kerry and Bush among those who didn't vote in 2000 either. That's a huge unknown, unless we are considering the exit poll data, which you just said we weren't considering at this point. On the other hand, if what you are calculating is the proportion of 2000 voters who voted for Kerry and Bush, then, yes, I agree it is an unknown - presumably that's why you are trying to calculate it.

9) Do you agree that National Exit Poll vote shares can be considered to be the base case assumptions in calculating the National vote shares?

Well, I suppose you have to start somewhere. I would have started with the NEP spreadsheet myself (and did), not the derived crosstabs.

10) Do you agree that since there is a margin of error (which we need not argue about here) for the base case vote share assumptions, it makes sense to "stress test" the base case by analyzing alternative vote shares?

I certainly don't consider that the total error in the NEP in the was limited to sampling error, and so I therefore would not agree that there was any inherent limit to any "stress test". In other words, demonstrating that only by "stressing" the data beyond the MoE could the data produce a Bush win would not demonstrate that a Bush win was "mathematically impossible" as you appear to conclude. It would merely demonstrate that if Bush in reality won, then the error in the poll was not limited to sampling error. For which there is abundant evidence, evidence you consistently ignore.

11) Do you agree that the best way to "stress test" the base case is to employ a sensitivity analysis (two-way table) for the vote shares? In other words, to play what-if?

Yes, I agree that playing "what-if?" is the right approach. It's called hypthesis testing, and, in essence, it's what I do for a living. However, I do not agree that the plausibility limits to any such test can be computed from a calculation of sampling error. In the end, what limits the plausibility of your inference is your own credulity. Arguments from incredulity are not mathematical arguments.

Well, that is what I have done. It's all right here.
________________________________________________________________________

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...

Sensitivity Analysis I
Effect of changes in demographic vote shares on Kerry’s national vote.

The base case scenario assumes the following:
1) 12:22am National Exit poll vote shares
2) annual 0.87% mortality rate
3) 95% voter turnout of Gore, Bush, Nader voters
Kerry wins the base case by over 7 million votes: 52.56-46.43%
________________________________________________________________________


I hope that my use of the following in the above context makes sense to you now: weights, feasibility, sensitivity analysis, stress test, plausibility, scenario, turnout, base case, mortality, maximum, multipliers, vote shares, assumptions, facts.

No, it isn't clear to me at all. Your "search space" is bounded by plausibility assumptions that you do not state. There are many other "solutions" that you do not test because they would violate your implicit assumptions.

On the other hand, I'm confident the above logic will make sense to unbiased observers of this thread who remember from Junior High School that the number of students who attended class on any given day was the simply the total who were registered in the class minus those who were sick or just decided not to show up.

Any inference is only as good as your assumptions. There are implicit assumptions in your analysis that go far beyond the perfectly justified assumption "that the number of students who attended class on any given day was the simply the total who were registered in the class minus those who were sick or just decided not to show up."

You need to state what they are, and justify them. I do not consider them justified by the evidence.

[OnTheOtherHand]

57. one thing back on point 8

"...no, of course I don't agree, because we have no way of knowing the voteshares for Kerry and Bush among those who didn't vote in 2000 either."

Those would be the "DNV2K" voters, right?

So, if we can just assume that all his references to "weights" are sort of a bad dream best ignored, then we can more or less agree that we can estimate how many 2004 voters were Gore voters, Bush voters, "other" voters, or non-voters in 2000. Which takes us to step 9, where we move to the exit polls, and TIA's argument blows up.

[Febble]

58. Ah, thanks

Actually, I misread that one. OK, yes, I agree that yes, we don't know those proportions. In fact, of course, that's what we want to know.

And yes, that takes us to step 9, which, I concede, is a place to start, but there are a great many places to finish, including the scenarios you present in your paper.

[caruso]

59. TIA: The "false recall" explanation for Voted2k weights is moot; focus on the vote share scenarios

TIA
You have said YES to points 1-5. In fact, you have implicitly agreed to all points except #10.

6) Do you agree that we have now determined feasible vote share weighting "multipliers"?

Yes or No

FEBBLE
Well what do you mean by "feasible vote share weighting "multipliers" "? What are you multiplying? The only thing that makes sense is that you are "weighting" some cross-tabulation from the National Exit Poll, and you say below that "we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll".

TIA
Yes, I am anticipating using the multipliers as weights for the NEP vote shares. And yes, I have not yet mention the National Exit Poll, so I will rephrase the question:

Do you agree that we have now determined feasible NEP vote share weighting "multipliers"?

Yes or No

I take your answer to be YES, since I was referring to the NEP, although I did not explicitly say so.

7) Do you agree that we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll, much less sampling error or voter response?

Yes or No

FEBBLE
Well, what on earth are you multiplying ("weighting") if not the NEP?

TIA
Semantics. Of course, I’m referring to the NEP. So let’s move on.
Nothing to discuss here.

8) Do you agree that the ONLY remaining unknowns are Kerry and Bush vote shares of returning Gore, Bush, Nader and DNV2k voters?

Yes or No

FEBBLE
Well, assuming that what you are trying to calculate is the proportion of voters who voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004, no, of course I don't agree, because we have no way of knowing the vote shares for Kerry and Bush among those who didn't vote in 2000 either. That's a huge unknown, unless we are considering the exit poll data, which you just said we weren't considering at this point. On the other hand, if what you are calculating is the proportion of 2000 voters who voted for Kerry and Bush, then, yes, I agree it is an unknown - presumably that's why you are trying to calculate it.

TIA
Why the confusion? I calculate the ratio (proportion, share) of returning 2000 Gore, Bush and Nader voters to the 122.3mm total 2004 recorded vote. The remaining share must be the proportion of DNV2k voters to the total vote.

So I take your answer to be YES.

9) Do you agree that National Exit Poll vote shares can be considered to be the base case assumptions in calculating the National vote shares?

FEBBLE
Well, I suppose you have to start somewhere. I would have started with the NEP spreadsheet myself (and did), not the derived crosstabs.

TIA
I take your answer to be YES. NEP vote shares CAN be considered as the base case.

10) Do you agree that since there is a margin of error (which we need not argue about here) for the base case vote share assumptions, it makes sense to "stress test" the base case by analyzing alternative vote shares?

FEBBLE
I certainly don't consider that the total error in the NEP was limited to sampling error, and so I therefore would not agree that there was any inherent limit to any "stress test". In other words, demonstrating that only by "stressing" the data beyond the MoE could the data produce a Bush win would not demonstrate that a Bush win was "mathematically impossible" as you appear to conclude. It would merely demonstrate that if Bush in reality won, then the error in the poll was not limited to sampling error. For which there is abundant evidence, evidence you consistently ignore.

TIA
The Final NEP weights are mathematically impossible (not feasible). Both you and OTOH have already stipulated to that in the “Game thread” of August 2005. So any discussion of the How Voted weights is moot. We passed that hurdle a long time ago. We were in agreement then. So why are we still talking about “false recall” when it is no longer an issue. I thought we agreed on the the use of feasible weights a long time ago.

The original false recall argument was predicated on how the 2004 NEP respondents said they voted in 2000. Are you now saying that false recall also applies to how the respondents said they voted in 2004, just a few minutes after actually voting? Why would they lie about it?

It should be obvious to anyone reading this thread that the false recall argument is a rotting carcass.

So now you must focus on the vote shares. In the “Game” thread, you and your buddy provided a vote share scenario forced to match the Bush recorded vote. But the votes shares are extremely implausible when put in juxtaposition to the Bush 48.5% rating on Election Day, the final 30-day undecided vote break to Kerry (60-38% based on the NEP), the many accounts of documented fraud in Ohio (including the recent recount convictions), the documented evidence of fraud in many other states. And to top it off, DNV2k and Nader 2000 voters were solidly for Kerry.

In light of all this, an impartial observer would clearly agree: any Bush win scenario is implausible and does not pass the smell test.
Know this: If Kerry won the popular vote in Ohio by 52-48%, as the documented vote-switching and spoiled vote evidence now indicates, he did better than 52-48 overall. The Ohio Democratic presidential vote share always trails the rest of the nation.

TIA
11) Do you agree that the best way to "stress test" the base case is to employ a sensitivity analysis (two-way table) for the vote shares? In other words, to play what-if?

Yes, I agree that playing "what-if?" is the right approach. It's called hypthesis testing, and, in essence, it's what I do for a living. However, I do not agree that the plausibility limits to any such test can be computed from a calculation of sampling error. In the end, what limits the plausibility of your inference is your own credulity. Arguments from incredulity are not mathematical arguments.

TIA
I take your answer to be YES, playing “what-if” is the right approach.


FEBBLE
Your "search space" is bounded by plausibility assumptions that you do not state. There are many other "solutions" that you do not test because they would violate your implicit assumptions.

Any inference is only as good as your assumptions. There are implicit assumptions in your analysis that go far beyond the perfectly justified assumption "that the number of students who attended class on any given day was the simply the total who were registered in the class minus those who were sick or just decided not to show up."

You need to state what they are, and justify them. I do not consider them justified by the evidence.

TIA
And just what are those implicit plausibility assumptions? What are the “solutions” I am not testing? Be specific. You are welcome to make your own assumptions as to the vote shares and turnout percentages.

I have provided you with a detailed “solution space”. It’s the sensitivity analysis. Do you have another “solution space”? Then show us your scenario matrix. And tell us why yours is plausible.

The whole point of the sensitivity analysis is to provide a wide range of scenarios of alternative Gore and Bush voter turnout and Kerry and Bush vote share scenarios.

You have never shown us one sensitivity analysis. Why not? You just keep on displaying that same, lame scatter chart- over and over again. Is that the full extent of your analysis? You can do better than that.

Enlighten us. Provide one plausible Bush winning scenario.

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. bullshit, TIA, I call bullshit

Is there any limit to how wildly you can misstate my position? (I think you may have misstated Febble's even more wildly, but I will let her try to sort that out.)

The Final NEP weights are mathematically impossible (not feasible). Both you and OTOH have already stipulated to that in the “Game thread” of August 2005.

Bullshit. TIA, you are out in the clouds somewhere. I've double-checked the thread, looking at everywhere I referred to "weight," "impossible," "feasible".... What on earth is wrong with you, man?

What I probably stipulated* somewhere is that 43% of 2004 voters didn't vote for Bush in 2000.

Or maybe you are just so astonishingly incapable of learning that you still think those percentages are "weights." They aren't. The fact that 43% of 2004 voters didn't vote for Bush in 2000 has no bearing whatsoever on the mathematical feasibility of the weights.

Will you consent to use scientifically accepted and defensible terminology, or do you just insist on your sovereign right to make it all up?

(edit to fix typo)

* (I had written 'conceded', which seems to imply that I would be predisposed to resist the point. Of course I'm not, since I believe that people tend to overstate having voted for the previous winner.)

ETA: Wow, I'm just in shock. It's beyond Black Knight. TIA, you're just relying on attitude to carry you through. "You just keep on displaying that same, lame scatter chart- over and over again." In other words, you don't know what the scatterplot means, and you don't care, right? I don't see even a pretense of engaging substance here.

"But the votes shares are extremely implausible when put in juxtaposition to the Bush 48.5% rating on Election Day, the final 30-day undecided vote break to Kerry (60-38% based on the NEP), the many accounts of documented fraud in Ohio (including the recent recount convictions), the documented evidence of fraud in many other states." To see how muddled this comment is, any 'impartial observers' unlucky enough to have read this far can ask themselves: how does Bush's approval rating bear on whether the Gore->Bush defection rate was 8% or 10% or 12% or 14%? How does the undecided vote break bear on that? How does the (unspecified) documented evidence of fraud bear on it? Do you actually have any argument whatsoever about "plausible" vote shares? Or do you just mean that Kerry must have won, and therefore any vote share figures that imply otherwise are "implausible" by definition?

TIA, I thought you thought you had an argument. Is there any chance that you could tell us what it is?

[caruso]

62. TIA: So you believe that Bush's 48.5% rating is consonant with a 14.6% Gore defection to Bush?

TIA:
You are flailing now, resorting to street-talk while failing to see the sheer incongruity and implausibility of your case.

It is utterly amazing that a political science professor would fail to see the inverted logic: to assume an inverse correlation between the overall 48.5% Bush Election Day job rating (a clear rejection by the majority) and your tortured hypothesis that 14.6% of Gore voters defected to Bush.

They are mutually contradictory. One (the rating) is correct, the other (vote share) is bogus. If I disapprove of the guy and I'm a Democrat, why would I vote for him, especially since he stole my vote in 2000.

Take a look at this hypothetical breakdown of the Bush rating.
If only 8% of Democrats approved of Bush, why would 15% vote for him?

Party Mix Appr WtdAppr
Dem 38% 8% 3.0%
Rep 35% 94% 32.9%
Ind 27% 46% 12.4%

Total 100% 48.3%

I'm sorry, OTOH, that dog won't hunt.

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. oh, brother

TIA, what is the contradiction between 48.5% approval and 14% of Gore voters voting for Bush? None whatsoever. Certainly not a mathematical impossibility. Once again, if you actually have an argument, please let us know what it is. Ah, could this be it?

"If I disapprove of the guy and I'm a Democrat, why would I vote for him, especially since he stole my vote in 2000."

TIA, are you kidding? are you really so confused? Do you really think that all Gore voters were Democrats who disapproved of Bush? Do you really think I said that Democrats who disapproved of Bush voted for him? Let's see, 14% of Gore voters, that would be something like 6% of the 2004 electorate. 48.5% + 6%... yeah, uh huh, clearly mathematically impossible. :shrug:

"...to assume an inverse correlation between the overall 48.5% Bush Election Day job rating (a clear rejection by the majority) and your tortured hypothesis that 14.6% of Gore voters defected to Bush."

TIA, do you have any clue what the words "inverse correlation" actually mean? I am beginning to think that you don't, which would explain why you are completely flummoxed by correlational evidence. If you do know what the words "inverse correlation" mean, would you care to revise this statement so that it isn't pseudoscientific gabbling? (Of course, I would encourage you to do that regardless.)

If you have any empirical evidence about the relationship between approval ratings and defection rates, this would be a good time to present it. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke. I've actually presented evidence to support a 14% Gore -> Bush defection rate. The evidence isn't conclusive, but it's pretty darn brassy of you to ignore it entirely based on, apparently, nothing whatsoever. Evidence, TIA, evidence. I've presented mine. Where is yours? Bring it on, sir. Fish or cut bait.

"If only 8% of Democrats approved of Bush, why would 15% vote for him?"

Again, what is wrong with you? Did I ever say that 15% of Democrats voted for Bush? (Actually, I don't think I ever said that 15% of any group voted for Bush, but let's try to keep it simple.) Do you really not understand the difference between Gore voters and Democrats? Is this some subtle thing that only political scientists know? I don't think so.

Once again, what is your argument that it is plausible for 8% of Gore voters to have voted for Bush, but implausible for 14% to have done so? Do you have any relevant evidence, or is it just what you feel?

Meanwhile, you still don't admit to misstating my position, nor do you admit to misusing the term "weights," nor do you admit to dismissing Febble's scatterplot without actually offering a substantive response to it, nor do you admit that according to the best-fit line a 48.5% approval rating predicts a likely victory for the incumbent, nor have you said anything about the NES except a stupid joke about the acronym, and so on. How long, TIA, how long? I know your admirers will let you get away with this stuff forever, but don't you ever get tired of running? Don't you ever wonder what you might learn if you stopped and looked?

[caruso]

64. TIA: So if its not a mathematical impossibility, that makes it plausible?

It wasn't just your 14.6% Bush share of returning Gore voters
which was implausible.

In order to comply with the rules of the “game” (to use
mathematically feasible weights) you finally presented a
spreadsheet in which you hypothesized how Bush achieved his 3
million vote “mandate”. 

