250 Million To One Odds; 250,000,000:1 GET IT???

[Beetwasher]

"The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy,"
Dr. Steven F. Freeman
University of Pennsylvania

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplained_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf

"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

--snip--

Read the whole thing.

[riverwalker]

1. note to media lurkers

The key words here: "Impossible" that results were due to "random error".
kick

[Rose Siding]

2. Barring proof...

that every third machine opened up and swallowed the voter whole, the selective blindness continues.

The media is by the phone, waiting for that call that sends them to a midnight meeting (in a parking garage!) with the one person who has uncovered one single 3 million vote discrepency. The guilty voting machine will be in the trunk. The reporter won't offer to help the source lift it into the reporters car.

[Beetwasher]

3. I Know, Why Is It So Hard For People To Get It?

Supress a few thousand votes here a few thousand there, change a few thousand here from Kerry to Bush and few thousand there from Kerry to Bush, add a few thousand Bush votes here and there and before you know it you've got 3 milliion votes. Focus on ONE anomaly and it doesn't seem like a big deal, but add it all up and you've stolen yourself an election and created the illusion that you won decisively when you really lost. Not so hard to belive really, not at all.

[Rose Siding]

4. Here's a well stated argument, quoted without attribution...

on another thread by tbuddha...

"To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe: That the exit polls were wrong; that Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that incumbent rule #1 – undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong; That the 50% rule – an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong; That the approval rating rule – an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election – was wrong; that it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail; that the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000; that voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election."

[Beetwasher]

5. Wasn't That TIA's Quote?

I think tbuddha got it from TIA. Just want to make sure it attributed properly...

[Rose Siding]

8. I don't know. Here's where I saw it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=981650&mesg_id=981676&page=

It's represented as a quote but, as I said, it's not attributed. It could have flown through several posts and lost the author's name.

[berry]

6. This is excellent! I hope it puts pressure on the media/polling companies

to finally release their raw data. Yes, they paid for it, and they wanted exclusive use of it for their reporting on election night, but what reason could they have for refusing to make it public NOW? Release it, and append all the explanations you want (if you think they are flawed). We need the transparency, and it's not as if the "copyright" has any value now, especially if the data is never to be published.

It's very disturbing that so much of this election hinges on data that is "private." Privately financed exit polls and proprietary software in the voting machines.

The story about how exit polls felled Shevardnadze, with US pressure, is especially telling. I wonder what company did the exit polling in Georgia?

I do hope this goes somewhere! The least we can do is write to the consortium media and ask why they won't respond to Freeman and others.

[Beetwasher]

7. Yes, It's Quite Interesting That Even This Professor Can't Get A Hold

of the raw exit poll data...

[berry]

9. Exactly!

I'm kicking this. Hope more people read it!

[Stephanie]

11. Who owns that data? I thought the AP was running the exit polls?

And I thought a lot of media had purchased access to it. So the early polls must have been distributed to a lot of press people, right? Shades of Valerie Plame.

[Mandate My Ass]

10. This is an awesome weapon

The statistical data appears incredibly sound and the author doesn't make any tinfoil claims. He sets out his analysis and asks someone to explain the unexplainable. GWB always has luck on his side...oh and God too.

[Stephanie]

12. YOU WIN - You got the best new DU name!

That's too funny. :hi: