Late Vote Smoking Guns: 2000-2008

[WillE]

Late Vote Smoking Guns: 2000-2008

In each election from 2000-2008, the Democrats won the
national exit poll and late vote by bigger margins than the
recorded vote indicates. 

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

National Democratic Vote Shares
Gore’s 2000 exit poll share was within the 1.0% margin of
error.
Kerry’s 2004 exit poll share was far beyond the margin of
error.

The 2008 exit poll report has not been released. 
Obama’s True vote share was far beyond the margin of error.

National Democratic Vote Shares
Election Day (initial_ share vs. late vs. exit poll 

	Recorded ExitP	Initial	Late 
2000	48.9%	49.4%	47.9%	53.2%				
2004	48.4%	52.0%	48.3%	53.5%				
2008	52.9%	57.0%	52.3%	59.2%				

NY Democratic Vote Shares

In the 2000-2008 New York presidential elections, did the late
paper ballot voters represent a legitimate sample of the
Election Day (lever) voters? The reason why this is an
important question is because the average NY Democratic Late
vote share was 66.9% while the initial average Election Day
lever share was just 60.0%. In the three elections, there were
a total of 1.63 million late and 20.2 million Election Day
votes.

NY Initial (Lever) vs. Late (Paper ballot) vs. Exit Poll
(2008 exit poll report not released; calculated 67.5% True
Vote)

	Lever	Dem	Share		Paper	Dem	Share	Exit
2000	6,270	3,747	59.8%		552	361	65.4%	61.9%
2004	6,892	3,993	57.9%		499	321	64.3%	65.1%
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%	64.8%

Any analysis comparing 2000 and 2004 vote shares MUST adjust
for third-party shares.
In 2000, Nader and other 3rd party voters comprised 3.7%
(3.95m) of the 105.4 million recorded votes.  In 2004,
third-parties comprised just 1.0% (1.22m) of the 122.3m
recorded. 

The preliminary 12:22am National exit poll (13047 respondents)
indicated that 64% of third-party 2000 voters defected to
Kerry and just 17% to Bush. The Final (13660) indicated that
71% of Nader voters defected to Kerry and 21% to Bush. The
Final was forced to match the recorded vote count.

Gore won the NY recorded vote by 60.2-35.2% over Bush.
Third-party voters comprised 4.6% (311k) of the total NY vote.
Approximately 4% defected in 2004 (3% to Kerry and 1% to
Bush). 

To compare 2000 to 2004, we compare apples to apples by
eliminating the third-party influence. So we must add back 3%
of the 4.6% third-party share who defected in 2004 to Gore’s
share and 1% to Bush. Gore’s adjusted recorded lever share
increases from 59.8% to 62.8% (2.6% lower than his 65.4% late
paper share).

In 2000, Gore had 65.4% of NY late votes.
In the unadjusted exit poll, Gore had 61.9%. 
Adding back the 3% who defected to Kerry and Gore had an
adjusted 64.9% lever share. 

The late voter share matched to within 0.5% of the exit poll.
Very close.
The close match indicates that NY late voters were similar to
Election Day voters.

In 2004, Kerry won 64.3% of NY late votes.
His GEO exit poll share was 65.1%.
The late voter share matched to within 0.8% of the exit poll.
Very close.
The close match indicates that NY late voters were similar to
Election Day voters.

In 2008, Obama won 70.7% of NY late votes.
His recorded Election Day (lever) share was 62.2% and his
total share was 62.8%.
That is a 7-8% disparity.
The 2008 Exit Poll report has not been released, so there is
no WPE measure.

Obama’s calculated NY True Vote (based on a reasonable mix of
returning voters and vote shares) was 67.5%. His True Vote was
3.2% lower than his late vote share. Not that close but in the
same direction.

National Vote
Initial vs. Late (Paper ballot) Democratic vote shares		

	Record	Exit	Initial	Late 
2000	48.4%	49.4%	47.9%	53.2%				
2004	48.3%	52.0%	47.8%	53.5%				
2008	52.9%	57.0%	52.3%	59.2%				

NY Initial (Lever) vs. Late (Paper ballot) Democratic vote
shares	
	Lever	Dem	Share	Paper	Dem	Share	
2000	6,270	3,747	59.8%	552	361	65.4%	
2004	6,892	3,993	57.9%	499	321	64.3%	
2008	7,011	4,360	62.2%	584	412	70.7%	
								
Total	20,174	12,100	60.0%	1,635	1,094	66.9%	

				Deviation from Lever	
	Total	Record  ExitP	Paper	Exit		
2000	6,822	60.2%	61.9%	5.6%	2.1%		
2004	7,391	58.4%	65.1%	6.4%	7.2%		
2008	7,595	62.8%	67.5%	8.5%	5.3%		
								
Total	21,808	60.5%	64.8%	6.8%	4.9%		
								

NY 2000
Add back 75% of third-party Nader/other votes to Gore

Adjusted NY recorded vote:
Recorded	Share	Diff						
Lever	        59.8%	-						
+ 75% Nader	3.0%	-						
Adj Gore	62.8%	3.00%						
Late Paper	65.4%	5.64%						
Diff	        -2.6%							

Adjusted NY exit poll:								
Exit Poll	61.9%							
+ 75% Nader	3.0%							
Adj Gore 	64.9%							
Late Paper	65.4%							
Diff	       -0.50%							

Gore’s late paper ballot shares matched the adjusted exit poll
shares to within 0.5%.
This is evidence that the 552k late NY 2000 voters matched the
demographics of 6.3m lever voters.
The analysis indicates that there was virtually zero fraud in
the NY 2000 election.				
								
NY 2004

Kerry           Share	Diff						
Lever	        57.9%	-						
Exit Poll	65.1%	7.16%						
Late Paper	64.3%	6.39%						
Diff	        0.77%							

Kerry’s late Paper ballot shares matched the GEO exit poll to
within 0.8%	
This is evidence that the 499k late NY 2004 voters matched the
demographics of 6.9m lever voters.
The True vote indicates that election fraud reduced Kerry’s NY
share by approximately 6%.

NY 2008

Obama	        Share	Diff						
Lever	        62.2%	-						
Late Paper	70.7%	8.47%						
True Vote	67.5%	5.32%						
Diff	         3.2%							

Obama’s share of the 584k late paper ballots was 8.5% higher
than the Election Day (lever) vote.
His late paper ballot share was 3.2% higher than his
calculated True vote.
The True vote indicates that election fraud reduced Obama’s NY
share by approximately 5%.

The 2008 exit poll report has not been and apparently never
will be released.


2004: Reconciling the Final 5 Million Votes
  
The 12% difference in margin between the initial 117 million
recorded votes (Bush 51-Kerry 48%) and the late 5.0m (Kerry
53-Bush 44%) caused a 0.5m decline in the official Bush margin
(3.5 to 3.0m). Was this due to the fact that the election was
already decided at the 117m mark and vote-rigging was no
longer necessary? Late votes (absentees, etc.)  were
irrelevant as soon as Bush was declared the winner.  

Many still recall that the day after the election the media
reported that Bush won by 3.5m votes, and remain unaware of
the 5.0m late votes. Edison-Mitofsky matched the Final Exit
Poll to the initial 117m recorded votes. 
 
Kerry's 52.98% share (2.65 of the 5.01m late votes) of the
122.29m recorded total is 64.79m. Adding his 75% share  of
uncounted votes (2.58 of 3.45m) brings his final total to
67.37m (53.5%). This is quite close to the Election Calculator
 
model which determined that Kerry won by 53.2-45.4%. The model
accounted for total votes cast in 2000 (recorded  plus
uncounted) less mortality and assumed a 95% turnout of 2000
voters in 2004. The 12:22am NEP vote shares were  used to
calculate the national vote. 
 
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 initial  recorded votes
 
How does one explain the discrepancies between the initial and
late recorded state vote shares? Kerry’s late vote share
exceeded his initial share in 38 states (15 of 19 battleground
states). Corresponding 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 that Bush was winning the
popular vote while the state and national exit polls indicated
that  Kerry was winning big. In the Far Western states there
was virtually no difference between the 15.6m initial and 3.3m
late  recorded vote shares; Kerry was a steady 53% winner. But
the Far West average exit poll WPE was 6.4%, indicating a  56%
Kerry share. Was vote-padding still in effect? 
 
1) Final state an national exit polls were adjusted to match
the recorded vote.
2) Unadjusted “pristine” state exit polls were close to the
True vote.
3) The final 5 million recorded votes were close to the True
vote.
 
 
Final Recorded Vote
Bush              62,040,610       50.73%
Kerry             59,028,439       48.27%
Other              1,224,499        1.00%
Total            122,293,548        100%
 
Initial 117.28m votes                         
Bush              59,834,866       51.02%
Kerry             56,373,514       48.07%
Other             1,073,874         0.91%
Total            117,282,254        100%
 
Late 5.0m votes
Bush              2,205,744        44.02%
Kerry             2,654,925        52.98%
Other               150,625         3.00%
Total             5,011,294         100%
 
 
Kerry Vote Share Summary
Recorded   Kerry    Votes
Final      48.27%   122.3m
Initial    48.07%   117.3m
Late       52.98%     5.0m
 
State Exit Polls based on weighted average WPE 
Method     Kerry   WPE   WtdAvg   Description
VNS        51.8%   5.9%  7.1%    VNS: 4 outliers removed from
average 
DSS        52.2%   6.7%  7.7%    Decision Summary Screen: 4
outliers removed
IMS        51.9%   6.3%  7.3%    Input Mgt Screen: no outliers
removed
 
National Exit Poll Timeline (Gender demographic)
3:59pm     50.48% 8349 respondents
7:33pm     50.78% 11027   
12:22am    50.78% 13047
Final      47.78% 13660 (matched to initial 117m recorded
votes)
 
True Vote  53.23% (Election Calculator-see below)
 
  
The Final 5.6 Million Recorded Votes
                                                             
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htm
        
Kerry 2-party Unweighted Average Vote Share                   
                          
States grouped by Total Late Votes 
 
Late     Exit     Late      Diff
100k+    55.1%    54.8%     0.3%
30-100k  47.0%    49.5%    -2.6%
10-30k   50.2%    54.6%    -4.4%
0-10k    48.3%    51.4%    -3.2%
                                   
All      50.0%    52.5%    -2.5%
 
 
Kerry’s 2-party Regional Average Share                        
                     
 
* State had less than 2000 late votes
 
Avg       Final    Initial   Late    Change    WPE      Exit
Wtd       48.8%    48.5%     54.3%    5.8%     5.8%     51.6%
Unwtd     48.4%    48.4%     52.0%    3.7%     6.0%     51.5%
 
Weighted 
East      56.5%    56.2%    62.4%    6.2%     9.7%     61.3%
Midwest   48.1%    48.1%    56.1%    8.1%     3.4%     49.8%
South     42.7%    42.6%    46.6%    4.0%     5.8%     45.6%
West      41.7%    41.7%    41.9%    0.2%     4.8%     44.1%
FarW      53.2%    53.3%    53.0%    -0.2%    6.4%     56.4%
 
Avg      Final    Initial  Late    Change    WPE      Exit
  
East                                                
CT       55.3%    55.3%    56.3%    1.0%     15.7%    63.3%
DC*      90.5%    90.5%    90.5%    0.0%     3.4%     92.2%
DE*      53.8%    53.8%    67.3%    13.4%    15.9%    61.9%
MA       62.7%    62.7%    71.5%    8.8%     5.8%     65.7%
MD       56.6%    56.2%    60.3%    4.1%     8.1%     60.7%
                                                    
