Channel the TRUTH: Gore won. Kerry won. Naysayer heads will explode now

[autorank]

My brain is on fire, how much more of this can I take! autorank
channeling TruthIsAll This one says it all. GORE WON. KERRY WON.
RESTORATION NOW.

THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON A STOLEN ELECTION.

And now for the TRUTH:

In a recent Land Shark thread,
SHOULDA COULDA WOULDA; Why Election Fraud Naysayers R W-r-o-n-g---------
a PROMINENT naysayer came VERY CLOSE TO CONCEDING.

.....................................................................
"So I would argue that the Totality of the Evidence at present adds up to this:
1. The election was corrupt.
2. Democrats were the net losers from the corruption.
3. Voter (and vote) suppression remains a key problem, and may have cost Kerry Ohio.
4. Kerry probably lost the popular vote.
5. But we do not know for sure who actually won either the popular or the electoral vote, and this insupportable (sic.)"
.....................................................................

The naysayser confirms the corruption in points 1,2,3.
But still keeps from going all the way in points 4 and 5.

Even though all available evidence says otherwise.
Bush did NOT win the popular vote.
Kerry did. Easily.
Both the electoral AND popular vote.

Well, the naysayer is in Good Company.
Even Kerry won't admit that he won.

So let's summarize some important FACTS in this post in the hope that some of these holdout naysayers and democratic politicians get back to reality. Deep inside, they know that's where they should be (Ms. Kerry and Ms. Edwards must be very frustrated). But individual considerations keep them in public denial, while their heads are exploding as more and more information on the fraud surfaces every day.

Why don't they just read the GAO report?
Or scan the EIRS database?
Are they too busy trying to bring democracy to Iraq?
What about bringing democracy back here at home?
Don't we count?

Al Gore was ELECTED in 2000.
It was not just stolen from him.
It was stolen from US.
But at least Al fought.

John Kerry was ELECTED in 2004.
It was not just stolen from him.
It was stolen from US.
John, we hardly knew 'ye.

I want Al back where he belongs.
In OUR House.

TIME FOR SOME FACTS:

The naysayers continue their relentless attempts to mask the overwhelming evidence provided by confirmation of hundreds of pre=election and exit polls:
1) Pre-election state. Total sample: 50 polls* 600 = 30,000
2) Pre-election national. Total Sample: 18 polls *1500 = 27,000
3) Pre-election 48.5% Bush approval. Total: 11 polls*1000 = 11,000
4) 12:22am state exit polls: 73,600 respondents
5) 12:22am national exit poll: 13,047 respondents

And to this we must add have all the massive documented evidence of vote miscounts:
OH, FL, PA, NV, NM, VA, NC, MN, IA, WI, MO, NY…


Were ALL these pre and post-election polls BIASED?
They ALL confirm that Bush lost.
What is it about these polls that is so difficult to understand?


Where is the evidence that the exit polls were biased?
Was it shy Bush voters (rBr)?
Debunked in NEP by Mitofksky 43%Bush/37% Gore?

Was it early Kerry voters?
Debunked. View the time line Kerry led at 4pm, 7:33pm, 12:22am

Was it early women voters?
Debunked.
Female vote share
4pm: 58%, 7:33pm: 54%, 12:22am: 54%, 1:25pm 54%

Was it False Gore voter recall?
Ridiculous on its face.
Bush voters recall who they voted for...
Gore voters suffer from Alzheimer's?

Was it Bad weather early in the day keeping Bush voters home?
Right.
Breaking News! Republicans buy umbrellas at Walmart.

Was it inexperienced pollsters?
Mitofsky trained them. Who is better qualified?

Was it the exit poll "cluster effect"?
Do I hear 20%? 30%? 50%?
Ok, enter your "design effect" into the Interactive Election Model.
Let's see how many states will deviate beyond the MoE for Bush.
The model will calculate the probabilities.
Maybe not 1 in 19 trillion (16 exceeding MoE), but still astronomical.

And how does one explain 30% poll deviations in the Ohio 2005 election?
How much evidence is necessary to prove the DRE fix?
Were the pre-election polls biased, as well?
Naysayers can't blame it on "cluster effect".
Or bad weather.
Or shy Bush voters.
Or Gore voter Faulty Recall.
Or untrained pollsters.
These were PRE-ELECTION POLLS.

