To Believe the NY 2004 recorded vote, you must also believe...

[WillE]

To Believe the NY 2004 Recorded Vote, you must also believe...

To believe that Bush increased his NY vote share from 35% in 2000 to 40% in 2004, you must also believe that….

1. NY exit polls were obviously off when VP Bush 1 or Bush 2 was the incumbent.
2. The uniform 7% increase in Gore, Kerry and Obama late NY PAPER BALLOT vote share (compared to the Election Day LEVER share) was just a coincidence.
3. Bush increased vote share dramatically in the 15 largest NY Democratic counties but not so much in smaller, Republican rural counties.
4. The fact that virtually all Election Day voting incidents favored Bush in NYC was just a coincidence (EIRS).
5. NY has a transparent voting system.

6. The NY Lever vote count does NOT involve the use of computer software.
7. Votes can be verified by anyone who chooses to do so at the precinct.
8. There was an effort made to verify the 2004 NY vote to determine Kerry’s true margin.
9. NY Lever machine vote spoilage (0.79%) is the only possible cause of vote miscounts.
10.The average 8% Bush 1988,1992, 2004) exit poll discrepancy (WPE) was due to biased samples.

11. The average 0.6% WPE Clinton discrepancy (1996, 2000) was just a fluke.
12. Bush did not have a motive to reduce Kerry’s NY margin.
13. Bush did not fire honest U.S. Republican attorneys who refused to bring bogus voter fraud cases prior to the 2004 election.
14. Bush fired U.S. attorneys who brought bogus voter fraud cases and kept those who wouldn’t just before the election.
15. The exit polls were garbage - especially in NY (1988,1992 and 2004).

16. The exit polls were fairly accurate in NY (1996 and 2000).
17. Bush improved his 2004 NY (recorded) share by 5% over 2000.
18. It makes no sense to post hand-counted verifiable voting results at the precinct and upload them to the Internet for public viewing.
19. It makes makes no sense to use open source software to tabulate precinct vote data uploaded to the Internet, even though every one would be able to check that their vote was counted.
20. NY election activists should ignore ALL evidence, such as exit polls, late votes and correlation analysis of county percentage vote change and voting population size.

21. NY Dems had legitimate reasons to vote for Bush despite his 35% NY approval.
22. Non-response bias and false recall caused the 12% WPE in NY.
23. The exit poll over-sampled Kerry voters.
24. The exit poll was poorly designed, unlike the one done by the same exit pollsters (Edison/Mitofsky) in the Ukraine a few weeks later.
25. There is nothing suspicious about Kerry’s 65% NY GEO exit poll (already adjusted for voter turnout) morphing to 58% in the Final.

26. It makes eminent sense to FORCE the exit poll to match the recorded vote. Richard Hayes Phillips found out why.
27. It is inconceivable that 64% of returning Nader/other voters (who comprised 5% of the 2000 electorate) defected to Kerry but only 17% to Bush.
28. Even if Kerry won the majority of 150,000 returning Nader voters and 1 million new voters by large margins, returning Gore voters defected to Bush in margins big enough to reduce Kerry’s adjusted share from 64 to 58%.
29. It is of no consequence that 1 million new NY voters were 65-70% for Kerry.
30. Even if returning Bush and Gore 2000 voters defected equally nationwide, Bush had a net 8% NY advantage of defecting Gore voters over Kerry’s share of defecting Bush voters.

31. Bush’s 48% national and 35-40% NY approval did not keep him from improving on his 2000 NY share by 5% in 2004, even though his rating was higher in 2000.
32. It is of no consequence that 300,000 net uncounted votes were mostly for Kerry.
33. A NY 2004 True Vote sensitivity analysis based on total votes cast in 2000, mortality, turnout and a range of vote shares is not as believable as a pre-election Likely Voter (LV) poll which excludes many newly registered voters and does not consider that undecided votes broke for Kerry.
34. The fact that Gallup’s final projection allocated 90% of undecided voters to Kerry was of no consequence.
35. The fact that Zogby indicated right before Election Day that the late trend was towards Kerry, that undecided voters were breaking for him and that Bush was in deep doo-doo based on his sub-par approval rating was of no consequence.