Your calculation of the weights was based on 1) the recorded
2000 and 2004 vote, 2) the annual 0.87% mortality rate and 3)
an estimated 2000 voter turnout of 95% in 2004. So far, so
good. 

Unfortunately, although your weights were feasible, your
assumed vote shares were implausible. Since you agreed to use
feasible weights which had the effect of lowering the Bush
vote, you had no choice but to increase the already-inflated
Final NEP Bush vote shares to ridiculous levels in order to
match his recorded vote. 

Your implausible Bush win scenario was based on the following
assumptions:

1) One in 7 (14.63%) Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush in
2004. 
   The 12:22am NEP reported 8% (10% in the 2pm Final). 

2) Kerry won just 52.90% of DNV (new voters and others who did
not vote in 2000).  
   The NEP reported 57% (54% in the Final).  

3) Just 7.20% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry. 
   The NEP reported 10% (9% in the Final).

Which are we to believe: the implausible 14.63% vote share or
the impossible 43 Bush/37% Gore weights? The weights imply
that 3 million (7.5%)  Gore voters forgot or lied and told the
exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000.  

Was the exit poll match to the recorded vote based on 
a) plausible 37.84 Gore/37.44% Bush weights (see the Lindeman
“Game” model) and an implausible 14.63% Gore voter defection
rate, or 

b) impossible 43 Bush/37% Gore weights (“false recall”) and a
plausible 8% defection rate? 

So now had to replace the already-debunked reluctant Bush
responder (rBr) hypothesis with a new one: Gore voter “false
recall”.  Your sole rationale: an NES post-election 600-sample
NES survey taken a few years after the election. 

You based your argument on the NES survey rather than the
final pre-election state (30,000 respondents)polls, final 18
national polls (27000 respondents), the 51 state exit polls
(70,000 respondents), the 12:22am national exit poll (13047
respondents), the final 11 Bush approval polls (11000
respondents, 48.5%  average rating). And finally, the 2004
Election Census (60000 respondents) which indicated that 3.4
million (mostly Kerry) votes were uncounted.

But you contradicted yourself when you agreed that the
original weights were impossible; it's irrelevant whether Gore
2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters when they
said they voted for Bush.  

What is relevant is who they said they voted for in 2004 - and
91% said it was Kerry. The 2000 and 2004 recorded vote and
annual mortality rate are historical demographic facts. They
are necessary and sufficient to determine the MAXIMUM number
of Bush and Gore voters who could have voted in 2004. We still
need to estimate Bush and Gore 2000 voter turnout in 2004 to
obtain plausible weights.
___________________________________________________________________________



My final pre-election state and national poll projections
matched the exits.
How did you do?

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#PreElectEXitActual
Note: 

Pre-election state-weightings were based on 1992-2000 average
vote turnout.

Recorded Vote
                Final NEP      Recorded        2-party     
               Kerry   Bush    Kerry   Bush    Kerry   Bush
                47.78  51.22   48.28   50.73   48.76   51.24
                                                     
 
               Poll            Projection      (2-party)   
               Kerry   Bush    Kerry   Bush    Kerry   Bush
PRE-ELECTION
75% UVA to Kerry                                              
      
National 18    47.17   46.89   50.88   48.12   51.63   48.37
State          47.88   46.89   51.05   47.95   51.80   48.20
Average        47.53   46.89   50.96   48.04   51.71   48.39
 
70% UVA                                                      
National 18    47.17   46.89   50.63   48.37   51.33   48.67
State          47.88   46.89   50.84   48.16   51.54   48.46
Average        47.53   46.89   50.73   48.27   51.43   48.57
 
EXIT POLL (12:22am)                                           
      
NEP Gender     50.78   48.22   50.78   48.22   51.29   48.71
NEP Voted2k    51.41   47.62   51.41   47.62   51.91   48.09
State(wtd)     49.76   48.76   50.01   48.99   50.51   49.49
Average        50.65   48.20   50.73   48.28   51.24   48.76
                                                     
 
EXIT POLL MODELS                                              
      
Resp Optimizer 51.65   47.35   51.65   47.35   52.17   47.83
NEP True Vote  52.56   46.43   52.56   46.43   53.10   46.90
Average        52.11   46.89   52.11   46.89   52.63   47.37

_________________________________________________________________________

State Pre-election Poll Trend

Note: Weighted mean based on 1992-2000 election average.

                7-Sep		7-Oct		1-Nov Final	
     	         Kerry Bush	       Kerry Bush	Kerry	Bush

Before UVA allocation:
Mean           43.94 47.65    46.84 46.86    45.70 47.60  
Wtd Mean       45.54 46.45    47.97 46.66    47.88 46.89      
            
2-party        49.50 50.50    50.67 49.33    50.52 49.48 

Projection (75% UVA to Kerry): 
2-party        51.54 48.46    51.99 48.01    51.80 48.20
Total          50.79 48.21    51.24 47.76    51.05 47.95

State	Date    Pollster	Kerry	Bush	Kerry	Bush	Kerry	Bush

AL	Oct 27	Survey USA	34	54	40	56	39	57
AK	Sep 11	ARG	        33	56	39	55	30	57
AZ	Oct 26	Rasmussen	42	45	47	50	45	50
AR	Oct 29	Mason-Dixon	47	48	47	47	48	48
CA	Oct 27	Field Poll	50	42	51	43	49	42

CO	Oct 30	Zogby	        47	47	49	48	47	48
CT	Oct 28	Research2K	45	38	47	38	52	42
DE	Sep 25	W Chester U	55	42	45	38	45	38
DC	Sep 13	ARG	        86	9	78	11	78	11
FL	Oct 30	Zogby 	        44	48	50	48	50	47

GA	Oct 29	Zogby 	        38	55	42	53	42	52
HI	Oct 20	SMS Res	  48	41	51	41	45	45
ID	Sep 10	ARG	        25	55	30	59	30	59
IL	Oct 29	Survey USA	52	38	55	38	54	42
IN	Oct 29	Survey USA	40	52	40	53	39	58

IA	Oct 30	Zogby	        47	47	51	44	50	44
KS	Oct 27	Survey USA	36	56	35	57	37	60
KY	Oct 20	Bluegrass	39	56	38	53	39	56
LA	Oct 22	SE La. Univ	36	52	42	50	40	48
ME	Oct 21	Zogby 	        49	44	42	39	50	39

MD	Oct 29	Survey USA	53	42	48	45	54	43
MA	Oct  5	Merrimack	56	30	64	27	64	27
MI	Oct 30	Zogby 	       48	44	52	42	52	45
MN	Oct 30	Zogby 	       46	46	53	44	52	44
MS	Sep 17	ARG	       30	61	42	51	42	51

MO	Oct 29	Mason-Dixon	45	49	49	50	44	49
MT	Oct 20	Mason-Dixon	33	53	36	54	36	57
NE	Oct 20	RKM Res	33	62	30	61	32	61
NV	Oct 29	Survey USA	48	46	48	47	49	49
NH	Oct 30	ARG	        51	43	51	44	47	47

NJ	Oct 29	Survey USA	50	46	50	45	50	42
NM	Oct 30	ARG		42     45	55	43	49	49
NY	Oct 28	Survey USA	56	37	53	41	57	39
NC	Oct 26	Mason-Dixon	45	51	47	50	47	50
ND	Oct 19	Minn St U	33	61	33	62	35	55

OH	Oct 30	Zogby	        42	48	48	47	50	47
OK	Oct 24	Wilson Res	38	57	29	52	28	61
OR	Oct 29	Mason-Dixon	54	43	55	44	50	44
PA	Oct 30	Zogby	        46	47	52	46	50	45
RI	Oct 27	Survey USA	49	25	55	37	56	36

SC	Oct 24	Survey USA	42	53	37	55	42	55
SD	Oct 24	McLaughlin	40	54	40	52	42	52
TN	Oct 21	Mason-Dixon	50	48	48	50	48	50
TX	Oct 28	Survey USA	33	57	37	58	37	59
UT	Oct 28	Dan Jones	22	67	27	64	24	69

VT	Oct 12	Research2k	51	36	50	40	53	40
VA	Oct 29	Survey USA	45	49	47	50	47	51
WA	Oct 27	StratVision	48	43	54	44	52	44
WV	Oct 29	Mason-Dixon	42	49	44	50	46	49
WI	Oct 30	Zogby	        49	45	51	48	51	44
WY	Sep 11	ARG	        28	68	29	65	29	65



 
 _____________________________________________________________________


Can you explain what happened to the NEP between 12:22am and
the 1:25pm Final?

Kerry held a 51-48 edge from 8349 to 11027 to 13047
respondents. The only demographic weights which suddenly
changed in the Final were Party ID and... you guessed it,
Voted in 2000. How do you explain that? Why the change in
weights for just these two? 

Of course, ALL demographic vote shares were radically altered
in the Final to match the Bush recorded margin.


 National Exit Poll Demographic Time Line

< represents a one percent change from 12:22am to the
1:25pm Final. 
										

		3:59pm  7:33pm 12:22am 1:25pm  3:59pm 7:33pm 12:22am 1:25pm
Respondents	8349	11027	13047	13660		 8349	 11027 13047 13660
										
		Category Weighting			Kerry Percentage		
GENDER										
Male 		42	46	46	46		47	47	47	44 <<<
Female 	58	54	54	54		53	54	54	51 <<<
PCT		100	100	100	100		50.48	50.78	50.78	47.78
VOTE (mm)						61.72	62.08	62.08	58.42
										
REGION										
East		23	22	22	22		58	58	58	56 <<
Midwest	25	26	26	26		50	50	50	48 <<
South		31	31	31	32		44	45	45	42 <<<
West		21	21	21	20		53	53	53	50 <<<
PCT		100	100	100	100		50.61	50.84	50.84	48.24
VOTE (mm)						61.88	62.16	62.16	58.98
										
PARTY ID										
Democrat 	39	38	38	37<		90	90	90	89 <
Repub 	      36	36	35	37<<		 7	7	7	 6 <
Indep 	      25	26	27	26<		52	52	52	49 <<<
PCT		100	100	100	100		50.62	50.24	50.69	47.89
VOTE (mm)						61.89	61.42	61.97	58.55

IDEOLOGY										
Liberal 	22	22	22	21 <		86	87	86	85 <
Moderate 	45	45	45	45		58	57	57	54 <<<
Conserv	33	33	33	34 <		16	16	16	15 <
PCT		100	100	100	100		50.3	50.07	49.85	47.25
VOTE (mm)						61.50	61.22	60.95	57.77
										
VOTED IN 2000										
DNV         15	17	17	17		62	59	57	54 <<<
Gore		39	38	39	37<<		91	91	91	90 <
Bush		42	41	41	43<<		 9	 9	10	 9 <
Other		 4	 4	 3	 3		61	65	71	71
PCT		100	100	100	100		51.01	50.9	51.41	48.48
VOTE (mm)						62.36	62.23	62.85	59.27
										
WHEN DECIDED										
Today       6 	 6	 6	 5		52	54	53	52 <
Last 3Days 	 3	 3	 3	 4		50	54	53	55 >>
Last Week 	 2	 2	 2	 2		48	48	48	48
Last Month  10	10	10	10		61	61	60	54
<<<<<<<
Over30Days 	79	79	79	79		50	50	50	46 <<<<
PCT		100	100	100	100		51.18	51.42	51.23	47.5
VOTE (mm)						62.57	62.87	62.63	58.07
										
EDUCATION										
No HS		 4	 4	 4	 4		50	52	52	50 <<
HS Grad 	22	22	22	22		50	51	51	47 <<<<
College 	30	31	31	32 <		48	47	47	46 <
Grad		26	26	26	26		48	49	48	46 <<
Post Grad 	18	17	17	16 <		58	58	58	55 <<<
PCT		100	100	100	100		50.32	50.34	50.21	47.82
VOTE (mm)						61.52	61.55	61.39	58.46
										
RACE										
WM		33	36	36	36		40	41	41	37 <<<<
WF		44	41	41	41		47	47	47	44 <<<
NWM		10	10	10	10		69	70	69	67 <<
NWF		13	13	13	13		77	77	77	75 <<
PCT		100	100	100	100		50.79	51.04	50.94	47.81
VOTE (mm)						62.10	62.40	62.28	58.45
										
AGE										
18-29 	      15	17	17	17		56	56	56	54 <<
30-44 	      27	27	27	29<<		48	49	49	46 <<<
45-59 	      31	30	30	30		52	51	51	48 <<<
60+		27	26	26	24<<		48	48	48	46 <<
PCT		100	100	100	100		50.44	50.53	50.53	47.96
VOTE (mm)						61.67	61.78	61.78	58.64
										
INCOME										
0-15	       9	 9	 9	 8 <		68	66	66	63 <<<
15-30 	      15	15	15	15		59	59	59	57 <<
30-50 	      22	22	22	22		53	52	52	50 <<
50-75 	      22	23	23	23		46	45	45	43 <<
75-100 	 14	13	13	14 <		49	49	49	45 <<<<
100-150 	 11	11	11	11		44	45	45	42 <<<
150-200 	  4	 4	 4	 4		45	47	47	42 <<<<<
200+ 	        3 	 3	 3	 3		40	41	41	35
<<<<<<
PCT		100	100	100	100		51.45	51.01	51.01	48.13
VOTE (mm)						62.90	62.36	62.36	58.84

RELIGION										
Protestant	53	53	53	53		43	43	43	40 <<<
Catholic 	27	27	27	27		50	50	50	47 <<<
Jewish	       3	 3	 3	 3		77	77	77	74 <<<
Other 	       7	 7	 7	 7		76	75	75	74 <
None 		10	10	10	10		69	70	70	67 <<<
PCT		100	100	100	100		50.82	50.85	50.85	47.99
VOTE (mm)						62.13	62.17	62.17	58.67
										
MILITARY										
In Military	18	18	18	18		43	43	43	41 <<
No Military	82	82	82	82		52	53	53	50 <<<
PCT		100	100	100	100		50.38	51.2	51.2	48.38
VOTE (mm)						61.59	62.60	62.60	59.15
				
_____________________________________________________________________

[kster]

70. Caruso, one question

would you be willing to go ON TV to debate these people? Your experts vs their experts?

[Febble]

71. As you never consider a single point

addressed to you, merely copying our posts into your reply, there is absolutely no point in continuing with this.

Your response to any attempt at debate is simply to repeat the same misunderstandings and accusations.

Let us know when you've looked at my scatter-plot, read Mark's paper, and learned what a "weight" is. Or indeed, actually read our posts.

Keep well.

Lizzie

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. You. Have. Nothing.

"...your assumed vote shares were implausible..."

Yo, the challenge is to demonstrate that the vote shares were implausible, not simply to assert it. Once again you seem to have gone AWOL when it's time to do the actual work. (Some folks will assume that all those tables somehow prove your point about the vote shares, but they don't.)

Citing the percentages in the NEP tables doesn't count as an argument, because we've already explained why false reporting of past votes would distort those results. See also post #52. Under the rules of formal debate, you've simply conceded that point by ignoring it.

Actually, I've lost track of what you've conceded under the rules of formal debate. (Inter alia, you've conceded that the 43% and 37% are not "weights" any more than they are "chi squares," and therefore you are deliberately babbling when you refer to them as weights. Repeating your errors does not count as justifying them.)

So now had to replace the already-debunked reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis with a new one: Gore voter “false
recall”. Your sole rationale: an NES post-election 600-sample NES survey taken a few years after the election.

That's a lot of truthiness to squeeze into two sentences, but the absolute stupidest thing is when you say that the NES survey was "taken a few years after the election." How many times do we need to explain what a panel study is? (Or maybe the absolute stupidest thing is that you say this is my "sole rationale" for what you call "false recall" even after I marshal evidence from every exit poll, General Social Survey, and National Election Study I could lay my hands on.)