ME*      54.6%    54.5%    87.3%    33.0%    3.8%     56.5%
NH*      50.7%    50.7%    55.8%    5.2%     13.6%    57.6%
NJ       53.4%    53.1%    57.6%    4.5%     9.7%     58.3%
NY       59.3%    58.8%    65.8%    7.0%     11.4%    65.1%
PA       51.3%    51.1%    58.6%    7.5%     8.8%     55.7%
RI       60.6%    60.5%    62.6%    2.1%     4.7%     63.0%
VT*      60.3%    60.3%    48.7%    -11.6%   15.0%    68.0%
                                                    
Avg      Final    Initial  Late    Change    WPE      Exit
Midwest                                             
IA       49.7%    49.5%    62.1%    12.6%    3.0%     51.2%
IL       55.2%    55.1%    70.3%    15.2%    4.4%     57.4%
IN       39.6%    39.5%    62.0%    22.6%    1.5%     40.3%
KS       37.1%    37.0%    42.7%    5.8%     1.7%     38.0%
OH       48.9%    48.7%    56.2%    7.4%     10.9%    54.4%
                                                    
MI       51.7%    51.7%    58.4%    6.7%     6.3%     54.9%
MN       51.8%    51.8%    47.9%    -3.9%    9.3%     56.5%
MO       46.4%    46.3%    63.8%    17.5%    5.8%     49.3%
ND*      36.1%    36.1%    37.4%    1.3%     -5.2%    33.4%
NE       33.2%    33.0%    43.6%    10.6%    8.1%     37.3%
                                                    
OK*      34.4%    34.4%    34.4%    0.0%     -1.9%    33.5%
SD       39.1%    39.1%    32.8%    -6.3%    -4.2%    37.0%
WI       50.2%    50.2%    36.3%    -13.9%   4.7%     52.6%
 
Avg     Final   Initial   Late    Change    WPE      Exit
South                                               
AL*     37.1%    37.1%    67.6%    30.6%    11.3%    42.8%
AR      45.1%    45.0%    48.2%    3.2%     0.5%     45.3%
FL      47.5%    47.5%    50.5%    3.0%     7.6%     51.3%
GA      41.6%    41.6%    46.2%    4.6%     2.2%     42.8%
LA      42.7%    42.6%    79.5%    36.9%    3.8%     44.6%
                                                    
KY*     40.0%    40.0%    30.2%    -9.8%    -0.1%    39.9%
MS      40.1%    40.0%    44.2%    4.3%     11.3%    46.2%
NC      43.8%    43.7%    45.4%    1.6%     11.3%    49.4%
SC      41.4%    41.3%    45.1%    3.8%     10.0%    46.4%
TN*     42.8%    42.8%    56.0%    13.2%    0.5%     43.1%
                                                    
VA      45.9%    45.8%    48.8%    3.0%     7.9%     49.8%
WV      43.5%    43.6%    40.5%    -3.0%    -5.8%    40.6%
TX      38.5%    38.5%    45.3%    6.8%     4.8%     40.9%
 
Avg      Final    Initial  Late    Change    WPE      Exit
West                                                
CO       47.6%    47.3%    53.6%    6.3%     6.1%     50.7%
ID*      30.7%    30.7%    15.4%    -15.3%   1.0%     31.2%
MT*      39.5%    39.5%    37.0%    -2.5%    -1.8%    38.6%
NM       49.6%    49.4%    61.4%    11.9%    7.8%     53.5%
NV       48.7%    48.7%    50.4%    1.8%     10.1%    53.8%
                                                    
UT       26.7%    27.1%    21.4%    -5.7%    6.4%     29.9%
WY*      29.7%    29.7%    23.8%    -5.9%    4.3%     31.9%
 
Avg     Final     Initial  Late    Chg      WPE      Exit
Far West                                            
AK       36.8%    36.2%    39.0%    2.8%     9.6%     41.7%
AZ       44.7%    44.7%    44.7%    -0.1%    4.6%     47.0%
CA       55.0%    55.2%    54.4%    -0.8%    10.9%    60.6%
HI*      54.4%    54.4%    82.6%    28.3%    4.7%     56.8%
OR       52.1%    52.0%    54.6%    2.6%     0.0%     52.1%
WA       53.6%    53.5%    57.7%    4.2%     8.4%     57.9%
 
 
 
 
 
 
Calculated True Vote based on Late share + Uncounted share
 
         Late     Share    Recorded    +Unctd = True Vote     
Kerry    2.65     53.0%    64.79        2.58    67.37 53.6%
Bush     2.21     44.0%    53.80        0.79    54.59 43.4%
Other    0.15     3.0%     3.71         0.07     3.78  3.0%
 
Total    5.01     100%     122.30       3.45   125.74 100%
 
 
Calculate 2004 True Vote based on 12:22am NEP adjusted for 
a feasible returning voter mix
 
Assumptions:
Uncounted Votes                    
         Cast    Census   Uncounted
2004     2.74%    125.74   3.45
2000     4.86%    110.80   5.38
                          
Uncounted Vote share
2004              2000     
Kerry    75%      Gore     75%
Bush     23%      Bush     20%
Other    2%       Nader    5%
                          
2000 Annual Voter Mortality                         
Total    1.22%            
Gore share 50.4%          
                          
2000 Voter Turnout in 2004                          
Gore     95%              
Bush     95%              
Other    95%              
 
2000 Recorded                                       
Voted    Rec      Unctd    Cast     Deaths   Alive    
Gore     51.00    4.04     55.04    2.71     52.33    
Bush     50.46    1.08     51.53    2.47     49.07    
Other    3.96     0.27     4.23     0.21     4.02     
                                                    
Total    105.42   5.38     110.80   5.38     105.42   
                                                    
2004 Calculated                    
       Turnout  Voted   Weight   Kerry    Bush   Other
DNV       -     25.59    20.4%    57%      41%      2%
Gore     95%    49.71    39.5%    91%      8%       1%
Bush     95%    46.61    37.1%    10%      90%      0%
Other    95%    3.82      3.0%    64%      17%      19%
                                            
        100.15  125.74   100%    53.23%    45.39%   1.38%
                                 66.93     57.07    1.74 
 

								

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. the crucial error appears to be here:

To compare 2000 to 2004, we compare apples to apples by
eliminating the third-party influence. So we must add back 3%
of the 4.6% third-party share who defected in 2004 to Gore’s
share and 1% to Bush. Gore’s adjusted recorded lever share
increases from 59.8% to 62.8% (2.6% lower than his 65.4% late
paper share).

In 2000, Gore had 65.4% of NY late votes.
In the unadjusted exit poll, Gore had 61.9%. 
Adding back the 3% who defected to Kerry and Gore had an
adjusted 64.9% lever share.

So, you're saying that we "must" add 3 points to Gore's vote share in the lever returns. And we must add 3 points to Gore's vote share in the exit poll. But apparently we mustn't add 3 points to Gore's vote share in the paper returns.

Nice try, I guess, but the fact remains that the gap between the lever and paper returns is very similar in all three years, whereas you allege that the level of miscount is not.

(By the way, if your analysis here were valid, then it would be fair to conclude that the uniform increase in paper share was just a coincidence -- that, properly "adjusted," it was smaller in 2000 than in 2004 or 2008.)

[WillE]

2. Yes, the NY late vote indicated a Gore bias. But there was NO Kerry bias in 2004. And 2008 ?

You are right about the 2000 adjustment, it should not have been made.
In 2004, there was ZERO late vote bias.
All the more reason we should have the NY 2008 exit poll, yes?

But it does not take anything away from the full late vote analysis in NY and nationwide. Why anyone would give the post a negative rec? There is plenty of info here which has not been mentioned in the media. It just adds to the accumulated evidence that the election was stolen. Why would anyone on a Democratic forum be critical of evidence which supports their case?

Let's NOT just dismiss the late vote share CORRELATION to the 2004 state exit polls. There was a 0.72 correlation between 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 (see the OP).

Ok, let's remove the 2000 adjustment:
Gore had 65.4% of NY late votes.
In the NY 2000 unadjusted exit poll, Gore had 61.9%, Bush 33.5, Nader 4.6
Gore's late vote share was 3.5% higher than his exit poll share.
This indicates that NY late 2000 voters were biased in favor of Gore.

In 2004, Kerry won 64.3% of NY late votes.
His GEO exit poll share was 65.1%.
The late voter share matched to within 0.8% of the exit poll.
This indicates that there was NO late vote bias in 2004.

In 2008, Obama won 70.7% of NY late votes.
His recorded Election Day (lever) share was 62.2% and his
His total recorded share was 62.8%.
We don't have the unadjusted exit poll.
There is no 2008 exit poll report.

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 initial recorded votes

How does one explain the discrepancies between the initial and late recorded state vote shares? Kerry’s late vote share exceeded his initial share in 38 states (15 of 19 battleground states). Corresponding vote discrepancies were significant in the East but near zero in the Far West, strongly suggesting election fraud in early-reporting, vote-rich battleground and BLUE states.

A false early impression was created that Bush was winning the popular vote while the state and national exit polls indicated that Kerry was winning. In the Far Western states there was virtually no difference between the 15.6m initial and 3.3m late recorded vote shares; Kerry was a steady 53% winner. But the Far West average exit poll WPE was 6.4%, indicating a 56% Kerry share. Was vote-padding still in effect?

Not a single media pundit has ever noted the following:
1) Final state exit polls and a mathematically impossible National Exit poll were adjusted to match the recorded vote.
2) Unadjusted “pristine” state exit polls were close to the True vote.
3) Final 5 million recorded votes were close to the True vote.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. it seems to me that you are simply ruling out an obvious possibility

You say here that the paper voters were biased toward Gore in 2000 but not toward Kerry in 2004. That's possible, if (for instance) the Bush campaign did relatively better in absentee voting in 2004 than in 2000, and did relatively the same in provisional/affidavit ballots. But I don't know of a reason to expect that a priori. if anything, I might have expected Kerry to widen the paper gap. (As you know, I would not have used paper ballots in New York as a benchmark in the first place: I would expect provisional ballots to skew strongly but perhaps variably Democratic, and the split of absentee ballots could well depend on campaign mobilization efforts.)

What about the possibility that the exit polls really were more accurate in 2000 than they were in 2004? Why do you seemingly reject that possibility out of hand? Is it really just unimaginable to you? It dovetails nicely with, for instance, the shift/swing results that I can't seem to get you actually to look at. (If I used change in WPE as the shift measure, would that help?)

I don't see your point about "the high correlation between state exit polls and late vote shares." If you're looking across states, pretty much any measure of partisan preference is likely to be highly correlated with any other: no matter how you slice it, Massachusetts is a lot bluer than Wyoming. I think I've addressed the other points previously.

ETA: Just by accident, I came across this article, which I had long since forgotten: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/10/the_bush_landsl.html . It's interesting that Mark Blumenthal was writing about what I call "false recall" (but he interprets as false reporting due to "social discomfort") a month before the 2004 election. You might construe this as a clue that survey researchers tend to think differently about these issues than you do. Or I guess you might construe that he was in on the plot?!

[WillE]

6. It seems to me that you easily dismiss the very strong State Late vote vs. Exit Poll correlation

It seems to me that you ignore the very strong State Late vote vs. Exit poll correlation

For the Top 20 late vote states:
Kerry's average Late vote share was 52.2%;
his average exit poll share was 51.5%
The correlation for the Top 20 was 0.92

I know you like scatter charts.
But knowing you, I don't think you will appreciate this one.