For naysayers to say that they wanted a Kerry win is a canard.
They claim to be Democrats or Indies searching for the truth.
To prevent fraud in the NEXT election.
As if THAT gives them credibility.

They want to have it both ways.
Deny that Kerry won and that the polls were right.
Yet at the same time claim that they wanted him to win.
Naysayer allegiance to Mitofsky is obvious.

They say the math is correct.
No argument there.
But they don't agree with the assumptions.
What assumptions?

That pre-election polls favored Kerry?
I can prove it. Go to pollingreport.com

That undecided voters went for Kerry by almost 2-1?
That new voters went to Kerry by 3-2?
That Nader voters went to Kerry by 4-1?
See the National Exit Poll time lines.

That the 43/37% Bush/Gore voter share of the 2004 vote was impossible?
It took a long time for the naysayers to agree.
After all, even they would not claim Bush voter immortality.

That the Final Exit Poll must be wrong?
Well, to match the vote, it applied fictitious weightings.
That's a no-brainer.

That all other Final demographics/vote shares must be wrong, as well?
Well, that's just simple logic.
If A = FALSE
and A = B
then B = FALSE
Do I hear heads exploding?
Or is it just another terror alert?

That Kerry's Gender share was manipulated?
It went from 54% at 12:22am to 51% at 1:25pm.
Was it a massive sex change in 12 hours?
Christine Jorgensen never owned a computer back in 1952.

That the Party ID split was manipulated?
From 38 Dem/35 Rep to 37/37.
Was it Massive Fundie conversions in those 12 hours.

That the Census 2004 Vote Survey was wrong?
According to the Census, 125.7 million voted in 2004.
That's 3.4mm more than the recorded 122.3 million.
The Census Gender demographic MoE is 0.30%.
Should we believe the 122.3mm recorded vote?
The Final Exit Poll has a 1.0% MoE, according to Mitofsky.

That millions of votes are spoiled in every election?
Intentional or innocent spoilage?
Does it matter?

That the trend in Kerry/Bush response (alpha) disproves rBr?
The ratio declines from 1.50 in High Bush precincts to 1.0 in High Kerry.
USCV proved rBr was a myth using simulation.
I confirmed the USCV using the Exit Poll Response Optimizer.

That Bush job approval on election day 2004 was not 48.5%?
That's an 11-poll average.
I can prove it.
You can look it up at pollingreport.com.
The combined MoE (11000 sample) is approx. 1.0%.

That there is no way Bush could overcome 48.5% approval?
Oh, well there is one.
He could steal it.

That the Ohio exit poll showed Kerry the 52-48 winner?
Of the 49 exit poll precincts:
36 deviated from Kerry to Bush,
10 from Bush to Kerry,
3 were unchanged.

That if Kerry won Ohio, he must have done better nationally?
Check the record books.
Ohio always LAGS the national Democratic vote.
Naysayers agree there was fraud in Ohio

But what about the other states?
NM, NV, FL, NC, NY, MN, etc..

That the 12:22am state and national exit polls each
confirming a Kerry victory is not believable?
Well, forty-two of 50 states deviated to Bush.
That's 1 in 2 million odds.

That 50 state exit polls mirror 49 Ohio exit poll precincts?
Just a coincidence?
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Take a trip to Brazile, Donna.

That the 9% disparity between the voting shares of Florida optiscans and DREs is virtually impossible?
Dem/Rep registrations were essentially equal in Optiscan and DRE counties.

That sixteen of 50 states deviated beyond the MoE for Bush, none for Kerry?
The probability of that is 1 in 19 trillion.

That ALL 22 Eastern Time Zone states deviated from Kerry to Bush?
1 in 4 million.

That eighty-six of 88 documented touch screens switched Kerry votes to Bush?
See the EIRS database.
Do the math.
1 in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

THOSE ARE FACTS, NOT ASSUMPTIONS.

Take a look at the graph below.
It shows a time line of pre-election and post election polls.

Naysayers claim the "evidence" shows that Bush won the popular vote.
I ask, what evidence?

If Kerry won the popular vote, doesn't that mean the exit polls (state and national (12:22am) were therefore close to the truth?