36. The fact that the exit polls (1-2% MoE) were the first indicators of election fraud is no reason to accept them over pre-election polls (3-4% MoE).
37. There is no benefit in comparing the aggregate pre- election and post election polls; it is better to just cherry pick individual polls to prove that the aggregate is incorrect.
38. The fact that there had to be 5-6 million phantom Bush voters in order to match the 2004 recorded vote is of no consequence; it was merely due to respondents misreporting their 2000 past vote to the exit pollsters.
39. It makes a lot of sense to continue to try to debunk scores of mathematical and statistical analysts who have proved that the 2004 election was stolen beyond a reasonable doubt largely on the basis of exit poll analysis (on a Democratic Internet forum).
40. There is no reason to believe that naysayers still trying to debunk the stolen Kerry landslide have an agenda of anything other than to present the truth as they see it, even though they themselves may have have been debunked every time they have tried.

41. All truth seekers who present a plausible, realistic analysis using exit poll and other data should just go away.
42. There is no reason to expect that fraud of any magnitude can take place in NY because Levers had a 0.79% spoilage rate.
43. We should fight to keep the Levers but not fight for full transparency (HCPB).
44. There is no way that NY elections can or should be hand-counted, even if they are restricted to presidential and congressional races.
45. There is nothing suspicious in the fact that the 2008 exit poll report will apparently never be released by the MSM (National Exit Pool).

46. The confidentiality of exit poll respondents must be maintained, even though precinct data can and has been released (Ohio 2004) without revealing any personal information.
47. Election Fraud may have occurred in 2004, but not enough to negate Bush’s “mandate”.
48. Pre-election Generic polls were not useful for projecting vote share in the 2006 midterms, even if the trend-line through 120 polls projected a 56.4% Democratic share that EXACTLY matched the unadjusted 56.4% exit poll.
49. Rasmussen is an unbiased pollster. He matched the recorded 2004 vote.
50. Zogby is a lousy pollster. He matched the True Vote that was far from the recorded vote.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Zogby IS a lousy pollster.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/zogby

[Captain Hilts]

6. No, he's not. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. He had a 5.4% error rate in 2008.

In 2006, he had an 8.7% error rate for Senate elections and a 7.7% error rate for gubernatorial elections. That's lousy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. for Zogby Interactive polls, yes

Zogby telephone polls are about average, maybe a bit worse (at least according to Nate Silver's ratings through May of 2008). Not that this topic has much to do with the NY recorded vote in 2004.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. The OP is more or less positing that Zogby's beyond reproach.

Which he certainly is not.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. I take your point, but actually, the OP is pretty selective

For instance, he's adamant that instead of using "likely voter" poll results, one should use registered voter results and then allocate most of the undecided voters to Kerry. But that's not what Zogby did, so it's hard to see how Zogby could be "beyond reproach." Zogby's last nationwide projection actually gave Bush an 0.3-point lead, so in ordinary English, it just isn't true that Zogby matched the so-called True Vote.

At any rate, not only do I think the Interactive polls have been appallingly bad, but I've seen some really bad writeups of their polling -- I think as Zogby press releases, in fact -- so I'm not an apologist. But Zogby's telephone track record has been OK.

[WillE]

16. Zogby matched True vote in 2000; Rasmussen (GOP) was way off

In 2000, Zogby matched True vote.
Rasmussen, a GOP pollster, was way off.

In 2004, Ras matched the bogus Bush recorded vote.
On Election Day, Zogby had Kerry winning 311 EV.

Unadjusted National Exit Poll WPE
2000: 2.1
2004: 7.1

So who is the better pollster?
Ras who projected a rigged recorded vote winner or
Zogby who projected Kerry as the True Vote winner?

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. LOL -- you and your "True Vote" n/t

[WillE]

2. A 2004 NY True Vote Analysis

There is the recorded vote (the official vote).

And then there is the True Vote.
They are NEVER equal.

There are such things as uncounted votes (spoiled, absentee
and provisional).
There are stuffed ballots.
There are electronically switched votes.

And there are miscounted votes.
Some by mechanical machines.
Mostly miscounted by human programmers.
Ans also by corrupt election officials.

Let's determine the True 2004 NY vote.
Kerry won the state by 58-40% officially (the recorded vote).
But his True Vote was much higher: 64%

Why bother calculating? It was a landslide.
Who cares? It made no difference.

Well, Rove cared.
He needed to manufacture that Bush 3.0 million mandate.
He couldn't have a repeat of the 2000 selection in which Bush
lost the popular vote.

So where do you get the votes?
Where the Democrats live. In NY, CA...
The BIG BLUE states. Where no one was watching.