Top Correl Group Correl
1-10 0.86 1-10 0.86
1-20 0.92 11-20 0.94
1-30 0.77 21-30 0.23
1-40 0.64 31-40 0.61

1-51 0.72 41-51 0.84


State Late Vote Exit Late
CA 2589 60.6% 54.4%
NY 499 65.1% 65.8%
AZ 369 47.0% 44.7%
NJ 206 58.3% 57.6%
MD 200 60.7% 60.3%

OH 172 54.4% 56.2%
PA 127 55.7% 58.6%
OR 123 52.1% 54.6%
WA 123 57.9% 57.7%
CO 112 50.7% 53.6%

NC 106 49.4% 45.4%
VA 103 49.8% 48.8%
UT 77.1 29.9% 21.4%
AK 70.8 41.7% 39.0%
GA 66.8 42.8% 46.2%

IL 66.6 57.4% 70.3%
TX 66.6 40.9% 45.3%
MA 51.3 65.7% 71.5%
FL 46.8 51.3% 50.5%
KS 40.4 38.0% 42.7%
---------------------------------------------------
SC 37.8 46.4% 45.1%
CT 34.9 63.3% 56.3%
MS 34.8 46.2% 44.2%
IN 32.6 40.3% 62.0%
MI 29.4 54.9% 58.4%

MO 24.8 49.3% 63.8%
RI 24.1 63.0% 62.6%
IA 21.4 51.2% 62.1%
MN 21.1 56.5% 47.9%
AR 18.1 45.3% 48.2%

NE 16.6 37.3% 43.6%
NV 16.5 53.8% 50.4%
LA 15.1 44.6% 79.5%
WI 14.6 52.6% 36.3%
NM 14.4 53.5% 61.4%

WV 12.1 40.6% 40.5%
ID* 9.27 31.2% 15.4%
AL* 7.61 42.8% 67.6%
ME* 6.88 56.5% 87.5%
KY* 5.84 39.9% 30.2%

MT* 5.47 38.6% 37.0%
HI* 3.59 56.8% 82.6%
VT* 3.55 68.0% 48.7%
WY* 2.95 31.9% 23.8%
ND* 2.43 33.4% 37.4%

NH* 2.42 57.6% 55.8%
SD 2.13 37.0% 32.8%
DC* 1.88 92.2% 90.5%
DE* 1.62 61.9% 67.3%
TN* 0.32 43.1% 56.0%
OK* 0.03 33.5% 39.1%

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. it seems to me that you didn't read my post

There isn't much point in bothering with fifty points if you can't follow even one or two.

What is the correlation between the complete official returns and the exit poll results?

ETA: At the risk of stating the obvious, you actually offered no substantive response to any part of my post.

[WillE]

8. You see, the point is: the exit polls were RIGHT in 2004. Kerry really DID win.

You see, the point is...the exit polls were RIGHT in 2004. Kerry really did win.

The late votes (mostly paper ballots) came in AFTER the fraud was completed.
The EVIDENCE shows that the late votes closely MATCHED the exit polls.
That EVIDENCE was CONFIRMED by the STRONG CORRELATION between the exit polls and the late votes.

But you want to compare to the bogus recorded vote.
You will resort to any means to distract and confuse.
Just trying to AVOID the FACTS won't work this time.

Readers WILL comprehend the essential logic...
Despite all your unending efforts to OBFUSCATE.

Of course, as always you dismiss any and all EVIDENCE that the 2004 election was stolen.
You still maintain that the EXIT POLLS WERE WRONG and the OFFICIAL VOTE COUNT WAS CORRECT.
Therefore one must conclude that YOU still BELIEVE that Bush won in a FAIR ELECTION.

But that's what you claimed in 2005.
That's what you now still claim in 2009.
And that's what you'll be claiming in 2012.

AS A DEMOCRAT ON A DEMOCRATIC FORUM, WHY HAVE YOU BEEN TRYING OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS TO CONVINCE OTHER DEMOCRATS ON THIS DEMOCRATIC FORUM THAT BUSH, A REPUBLICAN, REALLY DID WIN THE 2004 ELECTION?

CAN YOU ANSWER THAT SIMPLE QUESTION?
CAN YOU JUST THIS ONCE ILLUMINATE RATHER THAN OBFUSCATE?

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. that's a claim, and your own evidence undermines it

Again, you posted evidence that the gap between lever and paper votes in New York was (to use your hyperbolic word) "uniform" in 2000, 2004, and 2008. If that suggests anything, it suggests that the level of miscount on lever machines was similar (whether high or low) in those years, and therefore, that at least some of the exit polls were wrong.

(I think this is far from the best evidence that the exit polls have been wrong, but hey, it's your evidence, so I'm trying to work with it. I think we all noticed that provisional voters aren't exactly a random sample of the electorate. Didn't we?)

For a moment, you tried to solve this problem by arguing that the gap wasn't uniform at all -- that, properly construed, it was narrower in 2000. That didn't work, so now apparently you are back to trying to change the subject.

The EVIDENCE shows that the late votes closely MATCHED the exit polls.

That is incorrect. Your table actually shows that the closest "MATCH()" between late votes and exit polls was in 2004.

That EVIDENCE was CONFIRMED by the STRONG CORRELATION between the exit polls and the late votes.

That inference is incorrect, and rather jarringly so. Using your data, I was able to replicate your finding that for the 50 states plus DC, the correlation between late vote and exit poll share is 0.72. I was also able to calculate that the correlation between initial vote and exit poll share is 0.976. By your reasoning, surely, this is very strong evidence that the initial vote totals are correct and some of the late votes have been corrupted. I can't imagine how to construe it as evidence that the late vote count is more accurate than the initial vote count.

Limiting the analysis to your top 20 states narrows the gap but doesn't fundamentally help your cause. Again, I replicate your correlation between late vote and exit poll share, 0.92; the correlation between initial vote and exit poll share is 0.984. This might be construed as evidence that some of the late votes have been corrupted -- or that some late-vote counts are more representative (or differently biased) than others.

I further reckoned, using your data, that the correlation between WPE and "change" from initial to final vote is 0.095, p = 0.51 -- exquisitely non-significant. (In the top 20 states, it's actually negative and non-significant.) This result constitutes strong prima facie evidence that these two quantities do not measure the same underlying variable (fraud or anything else).

Maybe we could at least check whether the late votes are more strongly correlated with the initial votes or the exit poll returns? Certainly we could. In the top 20 states, the correlations are 0.948 and 0.920, respectively, which could be construed as weak evidence that the initial votes are more accurate than the exit poll results. Across all 50 states plus DC, the correlations are 0.726 and 0.721, basically indistinguishable (although the difference is in the same direction). I don't think any of these results amount to much, but they surely don't support your argument.

Since these correlations are reckoned from your own data, it's hard to fathom how you could have failed to compute them, or failed to report them, whichever is the case. At this point, you might want to consider asking readers to forget all about the late vote counts.

(CAPS LOCK DISORDER)

I don't claim that the official vote count was strictly correct, but I do believe that the exit polls were wrong (i.e., that the error exceeded the statistical "margin of error"). As a separate issue, I also believe that a full recount (if possible) would confirm that Bush received more votes. None of this amounts to claiming a fair election. It's hard to believe that you're incapable of making these distinctions.

Do you think your position is flattering to Democrats? I don't. But, more to the point, I don't think it's true. If you want me to change my mind, first you will need better arguments.

[WillE]

10. You still believe that Bush won, "the greatest miracle of all"

Thanks for affirming my point: You still believe Bush won.
At least you are consistent.
But AFAIK, only YOU still believe that Bush won.

So why must you keep trying to drill your "belief" that Bush won into the heads of Democrats on this Democratic Forum who believe otherwise. They have seen ZERO evidence that Bush won.

Professor Steven Freeman holds a Ph.D. from the MIT Sloan School of Management.
He is on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics.
He teaches research methods and survey design, a domain that includes polling. He has received national awards for his research.

I quote from Freeman's wonderful book "Was the 2004 Presidential election stolen":

"By these calculations, the 2004 electorate comprised 45.2 million Gore 2000 voters and a remarkable 52.6 million Bush 2000 voters - remarkable because in 2000 Bush received only 50.5 million votes. If we are to believe the NEP figures, this is indeed the greatest miracle of all in the 2004 election: ONE in NINE Gore voters, through death, disability or divine intervention, disappeared from the electorate, but no such fate befell a SINGLE Bush 2000 voter. Indeed, another TWO million miraculously appeared."

Mitofsky initially said the massive discrepancy was due to more Kerry voters responding than Bush voters (rBr). But he was refuted by his own data set. Duh, maybe that's because there WERE more Kerry voters. He never considered THAT possibility. And neither, in 2009, do you.

He also said that there was absolutely nothing wrong with his exit poll design.

So once again, I will ask the simple question: Who still agrees with you?
Where is the book that proves Bush won? Hell, forget the book.
Where is YOUR EVIDENCE?

Your "belief" that the exit polls were wrong just doesn't cut it.

Are we to believe that ALL the mathematically-trained election researchers are wrong?
And that YOU are right?
How do YOU explain THAT?
What makes YOU so ALL-KNOWING?

Is YOUR "evidence" more convincing than THEIR evidence?
Your "evidence" is simply a "belief" that returning Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry.

You say:
I don't claim that the official vote count was strictly correct, but I do believe that the exit polls were wrong (i.e., that the error exceeded the statistical "margin of error"). As a separate issue, I also believe that a full recount (if possible) would confirm that Bush received more votes. None of this amounts to claiming a fair election. It's hard to believe that you're incapable of making these distinctions.

As usual, you have complicated a very straightforward analysis:
Late vote shares = exit poll shares
Late vote shares <> recorded vote shares

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. this is yet another non-responsive post

"As usual, you have complicated a very straightforward analysis...."

Awwwww. Am I killing your buzz?

Your analysis is "straightforward" because you're ignoring most of the evidence. Your post is non-responsive for exactly the same reason.

I'm not trying to drill anything into the heads of Democrats -- I'm just pointing out that a lot of your arguments are crap. If your best response is to appeal to the authority of a Ph.D. in an unrelated field, well, good luck with that. At least you have the sense not to defend your arguments on the merits.

[WillE]

12. I asked you for YOUR evidence. You resort to whining.

Your evidence is not "crap".
Because you have no evidence.

You do not appeal to authority.
Only to Skinner.
But there is no authority whose arguments coincide with your "beliefs".

Except for Farhad.
And MP.
And Mitofsky. RIP

I am not appealing to authority.
I do not need to appeal to authority.

I'm just telling the truth.
And you cannot deal with it.

Freeman wrote a book.
Where is yours?

You don't need one.
You have left your tracks all over the Internet.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. umm, is post #9 actually invisible, or what?

Do you simply not register the existence of contrary arguments? It's not just wishful, it's downright magical.

Oh, by the way, that bit about "ALL-KNOWING"? from the creator of the "True Vote"?

[WillE]

14. Your obfuscation won't work. Late votes, exit polls and True votes INDEPENDENTLY expose you.

FACTS
1. The late vote closely matched the exit polls.
2. The recorded vote was way off.
3. The fact that the recorded/late vote correlation is high is IRRELEVANT and to be expected.
That's because there is also a correlation between the EXIT POLLS and the RECORDED VOTE.
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.
AND YOU JUST FOUND THAT OUT?
The exit polls are HIGHER THAN THE RECORDED VOTE for Kerry in virtually EVERY state.

4. The EXIT POLL/LATE VOTE CORRELATION is something that has NEVER been mentioned anywhere else.
The reason why it is RELEVANT is that late votes comprised just 5% of the TOTAL recorded vote. Therefore the late vote/exit poll correlation is SIGNIFICANT since the late votes are a relatively small SUBSET of the TOTAL vote.

Nice try.

As far as your snide comment regarding the True Vote model, you are just frustrated that it CONFIRMED THE EXIT POLLS IN NEW YORK (65-64), PENNSYLVANIA (55-56) AND NATIONAL (53-52).

You never wrote a True Vote Model because you are not interested in the True Vote.

No one is as good as you when it comes to obfuscation and diversion.
You have obfuscated for 4 years because very few are willing (or able) to confront you directly.
They know that you will avoid an honest appraisal of the evidence.
Your arrogance is intimidating to many.
Except for yours truly.

I enjoy making you squirm and go into all sorts of contortions to obfuscate.

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. "what are you going to do, bleed on me?"