Here is a sentence-and-a-half snippet that conceivably might reveal even to you how far off you are. "...it's irrelevant whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters when they said they voted for Bush. What is relevant is who they said they voted for in 2004 - and 91% said it was Kerry." Dead wrong. If we don't know who the Gore 2000 voters actually were, then we don't know who they said they voted for in 2004. We only know that for the people who said they voted for Gore. So of course it's relevant whether Gore 2000 voters reported that vote correctly. Again, see also post #52.

[caruso]

75. TIA: Is this your rationale of why 15% of Gore voters defected?

The point, which you utterly fail to comprehend, is that there is an absolute limit on the number of returning 2000 voters. Let's start from there.

Your challenge is to justify your implausible Bush vote shares. Where did he find 16 million new voters apart from the Bush 2000 voters who were living and voted in 2004?

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#_Where_did_Bush

Bush had a 48.5% Job Rating on Election Day. That means a vast majority of former Gore voters (Democrats, Independents and a few Republicans) disapproved.

Now, do you really expect anyone to believe your extrapolation of that fact into a massive 15% defection of Gore voters to Bush?

If first-time voters (and those who did not vote in 2000) were overwhelming Kerry voters, what makes you believe that returning Gore voters would defect to Bush in a massive rejection of Kerry - and the Democrats?

To put it another way, what is the basis of your rationale which would cause 15% of Gore voters to defect to Bush? Let's look for their incentives. In other words, could you justify your theory by analyzing Bush's first term performance in the REAL world?

Was it his theft of the 2000 election? Was it the lack of immediate response to the 9/11 attacks as he sat in the Booker school reading about pet goats? Or was it his lies about Iraq? Could it have been the torure at Abu Graihb or Guantanamo? Could it have been his failure to go after Bib Laden? Was it Halliburton and Carlyle making billions on Iraq reconstruction? Was it the Patriot Act? Or maybe Gore voters approved of the Bush refusal to accept Global Warming? Or Bush warning Daschle NOT to form a 9/11 commission? Or was it his repsonve to the thrax attacks on Daschle and Leahy. Maybe it was his going AWOL? That must have won him the veterans. Was it the White House outing of Valerie Plame that won over the gore voters? Or was it his massive tax breaks to the top 1%? Or his relationship with Ken Lay of Enron? Was it his refusal to fund stem-cell research? That must have endeared him to the millions of Gore voters who defected, especially those who could not afford medical coverage. Are you saying the Christian fundamentalists were the Gore defectors? I don't think so. They voted for Bush in 2000, didn't they?

Now THAT is the definition of IMPLAUSIBLE.

You. Have. Gone. Too. Far.
Your. Theory. Does. Not. Pass. The. Smell. Test
It. Is. Totally. Illogical. And. Counter. Intuitive
What. Are. You. Trying. To. Prove?

Why are you still clinging to the belief that Bush won the election?
Who other than you on this Forum still believes it?

[Febble]

76. In other words

your argument is simply that Kerry must have won because no Gore voter would have voted for Bush.

Which is, you may note, not a mathematical argument at all, but a political judgement.

To which you are entitled. You are just not entitled to call it math.

[caruso]

77. TIA: You have it exactly back-wards

I back up my data, mathematics and models with real-world observations.

You and OTOH have not done so. This thread proves it.

Now, would you comment on the Gore voter incentives to defect to Bush?
Would you provide us with your pre-election state and national polL data?
Would you provide us with your post-election state and national poll data?
Would you provide us with the models you used to analyze them?

I have provided all of the above. You and OTOH have provided nothing but tortured hypotheticals and contradictions.

You believe there was fraud, but do not believe it can be detected in the pre-election and post-election polls.

You believe in scieentific polling, but do not believe the results.

You believe in statistical analysis, but not when it indicates that Kerry won the election.

You believe in the Law of Large numbers, but not when it applies to multiple pre-election polls taken for the same population at the same time.

You believe in probability analysis, but not if it indicates that Bush stole the election.

You believe in playing "what-if" sensitivity analysis (or as you prefer, hypothesis testing), but not if the analysis shows Kerry to be the winner of all plausible (and some implausible) scenarios in which vote share and turnout assumptions favor Bush.

You believe in regression analysis, except if it shows that Kerry did better in states with low exit poll response and Bush did better in states of high response.

You don't believe in faith-based analysis, but you disregard the fact that 43 states deviated from the exit polls to Bush.

You don't accept that the pre-election polls matched the exit polls, even when I presented the data in this thread which proves it.

You claim to be a scientist, but you cling to an unproven theory of false voter recall based on a single NES study to explain the exit poll discrepancies. That is very unscientific. You are excluding the best evidence - which is who the respondents actually said theyvoted for just FIVE minutes after voting.

You claim to have seen the raw data which indicate that Bush won, yet the Ohio ballot data which has been made available to investigators such as Richard Hayes Phillips, Fitrakis and others indicate just the opposite.

You know that Bush stole the election from Gore in Florida, yet you claim that he won the state in 2004, despite the University of Berkeley study which corroborates the documented fraud.

You welcome real-world evidence which proves that election was stolen, yet you fail to be impressed by the documented incidental data of switched and lost votes at the touch screens which heavily favored Bush.

You keep telling us that you have looked for fraud in the data and did not find it, and yet many other researchers have found the data to be highly circumstantial evidence of fraud.

You tell us that exit polls are not true random samples and therefore one cannot use them for any probability analysis, yet the exit pollsters themselves claim a 1% margin of error with individuals randomly selected as they exited the polling station.

You still believe that polls serve a purpose, but at the same time say that we cannot draw inferences from them - like the inference that Kerry won.

You have not presented a comprehensive pre- and post-election state and national exit poll analysis. Nor have you analyzed the 2006 Generic polls. Nor have you analyzed the Bush job approvals.
I have done analyzed them all. They are all in this thread.

Where is your analysis? Instead of that scatter diagram, could you show us some actual NUMBERS?

[Febble]

79. TIA:

This is bullshit. I have addressed every-one of these assertions of yours, countless times. I don't know whether you simply ignore my responses, or fail to understand them. I will address them again, only once. From this point onwards, I will simply link to my rebuttals:

You believe there was fraud, but do not believe it can be detected in the pre-election and post-election polls.

I don't know if there was fraud or not. I do not believe that the pre-election or the exit polls are evidence of it. I think that the exit poll data if anything suggests that it did not happen on a scale of millions.

You believe in scieentific polling, but do not believe the results.

I know a fair bit about survey research, and like all involved in survey research I am aware that non-sampling error can be substantial, particularly when face-to-face selection methods are used, and where non-completion rates are high.

You believe in statistical analysis, but not when it indicates that Kerry won the election.

I believe in sound statistical analysis, whatever it indicates. I don't consider yours sound.

You believe in the Law of Large numbers, but not when it applies to multiple pre-election polls taken for the same population at the same time.

As I said, the Law of Large numbers refers to random samples. If you still think that the only error variance in surveys is sampling error then you have learned nothing over the last two years.

You believe in probability analysis, but not if it indicates that Bush stole the election.

See above.

You believe in playing "what-if" sensitivity analysis (or as you prefer, hypothesis testing), but not if the analysis shows Kerry to be the winner of all plausible (and some implausible) scenarios in which vote share and turnout assumptions favor Bush.

My evaluation of any test of any hypothesis has nothing to do with whether or not I happen to like the result. It has to do with the validity of the assumptions. I do not share your assumptions. Your implication that my interpretation of data depends on whether I like the result is offensive.

You believe in regression analysis, except if it shows that Kerry did better in states with low exit poll response and Bush did better in states of high response.

I believe in interpreting regression analyses coherently. I don't know what you are inferring from this one, but it makes no sense. What you probably mean is that redshift tended to be uncorrelated with response rate. This is true, and some have tried to use this finding as evidence that non-response bias cannot have been the cause of the exit poll discrepancy. Unfortunately, this argument does not bear close scrutiny, and is falsified by the data. The reason it does not bear scrutiny is that it is an example of the ecological fallacy. Bias will only occur if there is a discrepancy between the response rates of Kerry voters and the response rates of Bush voters. It doesn't matter what the overall response rates are, and these may be determined by quite different factors to those that are associated with differentials between Bush and Kerry response rates.

You don't believe in faith-based analysis, but you disregard the fact that 43 states deviated from the exit polls to Bush.

This is a totally false statement, and is evidence that either you do not read my posts, or you willfully interpret them.

You don't accept that the pre-election polls matched the exit polls, even when I presented the data in this thread which proves it.

You still fail to understand the point made by both Lindeman and myself that the magnitude of the discrepancy between the offical results and the exit polls is completely uncorrelated with the discrepancy between the official results and the pre-election polls, even using your own very generous (to Kerry) pre-election poll estimates. If things are completely uncorrelated, they cannot, in any reasonable sense, be said to "match". If you want to re-invent the English language, feel free, but warn us that you are speaking something other than English.

You claim to be a scientist, but you cling to an unproven theory of false voter recall based on a single NES study to explain the exit poll discrepancies. That is very unscientific. You are excluding the best evidence - which is who the respondents actually said theyvoted for just FIVE minutes after voting.

TIA, think. Of course I am not "excluding" evidence as to whom voters said they just voted for. What I am regarding with some circumspection is the evidence as to who those voters voted for in 2000. Either you are deliberately misrepresenting my position or you have still failed to comprehend it.

You claim to have seen the raw data which indicate that Bush won, yet the Ohio ballot data which has been made available to investigators such as Richard Hayes Phillips, Fitrakis and others indicate just the opposite.

I have no strong views on whether Bush or Kerry "won" Ohio, which I consider a thoroughly corrupt election. I am so far unpersuaded that the evidence suggests that Kerry would actually have won on a level playing field, but I certainly consider it possible. The fact that we don't know is itself a scandal. What I do say is that the exit poll evidence in itself is not evidence of fraud in Ohio.

You know that Bush stole the election from Gore in Florida, yet you claim that he won the state in 2004, despite the University of Berkeley study which corroborates the documented fraud.

Oh, for goodness sake. You do know, don't you, that that analysis has actually been withdrawn? It was thoroughly rebutted. There is as much evidence to suggest the opposite, as Kathy Dopp originally suggested - and I also agreed, at the time. After some further analysis I found the evidence completely inconclusive. I would be astonished if there was not fraud in Florida in 2004, but there is no evidence that it divided along technological lines.

You welcome real-world evidence which proves that election was stolen, yet you fail to be impressed by the documented incidental data of switched and lost votes at the touch screens which heavily favored Bush.

Oh, I'm impressed. But it's not data you can do valid inferential statistics on.

You keep telling us that you have looked for fraud in the data and did not find it, and yet many other researchers have found the data to be highly circumstantial evidence of fraud.

And I have critiqued those analyses elsewhere, as has Mark Lindeman. I think theirs, like yours is flawed.

You tell us that exit polls are not true random samples and therefore one cannot use them for any probability analysis, yet the exit pollsters themselves claim a 1% margin of error with individuals randomly selected as they exited the polling station.

They did not. The "error" in the quoted margin of error refers to sampling error, which is not the only source of error in a survey. I have referred you many times to Mitofsky's own words about this, which as usual, you have chosen to ignore. So here they are again:

Mitofsky: I want to say a few words about reporting sampling error. A number of people who have spoken here have talked of not reporting sampling error because it was confusing all those dear mindless souls who listen to our results. They were concerned we would make people think that sampling error was the only error in the survey. I guess I am not too sympathetic with that point of view.

It appears that Mitofsky had reckoned without you.

You still believe that polls serve a purpose, but at the same time say that we cannot draw inferences from them - like the inference that Kerry won.

Yes, I think we can draw inferences from the poll data. I think it is enormously valuable data. But as with all data, inferences need to be drawn with care, and sources of error need to be modelled carefully. You have considered only one (or at most two) sources of error. There are many more.

You have not presented a comprehensive pre- and post-election state and national exit poll analysis. Nor have you analyzed the 2006 Generic polls. Nor have you analyzed the Bush job approvals. I have done analyzed them all. They are all in this thread.

This is macho strutting, TIA. "My analysis is bigger than your analysis". I have presented cogent analysis. One cogent analysis is worth any number of flawed analyses. Yours are flawed because you refuse to accept what anyone who knows anything about survey research knows, which is that survey data is vulnerable to both sampling error and non-sampling error. Ignoring the latter completely invalidates your analyses.

Where is your analysis? Instead of that scatter diagram, could you show us some actual NUMBERS?

The axes are marked. I have explained the units. The R squared is given. The N is 1250, as you could have inferred from the E-M report, but I did not make clear. You can compute the confidence interval of the regression line for yourself. You can also compute the correlation coefficient by taking the square root of the R squared value, and noting that the slope is slightly negative. You need no more in order to evaluate the analysis, and I have, in any case, interpreted it for you.

TIA, I suggest that instead you actually read my responses for once. If you have a substantive response, I shall, as always, be happy to hear it. I'm always happy to hear alternative ways of interpreting the data, and many hard-working DUers have helped me to figure out just what fraud might look like in the data, and how to frame testable hypotheses that might reveal it. But what you have posted not only completely evades the content of my posts, it mis-represents them. I shall put it down to ignorance this time. Next time I shall have to conclude you are lying.


edited for formatting and typo

[caruso]

80. TIA: I never said "no Gore voter would have voted for Bush"

FEBBLE
your argument is simply that Kerry must have won because no Gore voter would have voted for Bush.

Which is, you may note, not a mathematical argument at all, but a political judgement.

To which you are entitled. You are just not entitled to call it math.

TIA
You mispoke. I never said that "no voter would have voted for Bush". I said that 15% of Gore voters did NOT vote for Bush. I'm sure there were at least one or two who did.

You are off base. I said my analysis is confirmed by the real-world unpopularity of Bush due to his piss-poor oerformance in office.
The two complement each other - the math and the facts.

Bush was unpopular and so could not have won 15% of Gore voters. You and OTOH fail to accept that. But I'm sure it makes perfect sense to anyone reading this thread.

And the mathematical analysis confirms that his unpopularity was reflected in the fact that he lost the pre-election and exit polls - both state and national.

Bush only won the Final Exits Polls which were the only polls which were FORCED TO MATCH THE CORRUPTED VOTE COUNT. You must by now believe the vote count was corrupted, don't you?

I AND MOST SERIOUS OBSERVERS BELIEVE THE VOTE COUNT WAS CORRUPTED BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE THE EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES IT - PRIMARILY FROM THE DETAILED, EXHAUSTIVE EXAMINATION OF BALLOTS IN OHIO, NEW MEXICO AND FLORIDA.

MY ANALYSIS SINCE NOV. 2004 GAVE US THE INCENTIVE WE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE THE FRAUD. NOW THAT FRAUD HAS BEEN PROVEN YOU ARE STILL OUT THERE, QUESTIONING THE DATA AND ANALYSIS.

THE CASE FOR FRAUD GETS STRONGER EVERY DAY, WHILE THE CASE FOR YOUR HEAR-NO-EVIL, SEE-NO-EVIL PRONOUNCEMENTS HAS DIMINISHED TO THE POINT WHERE THERE IS NO THERE THERE.

Actually the 12:22am NEP said that 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush.
The MoE was under 2% for that question of 3200 respondents, therefore I am more than 95% confident that the number was between 6-10%. The Final NEP (WHICH WAS MATCHED TO THE VOTE COUNT) said it was 10%.

I'm also confident that more than 7.20% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry. The 12:22am Exit Poll said it was 10%. Since the MoE was under 2% for that question of 3200 respondents, I am more than 95% confident that the number of defectors was between 8-12%. The Final NEP (WHICH WAS MATCHED TO THE VOTE COUNT) said it was 9%.

[Febble]

81. OK, rephrase

Your argument is slightly more nuanced, I admit. Your argument is that not less than X percent of Gore voters plus Y percent of DNV2K voters would have voted for Kerry, therefore Kerry must have won.

But your X and Y values come from your conviction that an unpopular president couldn't win, and from your idiosyncratic interpretation of the pre-election polls. They do not arise directly from the math. There is no mathematical basis for your X and Y values. Those are what I meant by your implicit assumptions. They are heuristics, based on hunch. And somewhat ill-informed hunch at that.