Like Three-card Monte.
All eyes were the battleground states.

The goal was to cut down Kerry's margin.
In NY, it was cut by 750,000 votes - from 2.2 million to 1.35
million.
In CA, it was cut by even more. Of course.
It's the BIGGEST BLUE state.

The 750,000 reduction in Kerry's NY margin provided 25% of
Bush's 3.0 million "mandate".
Mission accomplished.

Joseph Stalin once said: It's not who votes, it's who counts.

Willie Sutton, famous bank-robber, was once asked: 
Willie, why do you rob banks?

Willie replied: Because that's where the money is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Base Case Scenario:
It’s Kerry by 63.5-35.4%.
A 2.2 million vote landlside.

Total votes CAST in 2000 and 2004
5% Mortality.
98% Turnout.

Kerry NY share = National share + 10%

Sensitivity Analysis: 
Assume 94% Gore 2000 voter turnout; 
98% LIVING Bush 2000 voter turnout (no PHANTOMS allowed).

Kerry wins with 63.0% (2.1 million votes)

Worst Case scenario:
Kerry 89% of returning Bush voters? In NY?
Kerry 47% of New voters? In NY?

Kerry wins with 58.9% (1.45 million votes)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

New York 2004 Tuue Vote Election Calculator 			
							
2000 Recorded	 	 	2004 Recorded 	 
Gore	Bush	Other	Total	Kerry	Bush	Other	Total
4.108	2.403	0.311	6.822	4.314	2.963	0.114	7.391
60.22%	35.22%	4.56%	 	58.37%	40.09%	1.54%	 

Uncounted			 	 			 
0.131	0.035	0.009	0.175	0.231	0.071	0.006	0.308
75%	20%	5%	2.50%	75%	23%	2%	4.00%
							
Uncounted Votes 		        Est.    NEP     NEP
	Pct	 Cast	Unctd	Kerry	NY	12:22am	Final
2004	4.00%	7.699	0.308	DNV	67%	57%	54%
2000	2.50%	6.997	0.175	Gore	92%	91%	90%
				Bush	11%	10%	9%
2004	Share	2000	Share	Nader	71%	64%	71%
Kerry	75%	Gore	75%				
Bush	23%	Bush	20%	Bush			
Other	2%	Nader	5%	DNV	31%	41%	45%
				Gore	7%	8%	10%
2000 Voter Mortality 		Bush	89%	90%	91%
Total Voters	1.25%		Nader	21%	17%	21%
Gore share	60%						
				Other			
2000 Voter Turnout in 2004	DNV	2%	2%	1%
Gore	98%			Gore	1%	1%	0%
Bush	98%			Bush	0%	0%	0%
Nader	98%			Nader	8%	19%	8%

 	 	 	 	 	 
 		2000 Recorded		
Voted	Record	Uncntd	Cast	Deaths	Alive
DNV					
Gore	4.11	0.131	4.24	0.21	4.03
Bush	2.40	0.035	2.44	0.12	2.31
 Nader	0.31	0.009	0.32	0.02	0.30
 					
Total	6.82	0.175	7.00	0.35	6.65
 	 	 	 	 	 

 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	2000		2004 Calculated 	 
 	Turnout	Voted	Weight	Kerry	Bush	Other
DNV	 - 	1.185	15.4%	67%	31%	2%
Gore	98%	3.949	51.3%	92%	7%	1%
Bush	98%	2.268	29.5%	11%	89%	0%
 Nader	98%	0.298	3.9%	71%	21%	8%
 						 
Total	6.51	7.699	100%	63.48%	35.39%	1.13%
 	 	 	7.70 	4.89 	2.72 	0.09 

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS				
Kerry NY Vote Share	 				

1.

Bush 2000 Turnout:98.0%	 	 	 	 	 	 

 					 
Gore% 	
Unctd		Gore Voter Turnout		 
63.5%	94.0%	95.0%	96.0%	97.0%	98.0%

 		Kerry NY Vote Share	 
85.0%	63.1%	63.3%	63.4%	63.5%	63.7%
80.0%	63.0%	63.2%	63.3%	63.4%	63.6%

75.0%	63.0%	63.1%	63.2%	63.3%	63.5%

70.0%	62.9%	63.0%	63.1%	63.3%	63.4%
65.0%	62.8%	62.9%	63.0%	63.2%	63.3%
 					 
 		 Kerry Margin		 

85.0%	2.11 	2.13 	2.15 	2.17 	2.19 
80.0%	2.10 	2.12 	2.14 	2.16 	2.18 

75.0%	2.08 	2.10 	2.12 	2.14 	2.16 

70.0%	2.07 	2.09 	2.11 	2.13 	2.15 
65.0%	2.05 	2.07 	2.09 	2.11 	2.13 

2. 	 	 	 	 	 