Umm, yeah, I suppose everyone who thinks about it knows that there's a correlation between the exit polls and the recorded vote. In fact, everyone who thinks about it should know what I pointed out back in post #3: "pretty much any measure of partisan preference is likely to be highly correlated with any other." That takes care of the correlation you touted. (Yes, of course, late votes are a small fraction of all votes; how does that make your correlation more "RELEVANT"?)

However, you're trying to convince people that the gap between late and initial votes is partly caused by miscount, and that the "red shift" is partly caused by miscount. As I noted in post #9, the near-zero correlation between those variables is strong evidence that at least one of those claims is wrong. As I've noted many times, the near-zero correlation between red shift and change from 2000 is further evidence against your claim that red shift evinces massive miscount; the near-zero correlation between red shift and deviation from your own pre-election predictions is further evidence. You have never had a coherent response to any of this evidence. Instead, you point to other correlations which ought to be high whether or not miscount occurred.

Is anyone seriously supposed to be impressed that after the election, you can come up with some numbers that (to your satisfaction) dovetail with the exit polls, and call those numbers the True Vote? That would be like being impressed that creationists can (to their own satisfaction) date dinosaurs to 3000 BC. Facially, that just isn't a credible argument. No one who cares about the true vote can afford to accept your True Vote based on this flimsy warrant.

But maybe none of this really matters because I'm just being all sneaky and mean and scary. If that's your best card, you might as well play it.

ETA: Let's take a moment to see what TruthIsAll says about his "Election Calculator":

The Election Calculator is a compact, powerful Excel workbook model for calculating the True vote for presidential elections since 1988. The model was created by Internet poster TruthIsAll.

The Calculator determines the number of returning prior election voters based on user input assumptions. For example, to calculate the True 2004 vote, click the "2004" tab. Enter data assumptions (or use the pre-set defaults) for the current and prior election: uncounted votes, voter mortality (defaults are based on Census and mortality tables) and the candidates’ share of returning 2000 voters (default to the 12:22am National Exit Poll update)....

Since users enter their own input assumptions, they cannot dispute the results....

"Since users enter their own input assumptions, they cannot dispute the results." Houston, we have a problem.

[WillE]

16. You are in a state of pure panic; you are the one bleeding

The purpose of any model, Mr. Other (at least models that professionals create) is to enable the user to playt "what if" and try any assumprtiuons that he wants. They call it stress-testing.

You are under stress.
You have failed the test.

You have never qwritten a model, so of course you are not aware of that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. hahaha

I've rebutted every one of your points, and you've barely pretended to respond to most of mine. It's mildly interesting to speculate whether you can actually believe that you're winning. I suppose so, since presumably you assume that you've won before you start.

[WillE]

18. You are dreaming..

You are in your own cocoon.
No one believes anything you say anymore.

You were exposed long ago.
You are at ROCK-BOTTOM.
You can't go down any further.

I guess you have nothing to lose.
You have already lost.
Over and over again.

I will ask you once again.
Where is your model?

Have you ever contributed anything another than your Truth Is All FAQ, which turned out to be a total disaster for you.

But you have indirectly done us all a service: your 4 years of sniping, naysaying and obfuscating have actually helped researchers who have devoted themselves to exposing Bushco election fraud. Your obfuscations have inspired them to develop more powerful evidence.

You have never accepted ONE argument from scores of researchers which indicated that Bush stole the election. Not a single one.
I defy anyone to google a post where you have ever commended anyone.

At this point, there is no longer any question about the extent of Bushco fraud in manufacturing that bogus 3.0 million "mandate", yet you still maintain that Bush won THE TRUE VOTE WHICH YOU JUST LAUGH AT.

What choir are you preaching to?

Answer this after you wipe the blood from your nose:
Who still believes that Bush won fairly?
Give us some names.

And who still believes your arguments?
Give us some names.

Who has written the book that attempts to prove that Bush won the 2004 election?
Give us some names.

What models have you developed?
Give us some names.

How can anyone one can accept your arguments and at the same time believe that Bushco was corrupted our elections - in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and even in 2008. THERE IS A SUPER DISCONNECT THERE.

ANYONE READING THIS THREAD SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES:
1) DID BUSHCO STEAL ELECTIONS?

2) IF HE DID, THEN HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THAT YOUR "ANALYSIS" HAS ANY CREDIBILITY SINCE YOU HAVE CLAIMED ALL ALONG THAT BUSH WON FAIRLY?

3) SINCE YOUR ANALYSIS HAS ZERO CREDIBILITY, AND AS MORE AND MORE EVIDENCE OF BUSHCO CORRUPTION IS REVEALED, WHY ARE YOU SO COMMITTED TO A RELENTLESS AGENDA OF OBFUSCATION?

4) AREN'T YOU JUST A WEE-BIT EMBARASSED TOBE IN THAT POSITION?

5) WHO IS GOING TO HITCH THEIR WAGON TO YOU AT THIS POINT?

BTW, how is Farhad doing? Have you been in touch with him lately?
Does he regret that RFK hit piece you helped write in June 2006?

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. do you have any substantive response to post #9?

Or is this really more about starting fights than analyzing evidence? I know the opinion I'm forming.

Out in the real world, if any quantitative political scientist agrees with you that the exit polls were basically accurate, s/he is keeping the secret well. You can scan the journals in vain for debate on this issue, much less support for your side of it. I'm marginalized as a political scientist not by believing that Bush really got more votes (whether or not he "won fairly"), but by trying to take you seriously.

But when you refuse to address substance, you can't be taken seriously. You simply aren't showing up for work. Febble did more to document election failures in the two months after the 2004 election than Team TruthIsAll has managed in almost five years.

Right here on DU, I presented model results showing how a Gore-to-Bush defection rate about double the Bush-to-Kerry defection rate was broadly consistent with the election returns, the National Election Study 2000-04 panel data, and other evidence. TruthIsAll had so little substantive to say about that model that he got tombstoned instead. I don't think things have changed much since then.

It's a bit annoying to wade through all the swill, but mostly it's boring. We already know that you don't like to be disagreed with. Tell us something we don't know. For instance: what is your substantive response to post #9?

[WillE]

20. Give us some names...

You cited Febble as closing the case in 2 months.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?

If she is reading this, Febble must be laughing at that one.

Once again....
Who still believes that Bush won fairly?
Give us some names.
Farhad Manjoo?

And who still believes your arguments?
Give us some names.
The Mystery Pollster?

Who has written the book that attempts to prove that Bush won the 2004 election?
Give us some names.
Mitofsky?

What models have you developed?
Give us some names.
Your pathetic "model" in the DU "Game" thread in which you were soundly trounced?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=390193&mesg_id=390193

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. do you have a substantive response to post #9?

I'll spend a few moments dealing with your derail, but I won't overlook the fact that you're derailing. It's probably your best play from a polemical standpoint, if this is all about the polemic.

"You cited Febble as closing the case in 2 months." No, I didn't. Wouldn't you look better if you could accurately paraphrase at least the post you are immediately replying to?

"Who still believes that Bush won fairly?" As I noted, this isn't about whether Bush "won fairly." Again, wouldn't you look better if you could accurately paraphrase at least the post you are immediately replying to?

So, maybe you intend to ask, what political scientists believe that Bush got more votes, and can I name them? Gee, what astrophysicists believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon? Can I name them? Can I cite the books that attempt to prove it? These questions are bass-ackwards. If astrophysicists regarded the moon landing as a subject of serious debate, you would be able to document that. Same thing here.

TruthIsAll got tombstoned during the "Game" thread, and his allies abandoned it. If that somehow proves that I was "soundly trounced," I'd be curious to learn why.

[WillE]

21. Umm, did you read the reply in post # 14, or what?

You just can't accept the fact that it cleaned your clock...

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. any reader can verify that you simply ignored my points

Moreover, any reader can go back to a recent thread and see how this sort of argument tends to play out.

Back in post #50 of Bill Bored's thread, I pointed out that you had made an error of over one million votes. You replied, in pertinent part, "You are a disingenuous nitpicker who needs to take an algebra class" -- and then simply repeated your argument, error and all. In post #52, I pointed out that no algebra was necessary to see your response. In post #55, you got so personal that the mods deleted your post. Finally, in post #57, you worked up to: "You were right.... I was correct up until step 6...." (Hey, thanks for manning up.)

So, at this point it seems reasonable to demand that you reply to my points, instead of restating all sorts of other reasons why you think I'm wrong, or impugning my motivations for daring to contradict you, or any of the other evasive maneuvers you've employed in the last two weeks or so. If you don't reply to my points, a plausible inference would be that you can't rebut them.

ETA: By the way, I responded to your points in #14 even though it wasn't responsive to my points. So, any attentive reader can confirm that I'm doing most of the work.

[WillE]

24. Our evidence vs. your evidence

And this DU post is from Sept. 2005!
Think of all the evidence that has been presented since.
2006 landslide denied.
2008 landslide denied.

We have come a long way baby!

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. do you have a substantive response to post #9?

With due respect to "nashville_brook," that post begins with the claims that "We know Kerry led the pre-election" state and national polls. But "we" don't know that at all. The polls themselves don't know that (granted, they are insentient). Only after TruthIsAll adjusts the polls does Kerry lead.

So, maybe there's a good reason that arguments like this haven't swept the field of political science. Arguments that are ridiculous on their face don't exactly entice most scholars to take a closer look. I've been very unusually patient in that regard.

Since you were asking about books, here's part of what Myagkov et al. have to say in The Forensics of Election Fraud: Russia and Ukraine (Cambridge University Press, 2009), with reference to the United States:

Put simply, with competition largely driving the most egregious forms of fraud into exile, fraud never reached the proportions it has achieved in Russia. It is true that books and Web sites proliferate with titles such as "Proof of election fraud exposed," "'Stinking evidence' of possible election fraud found in Florida,' and "The 2004 election: The mother of all election fraud," with their authors claiming to have discovered the nefarious reasons why exit polls and final tallies did not match or to have compiled some evidence or gained the testimony of some witness proving that someone somewhere stole some amount of votes in favor of someone and that the victory of a candidate they abhor is illegitimate.... But massive irregularities of the sort now endemic to Russia are not the problem <in the United States>. (pp. 234-235)

Myagkov et al. go on to apply their forensic tools to U.S. election data in support of this conclusion.

In fact, Myagkov et al. betray some complacency about the very possibility of massive election fraud in the United States. That complacency is, in part, the legacy of advocates who have focused on bad arguments about past elections at the expense of good arguments about wide-ranging vulnerabilities in election systems. Crying wolf. Trying to convince people that Kerry really won New York by thirty-something points is, perhaps, the apotheosis of crying wolf. No one (AFAIK) expected it; it's not clear whether anyone other than you believes it.

But, hey, never mind all that. Do you have a substantive response to post #9?

[WillE]

26. Back in the USSR Quoting two Ruskies? Show us their evidence

Back in the USSR Quoting two Ruskies? Show us their evidence.
You are reduced to quoting a couple of foreigners who know
squat about U.S. elections.
How pathetic.
At least show us their analysis.
Do some work for a change.

And while your at it, show us yours.

As long as you mention Florida, gag on this evidence that Bush
stole the election.
Did you ever do this kind of analysis?

1. 2004 REGISTRATION was heavily Democratic
2. Kerry led the UNADJUSTED exit polls

2004        Kerry    Bush
IMS WPE     51.0%   48.2%   
Best GEO    49.2    50.3    
Composite   49.3    50.1 

Recorded    47.1    52.1 ???????

3. Adjust Exit Poll weights to actual voter registration
shares
Kerry wins by 50.7-48.1% (200,000 votes) 

4. Adjust to plausible DRE and Opscan county vote shares
Kerry wins by 52.0-46.8% (400,000 votes) 

5. Sensitivity Analysis I: Calculate Kerry’s Florida vote
share and margin over a range of DRE and OS county
registration/vote share scenarios.  If Kerry won just 7% (his
National Exit Poll share) of Florida Republicans, then to win
the state he needs just  79% of Democrats in OpScan counties
and 86% in TS (DRE) counties.