And that is before we even mention your assumptions that the poll was a random sample,or that the percentage of Gore, Bush2K and DNV2K can be accurately inferred from responses to the past vote question.

Not only are these assumptions unjustified, but they fly in the face of evidence. Evidence that you consistently choose to ignore.

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. your actual argument is even worse

TIA, if you had argued that no Gore voter would vote for Bush, that would be clean and falsifiable. Instead, you're arguing that 8% is acceptable, but 14% is too many. And you've presented no reason whatsoever why 8% is acceptable, but 14% is too many. It's a quantitative claim that you're backing with qualitative evidence (Bush's first term sucked) or irrelevant quantitative evidence (48.5% approval -- well, what is the quantitative relationship between approval ratings and defection rates?). What, does it have to be 10% or less because otherwise you would run out of fingers? What is the argument?

As for the stuff where you take credit for singlehandedly galvanizing the election integrity movement, well, people will have to score that for themselves. But accusing Febble of "HEAR-NO-EVIL, SEE-NO-EVIL PRONOUNCEMENTS" about the 2004 election -- well, that's disgraceful. Delusional, dishonest, I'm not sure which, but disgraceful either way. Here's some classic Febble, via Daily Kos:

I am a fraudster. I believe your election was inexcusably riggable and may well have been rigged. It was also inexcusably unauditable. I am convinced that there was real and massive voter suppression in Ohio, and that it was probably deliberate. I think the recount in Ohio was a sham, and the subversion of the recount is in itself suggestive of coverup of fraud. I think Kenneth Blackwell should be jailed.

It's not as if I've cherry-picked this: you could find dozens of Febble's statements along these lines on DU. "Hear-no-evil, see-no-evil"? Looks to me like character assassination to cover the holes in your arguments (perhaps so you won't notice them yourself). Really depressing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

82. as usual, you did not respond to the substance of my post

Do you not notice this, or do you just hope that no one else will?

To repeat:

Here is a sentence-and-a-half snippet that conceivably might reveal even to you how far off you are. "...it's irrelevant whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters when they said they voted for Bush. What is relevant is who they said they voted for in 2004 - and 91% said it was Kerry." Dead wrong. If we don't know who the Gore 2000 voters actually were, then we don't know who they said they voted for in 2004. We only know that for the people who said they voted for Gore. So of course it's relevant whether Gore 2000 voters reported that vote correctly. Again, see also post #52.

To which your response is...

*crickets*

Ignoring and evading my arguments as usual, and refreshingly abandoning any pretense of mathematical rigor, you indulge in argument by adjective. A "vast" majority of Gore voters disapproved of Bush. (Probably true, but he didn't need all that many. In fact, he didn't even need them to approve of him, since we know that some folks who stated disapproval of Bush voted for him anyway.) I conjecture a "massive" rejection of Kerry by Gore voters. (If Bush's approval rating were 14%, would you refer to Bush's "massive" support?) Then you move on to Bush's first-term record. Well, we all endured it, and by your own acknowledgment, about half the public at that time still stated approval of his performance. Gallup/USA Today, 10/29-31/04, had 48% approval, 47% disapproval. Hard for us to believe? sure. Evidence that Kerry won? No way.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

66. while arguing with a banned DU'er, a crises is ignored

hellooooooooooooooo OTOH,

you are needed to address the flaws in HR 811 audits.

as always, when there something important happenes,
like the dropping of 811,

some distractions happen, kind of like a missing white girl
on Fox news.

[OnTheOtherHand]

83. in self-defense

let me say that I've done a bunch of work on HR 811 off-board. I think I've spent more time on HR 811 than I have on pummelling the ghost.

Still, the ghost is taking up too much time, and I'm not sure what to do about it. The ghost has at least two other virtual domains in which he can cherish an honored semi-retirement surrounded (as far as I can tell) by people who only and always agree with him. If he insists on bringing his pseudoscience around here, there will be push-back. And I do think it matters, because if we can't look rationally at what has happened, might have happened, and hasn't happened, then it's hard to talk rationally about what to do next. I've seen so many DUers post things along the lines of 'TIA, I have no idea what your posts mean, but it always cheers me up to see them.' Sigh.

EDIT TO ADD: Whoops, that was sort of half of what I had to say. That's why I spend more time on the ghost than I think he deserves -- which is to concede your point. I accept your reproof.

[Febble]

84. Let me put in a good word for my friend too

he's certainly been working hard offline on audits.

I haven't had a huge amount to offer, not being an American, but I've chipped in from time to time from the sidelines.

But I do think that the Holt/audit debate runs the risk of being seriously warped by the conviction of those who believe that millions of votes were electronically stolen in 2004, the only evidence for which, apart from the self-evident fact that Bush is a bozo, is the exit poll evidence. And I am firmly convinced that that evidence doesn't do what it says on the tin. In fact I think it does the opposite, but whether it does the opposite or not, TIA's analyses certainly don't add up to a case for multi-million vote fraud in 2004.

And this matters particularly for the case for HCPB. IF I honestly thought that millions of votes had been stolen in 2004, I'd be in the HCPB camp too, nevermind the difficulties. I'd also be breaking down doors for prosecutions and convictions. But I think the evidence is that what is wrong with your elections is complete unaccountability, whether it's paper or something else. Therefore the really important thing is audits, and auditability.

That's why I think the exit poll debate matters (or rather why it is completely irrelevant, but why its perceived implications may be important to tackle).

Anyway, your point is taken.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Febble]

61. sigh....

TIA
You have said YES to points 1-5. In fact, you have implicitly agreed to all points except #10.

6) Do you agree that we have now determined feasible vote share weighting "multipliers"?

Yes or No

FEBBLE
Well what do you mean by "feasible vote share weighting "multipliers" "? What are you multiplying? The only thing that makes sense is that you are "weighting" some cross-tabulation from the National Exit Poll, and you say below that "we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll".

TIA
Yes, I am anticipating using the multipliers as weights for the NEP vote shares. And yes, I have not yet mention the National Exit Poll, so I will rephrase the question:

Do you agree that we have now determined feasible NEP vote share weighting "multipliers"?

Yes or No

I take your answer to be YES, since I was referring to the NEP, although I did not explicitly say so.

Thank you for the clarification. Well, the problem with your multipliers, is what you are multiplying with them. I certainly agree that there is an upper limit to the number of 2000 voters who can have also voted in 2004, and that this number is less than the total number of 2004 voters. That's as far as I go. I do not agree that we now have numbers with which we can validly multiply anything in the NEP data.

7) Do you agree that we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll, much less sampling error or voter response?

Yes or No

FEBBLE
Well, what on earth are you multiplying ("weighting") if not the NEP?

TIA
Semantics. Of course, I’m referring to the NEP. So let’s move on.
Nothing to discuss here.

Well, apart from the fact that you just said you weren't discussing it. OK. Let's move on.

8) Do you agree that the ONLY remaining unknowns are Kerry and Bush vote shares of returning Gore, Bush, Nader and DNV2k voters?

Yes or No

FEBBLE
Well, assuming that what you are trying to calculate is the proportion of voters who voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004, no, of course I don't agree, because we have no way of knowing the vote shares for Kerry and Bush among those who didn't vote in 2000 either. That's a huge unknown, unless we are considering the exit poll data, which you just said we weren't considering at this point. On the other hand, if what you are calculating is the proportion of 2000 voters who voted for Kerry and Bush, then, yes, I agree it is an unknown - presumably that's why you are trying to calculate it.

TIA
Why the confusion? I calculate the ratio (proportion, share) of returning 2000 Gore, Bush and Nader voters to the 122.3mm total 2004 recorded vote. The remaining share must be the proportion of DNV2k voters to the total vote.

So I take your answer to be YES.

Sorry, I did misread this. Yes, I agree that 2004 voters can be partitioned into: voters who voted for Gore; those who voted for Bush in 2000; those who voted for Nader (or anyone else) in 2000; those who did not vote in 2000.

9) Do you agree that National Exit Poll vote shares can be considered to be the base case assumptions in calculating the National vote shares?

FEBBLE
Well, I suppose you have to start somewhere. I would have started with the NEP spreadsheet myself (and did), not the derived crosstabs.

TIA
I take your answer to be YES. NEP vote shares CAN be considered as the base case.

10) Do you agree that since there is a margin of error (which we need not argue about here) for the base case vote share assumptions, it makes sense to "stress test" the base case by analyzing alternative vote shares?

FEBBLE
I certainly don't consider that the total error in the NEP was limited to sampling error, and so I therefore would not agree that there was any inherent limit to any "stress test". In other words, demonstrating that only by "stressing" the data beyond the MoE could the data produce a Bush win would not demonstrate that a Bush win was "mathematically impossible" as you appear to conclude. It would merely demonstrate that if Bush in reality won, then the error in the poll was not limited to sampling error. For which there is abundant evidence, evidence you consistently ignore.

TIA
The Final NEP weights are mathematically impossible (not feasible). Both you and OTOH have already stipulated to that in the “Game thread” of August 2005. So any discussion of the How Voted weights is moot. We passed that hurdle a long time ago. We were in agreement then. So why are we still talking about “false recall” when it is no longer an issue. I thought we agreed on the the use of feasible weights a long time ago.

I don't know how to say this more clearly: THERE ARE NO "HOW VOTED" WEIGHTS IN THE NEP DATA. So of course discussion of them is moot - they don't ACTUALLY EXIST. THE NEP DATA WAS NOT WEIGHTED BY THE HOW VOTED QUESTION. It couldn't have been - the question was only presented to a quarter of the sample.

What I DID agree is that after weighting, the cross-tabulated proportions of Bush Gore voters could not possibly represent the actual Bush Gore proportions. This is blindingly obvious, and not in dispute. The reason that "false recall" is an issue is exactly as painstakingly explained by OTOH in post 52, and in Mark Lindeman's paper, to which I linked in post 55. But to save you one more mouse click, here it is again:

If respondents in the 2004 exit poll over-reported having voted for Bush in 2000 (and Mark Lindeman has assembled copious evidence that voters tend to mis-report having voted for the incumbent, four years later) then what you would expectto see in the 2004 crosstabs for 2000 vote is an overstatement of the the Bush vote. Which is what you DO see in the reweighted crosstabs. In other words, an alternative explanation to your fraud hypothesis is that people over-reported having voted for Bush in 2000, i.e. they tended to report having voted for Bush when they actually voted for Gore. Moreover, if the same real Gore voters who misreported having voted for Bush in 2000, ALSO voted for Bush in 2004 (and correctly reported having done so),this would not only result in an over-statement of Bush's vote in 2000, but it would also understate the Gore-Bush defection rate.

Really, TIA, this is actually simple math. You can do it if you try.

The original false recall argument was predicated on how the 2004 NEP respondents said they voted in 2000. Are you now saying that false recall also applies to how the respondents said they voted in 2004, just a few minutes after actually voting? Why would they lie about it?

No, see above. It is completely unnecessary to postulate that voters misreport their current vote. All that is required to reconcile the "Final" 2000 crosstabs with actual 2000 vote is to postulate that a small proportion of Gore 2000-Bush2004 voters misreported themselves as Bush2000-Bush2004 voters.

It should be obvious to anyone reading this thread that the false recall argument is a rotting carcass.

Well, it seems that nothing is obvious to you. But have one more go at actually reading the argument.

So now you must focus on the vote shares. In the “Game” thread, you and your buddy provided a vote share scenario forced to match the Bush recorded vote. But the votes shares are extremely implausible when put in juxtaposition to the Bush 48.5% rating on Election Day, the final 30-day undecided vote break to Kerry (60-38% based on the NEP), the many accounts of documented fraud in Ohio (including the recent recount convictions), the documented evidence of fraud in many other states. And to top it off, DNV2k and Nader 2000 voters were solidly for Kerry.

Well, as I've said, you are entitled to your own incredulity barriers. Frankly the best argument I can muster for massive fraud is an argument from incredulity. But that, as I've said, is not math, nor science neither. The evidence suggests that more Americans voted for Bush than didn't. And they seem to be regretting it now.

In light of all this, an impartial observer would clearly agree: any Bush win scenario is implausible and does not pass the smell test.

Smell tests are fine. Statistical tests are something else.

Know this: If Kerry won the popular vote in Ohio by 52-48%, as the documented vote-switching and spoiled vote evidence now indicates, he did better than 52-48 overall. The Ohio Democratic presidential vote share always trails the rest of the nation.

Well, I've never liked the smell of Ohio, but I don't see the evidence indicating 53-48% to Kerry. YMMV

TIA
11) Do you agree that the best way to "stress test" the base case is to employ a sensitivity analysis (two-way table) for the vote shares? In other words, to play what-if?

Yes, I agree that playing "what-if?" is the right approach. It's called hypthesis testing, and, in essence, it's what I do for a living. However, I do not agree that the plausibility limits to any such test can be computed from a calculation of sampling error. In the end, what limits the plausibility of your inference is your own credulity. Arguments from incredulity are not mathematical arguments.

TIA
I take your answer to be YES, playing “what-if” is the right approach.

Well, as long as you do it properly, of course, but yes, that's the essence of the scientific method.

FEBBLE
Your "search space" is bounded by plausibility assumptions that you do not state. There are many other "solutions" that you do not test because they would violate your implicit assumptions.

Any inference is only as good as your assumptions. There are implicit assumptions in your analysis that go far beyond the perfectly justified assumption "that the number of students who attended class on any given day was the simply the total who were registered in the class minus those who were sick or just decided not to show up."

You need to state what they are, and justify them. I do not consider them justified by the evidence.

TIA
And just what are those implicit plausibility assumptions?

I don't know. I'm asking you to state them. You gave some upthread.

What are the “solutions” I am not testing? Be specific. You are welcome to make your own assumptions as to the vote shares and turnout percentages.

The ones in Mark's paper, for a start.

I have provided you with a detailed “solution space”. It’s the sensitivity analysis. Do you have another “solution space”? Then show us your scenario matrix. And tell us why yours is plausible.

Read Mark's paper.

The whole point of the sensitivity analysis is to provide a wide range of scenarios of alternative Gore and Bush voter turnout and Kerry and Bush vote share scenarios.

And yet you do not consider the possibility of misreported vote, and its implication for defection rates.

You have never shown us one sensitivity analysis. Why not? You just keep on displaying that same, lame scatter chart- over and over again. Is that the full extent of your analysis? You can do better than that.

There is absolutely nothing "lame" about that scatterplot. You haven't even begun to address the problem it raises for your analysis. You haven't even attempted to say why you consider it "lame". Similarly you have not attempted to explain why you fail to consider Mark Lindeman's scenario's. You simply scoff at them.

Enlighten us. Provide one plausible Bush winning scenario.

As I said, read Mark's paper. Then explain how your own scenario is consistent with my scatter plot.

[Febble]

55. And just so's you don't miss it....

"Too Many Bush Voters? False Vote Recall and the 2004 Exit Poll"

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. TIA, you are still multiplying irrelevancies

Stop spewing tables and start paying attention. I will try to keep it short for you.

There is no issue here regarding "THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF GORE, BUSH AND NADER 2000 VOTERS WHO COULD HAVE VOTED IN 2004" (and, as Febble noted, those aren't weights -- if we holler from THE PEAK OF TRUTH MOUNTAIN, will you finally learn what a weight is?).

The problem comes with your freehand, unsubstantiated assertions about what is "plausible" for those voters to have done. For instance, in one of my models, about 45.9 million Gore voters vote, and 6.6 million (14.4%) vote for Bush. About 45.4 million Bush2K voters vote, and 41.9 million (92.3%) vote for Bush. About 3.7 million "other" voters vote, about 0.76 million (20.2%) for Bush. And about 27.3 million did-not-votes vote, about 12.8 million (46.8%) for Bush.