Except, that is, for the 1:25pm Final National Poll
We know this one is pure, unadulterated BS. Why?
Look at the How Voted in 2000 demographic.
Focus on the 43%/37% Bush/Gore weights.
They are mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

Here's the PROOF:
Bush got 50.45 million votes in 2000.
That's 41.25% of the 122.3mm who voted in 2004.
But 3.5% of them died, according to annual U.S. mortality rates (0.87%).
Therefore, AT MOST, 48.7mm of Bush 2000 voters came to the polls in 2004.
That's 39.8% of the 122.3mm total.

THE BOTTOM LINE:
Assuming REALISTIC, PLAUSIBLE, EQUAL weightings for Bush and Gore voters,
KERRY WINS EASILY, EVEN IF FINAL EXIT POLL PERCENTAGES,
WHICH WERE BIASED IN FAVOR OF BUSH, ARE USED.
PERIOD.
CASE CLOSED.
FINITO.
THE SMOKING GUN.
QUERE MAS?

Once again, I challenge the naysayers to a real-time debate using the Interactive Election model.

Let's begin where the DU "Game" thread abruptly ended:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x390193

In the "Game", the naysayers claimed that Bush won 15% of Gore voters.
And that Kerry won only 52% of those who did not vote in 2000.

Can they ever come up with a plausible Bush win scenario?
I doubt it.

Note to Land Shark:
The TOTALITY of pre-election and exit poll data provide SOLID CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the election was stolen.
The NUMBERS have been silently screaming for a year.

The fact that ONE YEAR LATER, there's strong DOUBT about who really won,
should be sufficient to convince the public that something must be done ASAP to restore our democracy.


Election Model: www.truthisall.net

[papau]

1. Excellent stuff that our media will ignore.

:-)

[hiley]

2. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON A STOLEN ELECTION.

i like that.

[robbedvoter]

3. True. here's a little memory I treasure:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3987237.stm

Early exit polls quoted by media seemed to give Mr Kerry the edge, but colleagues said Mr Rove indicated right away that they did not tally with his information.

He used his own data to put Ohio and Florida in the Bush column - bringing cheers from the president and his family when he went into the Roosevelt Room and told them

[electropop]

49. He inserted his own data into Ohio and Florida.

Prissy pink piggy.

[texpatriot2004]

4. Can we get Al Gore WITHOUT Lieberman? nm

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. Indeed. That combination actually made me quite nervous.

It made the 2000 race difficult for me.

[autorank]

11. texpatriot2004 You're channelling me! Gore-Clark!

What a combination--leadership experience; commitment to excellence; global politics, strategy and tactics; environment; militry affairs -- "the total package."

[texpatriot2004]

17. Love that combination nm

[nashville_brook]

33. that would be beautiful.

hubby wears gore/lieb shirt to work around house. i hate being reminded that he was on the ticket. need to fix that with puffy paint or something.

gore/clinton has a ring too... :)

[Usrename]

36. Gore NOW

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2113427K/R

[autorank]

38. It's my favorite Username

Paralasis by analysis is the main cause of indecision.

[Usrename]

41. Hey, Dubbya's dropping through the magic 35%

Don't know what to say except "stay the course"

The whispering will become shouting soon, I hope, I hope.

The naysayers will soon be drowned out by the obviousness of it all.

That and a lot of excellent work being done by some very good people. Thanks Auto!

[autorank]

69. Thanks to you Username for your crisp analysis.

That 35% consensus figure is either reached or coming on so fast it will blast by us like a small town next to an interstate. Some are predicting 30% by February. I think it will come faster.

People are ready for the election fraud story. The CM is just too lazy and two conflicted to let it loose. They're dropping so much in reader and viewership, they're becoming irrelevant. I think that the internet can do the job. If only Zogby would run a poll: Do you think * was legitimately elected in 2000? 2004? I'll bet a Franklin that the answers would be between 55-60% YES for both.

Run the damn poll. Lets see how many people are in the reality - based camp (both were stolen) and how many are in the quibbler-zealot camp whereby anything * is good.

cya around.

[Peggy Day]

73. my thoughts exactly

[Angry Girl]

5. The silent press is complicit. K&R

URGENT! Timing is critical to save freezing earthquake victims!

[babsbunny]

6. Why do people keep saying, "I can 't believe the media isn't reporting

on this election fraud." Well duh! They are IN on it! If they report on it they will be telling on themselves!!!!