6. Sensitivity Analysis II: Calculate Kerry’s Florida vote
share for various combination shares of Democrats and
Independents. Kerry wins the state if he captures 84% of
Democrats and 58% of independents.

7. FL PRE-ELECTION POLLS
The final moving average projection: 
Kerry 51.1-48.8%

8. Bush FL Final Exit Poll APPROVAL: 53%;  Kerry had 48.8% of
the vote. That is Bunk.
Bush FL approval was close to the national 48%. 
Kerry had 52.4%	of the vote.

9. WHEN DECIDED: Final FL Exit had Bush leading 54-46 one
month before the election. Bunk.
The pre-election polls showed a virtual tie 30 days before
(see the trend below). 
Kerry wins 52.2% of the vote.



Florida Recorded Vote (in thousands)
2000	Vote	Pct       2004	Vote     Pct
Gore	2912	48.8%	 Kerry	3584	47.1%
Bush 	2913	48.8%	 Bush	3965	52.1%
Other	139	2.4%	 Other	62	0.8%

Recorded Vote   by County Type
County Vote   Kerry   Bush    Other   Kerry   Bush Other
DRE    3.90   51.3%   47.8%   0.9%    2.00    1.86 .04
OS     3.71   42.3%   57.0%   0.7%    1.57    2.11 .03

Total  7.61   47.1%   52.1%   0.8%    3.57    3.98 .06

County	Mix	 Votes 	Kerry	Bush	Other	Kerry	Bush	Other
DRE 
Dem	41.57%	 1.62 	84%	15%	1%	1.36	0.24	0.02
Rep	36.13%	 1.41 	6%	93%	1%	0.08	1.31	0.01
Ind	22.30%	 0.87 	60%	38%	2%	0.52	0.33	0.02
								
Vote	3.903	 3.90 	50.5%	48.3%	1.2%	1.97	1.89	0.05
								
OS 
Dem	41.15%	 1.53 	71%	28%	1%	1.08	0.43	0.02
Rep	39.52%	 1.47 	5%	94%	1%	0.07	1.38	0.01
Ind	19.33%	 0.72 	60%	38%	2%	0.43	0.27	0.01
								
Vote	3.707	 3.71 	42.8%	56.0%	1.2%	1.59	2.08	0.04
								
Total
Dem	41.37%	 3.15 	77.7%	21.3%	1.0%	2.45	0.67	0.03
Rep	37.79%	 2.88 	5.5%	93.5%	1.0%	0.16	2.69	0.03
Ind	20.85%	 1.59 	60.0%	38.0%	2.0%	0.95	0.60	0.03
								
Vote	7.610	 7.61 	46.7%	52.1%	1.2%	3.56	3.96	0.09
                     

Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004
(see pg.32 for state WPE measures)

2004        Kerry    Bush
IMS WPE     51.0%   48.2%   
Best GEO    49.2    50.3    
Composite   49.3    50.1 

Recorded    47.1    52.1


Florida General Exit Poll 
Bush wins by 49.6-49.2% (30,000 votes)

	Reg	Votes	Kerry	Bush	Other	Kerry	Bush	Other
Dem	38%	 2.89    86%	13%	1%	2.49	0.38	0.03
Rep	39%	 2.97     7%	92%	1%	0.21	2.73	0.03
Ind	23%	 1.75    60%	38%	2%	1.05	0.67	0.04
								
Total	7.61	 7.61   49.2%	49.6%	1.2%	3.74	3.77	0.09

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
 	 	 	 	 	 
2000 Recorded		
Voted	Record	Unctd	Cast	Deaths	Alive
DNV					
Gore	2.91	0.13	3.04	0.16	2.89
Bush	2.91	0.04	2.95	0.14	2.81
Nader	0.14	0.01	0.14	0.01	0.14
 					
Total	5.96	0.17	6.14	0.30	5.84


2004 Calculated 	 
      Turnout	Voted	Weight	Kerry	Bush	Other
         DNV 	2.27	29.0%	54%	45%	1%
Gore     95%	2.74	35.1%	90%	10%	0%
Bush     95%	2.67	34.2%	9%	91%	0%
Nader    95%	0.13	1.6%	64%	19%	17%
					 
Total    5.55	7.81	100%	51.41%	48.02%	0.57%
 	 	        7.81 	4.02 	3.75 	0.04 

Sensitivity analysis				
										
												
 	 	 	 	 	 		 	 	 	 	 	 
	Kerry Vote Share	 		 	Kerry Vote Share	
 					 		 					 
Gore% of	Bush 2000 Turnout:95.0%	           Kerry share of
Bush 2000 voters: 9.0%	 
Unctd		Gore Voter Turnout		   Gore voters	New voters (DNV in
2000)	 
51.4%	91%	93%	95%	97%	99%	51.4%	50%	52%	54%	56%	58%

85%	51.0%	51.3%	51.6%	51.8%	52.1%	94%	51.6%	52.2%	52.8%	53.4%	54.0%
80%	51.0%	51.2%	51.5%	51.8%	52.0%	92%	50.9%	51.5%	52.1%	52.7%	53.3%
75%	50.9%	51.1%	51.4%	51.7%	51.9%	90%	50.2%	50.8%	51.4%	52.0%	52.6%
70%	50.8%	51.1%	51.3%	51.6%	51.9%	88%	49.5%	50.1%	50.7%	51.3%	51.9%
65%	50.7%	51.0%	51.2%	51.5%	51.8%	86%	48.8%	49.4%	50.0%	50.6%	51.2%
 					 		 					 
 		 Kerry Margin		 		 Kerry Margin		 
 					 		 					 
85%	0.21 	0.25 	0.29 	0.33 	0.38 	94%	0.30 	0.39 	0.48 	0.57
	0.67
80%	0.19 	0.24 	0.28 	0.32 	0.36 	92%	0.19 	0.28 	0.37 	0.46
	0.56
75%	0.18 	0.22 	0.26 	0.31 	0.35 	90%	0.08 	0.17 	0.26 	0.35
	0.45
70%	0.17 	0.21 	0.25 	0.29 	0.33 	88%	-0.03	0.06 	0.15 	0.25
	0.34
65%	0.15 	0.20 	0.24 	0.28 	0.32 	86%	-0.14	-0.05	0.04 	0.14
	0.23
												
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Model II – Adjusted Florida General Exit Poll (Composite)
County Registration Weights and Vote shares 

Unadjusted Exit Poll 
The WPE (Within Precinct Error) is the average difference in
margin between the raw, unadjusted exit poll and recorded
vote.
Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 51.0-48.2% (210,000
votes).   

Composite Estimate
The Composite is the adjusted weighted average of the Prior
Estimate and Best Survey Estimate.  

Florida General (Composite) Exit Poll 
Bush won the poll by 49.6-49.2% (30,000 votes) 

	Reg	Votes	Kerry	Bush	Other	Kerry	Bush	Other
Dem	38%	 2.89    86%	13%	1%	2.49	0.38	0.03
Rep	39%	 2.97     7%	92%	1%	0.21	2.73	0.03
Ind	23%	 1.75    60%	38%	2%	1.05	0.67	0.04
								
Total	7.61	 7.61   49.2%	49.6%	1.2%	3.74	3.77	0.09

Adjust Exit Poll weights to actual voter registration shares
Kerry wins by 50.7-48.1% (200,000 votes) 
 
			
	Mix	 Votes 	Kerry	Bush	Other	Kerry	Bush	Other
Dem	41.37%	 3.15 	86%	13%	1%	2.71	0.41	0.03
Rep	37.79%	 2.88 	7%	92%	1%	0.20	2.65	0.03
Ind	20.85%	 1.59 	60%	38%	2%	0.95	0.60	0.03
								
Vote	7.61 	 7.61 	50.73%	48.06%	1.21%	3.86	3.66	0.09
	

Adjust to plausible DRE and Opscan county vote shares
Kerry wins by 52.0-46.8% (400,000 votes) 

DRE	Mix	 Votes 	Kerry	Bush	Other	Kerry	Bush	Other
Dem	41.57%	 1.62 	90%	9%	1%	1.46	0.15	0.02
Rep	36.13%	 1.41 	7%	92%	1%	0.10	1.30	0.01
Ind	22.30%	 0.87 	62%	36%	2%	0.54	0.31	0.02
								
Vote	3.903	 3.90 	53.8%	45.0%	1.2%	2.10	1.76	0.05
								
OS 								
Dem	41.15%	 1.53 	87%	12%	1%	1.33	0.18	0.02
Rep	39.52%	 1.47 	7%	92%	1%	0.10	1.35	0.01
Ind	19.33%	 0.72 	60%	38%	2%	0.43	0.27	0.01
								
Vote	3.707	 3.71 	50.2%	48.6%	1.2%	1.86	1.80	0.04
								
Total								
Dem	41.37%	 3.15 	88.5%	10.5%	1.0%	2.79	0.33	0.03
Rep	37.79%	 2.88 	7.0%	92.0%	1.0%	0.20	2.65	0.03
Ind	20.85%	 1.59 	61.1%	36.9%	2.0%	0.97	0.59	0.03
								
Vote	7.61	 7.61 	52.0%	46.8%	1.2%	3.96	3.56	0.09


Sensitivity Analysis I

Calculate Kerry’s Florida vote share and margin over a range
of TS and OS county registration/vote share scenarios.  

If Kerry won 7% (his National Exit Poll share) of Florida
Republicans, then to win the state he needs just  79% of
Democrats in OpScan counties and 86% in TS (DRE) counties.

	Kerry share of DRE county Democrats		
	share	86.0%	88.0%	90.0%	92.0%	94.0%		
         of OS
                  Kerry Vote share				
	91%	52.0%	52.4%	52.8%	53.2%	53.7%		
	89%	51.6%	52.0%	52.4%	52.8%	53.3%		

	87%	51.2%	51.6%	52.0%	52.4%	52.9%		

	85%	50.8%	51.2%	51.6%	52.0%	52.5%		
	83%	50.4%	50.8%	51.2%	51.6%	52.1%		
        81%	50.0%	50.4%	50.8%	51.2%	51.7%
        79%	49.6%	50.0%	50.4%	50.8%	51.3%
								
		Kerry Vote margin				
	91%	0.39 	0.46 	0.52 	0.59 	0.65 
	89%	0.33 	0.39 	0.46 	0.52 	0.59 

	87%	0.27 	0.33 	0.40 	0.46 	0.53 

	85%	0.21 	0.27 	0.34 	0.40 	0.47 
	83%	0.15 	0.21 	0.28 	0.34 	0.41 
	81%	0.09 	0.15 	0.22 	0.28 	0.35 
	79%	0.02 	0.09 	0.15 	0.22 	0.28 

Sensitivity Analysis II

Calculate Kerry’s Florida vote share for various combination
shares of Democrats and Independents.  
Kerry wins the state if he captures 84% of Democrats and 58%
of independents.