So, why is that model not "plausible"?

In the past, you have tried to answer that by citing exit poll results -- at which point "false recall" becomes very relevant. If you have some other evidence to bring to bear, please do. I have been waiting for a very long time now.

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. why misreporting of past votes matters

Here is a simple example of why misreporting of past votes affects the apparent "defection percentages." Of course, someone who is looking to evade the lesson of this example can complain that it isn't "realistic." That's true. It isn't designed to be realistic: it is designed to be simple.

Suppose we have information on 20 voters: whom they actually voted for in 2000 and 2004, and whom they say in 2004 that they voted for in 2000. In this simple example, a single Gore voter (#10) says that s/he voted for Bush. #10 also votes for Bush in 2004. Otherwise, one Gore voter votes for Bush in 2004, and one Bush (2000) voter votes for Kerry, a wash.

         actual    2004 report    actual
voter  2000 vote  of 2000 vote   2004 vote
  1      Gore        Gore         Kerry
  2      Gore        Gore         Kerry
  3      Gore        Gore         Kerry
  4      Gore        Gore         Kerry
  5      Gore        Gore         Kerry
  6      Gore        Gore         Kerry
  7      Gore        Gore         Kerry
  8      Gore        Gore         Kerry
  9      Gore        Gore         *Bush
 10      Gore       *Bush         *Bush
 11      Bush        Bush          Bush
 12      Bush        Bush          Bush
 13      Bush        Bush          Bush
 14      Bush        Bush          Bush
 15      Bush        Bush          Bush
 16      Bush        Bush          Bush
 17      Bush        Bush          Bush
 18      Bush        Bush          Bush
 19      Bush        Bush          Bush
 20      Bush        Bush        *Kerry

So, we have 10 Gore voters and 10 Bush (2000) voters; 9 reported Gore voters and 11 reported Bush (2000) voters; 9 Kerry voters and 11 Bush (2004) voters.

If we make a table based on actual vote in 2000, it will look something like this:

2000 vote (%)    Kerry %    Bush %
  Gore (50%)       80%        20%
  Bush (50%)       10%        90%

(The "defection" percentages are 2/10 = 20% for Gore-to-Bush and 1/10 = 10% for Bush-to-Kerry.)

But if we make a table based on reported vote in 2000, it will look something like this:

2000 vote (%)    Kerry %    Bush %
  Gore (45%)       89%        11%
  Bush (55%)        9%        91%

(The defection percentages are 1/9 = 11% for "Gore"-to-Bush and 1/11 = 9% for "Bush"-to-Kerry.)

So, in this simple example, the effects of overstating having voted for Bush are (1) to exaggerate the apparent share of Bush (2000) voters in the 2004 electorate, and (2) to understate the difference in defection rates between Gore voters and Bush voters.

Is this example too simple? Of course it is. That's why I wrote an entire paper exploring the quantitative dynamics, as well as presenting the empirical evidence for misreporting of past votes. The response?

*crickets*

[Febble]

54. Thanks - another possibility

worth bearing in mind is that the weights themselves (the ones that gave the Gore-Bush shares in the "Final" cross tabs" may not have been actually correct, even though they summed to a Bush win.

The assumption behind the reweighting is that the poll is not a random sample, i.e. that there are people "missing" from the poll. If the raw poll numbers appear to have too few Bush voters, then reported Bush voters will be up-weighted in the poll to match the incoming vote. TIA and others (including me, and of course you) have rightly questioned the assumption that the incoming vote was correct. But if we hypothesise for a moment that the vote count was correct, and that there were indeed groups of voters who were systematically undersampled, thus skewing cross-tabulations, then one possibility is that the group of "missing" voters was more heavily populated with Bush-voting 2000DNVs than the actual respondent sample. This would not only tend to skew the sample Kerry-wise, but would also skew the sample voted-in-2000 wise. And as the past vote question was not one from which weights were derived (because it was only on 25% of questionnaires anyway, quite apart from the fact that there would be no data with which to inform the weights) then a blanket upweighting of 2004 Bush-voting respondents, regardless of whether or not they were 2000DNVs, Gore voters, or Bush 2000 voters, is not going to produce sensible results from that particular crosstab, even if we assume that 2000 vote recall was perfect.

It really all boils down to how realistic one's views are regarding the representativeness of the NEP sample. I see no reason to assume that it was random, and plenty of reason to give credence to the possiblity - actually the probability - that the sample itself systematically under-sampled voters in various categories tapped by the questionnaire. It would not surprise me, for example, if infrequent voters ("reluctant voters"?) were also "reluctant" exit poll responders. But the fundamental point is that there is no reason, especially in a poll with a 53% response rate, to assume that the responders were "drawn from the same population" as the non-responders. TIA's entire analysis assumes that this assumption is valid, and it isn't.

And as it is difficult to make his inference consistent with my own swing-shift findings, that raises considerably the probability that his assumption is false.

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. certainly -- I was just trying to make it as simple as possible

It seems to me that when TIA gets confused, he assumes that we are lying. There's probably no cure for it. But if he could see that there is one alternative to his view of the world, then maybe he could think about a second alternative.

It's interesting that TIA "replied" to your evidence in #30 by (1) accusing you of avoiding the FACTS, and (2) posting the Same Old Stuff again. Charitably, TIA is certain that he is correct, and therefore he cannot register the existence of discrepant evidence even when we smack him in the face with it. Heaven forbid he should ever go to the effort of even attempting to explain why he rejects the evidence. In the world according to TIA, we are always ignoring his evidence no matter how many times we reply to it, and we have no evidence no matter how many times we present it. Yawn.

[caruso]

86. TIA: That's a very weak example. Unrealistic.

Nice try, but no cigar. It's a very simplistic example which
will never be taken seriously. No false recall, just faulty
logic.

Let's give an example using real 2000 voting data and the best
evidence of the 2004 vote. And don't tell me its the recorded
vote. The best evidence is who the 13,047 respondents said
they voted for  5 MINUTES AFTER VOTING. That's the base case
and starting point for any worthwhile analysis. 

What is your base case? Oh, I forgot.  Returning Gore voters
mistated who they voted for 5 MINUTES AFTER VOTING. Right. 

Would you like to buy a bridge? It's near some very good
Chinese restaurants.

Invoking Skinner in the sig line of every post is very
transparent butt-kissing on your part. Why don't you cite
Salon's Farhad Manjoo, since you advised him on his
fully-discredited piece in which he attempted to debunk the
RFK Jr Rolling Stone article last June.

You should know that I'm not semi-retired and I'm in cardiac
rehab. As I'm sure you are aware, I had a heart attack one
year ago. Almost killed me. But I'm still around to work on
getting the truth out and to kick your butt in the process. So
I'm glad you're working full-time and expended the effort to
write the TruthIsAll FAQ. 

I consider it an honor to be on your hit list and am in good
company with the likes of Baiman and Simon and Freeman and
Fitrakis and Mark C. Miller and Greg Palast and Paul Lehto and
Michael Keefer and Kathy Dopp and Richard Hayes Phillips and
Autorank and many other researchers.

What are those crickets for, anyway?


	Voted	2004	
	2000	Kerry	Bush
		63	58

1	Gore	1	
2	Gore	1	
3	Gore	1	
4	Gore	1	
5	Gore	1	
6	Gore	1	
7	Gore	1	
8	Gore	1	
9	Gore	1	
10	Gore	1	
11	Gore	1	
12	Gore	1	
13	Gore	1
14	Gore	1
15	Gore	1
16	Gore	1
17	Gore	1
18	Gore	1
19	Gore	1
20	Gore	1
21	Gore	1
22	Gore	1
23	Gore	1
24	Gore	1
25	Gore	1
26	Gore	1
27	Gore	1
28	Gore	1
29	Gore	1
30	Gore	1
31	Gore	1
32	Gore	1
33	Gore	1
34	Gore	1
35	Gore	1
36	Gore	1
37	Gore	1
38	Gore	1
39	Gore	1
40	Gore	1
41	Gore	1
42	Gore	1
43	Gore	1
44	Gore	1
45	Gore	1	
46	Gore		1
47	Gore		1
48	Gore		1
49	Gore		1
50	Gore	D	
51	Gore	D	

1	Bush		1
2	Bush		1
3	Bush		1
4	Bush		1
5	Bush		1
6	Bush		1
7	Bush		1
8	Bush		1
9	Bush		1
10	Bush		1
11	Bush		1
12	Bush		1
13	Bush		1
14	Bush		1
15	Bush		1
16	Bush		1
17	Bush		1
18	Bush		1
19	Bush		1
20	Bush		1
21	Bush		1
22	Bush		1
23	Bush		1
24	Bush		1
25	Bush		1
26	Bush		1
27	Bush		1
28	Bush		1
29	Bush		1
30	Bush		1
31	Bush		1
32	Bush		1
33	Bush		1
34	Bush		1
35	Bush		1
36	Bush		1
37	Bush		1
38	Bush		1
39	Bush		1
40	Bush		1
41	Bush		1
42	Bush		1
43	Bush		1
44	Bush		1
45	Bush		1
46	Bush	1	
47	Bush	1	
48	Bush	1	
49	Bush	1	
50	Bush	1	


1	Nader	1	
2	Nader	1	
3	Nader		1

1	DNV	1	
2	DNV	1	
3	DNV	1	
4	DNV	1	
5	DNV	1	
6	DNV	1	
7	DNV	1	
8	DNV	1	
9	DNV	1	
10	DNV	1	
11	DNV	1	
12	DNV		1
13	DNV		1
14	DNV		1
15	DNV		1
16	DNV		1
17	DNV		1
18	DNV		1
19	DNV		1

[OnTheOtherHand]

87. you sure are predictable, TIA

When the going gets tough, just whip up a table, rattle off a list of old friends, maybe chuck in some unsupported claims about other arguments you think you've won, and whistle past the graveyard of your "clincher." It's toast. But don't worry, no one can ever force you to admit it.

"No false recall, just faulty logic." And the fault in the logic is... what? Why do you so often skip past the part where you actually have to present an argument?

"What is your base case? Oh, I forgot. Returning Gore voters mistated who they voted for 5 MINUTES AFTER VOTING." Nope, once again, you made that up. Again, the Hobson's choice: are you lying badly, or are you being really obtuse? Going for three now:

Here is a sentence-and-a-half snippet that conceivably might reveal even to you how far off you are. "...it's irrelevant whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters when they said they voted for Bush. What is relevant is who they said they voted for in 2004 - and 91% said it was Kerry." Dead wrong. If we don't know who the Gore 2000 voters actually were, then we don't know who they said they voted for in 2004. We only know that for the people who said they voted for Gore. So of course it's relevant whether Gore 2000 voters reported that vote correctly. Again, see also post #52.

Note that this problem doesn't hinge on anyone misstating who they voted for 5 minutes after voting. Some of them are misstating who they voted for four years earlier. Doh. If there is actually some part of this too complicated for you to understand, would you have the humility and decency to ask a question (or hold your peace), instead of making up crap about my position? Probably not.

At this rate, you have no chance of kicking my butt. But if thinking so helps you to recover, I guess some good is being accomplished through this nonsense you insist on spewing. When one gets right down to it, your best argument is that you can list eleven people who (maybe) agree with you. Oh-kay, then. I'll be getting back to the Holt bill now.

[caruso]

90. TIA: Where did Bush find 20 million new votes?

Now, since you believe that 15% of Gore voters defected to Bush,
can you also tell us where Bush found 20 million new votes?

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#_Where_did_Bush

In other words, provide some rationale.
It has to be more than just the NES study.

FACTS:
There were 62.0mm recorded Bush votes in 2004

There were 45.8mm returning Bush2000 voters of whom approximately 4mm voted for Kerry, so he started with 41.8mm:

.......Voted2k - 3.5% died - 5% did not vote - 10% voted for Kerry
41.8mm = 50.5 -1.7 -3.0 - 4

Bush needed 62-42 = 20 million new votes to get to 62.
Where did he get them from?

Could you break down the major voter blocs which contributed to the 20 million increase in Bush votes from 2000?

First-time voters?
2004 Voters who did not vote in 2000?
Nader 2000 voters?

Men?
Women?

Democrats?
Republicans?
Independents?

Moderates?
Liberals?
Conservatives?

Union members?

Blacks?
Hispanics?
Asians?

Protestants?
Catholics?
Jews?

HS dropouts?
HS grads?
College grads?
Post Grads?

Income Under $75k?
Income Over $75k?

Anti-war?
Christian fundamentalists?

The 48.5% who approved?

[Febble]

91. caruso:

it appears that you are in close touch with TIA. However, he does not seem to be getting the responses that have been posted to the messages that you have been posting here from him.

Would you be so kind as to pass on this link:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/too-many.pdf

which is to a paper by Mark Lindeman, in which many of the questions he poses are addressed.

thanks

Lizzie

[OnTheOtherHand]

93. he did not need "major voter blocs"

Mind yourself, TIA: you've made Febble cross. As am I. But in case you are paying better attention than I think....

You can stare at the exit poll tables yourself and pick up some hints -- although, as Febble has pointed out many times, the exit poll tables could be pretty far off whether or not there was massive vote miscount. Bush appears to have done better in cities in 2004 -- he did about six points better in NYC. He seems to have done a bit better among abortion opponents relative to abortion supporters, which could indicate that he successfully burnished his pro-life credentials. But candidates get their votes from lots of different places. Both Kerry and Bush got most of their new voters from people who hadn't voted in 2000, but that left millions of people who had been almost indifferent between Bush and Gore. You, TIA, always seem to think of "Gore voters" as the Democratic base, but many of them weren't -- just as many "Bush voters" weren't the Republican base. They could have gone either way. They don't vote as a bloc.

Incumbents have structural advantages; it isn't so shocking when they win. Not that I have time to transcribe PS 101 for you here, or that you would read it if I did.

[Febble]

96. Here's a toy model for TIA to play with

http://www.geocities.com/lizzielid/TIA_toy.xls

It's not as nicely laid out as TIA's Interactive Model, I'm not such a Excel wizard as TIA. But in this Excel spreadsheet I've pasted in the crosstabulations from the National Exit Poll (from the downloaded spreadsheet, so you have the actual numbers) and I've done them first with the weights off, then with the weights on. Your 12.22 numbers won't be identical, of course, because they would have had some weights, but I don't have the interim weights, so it's all or nothing. Nonetheless, the unweighted numbers are pretty close to your early numbers, and the weighted numbers match your final weights.

I've also set it up so that in the yellow cells you can enter any numbers you want, to represent respondents who might not have recalled their vote correctly. As you will see, it doesn't matter what numbers you enter into the yellow cells, the Kerry-Bush proportions will remain unchanged (see the turquoise cells at the bottom). This is because the "model" assumes that whatever people remember or fail to remember about their vote four years earlier, they correctly reported who they voted for 5 minutes earlier. What you can experiment with is adjusting what they might have misrecalled from four years ago (including whether or not they even voted). The goal, obviously, is to tweak the recall figures to make the "actual" Gore-Bush turnout figures plausible (whatever you consider plausible). And then you can see what implications this has for defection rates.

It wasn't designed to make any point other than to convince you that whatever you think of the likelihood of misreported vote, it DOES make a different to turnout and defection rates but DOESN'T make a difference to the proportions of votes estimated for Kerry and Bush. In fact, given that the Ns in each cell are fairly small, it shows you just how exquisitely sensitive the numbers are to fairly slight mis-report rates (single figure percentages).

And if nothing else, it enables you to increase the number of decimal places in your data.

Have fun.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Febble]

98. And if you want to respond....

how about here?

http://www.boomantribune.com/user/TruthIsAll/diary

[caruso]

88. TIA: If you can say 15% Gore voters defected to Bush, I can say 15% of Bush voters defected to Kerry

Ok, two can play your "Game".

