If you believe these five irrefutable facts then you must believe...

[TruthIsAll]

that Kerry won the election...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x351776

[Dhalgren]

1. Kerry conceded the very next morning. He didn't wait to see

what would shake out or what the breaks would be - he just folded. So even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kerry actually won the election (which I believe he did), it wouldn't matter. It is a done deal and nothing short of gunfire in the streets will change that...

[Warren Stupidity]

2. proving the election was stolen has value

in and of itself, regardless of what Kerry did or didn't do. Until people, lots of people, understand what has happened, nothing will change.

At some point in the relative near future John Kerry is going to have an Al Gore moment. I wonder what he will do then?

[TruthIsAll]

9. Exactly right. Accumulate the hard evidence, lay out the analysis

based on hard data/

The How Voted in 2000 demographic is the only one which is directly verifiable, since we know exactly how many voted in 2000, exactly how many voted in 2004, and based on death rates we can make a very accurate estimate of how many 2000 voters died.

And when we see that the 43/37 is an impossibility, one must question: how and why was it derived?

WE KNOW THAT IT WAS NOT A SAMPLE STATISTIC, BUT RATHER A WEIGHTING DEVICE WHICH WAS USED TO MATCH TO THE BUSH 2004 VOTE.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE ACTUAL 2000 VOTE ON WHICH IT IS BASED. NOT ONLY DOES IT AGREE WITH THEM, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ON ITS FACE. THE ACTUAL MIX MUST BE CLOSE TO 39.8% BUSH/40.3% GORE. THESE ARE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGES, ASSUMING 100% VOTER TURNOUT FOR GORE AND BUSH 2000 VOTERS. SO THE ACTUAL WEIGHTINGS MUST BE LOWER.

IF THESE NUMBERS ARE USED, THEN EVEN IF THE 13660 FINAL EXIT POLL VOTING PERCENTAGES ARE UNCHANGED, KERRY WINS THE FINAL. JUST LIKE HE WON THE 11027 AND 13047 PRELIMINARY POLLS.

[leyton]

3. I am not sure I follow your math.

Or that I understand much of what your five beginning assumptions were.

On edit: I follow your math, but agree with those on the thread you link to who point out that your assumptions about the trustworthiness of the exit polls are in conflict.

[TruthIsAll]

4. Not five assumptions, five FACTS.

The 2004 Final exit poll, which Bush won, said 43% of 2004 voters were Bush voters in 2000. This is an absolutely impossible number

It was 41% in the Preliminary exit poll of 13047, which Kerry won. Even 41% is impossible. In actuality, the number had to be under 40%

Here is why:
1) For 43% of the 122.26 million 2004 voters to have been former Bush 2000 voters, then 52.57 million was the required Bush 2000 vote. Only 50.456 million voted for Bush in 2000.

2) In addition, approximately 3.5% of Bush 2000 voters have since died.

3) And some Bush 2000 voters did not vote in 2004.

These are indisputable facts.

ONLY BY ASSUMING THAT 43% OF BUSH 2000 VOTERS RETURNED TO VOTE COULD BUSH HAVE WON THE FINAL NATIONAL EXIT POLL BY 51-48%.

THE FINAL EXIT POLL CHANGED THE WEIGHTINGS FROM THE PRELIMINARY WHICH KERRY WON BY 51-48%.

THEREFORE, THE FINAL POLL IS BOGUS. SINCE IT WAS MATCHED TO EQUAL THE FINAL RECORDED VOTE, THEN THE VOTE HAD TO BE BOGUS AS WELL.

[TruthIsAll]

7. Be specific. Are you disputing the factual statements?

What assumptions are you talking about?

If you read the replies, Brother John comes around at the end to agree with 99% of my post.

I assume when you say that you follow the math, that you agree with the facts as well as the math. If not, here is your chance to explain.

[leyton]

12. About the reliability of exit polls.

Exit polls show Bush winning the popular vote, which you dispute, yet you still use the polling data that shows Kerry winning new voters.

[tritsofme]

5. Isn't their a whole forum

dedicated to you trying to prove the quote in my tagline is a mathematical proof?

[TruthIsAll]

8. Hi trit. Now it's your turn. Ok, be specific. No diversion. No quips.

Which of the stated facts are you going to dispute?

That is a direct question.
I expect a direct response.

There are 5 facts mentioned.
If you disagree with any of them, please let DU know why.


1. The Final Exit Poll (13660) promulgates an impossibility
in using the 43% Bush/37% Gore "Voted in 2000"
demographic weighting.

2. Even if ALL 50.456 million Bush 2000 voters were still
alive and returned to vote, his maximum 2000 voter share is
just 41%, as stated in the "pristine", unadjusted
Preliminary Exit Poll of 13047.

3. Approximately 3.5% voters have died since 2000, so the
Bush 2000 voter share is now reduced to a MAXIMUM OF 39.8%,
assuming 100% turnout. Of course, it MUST BE EVEN LESS THAN
39.8%, because an UNKNOWN number of Bush 2000 voters stayed
home this time. But we will assume that 100% turned out - to be
conservative.

4. We KNOW that AT LEAST 17% were NEW voters, because we KNOW
the change in total voter turnout from 2000 (104.777) to 2004
(122.26).

5. We KNOW that 3.17% voted for Nader/Other.

Take your pick. Which do you dispute?

[TruthIsAll]

6. A 9TH GRADE ALGEBRAIC SMOKING GUN.

Just do the simple math...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x351674

[Dhalgren]

13. I'm sorry, I may be dense and will admit that up front.

But won't the Republicans just say that some of the voters who voted for Al in 2000 switched and voted for Shrub in 2004? I don't think that that happened, but can you prove it didn't?

[slor]

10. TruthIsAll is taking no prisoners...

keep it up bro, in spite of the naysayers.

[Dave Sund]

11. This is unfortunately not enough

I don't believe hard evidence exists... All this proves is that the exit polls were "adjusted" by NEP. That in itself is something of concern. But there is no smoking gun. If they were able to do it, do you think that they'd be dumb enough to leave the evidence?

[Al-CIAda]

14. kick