Base Case Scenario

	Mix	 Votes 	Kerry	Bush	Other	Kerry	Bush	Other
Dem	41.37%	 3.15 	86%	13%	1%	2.71	0.41	0.03
Rep	37.79%	 2.88 	7%	92%	1%	0.20	2.65	0.03
Ind	20.85%	 1.59 	60%	38%	2%	0.95	0.60	0.03
								
Vote	7.610 	 7.61 	50.7%	48.1%	1.2%	3.86	3.66	0.09

 	      Kerry % Democrats				
Kerry    84.0%	85.0%	86.0%	87.0%	88.0%
% Ind
              Kerry Vote share				
64%	50.7%	51.1%	51.6%	52.0%	52.4%
62%	50.3%	50.7%	51.1%	51.6%	52.0%
60%	49.9%	50.3%	50.7%	51.1%	51.6%
58%	49.5%	49.9%	50.3%	50.7%	51.1%
56%	49.1%	49.5%	49.9%	50.3%	50.7%
54%	48.7%	49.1%	49.5%	49.9%	50.3%
					
             Kerry Vote margin				
64%	 0.20 	 0.27 	 0.33 	 0.39 	 0.46 
62%	 0.14 	 0.20 	 0.27 	 0.33 	 0.39 
60%	 0.08 	 0.14 	 0.20 	 0.27 	 0.33 
58%	 0.01 	 0.08 	 0.14 	 0.20 	 0.27 
56%	 (0.05)	 0.01 	 0.08 	 0.14 	 0.20 
54%	 (0.11)	 (0.05)	 0.01 	 0.08 	 0.14 
					

Florida Pre-election Polls
The final moving average projection: Kerry 51.1-48.8%

			Poll   	                Projection              Moving Avg
Date	Pollster	Kerry	Bush	Nader	Kerry	Bush	Nader	Kerry	Bush
23-May	Zogby	        49	48	1	50.4	48.6	1.0		
31-May	Rasmussen	39	51	1	45.3	53.7	1.0		
06-Jun	Zogby	        50	48	1	50.7	48.3	1.0		
14-Jun	Survey USA	43	50	1	47.2	51.8	1.0		
17-Jun	Rasmussen	48	44	1	52.9	46.1	1.0		

20-Jun	Zogby	        46	50	1	48.1	50.9	1.0		
22-Jun	Rasmussen	48	42	1	54.3	44.7	1.0		
23-Jun	ARG	        47	46	1	51.2	47.8	1.0		
27-Jun	Quinnipiac	43	43	5	49.3	45.7	5.0		
30-Jun	Rasmussen	48	43	0	54.3	45.7	0.0	50.4	48.3

11-Jul	Survey USA	47	44	0	53.3	46.7	0.0	50.7	48.1
15-Jul	ARG	        47	44	3	51.2	45.8	3.0	51.3	47.4
21-Jul	LA Times	44	45	2	50.3	47.7	2.0	51.2	47.3
22-Jul	Gallup          46	50	1	48.1	50.9	1.0	51.3	47.2
23-Jul	Zogby	        48	49	1	49.4	49.6	1.0	51.0	47.6

30-Jul	Zogby	        50	47	2	50.7	47.3	2.0	51.2	47.2
05-Aug	ARG	        50	43	2	53.5	44.5	2.0	51.1	47.2
10-Aug	Quinnipiac	47	41	4	52.6	43.4	4.0	51.3	46.7
21-Aug	Zogby	        50	49	0	50.7	49.3	0.0	51.4	47.1
22-Aug	Gallup          46	48	2	48.8	49.2	2.0	51.2	47.3

24-Aug	Rasmussen	47	49	2	48.4	49.6	2.0	50.9	47.5
25-Aug	Research2k	46	46	2	50.2	47.8	2.0	50.6	47.7
11-Sep	Rasmussen	47	48	1	49.8	49.2	1.0	50.3	47.9
14-Sep	Survey USA	45	51	0	47.8	52.2	0.0	50.0	48.4
16-Sep	Rasmussen	47	48	0	50.5	49.5	0.0	50.0	48.5

17-Sep	Zogby	        48	48	1	50.1	48.9	1.0	50.2	48.4
20-Sep	ARG	        46	45	2	50.9	47.1	2.0	50.3	48.2
22-Sep	Gallup          45	47	2	49.2	48.8	2.0	50.2	48.3
26-Sep	Rasmussen	49	48	0	51.1	48.9	0.0	50.0	48.7
27-Sep	Gallup          44	49	2	47.5	50.5	2.0	49.6	49.3

29-Sep	Rasmussen	47	50	0	49.1	50.9	0.0	49.5	49.4
03-Oct	Survey USA	46	51	0	48.1	51.9	0.0	49.4	49.6
04-Oct	Rasmussen	46	52	0	47.4	52.6	0.0	49.3	49.9
05-Oct	Mason-Dixon	44	48	0	49.6	50.4	0.0	49.3	50.1
05-Oct	ARG	        47	45	2	51.2	46.8	2.0	49.4	49.9

05-Oct	Zogby	        50	49	1	50.0	49.0	1.0	49.6	49.6
05-Oct	Rasmussen	45	52	0	47.1	52.9	0.0	49.3	49.9
10-Oct	Rasmussen	45	49	0	49.2	50.8	0.0	49.2	50.1
10-Oct	Wash Post	47	47	1	50.5	48.5	1.0	49.2	50.2
14-Oct	Rasmussen	46	48	0	50.2	49.8	0.0	49.3	50.3

16-Oct	Mason-Dixon	45	48	0	49.9	50.1	0.0	49.2	50.4
17-Oct	Survey USA	50	49	0	50.7	49.3	0.0	49.4	50.3
18-Oct	Zogby	        49	50	0	49.7	50.3	0.0	49.5	50.2
18-Oct	Rasmussen	47	47	0	51.2	48.8	0.0	49.7	49.9
21-Oct	Research 2000	48	47	2	50.1	47.9	2.0	50.0	49.6

23-Oct	Rasmussen	48	48	0	50.8	49.2	0.0	50.1	49.5
24-Oct	Survey USA	50	48	0	51.4	48.6	0.0	50.1	49.6
25-Oct	ARG	        49	46	0	52.5	47.5	0.0	50.3	49.5
26-Oct	Quinnipiac	44	44	1	51.7	47.3	1.0	50.7	49.0
26-Oct	Rasmussen	48	48	0	50.8	49.2	0.0	50.8	48.9

27-Oct	Zogby	        46	48	0	50.2	49.8	0.0	50.8	49.0
27-Oct	NY Times	48	47	2	50.1	47.9	2.0	50.8	48.8
28-Oct	Rasmussen	46	49	0	49.5	50.5	0.0	50.7	48.9
29-Oct	Mason-Dixon	45	49	0	49.2	50.8	0.0	50.6	49.0
29-Oct	Zogby	        47	45	0	52.6	47.4	0.0	50.8	48.7

29-Oct	Rasmussen	47	48	0	50.5	49.5	0.0	50.8	48.8
30-Oct	Gallup          49	45	0	53.2	46.8	0.0	51.0	48.7
30-Oct	Zogby	        49	47	0	51.8	48.2	0.0	51.1	48.6
30-Oct	Rasmussen	47	49	0	49.8	50.2	0.0	51.0	48.8
31-Oct	Opinion Dyn	49	44	1	53.2	45.8	1.0	51.1	48.6

31-Oct	Survey USA	48	49	0	50.1	49.9	0.0	50.9	48.8
31-Oct	Zogby	        48	47	0	51.5	48.5	0.0	51.0	48.8
31-Oct	Rasmussen	47	50	0	49.1	50.9	0.0	50.9	48.9
01-Nov	ARG	        50	48	0	51.4	48.6	0.0	51.0	48.9
01-Nov	Zogby	        48	48	0	50.8	49.2	0.0	51.1	48.8

_____________________________________________________________________________________


Florida 2004 Exit Poll (Composite)

Party-ID (2743 respondents) 
				
	Mix	Votes	Kerry	Bush	Other	Kerry	Bush	Other
Dem	38%	 2.89    86%	13%	1%	2.49	0.38	0.03
Rep	39%	 2.97     7%	92%	1%	0.21	2.73	0.03
Ind	23%	 1.75    60%	38%	2%	1.05	0.67	0.04
								
Total	7.61	 7.61   49.2%	49.6%	1.2%	3.74	3.77	0.09

Adjusted to party registration weights

Dem	41.37%	 3.15    86%	13%	1%	2.71	0.41	0.03
Rep	37.79%	 2.88     7%	92%	1%	0.20	2.65	0.03
Ind	20.85%	 1.59    60%	38%	2%	0.95	0.60	0.03
								
Vote	7.610 	 7.61   50.7%	48.1%	1.2%	3.86	3.66	0.09

_____________________________________________________________________

  
Bush Approval (2409)	

Approval    Pct   Kerry   Bush Other			
Strong       35     4      96    0			
Approve      18     17     82    1
Disapprove   12     84     13    3
Strong       35     98      1    1
 
Share%	    100    48.8   50.3   0.9
Votes              3720   3828   69

Adjusted to 48.5% average approval

Strong     33.0    4    96    0			
Approve    15.5   17    82    1
Disapprove 14.5   84    13    3
Strong     37.0   98     1    1
 
Share%    100    52.4   46.7   0.9
Votes	  7610	 3988   3554   69		

 
_____________________________________________________________________

 
When Decided (2162)

Decided	  Pct	Kerry	Bush	Other
3days	  8	53	45	2
Week	  3	70	27	3
Month	  12	61	38	1
Before    77	46	54	0
				
Share%	  100	49.1	50.6	0.4
Votes	 7610	3735	3847	28


Adjusted 30+days to 50/50

3days	  8	53	45	2
Week	  3	70	27	3
Month	  12	61	38	1
Before    77	50	50	0
				
Share%	 100	52.2	47.5	0.4
Votes	 7610	3969	3612	28

_____________________________________________________________________


	Mix    KERRY	BUSH	Other	Bush Change in share from 2000
GENDER					
Male 	46	47	52	1	-2 Males shifted to Kerry from Bush? 
Female	54	52	48	0	+3 Females shifted to Bush from Gore?

TOTAL 	100	49.7	49.8	0.5	
					
GENDER/RACE					
WMale	33	42	57	1	
WFemale	38	46	53	1	
NWMale	13	59	40	1	
NWFem	16	64	36	0	

TOTAL	100	49.3	49.9	0.8	
					
RACE					
White	70	44	55	1	-2 Whites move away from Bush?
Black	12	87	12	1	+5 Blacks shifted to Bush by 5%?
Hsp/Lat	15	46	54	0	+5 Hispanics shifted to Bush by 5%?
Asian    1	-	-	-	-
Other    2	34	66	-	-

TOTAL	100	48.8	49.4	0.8	
 
AGE					
18-29    17	60	39	1	 -1 
30-44    27	48	51	1	 +1
45-59    28	44	55	1	 +6  Baby boomers for Bush?
60+      28	49	50	1	-1

TOTAL	100	49.2	49.8	1.0	
					
18-64    81	49	50	1	 2
65+      19	51	49	0	-3 

TOTAL 	100	49.4	49.8	0.8	

					
INCOME					
<15k 	  9	61	38	1	
15-30	 15	61	37	2	
30-50	 22	53	46	1	
50-75	 21	47	52	1	
75-100   14	40	60	0	
100-150  10	46	54	0	
150-200   4	41	58	1	
200+      5	43	56	1	

TOTAL	 100	50.2	48.9	0.9	
					
<50k 	 46	57	42	1	
50k+ 	 54	44	55	1	

TOTAL	100	50.0	49.0	1.0	
					
50-100   81	52	48	0	
100+	19	44	56	0	

TOTAL   100	50.5	49.5	0.	
					
					
EDUCATION					
NoHS	3	55	43	2	-4
HighSch	20	53	47	0	 5  Bush gain in HSG while losing other
80%?
College	34	50	49	1	 0
ColGrad	27	46	54	0	-3
PostGr	16	48	51	1	-1

TOTAL	100	49.3	50.1	0.6	
					
COLLEGE					
No	57	52	48	0	
Yes	43	46	53	1	

TOTAL	100	49.4	50.2	0.4	
				
IDEOLOGY					
Liberal	 20	82	16	2	-1
Moderate 47	59	41	0	-5 Big Moderate shift to Kerry
Conserv	 33	14	85	1	 8 Conservatives overwhelmed Libs and
Mods?