Kerry share of Bush 2000 voters:11.0%	 

Gore voters	New voters (DNV in 2000)	 
63.5%	47.0%	57.0%	67.0%	77.0%	87.0%

                Kerry  NY Vote Share	 
93.0%	60.9%	62.5%	64.0%	65.5%	67.1%
92.0%	60.4%	61.9%	63.5%	65.0%	66.6%

91.0%	59.9%	61.4%	63.0%	64.5%	66.0%

90.0%	59.4%	60.9%	62.5%	64.0%	65.5%
89.0%	58.9%	60.4%	61.9%	63.5%	65.0%
 					 
 		 Kerry Margin		 
 					 
93.0%	1.77 	2.00 	2.24 	2.48 	2.72 
92.0%	1.69 	1.93 	2.16 	2.40 	2.64 

91.0%	1.61 	1.85 	2.08 	2.32 	2.56 

90.0%	1.53 	1.77 	2.00 	2.24 	2.48 
89.0%	1.45 	1.69 	1.93 	2.16 	2.40 

[Botany]

3. well to buy Ohio 2004 you have believe that W won despite:

35,000 new voters for the republicans and 350,000 new voters registered for democrats

Ohio lost more jobs than any other state in America from 2001 to 2004 but still voted for the incumbent
(knowing that economic factors are the # 1 criteria for voting behavior)

more registered dems then republicans (not much but more)

exit polls showed clearly that Kerry won

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

Ohio 2004 & Florida 2000 were just some of the more public "blips" but for years the "blips"
always went republican ..... Alabama and Georgia 2002, New Mexico 2004, and so on.

I think Obama won by an even bigger margin than was recorded in 2008. As all of America goes
to a paper trail, paper ballots, and early voting the republicans are going to become a real minority
party.

[Stevepol]

4. Amen and Amen!

[Peace Patriot]

5. "As all of America goes to a paper trail, paper ballots, and early voting...".

Last I checked, half the states still use 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote counting code, owned and controlled by a handful of rightwing corporations, with NO audit/recount controls. Most of this half of the states have no paper ballot at all; others may have a paper ballot but do a ZERO audit. And the other half of the states also use 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote counting code, owned and controlled by a handful of rightwing corporations, with a meager 1% audit. Experts whom I respect say a 10% audit is the minimum needed to detect fraud.

An adequate audit is especially necessary in a 'TRADE SECRET' code system--in which the inner workings of the voting machines and the central tabulators are hidden from public view. A paper ballot is an improvement, certainly, but it is not a significant improvement unless it is accompanied by an adequate, automatic audit (and not just one triggered by a very close vote.) We didn't have anything close to an adequate audit anywhere, last time I looked at national voting system stats (about two years ago).

Has something changed?

If these conditions have not been significantly improved, then it is by no means likely that the Pukes will "become a real minority party" (reflecting their true support). In fact, the opposite could easily happen. They could "gain" seats in Congress and other offices, and overthrow Obama in 2012, and we would be helpless to prevent it.


Please correct me if my information about the US voting system is outdated.

[Wilms]

19. Spot on. n/t

[Cobalt-60]

26. In 08 the pukes cheated and lost anyway

we'd better be ready for full force treachery in 10.

[kath]

8. Paper ballots. Hand counted, w/ plenty of observers, AT THE PRECINCT.

Just like in Canada.
We need this NOW.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. ruh roh: "uniform 7% increase in...late NY PAPER BALLOT vote share"?

2. The uniform 7% increase in Gore, Kerry and Obama late NY PAPER BALLOT vote share (compared to the Election Day LEVER share) was just a coincidence.

Offhand -- assuming it's true -- it sounds like circumstantial evidence that the amount of vote miscount in New York was roughly equal in those three elections. Gee, has that been your argument all along?

("Equal" could be close to zero, since there is no reason to assume that the people who vote on paper are just like the people who vote on lever machines.)