[Angry Girl]

7. You're right

Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0624-25.htm

A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other. NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi. It is kind of like one big happy family of interlocks and shared interests. The following are but a few of the corporate board interlocks for the big ten media giants in the US:

* New York Times: Carlyle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi

* Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's

* Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels

* The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo

* News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments

* GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble

* Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo

* Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America

* Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi

* AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton

Can we trust the news editors at the Washington Post to be fair and objective regarding news stories about Lockheed-Martin defense contract over-runs? Or can we assuredly believe that ABC will conduct critical investigative reporting on Halliburton's sole-source contracts in Iraq? If we believe the corporate media give us the full un-censored truth about key issues inside the special interests of American capitalism, then we might feel that they are meeting the democratic needs of mainstream America.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0624-25.htm

Bold-faced companies above are those that stood to gain from the illegal Iraq invasion. Please correct any mistakes.... Thanks.

[autorank]

29. Their tale would be telling....

The first telling moment: why on earth did the MSM feel free to make non stop nasty remarks about Gore throughout the campaign. It was a pathetic show on their part and the only justification (which assumed the fact that it occurred) was that "they didn't like Gore." Well, isn't that a great excuse. They are pathetic, and I do mean you Dana Milbank!

The second telling moment: what role did the CM play in the revision of the National Exit Poll the day following the election in which actual vote totals were added to the polling results to show a Bush win. It's not a poll when you add actual votes, it's a reconciliation of the Poll with the vote count, presented as a poll. Fraud on their part, in other words.

The third telling moment: what is the major malfunction of CM in not telling Mitofsky to release the raw data from the National and State Exit Polls. These are the only election day collection votes for which there is a consistent paper trail. Examination of this data would allow validation of the poll, which in turn would make clear that the poll was or was not the accurate vote count. This should respect confidentiality issues, which can be done. It should happen immediately. Conyers sent a letter requesting this during his brave foray into Ohio. He got the brush off from Mitofsky but the owners of the data or sponsors at least were the Media Consortium. What is their major malfunction.

[Amaryllis]

93. It is interesting to look at the companies who own the media and the

companies who own the voting system companies. Amazing how often the McCarthy group, Carlyle GRoup, etc. stc. shows up.

Edit: I wrote the above before I read Angry Girl's post number 7. She lays it out... and many of these same companies are part-owners of voting system companies. check this link for more info on that: http://www.publicaccountability.org/election.html

[mopinko]

8. re-elect president gore

just heard jimmy carter on franken. in response to al's question- "where did the dems go wrong?" or some such, jimmy said, "well, first of all, al gore won."

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. that's a lot of mistakes for just one post

starting with the assertion that "all available evidence" indicates that Kerry won the popular vote. I wouldn't have thought even TIA believed that. Could the psychic connection be malfunctioning?

[Peace Patriot]

12. Dear Autorank, you trueheart, you patriot, it's becoming so obvious that

Bush couldn't have won, I'm not even sure we have to argue it that much any more. I'm sure Americans WANT to believe that we as a people didn't vote for the killers of tens of thousands of innocent people (58% opposed to it before the invasion, Feb. '03), the torture of prisoners (63% opposed to it "under any circumstances," May '04), and the looting of our treasury (90% opposed to the deficit, early '05). I think Americans are just finding out, to their surprise, that we are all pretty much in agreement about Bush and his Cartel (60% to 70% opposition to every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, over the last two years--not to mention Bush approval ratings so low prior to the election that Zogby said he couldn't win, and really tanking now).

People are looking for answers, and they don't need all that much convincing (in my read on things). If they don't know the facts about the 2004 election, they may just be a little puzzled how anyone in their right mind could have voted for Bush, and will be glad to find out that most other Americans aren't crazy.

So, I think you can (and should) simplify this post--for general use. I would suggest that you start it off with some real simple facts:

1) As the result of the so-called "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA), and a $4 billion boondoggle funded by Congress, electronic voting companies, run by rightwing Bush donors, gained control of our election system, with voting machines that use "trade secret," proprietary software, have no or inadequate audit/recount provisions, and are known to be very insecure and hackable. Two such companies, Diebold and ES&S, tabulated 80% of the nation's votes.

2. Late on election day, 2004, with Kerry ahead in the exit polls (scientific polls of voters leaving the voting booth), the corporate news monopolies doctored their exit poll data to fit the results coming from Diebold's and ES&S's secret vote tabulation software. This was not the normal adjustment of exit polls for election demographics. It was a very unusual--indeed, impossible--falsification of the numbers. It has been verified that the real exit polls showed a Kerry win by a 3% margin.