TOTAL	100	48.8	50.5	0.7	
					
FIRST-TIME VOTER					
Yes	13	58	41	1	
No	87	48	51	1	

TOTAL	100	49.3	49.7	1.0	
					
RELIGION					
Protestant 51	42	57	1	2
Catholic   27	45	55	0	3
Jewish	   6	81	19	0	0
Other	   6	71	28	1	-12
None	   10	68	30	2	4   Atheists for Bush?

TOTAL	  100	49.5	49.7	0.8	
					
FINANCIAL SITUATION					
Better  34	16	84	0	48
Worse	28	87	12	1	-50
Same	38	51	48	1	-16

TOTAL	100	49.2	50.2	0.6	
					
DID CANDIDATE CALL YOU?					
Kerry	16	81	18	1      
Bush	15	13	86	1	
Both	20	57	43	1	
None	49	48	51	1	

TOTAL	100	49.8	49.4	1.0	

					
POPULATION- 5 CATEGORIES					
Urban	 7	35	65	0	
50-500k  19	50	49	1 
Suburb   61	53	47	0	
10-50k   9	45	54	1	
Rural	 4	34	66	0 

TOTAL	100	49.7	50.0	0.3	

					
POPULATION- 3 CATEGORIES					
Urban	 26	46	53	1	4 Bush Urban Legend?
Suburbs  61	52	48	0	1
Rural	 13	42	57	1	1

TOTAL	100	49.1	50.5	0.4	

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. WTF?! "two Ruskies"?! (oh... got anything on post #9?)

Yeah, and Cambridge University is -- wait for it -- across the ocean. A land beyond peer review, no doubt.

Oh, wait. It's one of the top-ranked academic presses in the world. And, by the way, Myagkov is tenured in that foreign land we call "Oregon." Well, whatever. As long as you can play the nativist card. "Ooh! they have funny names!!1!" I thought I had seen it all, but I never imagined this.

Dude, if you actually want to know something about the state of election forensics in political science, you can buy the friggin' books and read them like the rest of us. Or spend some time at the library, maybe. Something. Clearly my trying to spoon-feed you evidence doesn't do you any good.

So, did you have a substantive response to post #9?

[Wilms]

28. Now I see where TIA, er, Wile E., gets that punch card lever machine.

Even Richard Hayes Phillips thinks TIA is spewing nonsense.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=506101&mesg_id=506101

But you knew that.

[WillE]

30. Phillips would NOT have written the article if he knew that the NY exits were off by 12%...

As a scientist, he would have wanted to know why. Phillips would have had second thoughts about writing the article had he known the truth. His premise was stated in the first paragraph: he falsely claimed that the exit poll matched the vote. The premise was wrong.

As a faith-based non-scientist, you don't want to know; you maintain the exit polls were wrong by 12%. Why don't you email Phillips to find out what he thinks NOW?

Oh, Wilms, one more question.

You believe in OTOH. He believes that Bush won fairly by 3 million votes.
Therefore he believes that was very little fraud, if any.
You don't believe the exits either (at least not in NY) so you must feel the same.
If that's the case, why does the Election Reform forum even exist?

And if there was little or no fraud, as you both believe, then why should anyone post here?
What's the point of this forum?

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. Wow. Just wow.

You've stated the problem in a nutshell.

Do you seriously think that we don't need election reform unless the 2004 election was stolen? Do you seriously think that's what I believe?

(I'll let Wilms deal with that "You believe in OTOH" shtick. I just threw up in my mouth a little.)

[Wilms]

38. OK. You failed logic. So I won't expect you to make sense of what I'm about to say.

As I mentioned earlier, either/or dualistic thinking makes for shit-science. It can also manifest to mimic (or recreate) a 10th grade mind-set. You proudly exhibit this malady. In fact, it is no mystery that you would in that your theory depends on it. Indeed, so much so that you harangue others in vain attempt to have them join you in intellectual deprivation.

Unlike you, OTOH & I don't profess to know who really won in 2K4. He thinks Bush won. I think Kerry won. On that basis we (and lots of others) lack confidence in nation's election system and see it in serious need of reform. He doesn't agree with YOUR exit poll analysis. I don't agree with YOUR exit poll analysis, if only because YOU think it proves something.

OTOH works at election reform. He's contributed mightily to passed election reform law. And yes, his initials may as well be PITA because he certainly can be. I leave it to my colleagues to access my minuscule contribution to their efforts aimed at reform.

I want an election management system I can rely on. And as a matter of fact, I'm not interested in having you, or any other pollster tell me what to think or believe.


Your

are up.

[WillE]

40. YOU speak of science? Your method is faith-based belief...

So far, you have showed us nothing.
All you have done is tell us what you BELIEVE.

You BELIEVE that NY should keep its levers.
Fine, but saying that the levers can't switch votes is a canard.
The vote counters can do that - and it appears they did in 2004 and in 2008.

And what did you say about votes being entered into a computer system?
They do that in New York, you know.
I thought you were totally against the use of computer programs which miscount votes?

IS THAT A MAJOR DISCONNECT OR WHAT?
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, MY ASS!

You are so transparent.
Because you don't understand the need for a FULLY TRANSPARENT VOTING SYSTEM/

YOUR "BELIEF" IS NOT EVEN THE RESULT OF "SHIT" SCIENCE.
THERE IS NO SCIENCE.
IT'S JUST FAITH-BASED NONSENSE.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE OTOH'S BEST STUDENT.

[Wilms]

41. When you demonstrate a rudimentery understanding of lever machines

and NY States election law we can continue the discussion.

A better use of your time, however, would you getting yourself an honest job, like saving what little remains of HCPB in this nation.

While you've been babbling about how successful your exit poll analysis has been in prompting election reform by "real activists", the number of HCPB jurisdictions as shrunk considerably.

[WillE]

42. Educate us, then, since you are such an expert...

Are computers used at any time in the process of tabulating the lever votes?
Yes or No?

Can you provide any proof that the NY votes were counted as cast?
Yes or No?

Do levers stop counting at 99 or 999?
Yes or No?

Did LEVERS cause Obama's ZERO votes in 80 districts or was it HUMAN COUNTERS?
Pick one.

Why is it that there were 19 reported LEVER MACHINES that would not register Kerry votes ("Stuck on Bush") but there were ZERO reported "Stuck on Kerry" incidents?

Can you estimate how many people left the precincts without voting due to machine breakdowns?
Was it 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000?

See, it's not just the S = 0.79% reported spoiled votes.
It's the H votes that were miscounted by Humans,
the C votes miscounted by the Computing tabulators,
and the M votes never CAST due to malfunctioning machines.

The total fraudulent votes F = 0.79%* 7 million + H + C + M
or F = 55,000 + H + C + M

What is H?
What is C?
What is M?

You don't know.
You cannot know.
There is no way to know without a fully TRANSPARENT VOTING SYSTEM.

Now go ahead.
Call that "shit" science.
It's just simple arithmetic.

Once again, in nutshell

2000
Gore 60; Bush 35; Nader/other 5

2004
3 of 4 Nader/other voters to Kerry
Kerry 63; Bush 36; Other 1
Simple arithmetic.

Confirmed by the exit polls

Confirmed by the True Vote Model
(2000 votes cast less 5% mortality; 97-98% turnout;
Approximately 1 million New (65-70% Kerry) voters.

Confirmed by the 500,000 late paper ballot votes (66% to Kerry)

That is not FAITH-BASED BELIEF.
That's basic analysis.

Can you see it?
Do you want to see it?

Or will you just call it "shit" science?

Your move.

[Wilms]

43. Round and round you go, TIA.

It's been discussed ad nauseum. There's a pattern of you not answering questions and re-asking questions that were answered. I feel distracted when that happens.

Where's the large undervote rates showing the kinds of problems you imagined? They don't exist. You've got an imagined danger in search of a made up problem. What a distraction.

Of course computers are used for precinct aggregation--not for tallying votes. And with the precinct data you can verify it. Why don't you? Is it because you're too busy distracting people?

You can see if a machine has been manipulated. How many manipulated machines would it take to fulfill your fantasy? Calculate that TIA. And get back to us. We'd appreciate a break from your distractions.

You can test the machines before and after. And they do. And probably not enough. Do you participate in that? What are you going to do? Or do you just distract people?

Do they audit HCPB's? Shouldn't they? HUMANS, ya know. What are you doing about New Hampshire hemorrhaging HCPB precincts? Does it take ALL your time to distract people?

What have you done to get HCPB implemented in NY? What have you done to save the dwindling number of HCPB precincts in NH?

Why do think a strategy of distracting people, leading people astray, and generally acting like the court jester is in the best interest of election reform?

[WillE]

44. No, keeping the NY facts hidden is distracting...

It's been discussed ad nauseum. There's a pattern of you not answering questions and re-asking questions that were answered. I feel distracted when that happens.

- I feel frustrated when you don't do the analysis and ignore the facts.

Where's the large undervote rates showing the kinds of problems you imagined? They don't exist. You've got an imagined danger in search of a made up problem. What a distraction.

- You don't read. I mentioned the 0.79% spoiled vote rate that you and Bored have stated numerous times. But you can't get past that. Because you don't do a full analysis.

Of course computers are used for precinct aggregation--not for tallying votes. And with the precinct data you can verify it. Why don't you? Is it because you're too busy distracting people?

- What a joke! You agree that computers are used for tabulation. They are the equivalent of the central tabulators used all over. No Open Source. No transparency. That's why you need to do some analysis.

You can see if a machine has been manipulated. How many manipulated machines would it take to fulfill your fantasy? Calculate that TIA. And get back to us. We'd appreciate a break from your distractions.

- You guys sure have your talking points. Same old playbook. I've seen that challenge from Bill Bored time and time again. Nothing original there. You need to do some analysis/
SINCE IT IS APPARENT THAT YOU ARE IN DENIAL, I REPEAT:
IT'S NOT THE MACHINES. IT'S THE HUMANS WHO FEE THE NUMBERS INTO THE COMPUTERS!

You can test the machines before and after. And they do. And probably not enough. Do you participate in that? What are you going to do? Or do you just distract people?

- No. I do not participate. Why should I? I don't live in NY. I appreciate a full analysis. Do you?

Do they audit HCPB's? Shouldn't they? HUMANS, ya know. What are you doing about New Hampshire hemorrhaging HCPB precincts? Does it take ALL your time to distract people?

- THERE WAS NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY. RIGGED COMPUTERS. GOOD BALLOTS.
AN ANALYSIS OF VOTE SHARE ANOMALIES BETWEEN HAND-COUNTED AND MACHINE PRECINCTS SHOWED THAT THE ELECTION WAS MOST-LIKELY STOLEN FROM OBAMA.

What have you done to get HCPB implemented in NY? What have you done to save the dwindling number of HCPB precincts in NH?

- I do not live in NY or in NH. It's YOUR job to get HCPB implemented. And to ANALYZE.

Why do think a strategy of distracting people, leading people astray, and generally acting like the court jester is in the best interest of election reform?

-Asking legitimate questions is distracting?

IS AN ANALYSIS OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS WHICH SHOW THAT
1- there was a strong correlation between NY vote change from 2000 and county size distracting?
2- there were 300,000 NET uncounted votes distracting?
3- Gore had 60.2% of the NY RECORDED vote and third parties 4.6% distracting?
4- 75% of Nader voters defected to Kerry distracting?
5- the NY GEO exit poll WPE was 12% distracting?
6- the 5% exit poll vote share deviation (3-4% beyond the 1-2% MoE) distracting?
7- the Urban Legend is a myth distracting?
8- there was a virtual 100% probability that votes were miscounted distracting?
9 - Richard Hayes Philips was apparently unaware of the 65% Kerry exit poll is distracting?
10- provided by returning exit polls distracting?
11- provided by 500,000 late votes in 2004 distracting?
11- Obama's votes were initially reported to be ZERO in 80 MINORITY districts distracting?
12- there were 300,000 NET uncounted votes distracting?
13- the True Vote CONFIRMED the exit polls AND Late PAPER BALLOT vote shares distracting?