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#TrueVoteModel

KERRY VOTE SHARE
(sensitivity to Kerry share of returning Gore and Bush voters)
2000 Voter Turnout:
95% Gore
95% Bush

.........Gore
.........85.0% 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 93.0% 95.0%
Bush
15%...52.2% 52.9% 53.7% 54.5% 55.2% 56.0%
13%...51.4% 52.2% 52.9% 53.7% 54.5% 55.2%
11%...50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 52.9% 53.7% 54.5%
9%.....49.9% 50.7% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0% 53.7%

7%.....49.1% 49.9% 50.7% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0%
5%.....48.4% 49.1% 49.9% 50.7% 51.4% 52.2%
3%.....47.6% 48.4% 49.2% 49.9% 50.7% 51.4%
1%.....46.9% 47.6% 48.4% 49.2% 49.9% 50.7%

KERRY VOTE MARGIN
.........Gore
........85.0% 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 93.0% 95.0%
Bush
15%...6.71 8.63 10.55 12.48 14.40 16.32
13%...4.80 6.73 8.65 10.57 12.50 14.42
11%...2.90 4.82 6.75 8.67 10.59 12.52
9%....1.00 2.92 4.85 6.77 8.69 10.61

7%....-0.90 1.02 2.94 4.87 6.79 8.71
5%....-2.81 -0.88 1.04 2.96 4.89 6.81
3%....-4.71 -2.79 -0.86 1.06 2.98 4.91
1%....-6.61 -4.69 -2.76 -0.84 1.08 3.00

[OnTheOtherHand]

94. OK, your sensitivity analysis finally acknowledges

that either candidate could have won. The remaining question is whether you have a compelling rationale for crossing out the numbers you don't like.

(I still don't really agree with your table, for reasons elaborated in my paper.)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. "Cooliers caught the networks simply making up the exit poll numbers"

Where is the transparency or accountability for exit polls?

In America, the networks completely control the exit poll operation
on election night through their National Election Pool (NEP).

It's a top secret operation. They allow no observers and provide no proof
that their data is real. They completely stonewall reporters inquiries.
This is what the Collier brothers, late-authors of the book, Votescam:
The Stealing of America discovered, and so did I.
Worse yet, back in the 1970's in Miami,
the Colliers caught the networks simply making up the exit poll numbers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/landes03032005.html

[Febble]

72. Well, for a start

read the Edison-Mitofsky evaluation, the Edison-Mitofsky website, and you can also download the actual questionnaire responses, with weights, from a public archive, although free download for 2004 is now time expired

[BeFree]

102. Yes!

So are you saying the people here who have been supportive of the Final Exit Polls are supporting numbers that are Made Up?

Well, if so, we agree. I too believe the final exit polls are made up.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

67. Lynn Landes: Exit Poll Madness

March 3, 2005

Give Us Ballots We Can Count
Exit Poll Madness
By LYNN LANDES

Beware of exit polls and the analysts who study them. These folks would have us believe that exit polls tell the gospel truth. They even quote the duplicitous toe-sucking Dick Morris to make their case. "Exit polls are almost never wrong," Morris writes. The man is a known creep.
http://www.counterpunch.org/landes03032005.html

[tiptoe]

162. No mention of 'secret' (unaired) preliminary polls & publicized ('forced') Final "poll" -- useless.

No wonder Freeman chose to ignore her.

The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

68. "belief in exit polls is a trap that's had tragic consequences ....."

Why do we trust exit polls yet demand a voter verified paper ballot?

Seems like a contradiction to trust exit polls, but thats just me.

Give Us Ballots We Can Count
Exit Poll Madness

By LYNN LANDES March 3, 2005

...Exit polls are completely non-transparent and unverifiable. They're as bad as voting by machine, absentee, or early. There's no meaningful oversight to either enterprise.
Worse yet, a belief in exit polls is a trap that's had tragic consequences for elections around the world.

There's growing evidence that exit polls sponsored by the Bush Administration and the International Republican Institute were used to support rigged elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine. Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector, recently said that his information is that the Iraq election was fixed. Even the situation in the Ukraine is cause for concern as the Western governments used their own poll to discredit the first election and support the second one. It seems that the West's favorite candidate, winner Viktor Yushchenko, promised to privatize lots of government industries and services....

http://www.counterpunch.org/landes03032005.html

[caruso]

73. TIA: Landes is saying your vote will NOT be counted; Zogby pre-election state polls

You must be aware that Lynn is referring to the FINAL exit polls as being bogus.

A basic point of my analysis is that the FINAL EXIT POLL (13660 respondents) was bogus because it was matched to confirm a fraudulent vote count (Bush a 51-48% winner).

Now, if you believe that the votes were counted fairly in 2004 - and that there was ZERO fraud, then you must also believe the Final Exit Poll.

On the other hand, if you believe that the election WAS stolen, then you must believe that the 12:22am NEP was close to the truth: Kerry won the 12:22am NEP (13047 respondents) by 51-48%.

You are correct in quoting Lynn Landes - because Lynn knows that the votes are miscounted and therefore the FINAL Exit Polls which match to the bogus count must also be bogus by definition. She was nt referring to the early exit polls in which the Democrats always do better than the final vote.

Why? It's because of the uncounted (spoiled) and switched votes - in other words, the FRAUD.

Did you glance at the numeric tables? They prove that Kerry won the final state and national pre-election polls as well as the 12:22am state and national exit polls- before they were matched to the recorded stolen vote.

The whole point of this forum is to uncover the fraud - which is why you are here.
The pre-election and exit polls provided the earliest circumstantial evidence of fraud. And as we futher analyzed them, the evidence beccame incontrovertible.

Here are the final national pre-election polls:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#_National_Pre-election_Polls_2

The final state pre-election polls:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#StatePrePollTrend

State pre-election and exit polls compared to the final vote:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#PreElectEXitActual

The National Exit Poll time line (4 snapshots).
Notice the stark difference between the first three and the Final:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#_The_National_Exit_1

The Florida and Ohio exit polls showed Kerry to be a solid winner - but then the numbers magically reverted to Bush after midnight.

John Zogby is a well-respected independent pollster. These are his final polls in 9 battleground states.

Notice
- The Bush vote share was 3.4% higher than the average poll projection
in which 2/3 of undecided voters were allocated to Kerry.
- Zogby and Harris claimed that Kerry would win 67-80% of the late undecideds.
- The Zogby polls showed Kerry the clear winner in FL, OH, IA, NV, CO.
- Let's not forget NM (not listed). Tons of evidence prove it was stolen.

30-Oct
Zogby Poll.... Projection........ Recorded
Kerry Bush..Kerry Bush.. Kerry Bush

CO.... 47 48.... 50 49.... 47.35% 52.08%
FL.... 50 47.... 51 48.... 47.27% 52.30%

IA.... 50 44.... 53 46.... 49.47% 50.13%
ME.... 50 39.... 56 43.... 54.10% 45.08%

MI.... 52 45.... 53 46.... 51.47% 48.03%
MN.... 52 44.... 54 45.... 51.44% 47.92%

OH.... 50 47.... 52 48.... 46.36% 53.64%
PA.... 50 45.... 53 47.... 51.27% 48.73%

WI.... 51 44.... 54 45.... 49.92% 49.55%

Avg
...... 50.2 44.8..52.9 46.3.. 49.8% 49.7%

[L. Coyote]

89. Descriptive statistics vs. inferential statistics = NO MOE vs. MOE

Study of election results, tallies of voting, are descriptive statistics. Unlike polling, study of results is essentially a poll of the entire population instead of a sample of a population. Therefore, there is no margin of error (MOE).

Perhaps it is time to change focus guys, and move on to some descriptive analysis. After all, the votes have been reported. Duh!!

Having zero margin of error is a very helpful attribute when it comes to convincing argumentation regarding conclusions.

If you have an inferential conclusion you find supportable with a MOE, move on to demonstating your point with a descriptive study and without a MOE.
If you can't demonstrate what you are arguing for with a descriptive study, then explain why or these arguments can go on forever. If you cannot figure out how to move on to a descriptive study, I know a University in Canada that can help for a fee.

MOVE ON to something useful that moves things forward already....

[caruso]

92. TIA: The inferential national 7.3% vote-switch rate confirms your descriptive Ohio 6.15% rate.

You should be welcoming my analysis.

You have shown that a descriptive study of Ohio ballots found a 6.15% vote switch. My inferential analysis essentially confirms that statistic.

The True Vote model determines there was a 7.3% switch of votes from Kerry to Bush nationally.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#UncountedAndSwitchedVotes


The input to the model consists of
1) FACTUAL 2000 and 2004 recorded data. There is ZERO MoE.

2) Census 2004 vote data.
The data shows that 125.7mm voted. The 3.4mm discrepancy to the recorded 122.3mm has been accounted for by Greg Palast. It is a combination of spoiled, provisional and absentee ballots which were never counted. The MoE was 0.30% for the 60,000 sample. The MoE is presented along with the data; it matches the theoretical MoE.

3) 2004 Voter turnout
I use 95% turnout as the base case for the turnout sensitivity analysis. The analysis shows that Kerry wins even when we assume that Bush 2000 voter turnout exceeds Gore turnout. So the MoE is not a factor as far as voter turnout is concerned.

4) 12:22am National Exit Poll "How Voted in 2000" vote shares.
I use the NEP results as the base case for the sensitivity analysis. The MoE was 1% for the total national vote share and less than 2% for the individual shares. The analysis allows us to view scores of alternative vote share scenarios.

In conclusion, the 7.3% inferential national switched-vote rate matches up very nicely to the descriptive 6.15% Ohio rate.

You should appreciate the signifance of the fact that independent findings of switched-vote rates based on descriptive and inferential statistical analysis are in confirmation.

[L. Coyote]

95. If only it were that simple OR since every vote counts

A national inferential study cannot be held up as confirmation of study results of a subset of a population in one county.

It does not work that way. Nor the other way around. One subset in one county cannot be used to confirm a national pattern.

The significance I appreciate is that a method has been demonstrated that can be applied to other counties, races, and elections using the same punch card voting system. Someone, such as academics or Congress, might want to utilize it to investigate if the same pattern is found elsewhere.

People mired in making convincing arguments about obvious inferences might find this statistical approach refreshing. Of course, it is a lot more work too, since every vote counts. Every precinct tally must be used.

[In Truth We Trust]

97. Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW! Nothing more and Nothing less!

I think that solution would negate all need for debate since sourcecode and massive fraWd would be out of the equation.

Thank you TIA!

[bleever]

121. Thank you for your persistence.

The fact that we get caught in the infinite regression-like arguments demonstrates the lack of transparency and verifiability in our present system. No wonder a Zogby poll found over 90% of Americans lacking faith in the reliability of our voting systems.

[troubleinwinter]

122. I haven't seen that.

"Zogby poll found over 90% of Americans lacking faith in the reliability of our voting systems."

Do you have a link to that?

[Febble]

123. It's Land Shark's poll

terrible question, but that's one interpretation of the answer:

http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1163

[OnTheOtherHand]

124. well, maybe -- maybe it's something else? on a substantive note...

I had missed or forgotten Alvarez et al.'s study just before the 2006 election (fielded in late October). http://www.vote.caltech.edu/reports/2006-Voter-Confidence-Survey.pdf
I've been wanting to read a credible voter confidence study with more than one or two questions, although this one is certainly not very extensive.

One question read, "How confident are you that your ballot in the November of 2004 presidential contest between George Bush and John Kerry was counted as you intended? Would you say that you are very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?"

Among registered voters who are likely to vote, 75% responded that they were confident their votes were counted as intended during the 2004 election (55% were “very confident” and 20% were “somewhat confident”) and 22% responded as possessing a lack of confidence (12% were “not too confident” and 10% were “not at all confident”).

The percentage who are confident that other people's ballots were counted as intended could be lower. (Lest anyone be confused, I'm obviously not offering this as a measure of confidence in e-voting. It is what it is: a question about vote counting in 2004.) They note that in responding to a similar question in March 2005, only 11% expressed a lack of confidence (6% "not too," 5% "not at all").

Then there was a series of questions:

You may have heard discussion about the use of electronic “touchscreen or “direct recording electronic” voting machines that will be used in the November 2006 elections. I am going to read you some statements about electronic voting and want to know whether you agree or disagree with each statement or if you have no opinion. Some people say that electronic voting systems are:
• More accurate
• Increase the potential for fraud
• Prone to unintentional failures
• Make voting easier for people with disabilities.

Here is a summary of the responses, in the order presented by the analysts (the order in the survey was rotated) :

                                      Agree    Disagree    No opinion
Increase the potential for fraud      38.3        25.3        36.4
More accurate                         41.2        23.9        34.9
...easier for people w/disabilities   56.2        14.2        29.6
Prone to unintentional failures       41.6        21.0        37.4

Pretty remarkably high "no opinion" figures, even considering that no opinion was explicitly offered as a choice. No 90%s here in any direction, obviously. I'm not drawing any strong inferences about voting attitudes, just passing along the info.

[troubleinwinter]

126. No,

there is no 90% there. Neither does Lehto's Zogby poll show "...over 90% of Americans lacking faith in the reliability of our voting systems."

Unless bleever (or someone else) can show such a Zogby poll, I must conclude that no such poll exists.

[OnTheOtherHand]

127. factual inaccuracy on a TIA thread?!

Could be. It certainly read like an oid (a factoid without the fact, or previously attached to a fact).

Sometimes it seems that people see their adversaries spinning the dickens out of public opinion -- for instance, I came across a couple of press releases trumpeting Americans' confidence in e-voting -- and think, "Hey, why can't we do that too?" We can. It's just a matter of choice.

[troubleinwinter]

128. "spinning the dickens out of public opinion"

Well, this one reminded me of a Whirling Dervish.

[Febble]

129. Well it's very difficult to interpret the poll at all

given the wording of the question.

[troubleinwinter]

130. That's the problem.

The poll has been "interpreted", (or misinterpreted) rather than the actual survey questions and results being posted.

In some states, members of the public have the right to view the counting of votes and verify how that process is working. In other states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even if they would like to view the process. Which of the following two statements are you more likely to agree with – A or B?

Statement A: Citizens have the right to view and obtain
information about how election officials count votes. 91.8%

Statement B: Citizens do not have the right to view and
obtain information about how elections officials count votes. 5.9

Neither/Not sure 2.3

With computerized electronic voting machines, votes are counted using proprietary or confidential software from corporate vendors that is not disclosed to citizens.

Do you agree or disagree that it is acceptable for votes to be counted in secret without any outside observers from the public?

Agree 13.7%
Disagree 79.8
Not sure 6.5

Though I agree that the poll questions were poorly constructed, it shouldn't be difficult to construct sentences that accurately indicate the poll results, such as:

"Nearly 92% polled agree that the public has the right to obtain information about how votes are counted." and

"Nearly 80% indicate their belief that it is unacceptable to have votes counted without public observers."

The problem is that the results have been misinterpreted/misrepresented from the moment they were reported by Zogby (by the claim that 92% want public counting, which the poll does not show).

It would seem pretty simple to use accuracy (and retain some credibility for truth) rather than 'spin', but, oh well.

Now apparently it has gone beyond misinterpretation or spin to outright bullshit.

[Febble]

131. I couldn't agree more.

but then you probably know what I think about misinterpretations of public opinion surveys....

But back to Zogby - yes, quite apart from the ambiguity (do people think they ought to have the right &c or do they think they already have the right &c?) there is nothing in the question to indicate whether they want public hand-counts, or merely public observers of the process by which, say, ballots are fed into an optical scanner.

[troubleinwinter]

125. Egads

If so, that isn't "interpretation", it's complete misinterpretation. It did NOT say "90% of Americans lacking faith in the reliability of our voting systems." at all.

The Zogby poll actually said:

"Asked whether Americans have the right to view and obtain information about how elections officials count votes, 92% of respondents concurred."

[kster]

193. KICK.nt

[Awsi Dooger]

99. The dynamic changes from cycle to cycle

First of all, remarkable energy in this thread. I have no idea how it's managed. I was "predicting" one response after another, solely because it's a pure rerun. And not the first time.