I guess I needn't bother to rebut your posts, since you seem to be doing just fine on your own. :hi:

[WillE]

15. NY 2000-2008: Election Day Lever vs. Late paper ballot vs. Exit poll (update)

NY Initial (Lever) vs. Late (Paper ballot) Comparison 

Average 2.3% match of Late Paper ballots and exit polls.

Average Dem Election Day Lever vote share (60.0%)
Average Dem Late Paper vote share (66.9%)

2000 Clinton incumbent:
Low exit poll deviation from late paper vote: 2.1% (3.3 WPE}  

2004  Bush incumbent
High  exit poll deviation from late paper vote: 6.6% (12.2
WPE)

2008 Bush incumbent
High  True vote deviation from late paper vote: 5.3% (WPE na)
Calculated True Vote as exit poll proxy based on Final NEP
(exit poll report not released)  

Democratic vote shares						

	Lever	Dem	Share		Paper	Dem	Share  Exit Poll
2000	6,270	3,747	59.8%		552	361	65.4%  61.9%
2004	6,892	3,993	57.9%		499	321	64.3%  64.5%
2008	7,011	4,360	62.2%		584	412	70.7%  67.5%
							
Total	20,174	12,100	60.0%		1,635	1,094	66.9% 64.6%

					Deviation from Lever		
	Total	Official Exit		Paper	Exit	
2000	6,822	60.2%	61.9%		5.6%	2.1%	
2004	7,391	58.4%	64.5%		6.4%	6.6%	
2008	7,595	62.8%	67.5%		8.5%	5.3%	
							
Total	21,808	60.5%	64.6%		6.8%	4.7%	

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. are you withdrawing your argument, or not?

Maybe I need to quote it again:

The uniform 7% increase in Gore, Kerry and Obama late NY PAPER BALLOT vote share (compared to the Election Day LEVER share) was just a coincidence.

As everyone can see, it was never about the "exit poll deviation from late paper vote." It was about the late paper vote deviation from the lever vote.

Your statistics show that the late paper vote deviation from the lever vote was almost the same in 2004 as in 2000 (6.4 points vs. 5.6 points) -- actually, your own word was "uniform." How can you square that with your argument that Bush fraud ran rampant in NY in 2004 but not in 2000?

[WillE]

21. True... but the NY exit polls AND late vote shares consistently favor the Dems

Let's look at the overall picture.

This is what is significant:
In each of the last three elections, the NY Democratic late vote share paper ballot share exceeded the lever share. And the Democratic exit poll share exceeded the lever share.

The 3-election average Democratic late vote share was 6.9% greater than the Lever share.
The average Democratic exit poll share was 4.6% greater than the Lever share.

The average exit poll share was within 2.3% of the average late vote share - within the MoE.

1) In 2000, Gore's exit poll share was 3.5% LOWER than the late vote share even though the WPE was 3.3. Why the 3.5% discrepancy? Either a non-equivalent late vote group and/or the exit poll low-balled Gore's True share or...?

2) In 2004, the exit poll was 0.2% higher - a virtual perfect match. The WPE was 12.2.

3) In 2008, the True Vote was 3.2% LOWER than the late vote share. Why no exact match? See (1). The 2008 exit poll report has not been released. It probably never will be.
Can you offer a reason why?

Of course, we agree that:
1) Exit polls are NOT perfect. The votes always move in favor of the Repubs. Why?
Well, start with uncounted votes and go from there.

2) LATE VOTER DEMOGRAPHICS NEVER EXACTLY MATCH ELECTION DAY VOTER DEMOGRAPHICS.

But there is a UNMISTAKABLE PATTERN THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED:
THE NY DEMOCRATIC EXIT POLL ALWAYS EXCEEDS THE RECORDED VOTE.
THE NY DEMOCRATIC LATE VOTE ALWAYS EXCEEDS THE RECORDED VOTE.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. that's no answer at all

You posted evidence that there was no more miscount in New York in 2004 than in 2000 -- actually, you sort of sneered about it. And now, in effect, you're telling people not to think about that part. :shrug:

[WillE]

23. I know you are at your computer, monitoring ER.

You seem to do it full-time.

I will provide more info in due course on the Late Vote Smoking Gun (NY and nationwide) which you will surely try to refute. That's what you do.

In the meantime, you did not answer my question regarding the 2008 exit poll report. It should have been released in January.

So where is it? Something is not right. The 2004 Edison-Mitofky report was released on Jan. 19, 2005.

I'm sure you must have a thought about this. Election analysts have been patiently waiting all year for it. You must be as disappointed as all of them.