Making people aware of these FACTS is distracting?

By avoiding these issues you are either biased or in denial.
In either case, calling them a distraction is a disservice to your cause.

[Wilms]

48. What's it like being irrelevant?

Well, if you came in here with some reasonable evidence that the tab was off we'd talk.

You have billions of numbers are spreadsheet you use to scream out about a stolen election but you haven't checked the precinct level data and added it up by hand to let us know if NY's "non-transparent" tab was correct.

Where's your data, number man? You afraid of it?

Show me the precinct level data vs. the official tally...not your mumbo jumbo assumptive shell game, and we can have a discussion.

Talk about transparent.

[WillE]

35. Love your ability to link and not think .. n/t

.

[WillE]

29. So where is their evidence?

Can you be so kind as to show/explain it to us?

Do they have any statistical evidence regarding Florida?
Like that which I just showed you?

Still waiting...

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. you're asking for kindness?

I'm giving you kindness, but not in that form. I am biting my tongue about as hard as I can. That must suffice for now.

How many effing derails am I supposed to follow before you offer one straight answer about anything? If some people will cheer when you blather about "Ruskies," let them. Maybe a few would cheer if you posted random numbers.

[WillE]

34. You replied just as WE ALL KNEW you would. With NOTHING.

Now, while you are biting your tongue, you can reply to the previous thread.

No Florida data? No analysis. Then how can you say that Bush won the state?
Because Jeb Bush told you personally?

Now, did the Russian/ Ukraine authors analyze any U.S. elections?
If they did, show it to us.
Otherwise you are just blowing your patented smoke.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. "WE"? you and your imaginary friend? can he help out with post #9?

Please explain: what part of reading a book horrifies you so much? I'm mystified. Oh, and remind me: have you ever identified any political scientists on your side of the issue? What have they (that's plural by courtesy) published on the topic? Mind you, I'd be happy to stick to substance, but that seems to be a problem for you.

As for Florida, I'll try this once in simple words.

Adjust Exit Poll weights to actual voter registration shares

That won't work. The poll asks how people think of themselves, not how they are registered.

ETA: Oh, I almost forgot, you sly fox, you: did you have anything about post #9?

[WillE]

33. So did Myagkov et al actually analyze the U.S. (S)elections? NO!

Where do they apply their techniques to the U.S.? They are focused on the elections in Ukraine and Russia. In fact, the author's warn of the dangers in applying their methods without due consideration of an election’s substantive context and the characteristics of the data at hand.

So where did they analyze Florida or any other state for that matter?
Why don't YOU apply their methods to the 2004 election?
You can't. You just blow more smoke by appealing to those who analyzed Ukraine and Russia!

A summary review of their book:
This volume offers a number of forensic indicators of election fraud applied to official election returns, and tests and illustrates their application in Russia and Ukraine. Included are the methodology’s econometric details and theoretical assumptions. The applications to Russia include the analysis of all federal elections between 1996 and 2007 and, for Ukraine, between 2004 and 2007. Generally, we find that fraud has metastasized within the Russian polity during Putin’s administration with upwards of 10 million or more suspect votes in both the 2004 and 2007 balloting, whereas in Ukraine, fraud has diminished considerably since the second round of its 2004 presidential election where between 1.5 to 3 million votes were falsified. The volume concludes with a consideration of data from the United States to illustrate the dangers of the application of our methods without due consideration of an election’s substantive context and the characteristics of the data at hand.

Contents

Introduction; 1. A forensics approach to detecting election fraud; 2. The fingerprints of fraud; 3. Russia; 4. Ukraine, 2004; 5. Ukraine, 2006, 2007; 6. The United States.
Reviews

“The Forensics of Election Fraud by Myagkov, Ordeshook and Shakin presents a novel, creative and powerful methodology to detect the possibility of vote fraud using aggregate precinct data from several elections. Their approach is to detect patterns that flag vote fraud. They do not use standard statistical methodology because it is not appropriate for their problem but instead their method presents evidence that may be due to fraud. I consider this book to be one of the best three book manuscripts in political methodology that I have ever read. I believe that it will be considered to be a masterpiece in the field.”
-Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas at Austin

“This book is a milestone accomplishment: original, compelling and of utmost and immediate policy relevance. It brings the latest in social science theory and methodology to bear on the detection of electoral fraud in post-communist states. As a control, it then applies the techniques to US elections. The result is a seminal forensics toolkit for methodologists and policy makers alike.”
-George Breslauer, University of California at Berkeley

“The Forensics of Election Fraud is powerful, persuasive, and vigorously written. The book is important, not only for its substantive findings about Russia and Ukraine, but, perhaps even more, for the ingenious methodology its authors have devised for uncovering large-scale vote fraud. One of their major findings is that in recent years in Russia, the practice of vote fraud has spread from a relatively small number of ethnic republics, which are dominated by authoritarian leaders, to a much larger number of regions. So by the time of the 2004 presidential election and the 2007 Duma election, fraud was widespread. They also argue that the 2008 presidential election was so heavily manipulated that it is not worth applying their methods to it. Myagkov, Ordeshook and Shakin also analyze fraud in the famous 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, where massive falsifications provoked the ‘Orange Revolution.’ They show the very different patterns of voting from the (corrupted) run-off election in November 2004 to the (largely free and fair) new run-off in December, which followed the massive popular protest over election falsification and the world-wide condemnation of the attempt to steal the election. This book makes a major contribution to the literature on the methods by which authoritarian rulers manipulate election outcomes, and offers an ingenious set of tools for detecting them.”
-Thomas Remington, Emory University


SO, OTOH, WHERE IS THEIR U.S. ANALYSIS?

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. OK, this time you actually needed to read your own post

For your convenience, I've excerpted it in pertinent part, with emphasis:

Contents

Introduction; 1. A forensics approach to detecting election fraud; 2. The fingerprints of fraud; 3. Russia; 4. Ukraine, 2004; 5. Ukraine, 2006, 2007; 6. The United States.
...
SO, OTOH, WHERE IS THEIR U.S. ANALYSIS?

Would you like to buy a vowel? Or can you work it out from here?

[WillE]

39. Hehe. Not good enough. DISPLAY AND EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT ANALYSIS.

SHOW US THEIR U.S. DATA AND ANALYSIS.
You have not done so.

Have you seen it?

Unless you can present their study, like the TIA analysis of FL 2004, you should stop pretending that you are familiar with it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. this time you're not even going to admit your blunder?

This is no longer a conversation. This is an intervention. I decline to respect you more than you respect yourself.

Right now you're doubling down -- way, way down -- with the house money, and (in this branch of the thread) I'm the house. I'm cutting you off.

What could possibly be the point of debating a book that I've read and you haven't, when you aren't even able to debate your own work posted right here?

[WillE]

46. You just cut yourself off. You read the book? Then show us what you learned.

I asked you to provide the analysis and conclusions revealed in this book that YOU CLAIM YOU READ.

But you refuse to do so and arrogantly claimed to be the HOUSE.
No OTOH, you are the MOUSE who has FALLEN INTO THE TRAP.

You cannot just dismiss this.
I have shown you TIA's National, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania analysis in which the True vote that you mock confirmed the exit polls AND the late paper ballot votes.

YOU HAVE SHOWN NOTHING.
YOU NEVER DO.
JUST ARROGANCE.
JUST DISINFORMATION.

I DO NOT FALSELY RECALL THAT YOUR CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN EXPOSED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

I'M SHOUTING FOR ALL THOSE TRUE ELECTION RESEARCHERS THAT YOU HAVE BESMIRCHED.
AND FOR ALL THE OTHERS THAT YOU'VE MISINFORMED WITH YOUR UNIQUE TALENT OF DISTORTING THE FACTS.

I'M SHOUTING TO EXPOSE YOUR CEASELESS ATTEMPTS TO TURN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ON ITS HEAD.
AND OF YOUR ONGOING PROMOTION OF FAITH-BASED CONJECTURE.

THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF PROBABILITY THEORY.
YOU DENY THE LAW BY YOUR RIDICULOUS CHERRY-PICKING.
IN SO DOING YOU SHOW NO REGARD FOR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

YOU ARE A DISSERVICE TO YOUR PROFESSION.
YOU ARE NOT A POLITICAL SCIENTIST.
YOU ARE JUST POLITICAL.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. do you have a substantive response to post #9?

I've rebutted your analyses seriatim. I've exposed blunder after blunder. When is it your turn to step up? Stop trying to pick fights and do some work, that's all I ask.

[Wilms]

49. Uhm, er, pardon. But TIA just used a bunch of all caps.

Are you going to bow down before the fontal superiority or not? :shrug:

:D

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. hey, if he does it seven times, my exoskeleton will collapse

At least I guess that's how it's supposed to work.

[WillE]

51. Do you have anything SUBSTANTIVE to say?

ALL CAPS, EH?

Why don't you comment on the CONTENT?
Why don't you comment on the FACTS you so easily dismiss with your non-analytical retort?

I'm Bill. I remind you of TIA and that bothers you, eh?

In case you are unaware, TIA was an original driving force behind the election integrity movement. His analytical postings, starting with "To Believe Bush won..." spread all over the Internet in 2004-2005. It was TIA who attracted new DUers back in the days when DU was the ONLY site that would even touch 2004 election fraud. You should be THANKING TIA for that.

Even OTOH came to this site back in 2005 primarily because of TIA and other activists. Of course, OTOH had another reason. It was to naysay, criticize, confuse and discredit the work of any and all analysts who showed why the exit polls (and other data) were smoking guns. OTOH came here trying to blow smoke over the guns. He was not too successful, although he has apparently convinced you.

The only OTOH "success", if you want to call it that, was in June 2006 when he helped Farhad Manjoo write that Salon hit piece on RFK's Rolling Stone article which was based in part on TIA's work. Salon's arrogance (foolishness?) in publishing that hit piece written raised quite a furor on DU and many other sites.

LITTLE DID DUERS KNOW AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS OTOH WHO ADVISED FARHAD IN WRITING THAT PIECE OF CRAP. FARHADS'(I.E. OTOH'S) "ANALYSIS" WAS DEBUNKED AS SOON AS IT APPEARED IN PRINT.

Google TruthIsAll here on DU if you want to see the Truth.

There are many more people who appreciate what TIA has done. They are very likely reading this without comment. Keep bashing him. Keep kicking. It only brings attention to the difference between his efforts and your one-track agenda.

[Wilms]

52. TIA, you are the "one-track agenda". And it's all about you.

I'm sure the world would be a much better place if people would just bow down to your version of 2004. :nopity:

You'll stop at no consequence (unintended or otherwise) in your quest to be defined as a somebody. In fact, you're a nobody, just like the rest of us.

You try hiding behind an alleged HCPB advocacy for NY when you know your anti-lever campaign could only serve to help those who'd install computerized vote counting. At best, you're a tool.

You can feel plenty righteous complaining about OTOH's perceptions on who won 2K4 (which he rightly perceives as a perception, and not proof). But you have to look at my point of view and realize just how tiny you really are.

I don't think Bush won. I think the election was stolen. And I know that an exit poll is a pretty shoddy excuse for a verified outcome. As such, your assertion of "smoking gun" proof I find an affront to logic and reason. It's as smelly as the notion that Bush won fair and square.

So you'll just have to live with the fact that I think the election was stolen, and that your full of hot-air, and the apparent fact that you see those two notions as mutually exclusive. Too bad. Quit your sulking and go back to school.

And enjoy the "many more people who appreciate" you, and the two or three recs your posts get, and never mind how unimpressed the rest of us are with your incessant nagging. Soon enough you'll be so completely self-absorbed as to appear like the political black-hole you in fact are.

Bye

[Stevepol]

4. K&R!!

[yowzayowzayowza]

5. K&unR.