I don't understand the insistence that voting tendencies from 2000 to 2004 had to remain more or less identical, minus fraud. That conveniently ignores obvious situational variance. You basically have two presidential scenarios that are played out repeatedly; an open race after one party has held power two straight terms, and an incumbent with his party in power only one term. It's rank foolishness to assert the American public doesn't shift considerably depending on which mode is in play.

The open race is a 50/50 struggle normally with slight advantage to the out party. That's where Bush was in 2000, although it can be argued the strength of the Clinton economy negated the out-party edge, and Gore was robbed/blew it, in a slightly favorable scenario. But 2004 shifted to incumbent advantage, a benefit of a doubt. TIA knows this. Look at every post WW II incumbent whose party had been in power only one term: Eisenhower in '56, Nixon in '72, Carter in '76, Reagan in '84, Clinton in '96, and Bush in '04. For practical purposes you can throw in LBJ in '64 also. Only Carter and his horrific approval rating failed, the only incumbent in that situation to be denied since 1900. Bush would have been dismissed also, if his approval number had threatened Carter's, let alone anything post-Katrina. Every other incumbent significantly improved his popular vote from four years earlier, even Ike in a pure rematch. At 48.5 approval, which TIA concedes, Bush was simply far below average for an incumbent but hardly in the fatal range. The 50% number was nice and round and easily quoted, based on a handful of samples, primarily considerably above and below 50%. Now that a 48.5 has succeeded, next time the media and pundits will backfit downward.

TIA also makes the mistake of wondering why Gore voters shifted to Bush. They short-term shifted to the Republican party in federal races, due to national security alarm post-9/11. Bush was simply part of the package deal. I've posted those related links so many times I got sick of it more than two years ago, links from PEW and elsewhere that forecast 2002 and 2004 changing vote tendencies from blocks like white women and Hispanics. Bush was hardly the only goofball Republican who benefitted. Check out the GOP senators who won in 2002 and 2004, flubs like Sununu and Coleman and Talent and Coburn and Murkowski and DeMint. Oh yeah, those were all fraud also. I almost forgot. The revolving door. That's why I need to get back to my basketball Excel analysis, where the scorebaord is more or less unquestioned.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

105. Why WAS TIA banned? Why is TIA allowed to use Sock Puppets?

anyone know why if TIA is banned, other people can act
as surrogates for him?

Seems odd.

If its ok for his surrogates to be here posting,
then seems like the ban is a fraud.

[OnTheOtherHand]

108. I think it's a tough call for the mods

They've now banned at least two DU users for posting tons of TIA's stuff. (This last one, I personally think, was TIA. The other one wasn't, but allowed herself to be used.) But they don't want to rule an entire line of argument -- no matter how lousy -- off limits, and I assume they are reluctant to do anything that would impede debate or intimidate users.

In some ways I think that caruso should have been banned sooner, but on the other hand, by sticking around for several days, he managed to dig himself a lot of interesting holes. Anyone who is willing actually to read and to think about the thread will have a good idea why so many people find TIA so unconvincing.

I do think it would be good for the mods to clarify the rule. There are at least two other domains where TIA can pretend to win every argument; I don't think he is entitled to give-and-take over here.

[troubleinwinter]

117. I agree

that TIA's "stuff" shouldn't be banned, or links to it, or conversations about it.

But "posting by proxy" (carrying on conversations via an intermediary) and sockpuppets aren't appropriate.

I've come to understand that mods take some time to check it out & then meet to reach a consensus to ban someone. Trolls, I guess are easy, but puppets are a tad more carefully looked at to make a judgement.

[Melissa G]

132. Kickin 'cuz I heard rumors of a March 14th update

Hi Bleever!:hi:

[glengarry]

133. This is a graduate course in Election Fraud Analytics

Latest Update: April 8
Almost went blind looking at all the data tables.

[Kurovski]

134. Ahh...memories.

Hi Melissa G! :hi:

[Melissa G]

135. Hi Kurovski, Always nice to see your lovely sig

memories,indeed..:hi:

[Kurovski]

137. Your sig is even better!

I hope you have a great Thursday. :hi:

[TEDIUM]

136. Thanks

Very helpful, thanks for posting!

[Kurovski]

138. Kick. (nt)

[autorank]

139. So here you are! Kick

[Stevepol]

141. Thanks for keeping this out there bleever.

Of the jillion other pieces of evidence that Kerry won in 04, IMO TIA's work taken together is perhaps the most convincing.

[Kurovski]

144. Kick.

Gods bless us, everyone.

[Kurovski]

145. Kick. (nt)

[Kurovski]

146. It's interesting to note individuals who decry others publicly interpreting

information (HR811), actually doing that which they decry.

It would appear we must trust no one's opinion but their own. This thread makes it rather clear. years of threads such as these make it clear.

[Melissa G]

147. Hi to Bleever and those that follow this work...

Just wanted to let you know that it has been updated as of June 25.
It now contains additional Urban Legend analyses as well as a link to the new 1988-2004 Election Calculator:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/ElectionCalculator.htm

:hi: to all my friends!

[Melissa G]

148. There has been an update posted to the TIA FAQ

The Submerging Democratic Majority (1988-2004)

Go here for the details:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#HistoricalElections

:patriot:

[tiptoe]

149. "The Democrats actually won all FIVE elections by an average 8.9 M...Run the numbers yourself..."

ELECTION FRAUD ANALYSIS -- Historical Election Analysis

[Melissa G]

150. Wow 9080 views! and there has been a recent update also.

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#Kerry367

[Melissa G]

151. There has been an update posted with Urban Legend discussion impact

There is added county vote data analysis (2000-2004) for the following states: NY, CA, FL, OH.
Check it out...
http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

Check out Althecat's thread as well...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=474094&mesg_id=474094

[OnTheOtherHand]

152. well, I do appreciate the repeated promotion

I don't know whether anyone ever actually reads the FAQ, but I have yet to encounter anyone who thought that TIA had refuted a point and could explain why.

Of course, at this point one has to scroll through over 100 pages of mostly incomprehensible tables in order to get to the FAQ.

[althecat]

155. Refute this.

To Believe That Bush Won The Election, You Must Also Believe...
By TruthIsAll

To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:

1- That the exit polls were WRONG...

2- That Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH, FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

3- That Harris last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

4- The Incumbent Rule I (that undecideds break for the challenger)was WRONG.

5- The 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling)

6- The Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)

7- That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disnfranchised in 2000.

8- That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.

9- That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.

10- That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.

11- That Kerry did WORSE than Gore agains an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.

12- That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.

13- That Voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election

[OnTheOtherHand]

157. so you never read the FAQ either

You can navigate my detailed response to TIA via the Table of Contents. If you intend to participate in informed debate, you might well spend a few minutes acquainting yourself with the arguments of people who disagree with you. Just a thought. Here's a summary response to the points you copied-and-pasted here:

1. Why not? (I've written a lot about exit poll accuracy, but there's no point in trying to respond to an argument that no one has made.)

2. Zogby's 5 pm calls weren't polls; Zogby's final vote projection showed Bush winning the popular vote (see link in 3). So, again, why not? And why would we cherry-pick one or two pollsters, anyway?

3. Harris's final phone poll also showed Bush winning the popular vote. (See here for final poll results.) TIA doesn't like that, so he uses Internet poll results instead. Most outfits, like PollingReport.com, didn't even report those results.

4. So what? There's a whole section of the FAQ on that. I can't make you read and think about it, but it's there. Anyway, in presidential races, the available evidence refutes this "rule."

5. That's the next section in the FAQ, and it simply isn't true. Ford and Reagan (in 1984) both did better than their final polling. As I say in the FAQ, TIA is welcome to argue that his rule is true except when it isn't, but then it isn't much of a rule.

6. That's the next next section in the FAQ. (Gee, what were the odds? Someone might get the impression that I've been rebutting TIA's arguments for years now!) If we have to predict vote shares from approval ratings, well, a best-fit line shows that an incumbent with an approval rating above 45 is likely to win. TIA's "50%" is a cherry-pick, since before W., we don't have any incumbents with ratings between 46 and 55.

7. Why? Palast could be right about that. Bush won in the official returns by 3 million votes.

8. Not a coincidence, misinformation. Measured by mean Within Precinct Error, the exit poll discrepancies were greater in precincts with lever machines (no paper trail, except that some may still print total votes) than in precincts using punch cards or optical scanners. See page 40 of the evaluation report. (If you want to talk about hand-count precincts, see here, pages 12-13.)

9. Again, why would someone have to believe that in order to believe that Bush won?

10. 99-1 odds according to whom?

11. Also an opponent who gained the benefits of incumbency and, at the time, roughly high-50s approval of his handling of terrorism (USA Today/Gallup had it at 60% just after the election, but the data are spotty; see here). If TIA has any evidence that Republican newspaper endorsements weigh more heavily than incumbency or national security, I'm happy to consider it.

12. This is basically a repetition, except even less defensible this time. TIA obviously hasn't supported the claim that "ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger." And the sources he does cite don't support it. This bizarre assertion alone should lead readers to doubt TIA's reliability as a source.

TIA and his acolytes are, as far as I know, the only people who assert that the national polls showed Kerry and Bush tied. It certainly doesn't look that way on PollingReport.com (see link in 3).

13. Actually, it doesn't matter whether you believe that or not. But Bush obviously didn't win Ohio by stealing votes on machines without paper trails, because relatively few voters used them. If TIA wants to present evidence that paperless DREs produced anomalous returns in 2004, by all means he should. Meanwhile, there is nothing to refute.

[althecat]

158. I trust expressing yourself on the subject has made you feel better.....

:eyes:

[OnTheOtherHand]

159. I accept your concession n/t

[Melissa G]

153. Here is althecat's research thread post that addresses this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=474370&mesg_id=481099

[althecat]

154. Aha... 10,000 views not far away now...

[althecat]

156. 17 more views....

[galloglas]

160. Nice to see this drop around again

Hope TIA will have reason to look at 2008 and say. "It passes muster."

But what is the old saying? "Hope in one hand, spit in the other, and see which fills up the fastest."?

It's a long time from then to now.

[tiptoe]

161. kick for Gonzo resignation!

[tiptoe]

172. k

[tiptoe]

164. Significant correlation between the state exit polls and the 5m late recorded votes:

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#LateVotes

...There was a 0.72 correlation between the late state vote shares and the
exit polls. For states which had more than 40k late votes, the correlation
statistic was a much stronger 0.93, as one would expect.

This is further evidence that the "pristine" exit polls were close to the true vote:
1) the high correlation () between state exit polls and late vote shares
2) the small discrepancies between the exit polls and the late vote shares
3) the consistent pattern () of a higher Kerry share of late votes compared to the initial recorded.
...

[OnTheOtherHand]

165. TIA always did have a way with plots

Really, I'll just leave it as an open challenge to the forum to explain the lines in the first one <>.

Umm, yes, late vote shares are correlated with exit poll results: Kerry tended to do better in states where he did better. Go figure.

It seems a bit much to assert a "consistent pattern of a higher Kerry share of late votes" when, in the five jurisdictions with the largest shares of "late votes," the changes in Kerry vote share (according to TIA's data) were +3, -1, 0, 0, and -2. But in most of the rest the "late votes" were indeed more Democratic. Probably a lot of these were provisional ballots, as we've discussed before. Are provisional ballots indistinguishable from all other voters? I didn't think TIA ever thought so before.

edit to fix formatting

[tiptoe]

166. Updated Oct 26: The 2000 Election...

The 2000 Election: Starting Point of the Analysis

also here:
Part I
INTRODUCTION
The 2000 Election...

[tiptoe]

167. Updated Nov 2: Election Fraud Analysis: Bush Approval Ratings

Bush Approval Ratings

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#BushRatings

• Correlation with monthly Pre-election polls
• NEP ratings adjusted to match the vote count
  
  The Bush 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day is a key indicator of fraud, based on the following correlation analysis of pre-election national polls and the mysterious divergence of National Exit Poll approval weights from the average.
  
  Correlation
  
  There was a near-perfect 0.87 statistical correlation between Bush’s average monthly approval rating and his average pre-election poll.
  

  
  Poll       Jan      Feb      Mar     April     May     June     July      Aug      Sept     Oct
  Mean
  Kerry     40.78    47.80    47.58    46.31    46.86    46.64    47.47    47.40    44.33    47.17
  Bush      51.56    46.10    44.83    45.62    44.71    45.71    45.20    45.40    48.28    46.89
  
  Approval  54.4     49.5     48.8     48.6     45.2     47.0     47.8     48.0     49.1     48.5 
  
  Poll/Appr  .95      .93      .92      .94      .99      .97      .95      .95      .98      .97

  
  
  National Exit Poll Weightings
  
  This analysis shows that the final exit polls were manipulated to match a fraudulent vote count through the use of inflated Bush approval weightings. "Voted 2000" weights have already been proven to be mathematically impossible. The "Urban Legend" myth has been exposed by the totally implausible growth of Bush urban and suburban vote shares from 2000.
  
  ...

And also here:
also here:
Part I
ELECTION FRAUD ANALYSIS
Bush Approval Ratings

[OnTheOtherHand]

168. nope

A correlation of 0.87 isn't "near perfect," but worse than that, this relationship is heavily dependent on the inclusion of poll results from January. Remove January from the analysis, and the relationship between TIA's poll averages and his approval averages isn't even statistically significant.

People do TIA no favors by spreading this stuff around.

[tiptoe]

169. chart

2004 Monthly Bush National Pre-Election Poll vs Approval Rating

[Febble]

170. Doesn't help

The thing still isn't statistically significant if you leave out January.

Not that it matters, because it's a pointless plot. But there certainly isn't a "near-perfect correlation" between the two metrics.

[tiptoe]

171. Updated

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm * indicates recent update(s)

State Exit Poll Deviations by Voting Method   http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#VotingMethod

The percentage mix of National Voting Methods () are comprised of:

DREs- 29%   Optical scanners- 37%   Levers-18%   Punch cards- 12%   Paper- 2%   Unknown/Other- 2%.

• Kerry won the state-weighted national poll by 51.8-47.2%.
  
• The net 4.26m "red-shift" is based on the average state exit poll WPE
  
• There were 1249 precincts exit-polled nationwide.
  
• The largest vote deviations and corresponding machine mix were in the following states:

         California   (668k):  66% Optiscan; 29% DRE
         
         New York     (415k):  Lever machines (99%)
         
         Ohio         (305k):  72% Punch cards; 16% DRE; 12% Optiscan
         
         Florida      (287k):  56% DRE; 44% Optiscan
         
         Pennsylvania (252k):  26% DRE; 12% Optiscan; 49% Lever; 12% Punch cards

The only all-lever states are NY (-11.4% WPE) and CT (-15.7%).
Pennsylvania is 49% Lever (-8.8% WPE).
Oregon voted 100% by mail-in ballots (included in Other category).