After all, the 2004 report yielded a lot of interesting information, no?

Like UNADJUSTED EXIT POLL WPEs for all the states.
(52-47% Kerry)

Like BEST GEO adjusted exit polls for all the states.
(51-48% Kerry)

Voting machine WPE:
Paper Ballot 2.2
Levers 10.6
Touch Screen 7.1
Punch Cards 6.6
Optical Scan 6.1

Location-size WPE:
Precincts in cities and the suburbs had larger average WPE than precincts in rural areas or small towns.
(Urban Legend?)

Size of Place WPE:
Over 500k: 7.9
50 to 500k: 8.5
Suburbs: 8.1
10k to 50k: 4.9
Rural: 3.6

Swing vs. non-swing state WPE
Non-swing 6.1
Swing 7.9

You know, that report was very illuminating.

So, too, I am sure, is the 2008 report.
Where the hell is it?

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. are you joking?

You post your fifty (mostly rather silly) points, I post a brief response the following day, you post a lame rejoinder, and I point out that it's lame. How does this convince you that I monitor ER full-time? Or are you fudging a bit?

Are you under the impression that Edison/Mitofsky releases an exit poll report every January following an election? News to me. Did that happen in 2007? What "election analysts" have you been hanging out with, anyway?

You don't need to provide more "info" -- just a straight answer would be great.

[WillE]

25. Still no answer? This is not a joke. Just a simple question.

Why no 2008 exit poll report?
Just asking for your opinion.

Why is there apparently no interest on your part to see it?
As an "election analyst", you would want to, yes?

You would want to see all those WPEs, wouldn't you?
Or do you just not care?

Don't you think it would be interesting to know that the exit pollsters fixed the "problems" they had in 2004. You know, all those reluctant Bush responders and lousy interviewers.

As for those "lame" 50 points, thanks for your brief, very brief, response.
My response to yours will be forthcoming, I assure you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. your attention seems to be wandering

If you've read the January 2005 evaluation report, you know that it was prepared for the National Election Pool. So, I'd assume that E/M didn't prepare a report after 2006 or 2008 because the NEP didn't request one. I have no clue why you would need me to walk you through that.

Maybe you're bothered to notice that #2 of your 50 points actually undermines your argument about the New York 2004 recorded vote (the putative subject of your thread), and perhaps you're even thinking about it.

[WillE]

28. You have still not answered the question. The 2006 exits ARE available.

Why are you so reluctant to ask the question WHY the 2008 exit
poll report has not been released?

Jonathan Simon and Bruce O'DEll at EDA and TimeForChange at DU
would like to see it.
So would TIA.

The 2006 unadjusted exit poll was released by Roper. Have you
seen it?
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/exitpolls.html

This is your reply in the TruthIsAll FAQ to a question on
Generic House polls:
M.3. Do pre-election "generic" House polls in 2006
match the initial exit poll returns?

Not really. A "generic" poll is one that asks
respondents whether they would vote for (in Gallup's words)
"the Democratic Party's candidate or the Republican
Party's candidate," rather than naming specific
candidates.

Is that so? Do you still believe that?
Are you aware that the unadjusted exits produced a 56.38% Dem
share?
The final 10 GENERIC poll average projected an IDENTICAL
56.38% share.

TIA's 120-pre-election Generic trend line model projected
56.43%. 
Just lucky, eh?


How did Bafumi et al do?
Are you aware of the report that the Democrats did much better
than the original recorded vote?  

2006 National Exit Poll
Unadjusted 		        Final (forced to match the vote)			
	MIX	Dem	Rep	Other	MIX	Dem	Rep	Other
Kerry	48.60%	93%	6%	1%	43%	92%	7%	1%
Bush	46.40%	17%	81%	2%	49%	15%	83%	2%
Other	1.00%	65%	18%	15%	4%	66%	23%	11%
DNV	4.00%	66%	16%	19%	4%	66%	32%	2%
								
TOTAL	100.00%	56.38%	41.32%	2.32%	100%	52.19%	45.88%	1.93%
		Margin	15.06%				6.31%	


Key model results: 
Assuming the Democrats captured 60% of the undecided vote,
1-the 120-Generic poll trend line projected a 56.43% share
2-the Final 10 Generic poll average projected a 56.38% share
 
The probability is near ZERO that the vote/poll discrepancies
were due to chance.
 