Recorded 2-party vote by Voting Method:

Total     DRE    Optiscan   Lever   Punch    Paper   Other
121056    36715     45646     15762   15103    2842    4988
 100%     30.3%     37.7%     13.0%   12.5%    2.3%    4.1%

Total Deviation to Bush from Exit Poll
 
Dev        DRE    Optiscan   Lever    Punch    Paper  Other
  4258     1215      1564      788      514      89      88
  100%     28.5%     36.7%    18.5%    12.1%    2.1%    2.1%

State Exit Polls: Average Within Precinct Error
 
                  Average WPE 
       Precincts   mean    median   ABS                       
TOTAL    1249     -6.77    -6.54    13.76

URBAN >50K
Opti      350      -7.2     -5.8     12.3     
Paper     35       -1.6     -0.6     10.5     
Lever     26       -3.2     -5.4     14.7     
DRE       88       -6.0     -4.8     14.8     
Punch     50       -0.8     -1.7     12.0     

TOTAL    549      -5.88    -4.92     12.67    

SUBURBAN
Paper     5        -6.0    -11.5     15.7                      
Lever     92      -12.7    -12.5     16.8                      
DRE       272      -7.5     -7.6     14.8                      
Punch     108      -9.3    -10.0     15.2                      
TOTAL     477      -8.89    -9.13    15.29                     

RURAL <50K
Opti     223      -4.4     -5.0     13.2     

Exit Poll Precincts: Voting Method by Location-size

                DRE      Optiscan Lever    Punch    Paper    Total

Urban>500k       43        45      11        6       0        105
Urban>50k        76       114      15       30       0        235
Suburbs         153       191      66       72       5        487
10-50k           38        59       8       19       2        126
Rural            50       164      18       31      33        296

TOTAL           360       573     118      158      40       1249
                28.8%    45.9%    9.4%    12.7%    3.2%      100%

URBAN >50K       119      159      26       36       0        340
SUBURBS          153      191      66       72       5        487
RURAL <50K        88      223      26       50       35       422

TOTAL            360      573     118      158       40      1249

State Voting Method Mix

Dev  - Deviation from recorded vote (in thousands)
WPE  - Within Precinct Error ( - Kerry   + Bush )

                                         Percentage Mix                                     

  ST         WPE     Dev      DRE     Opti    Lever   Punch   Paper   Other
  CA       -10.9%   -668       29      66       0       4       0       0  
  NY       -11.4%   -415        1       0      99       0       0       0  
  OH       -10.9%   -305       16      12       0      72       0       0  
  FL        -7.6%   -287       56      44       0       0       0       0  
  PA        -8.8%   -252       26      12      49      12       1       0  
  
  NC       -11.3%   -197       43      43       2       9       0       4  
  TX        -4.8%   -177       45      45       3       5       2       0  
  NJ        -9.7%   -174       73       1      25       0       0       0  
  MI        -6.3%   -151        4      60      12      20       4       0  
  MN        -9.3%   -130        0      91       0       0       9       0  
  
  VA        -7.9%   -125       33      22      27      16       0       1  
  CT       -15.7%   -122        0       0     100       0       0       0  
  WA        -8.4%   -118       14      63       0      23       0       0  
  IL        -4.4%   -115        0      32       0      63       0       5  
  AL       -11.3%   -106       15      85       0       0       0       0  
  
  MD        -8.1%    -96      100       0       0       0       0       0  
  MA        -5.8%    -83        0      69       6       0      21       4  
  SC       -10.0%    -80       86      14       0       0       0       0  
  MO        -5.8%    -79        0      12       0      65       1      22  
  WI        -4.7%    -70        0      54       0       0      18      28  
  
  CO        -6.1%    -64       37      61       0       1       0       0  
  MS       -11.3%    -64       15      68       8       9       0       0  
  NH       -13.6%    -46        0      65       0       0      35       0  
  NV       -10.1%    -41      100       0       0       0       0       0  
  LA        -3.8%    -37       54       0      46       0       0       0  
   
  GA        -2.2%    -36      100       0       0       0       0       0  
  NE        -8.1%    -31        0      56       0       0       4      40  
  NM        -7.8%    -29       90      10       0       0       0       0  
  UT        -6.4%    -29        0       0       0       9       0      91  
  AZ        -4.6%    -24        0     100       0       0       0       0  
  
  VT       -15.0%    -23        0      51       0       0      49       0  
  IA        -3.0%    -22       11      88       1       0       0       0  
  IN        -1.5%    -18       79       0       1      20       0       1  
  DE       -15.9%    -18      100       0       0       0       0       0  
  AK        -9.6%    -14        0      90       0       0      10       0  
  
  ME        -3.8%    -14        0      67       0       0      33       0  
  RI        -4.7%    -10        0     100       0       0       0       0  
  HI        -4.7%    -10       50      50       0       0       0       0  
  KS        -1.7%    -10       37      60       0       0       3       0  
  DC        -3.4%     -6       50      50       0       0       0       0  
  
  TN        -0.5%     -6       75      10       5      11       0       0  
  WY        -4.3%     -5        2      76       3      14       5       0  
  AR        -0.5%     -5        5      65       9      17       4       0  
  ID        -1.0%     -3        0      33       0      60       8       0  
  OR         0.0%      0        0      18       0       0       0      82  
  
  KY         0.1%      1       81      17       2       0       0       0  
  MT         1.8%      4        0      81       0      13       6       0  
  ND         5.2%      8        7      90       0       0       3       0  
  SD         4.2%      8        0       1       0       0       6      93  
  OK         1.9%     14        0     100       0       0       0       0  
  WV         5.8%     22        8      42       6      37       7       0  
  
  Votes            -4258    -1215   -1564    -788    -514     -89     -88  
  Mix               100%     28.5%   36.7%   18.5%   12.1%    2.1%    2.1% 

[tiptoe]

173. Corrections for section "State Exit Polls: Average Within Precinct Error..."

see: http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#VotingMethod

Average WPE (Within Precinct Error) by Location-size

                           Average WPE
           Precincts   mean   median   ABS
             1249     -6.77   -6.54   13.76
URBAN >50K
Optical       350     -7.2    -5.8    12.3
DRE           272     -7.5    -7.6    14.8
Mechanical     92    -12.7   -12.5    16.8
Punch         108     -9.3   -10.0    15.2
Paper           5     -6.0   -11.5    15.7

TOTAL         827     -8.2    -7.7    14.0

RURAL <50K
Optical       223     -4.4    -5.0    13.2
DRE            88     -6.0    -4.8    14.8
Mechanical     26     -3.2    -5.4    14.7
Punch          50     -0.8    -1.7    12.0
Paper          35     -1.6    -0.6    10.5

TOTAL         422     -4.0    -4.2    13.3

[Wilms]

174. What the hell took so long!?!

3+ years since the 2K4 and numbers still need correction??? From the same people that questioned corrections issued on the day of the election???

Would these corrections include figures statisticians were mocked for questioning?

Look, bub. I think the election was stolen. I think the Exit Poll data is indicating something, I don't know what...but something went wrong. But at this point, the whining does more harm than good.

What's the point at this point?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2344936&mesg_id=2345140

Perhaps TIA would lend his statistical talents to advocating audits that are effective. THAT would be purposeful and perhaps even effective.

The Exit Poll Q U A G M I R E is not.

[tiptoe]

175. Tell us what matters, Mr. Wilms

[Wilms]

176. For one, audits, as I mentioned.

Will you answer even one of the questions I posed?

[tiptoe]

177. Alright, just one...

3+ years since the 2K4 and numbers still need correction??? From the same people that questioned corrections issued on the day of the election???

The corrections were to the latest update of the FAQ, to which Edison-Mitofsky WPE data had been miscopied. This is recent, new info...having nothing to with anything done three years ago.

Would these corrections include figures statisticians were mocked for questioning?

I wouldn't think so: The corrections respond to E-M data originally misprinted. (I should have noticed the original problematic table before posting it. My bad.)

But at this point, the whining does more harm than good.

Huh? "Whining"?? Nobody's whining, just new information is being provided...results of research and analysis. Are you simply wanting to instruct that ongoing research and analysis of exit poll material is pointless "at this point"...should be TOTALLY set aside...and focus directed on anything but exit poll research (as, e.g., audits...researched by others, e.g. Dopp)? If so, fine. Your opinion. For me, it's not exit polls per se, but election fraud, which is an ongoing, ever-developing story.

And it seems large numbers of DUers are interested in TIA's ongoing contributions (as per bleever's periodically-updated "Up-to-date Compendium...").

Perhaps TIA would lend his statistical talents to advocating audits that are effective. THAT would be purposeful and perhaps even effective.

Perhaps. Ask him. Developing the kinds of exit polls Sancho advocates below might also prove "purposeful and effective." Are audits always available given variations in precincts' voting methods? Voters are always available.

The Exit Poll Q U A G M I R E is not .

The Exit Poll analysis is not a quagmire. The exit polls provided the impetus to researchers that the election was not kosher. And ongoing comprehensive polling analysis by TIA only serves to enlighten those who still are unfamiliar with or not convinced by the evidence. (The MSM -- other than, perhaps, Lou Dobbs and Catherine Crier -- hasn't exactly "jumped all over" election fraud issues.)

As for relevancy of exit polling to "now what?" see
Vote flipping, compilers, undervotes: How do we catch them?: A thread by DU-er Sancho seeking ideas for catching election fraud suggests Exit Polls at the precinct level as a key means for doing so:

I still contend that the hacking of DRE's, compilers, and faulty source code is virtually impossible to detect.
I think that comprehensive exit polls at the PRECINCT level are still the best route to provide the overwhelming evidence to expose the hackers. In Florida, so many people are fed up with this after the last decade that a "fraud poll" that allowed people to revote and compare the results would likely result in a large exit poll participation percentage.

The exit poll that I envision would have to be convenient for voters, target early EIRS complaints, and clearly announce the intent to verify election integrity.

The thread includes comments from OTOH, Bill Bored, et al (including yourself). Autorank writes:

A hearty K*R. I agree with [the OP]. The politics of exit polls, defending them, attacking them, are [sic] should be set apart from their utility as instruments to detect and stop fraud.

In order to do this, we need some objective, competent, and disinterested parties to administer and oversee the conduct of the polls. Clearly, having a MSM network consortium employ and then control the data is not acceptable.

We also need to stay current up on the overseas exit poll history. I say "we" meaning me too! I should have looked at the use of U.S. based overseas polling before. This history is instructive for your suggestion. Mark Penn, the guy so close to Hillary, worked overseas and produced some interesting and bogus results in Venezuela and Italy. But of more interest, one of my "sacred cows," the Ukranian movement is a mixed bag and not a totem of exit polling utility (e.g., Republican operative Frank Luntz was involved). This might provide an excluded provider list ;)

Great suggestion. Thanks!!!

The point is the utility of Exit Poll analysis has and will remain highly relevant and far from "pointless at this point." And it's just one aspect of the Election Fraud issue. It's just phenomena to study and understand. The point is (paraphrasing) "follow the numbers...follow the clues".

[Wilms]

178. Thanks for taking the time to post all of that.

I do think you may have missed my question about the 2K4 Exit Poll's current relevancy.

Don't get me wrong. The exit poll discussion is what originally got me to question the election in December of that year. Not that I was convinced by it. But I was certainly motivated to look closer and what I learned, apart from the questions surrounding the exit polls, was that there were enough anomolies to sway the election result.

So the Exit Poll was a good catalyst those years ago. But now??? It seems Bowen's work, for a good example, has had the ability to get people from around the nation to take pause.

Getting people to think about the use of computers will lead them to question the security of such an arrangement. I don't think saying, "Kerry won and the exit poll proves it", is nearly as effective. And I really believe (though admit that I don't know) that he won. It was really proven that Gore won, but look who remained in the White House.

Using exit polls as a check against the election management system may not be a bad idea. But just saying that is a lot easier than designing and implementing it let alone giving it some force of law. That's why I favor auditing.

Hey, TIA. If you're reading this...would you lend your talents to efforts like http://electionaudits.org ?

[OnTheOtherHand]

179. really?

...ongoing comprehensive polling analysis by TIA only serves to enlighten those who still are unfamiliar with or not convinced by the evidence.

I don't believe that TIA's "ongoing... analysis" either furthers the investigation of election fraud, or serves to persuade anyone who isn't already convinced. If you do, it might be useful for you to explain why, addressing specifics.

[tiptoe]

180. When Decided: Further confirmation of a Kerry landslide

Election Fraud Analysis
When Decided

Weights and vote shares were adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote.

Also accessible here: Election Fraud Beginner's Guide - Response to the TIA FAQ

[OnTheOtherHand]

181. I wish he would get the facts right

"...pollsters Zogby and Harris estimated that Kerry won 75% of the undecideds."

In ordinary English, this would mean that after the election, Zogby and Harris... well, estimated that Kerry won 75% of the undecideds. I would even venture that it does mean that. So, is that true?

Looking at TIA's own links to purported supporting evidence, see if you can find anything stronger than this:

From Zogby, 10/29/04:

The key reason why I still think that Kerry will win, perhaps, possibly (laughter) -- have I made myself clear here? Okay. That traditionally, the undecideds break for the challenger against the incumbent on the basis of the fact, simply, that the voters already know the incumbent, and it's a referendum on the incumbent. And if the incumbent is polling, generally, under 50 percent and leading by less than 10, historically, incumbents have lost 7 out of 10 times.

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/37588.htm

From Harris, 11/2/04:

In the past, presidential challengers tend to do better against an incumbent President among the undecided voters during the last three days of the elections, and that appears to be the case here. The reason: undecided voters are more often voters who dislike the President but do not know the challenger well enough to make a decision. When they decide, they frequently split 2:1 to 4:1 for the challenger.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=515

Did Zogby and Harris estimate that Kerry won 75% of the undecideds? Or did TIA just make that up?

Setting aside TIA's potted facts, his argument is pretty poor as well. Even if we knew what proportion of people who called themselves "undecided" ended up voting for Kerry, we don't know how they answered the "when decided" question. In the exit poll, about 5% of respondents said they decided "today," 4% in the "last three days," and 2% "last week." So, if the proportion of "undecided" respondents fell from 11% a week before the election to 5% on election day, we at least might have a pretty good match between the two lines of evidence. Did that happen? not so much. Did anything remotely like that happen?

Hmm. I wonder why TIA hasn't answered that question already, as a first step in validating his analysis.

Weird "science."

[tiptoe]

182. Updated: Conservative Scenarios Analysis

Conservative Scenarios Analysis

[tiptoe]

183. Final Exit Polls: Adjusted to Match the Recorded Vote

Final Exit Polls: Adjusted to Match the Recorded Vote

Includes: The State Exit Poll Aggregate Timeline

[tiptoe]

186. k.

[BillDouglas]

184. Since Corporate Media is Sitting on Election Fraud . . . HOW DO WE GET IT OUT THERE!!??

There's a new novel coming out on Jan. 22nd, I just discovered a few weeks ago, called "The Shell Game."

It's by a NY Times best selling novelist and it gets into "election fraud" and the voter machines, as well as the lies that lead us into war.

It's a hell of a novel, and great to pass out to those friends and family that "don't get it," because mainstream media hides so much from them.

This novel has REAL research quotes and real media quotes that lead the reader to realize, as they are being entertianed by the action novel . . . that they haven't been told the whole story by corporate media.

"The Shell Game" could be a great help getting America saavvy to how they've been screwed over.

Learn more at the book's website www.TheShellGame.net

This author is for real. I hope this book goes to #1 and stays there. I'm so sick of the normal fiction reading crap that isn't about anything.

[tiptoe]

185. Gallup assigned 90% of the undecided vote to Kerry.

See: When Decided: Further confirmation of a Kerry landslide

[tiptoe]

192. 2004 Election Model: Summary, Polling Analysis, National & State Model Tables -- TruthIsAll

THE 2004 ELECTION MODEL

Projection
EV
Vote%
Prob%

Kerry
Bush
337
201
51.80
48.20
99.90
0.10

 

Undecided Voter Allocation
Kerry
60%
67%
75%
80%
87%

 

Kerry election trials
Win
Probability
4901
98.02
4972
99.44
4995
99.90
4997
99.94
4999
99.98

 

Projected Vote Share
Kerry
Bush
51.02
48.98
51.38
48.62
51.80
48.20
52.07
47.93
52.43
47.57

 

Electoral Vote
Average
Median
 
320
322
 
328
329
 
337
338
 
343
345
 
352
353
 

Maximum
Minimum
379
211
388
237
399
223
405
243
412
254

 

95% Confidence Level
Upper
Lower
361
278
368
288
376
298
382
305
389
315

 

National 18-polls
Vote%
Prob%
50.73
97.55
51.15
99.90
51.63
100.00
51.92
100.00
52.34
100.00

 

States Won
24
25
26
26
27

[tiptoe]

194. kick!