120 Generic Poll Linear Regression Trend:
Dem = 46.98 + .0419x
GOP = 38.06 + .0047x   
 
Substituting x=120 and allocating 60% (UVA) to the Democrats: 
........Trend + UVA = Projection
Dem =   52.01 + 4.42 = 56.43%
Rep =   38.62 + 2.95 = 41.57%

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. your evasive maneuvers continue

Certainly I answered your question -- and I never said that the 2006 exits weren't available. I said that E/M didn't release a report on them.

I think that Bafumi et al. did very well, and you've offered no actual reason to think otherwise. More to the point, you still haven't addressed the fact that point #2 in your OP undermines the thesis of your OP. An oversight, surely?

[WillE]

30. Your lack of substantive response is a tell.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x514112

Again, where is your analysis?

No comment on the hidden 2008 unadjusted exit poll state and national data
THE EXIT POLLSTER REPORT HAS NOT AND WILL NOT BE RELEASED AND YOU DON'T EVEN CARE TO KNOW WHY.

No comment on the 2006 confirmations: Unadjusted = regression model= Last 10 poll average
Nothing on your baseless FAQ comment re: Generic polls

As for those 50 points, you still have 49 to go.

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. MY lack of substantive response?

Gee, it seems to me that if your argument blows itself up at point #2, there's really no need to point out the holes in the rest. But if you want to claim lots of stuff at the wall and claim that some of it stuck, hey, say what you will.

On the topic of 2006, maybe you need to go slug it out with Skinner:

This analysis is an embarrassment.

To those of you who keep demanding to see the problem, here it is:

The problem is not in the mathematics (although I have not checked the math, so it's possible that there are errors there, too). The problem is in the assumptions he used before he even started.

TIA assumes that the "generic poll" should match the recorded votes. This is, quite simply, WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Does everyone here know what the "generic poll" is? The generic poll (usually referred to as the "generic congressional ballot") asks respondents which political party they support in the upcoming congressional election -- but it does not provide any names of any candidates. The generic congressional ballot is not -- and was never intended to be -- an accurate prediction of how people will vote. The point of the generic congressional ballot is to get a general sense of the mood of the voters.

Think, people. THINK....

Bottom line:

You can do the best, most accurate, most awesome mathematics in the history of the world, but if you start with completely false assumptions, your "analysis" is going to be worthless.

ON EDIT: If you want to see how the outcome compares to the pre-election polls, you need to look at the pre-election polls that list candidates by name from each and every congressional district. Someone mentione up-thread that this is precisely what folks like Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg did before the election, and their predictions were quite accurate.

Pretty smart guy, Skinner. I'd have worded some of this differently, but the bottom line is that the evidence from both generic and contest-specific polls supports his view and not yours.

[WillE]

32. You really have no shame, do you?

They call that sucking up.
Are you reduced to that?

I believe Skinner would now agree that election fraud cost Gore, Kerry and reduced the Democratic landslide in 2006. But why bring him into this? Have you no shame?

Why don't YOU try to refute those other 49 points without SHAMING YOURSELF by sucking up?
As for your interminable effort to besmirch EVERY, I mean EVERY, reputable election analyst, EVERYONE knows that they are ALL very respected and applaud their efforts to uncover the fraud.

Must I give you the list again?

AND YOU CONTINUE TO BESMIRCH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM.
FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS.
AND APPARENTLY YOU WILL NEVER STOP TRYING TO COVER UP THE EXTENT OF OUR FRAUDULENT SYSTEM.
AND YOU DO THIS ON A DEMOCRATIC FORUM.
IS THERE A DISCONNECT HERE?

WHAT ARROGANCE LEADS YOU TO MAINTAIN THAT ONLY YOU ARE RIGHT AND THEY ARE ALL WRONG?

Is Farhad Manjoo, who you consulted with on his RFK hit piece, still on YOUR list?
What about the Mystery Pollster, who also wrote a hit piece on his blog with YOUR help?
Or Mitofsky, when he needed YOUR help in blowing smoke over his own exit polls?

Now you are just the Last Man Standing.
You are out there all by yourself.

Unless you care to add other supporters to your list.
Let's see who still agrees with you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. you really have no response, do you?

I don't really care whether you respect Skinner or not. It's your inability to address arguments that troubles me.

[wisteria]

13. I believe your post has a lot of merit, but why are you bringing this up now?n/t

[WillE]

14. See this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x513744

[Ellipsis]

20. Kicking it

Good luck...