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

You don't have to use my wording (but feel free to). But you get the idea. It is not the naysayers that this should be written for. If they know the facts, they can make up their minds on the basis of what they know. It should be written (at the first level) for those who are looking for answers, but DON'T know the facts, and need a quick primer with clear explanations and links to sources.

You can make it as complex (and sardonic) as you like--for those with time and interest to read down through the detail--but keep the FIRST level of information clear, for each set of facts: WHAT are you talking about? HOW would you convey it over coffee to a friend?

Avoid using shorthand. Think: 1st grade (knows almost nothing). 2nd grade (knows what exit polls are; that Kerry won, etc., but hasn't followed all the details--may be coming back to the subject after cursory look). 3rd grade (knowledgeable believers, who may want to use the info; knowledgeable naysayers, who might be coming around). (Forget Freepers and idiots--a small minority here, and in our country.)

Let me give you an example (below). First set of numbers you provide. Not explained. What are you talking about? And I am a "knowledgeable believer, who may want to use the info." I studied them for some minutes, and I still didn't know. Finally, I guessed that you were talking about various polls that Kerry won. You never say that Kerry won them. All you have to do is add this**: "The naysayers continue their relentless attempts to mask the overwhelming evidence provided by confirmation of hundreds of pre=election and exit polls **THAT KERRY WON**..."

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

See (your text):

"TIME FOR SOME FACTS:

"The naysayers continue their relentless attempts to mask the overwhelming evidence provided by confirmation of hundreds of pre=election and exit polls:
1) Pre-election state. Total sample: 50 polls* 600 = 30,000
2) Pre-election national. Total Sample: 18 polls *1500 = 27,000
3) Pre-election 48.5% Bush approval. Total: 11 polls*1000 = 11,000
4) 12:22am state exit polls: 73,600 respondents
5) 12:22am national exit poll: 13,047 respondents."

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

Also, the set of numbers is confusing--and all a jumble. It has asterisked numbers (and I can't find what the * means) which makes it visually confusing. And I still don't know what "600 = 30,000" means in item #1 (et al).

Just a very simple word or two could make it clear. That set of numbers was a showstopper (and I'm a fan!). It stopped me from reading further, and started me writing these suggestions. (But I did go back and read more.)

So, just apply this principle--is all I'm suggesting: FIRST LEVEL statement is for the uninformed (and to be nice to us believers). THEN, you can get into all the esoterica about the attempts to debunk the exit polls (which will be of interest to only a few who followed those debates, or a few newbies who may need 'talking points' on it--in essence, none of their debunkings held up; that's all most people need or want to know).

I was just going to say: TIA makes often makes the same mistake, as to reaching the mathematically-impaired (those whose minds fuzz over at jumbles of numbers)--which is MOST PEOPLE--and suddenly I got what may be the joke...

...that this IS TIA. Now I'll have to check it out...and stop channeling your 8th grade English teacher.

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

My dream ticket for 2008: Gore/Kerry. ("poetic justice")

[autorank]

13. Peace be with you. Simplicity plus the substrate...

I love your two points. HAVA is billed as responding to 2000 Florida. Gee, I read HAVA and can't find any reference to a deliberate "felon purge" designed by state officials to disenfranchise minority voters. Anybody else catch there in the old HAVA stuff. With these 50 thousand diseinfranchised Florida voters voting, chads, butterflys are a thing of the past.

There is more on the way from autorank and kster that reduces things to the greatest simplicity. You'll see it first, I promise.

In the mean itme, I'm flattered that for a moment you thought I was facile and erudite enough to have written this post. It was a channel of the TRUTH;)

And, btw, why don't you load up with yout two points and post a real easy one on GD or GDP. Nobody would write it any better and it would go with the flow of concern at DU for election integrity/fraud.

Thanks for the comments and compliment (brief as it was;)

[Peace Patriot]

14. I'm a BIG fan of yours, Autorank!

And I'm amazed I didn't catch on earlier. It was in the back of my mind: 'Autorank channeling TIA? What does THAT mean?' (I can be really dense sometimes. I think I may have even READ this before, in its original author's scribble.)

[autorank]

28. You need to hang out in the Astrology forum more often

Get the lingo. Channel, trance channel, Coco Chanel...

At some point, I plan to channel and predict the next winner of Belmont.

Not dense, just discriminating taste on your part;)

[KoKo]

34. HAVA is what will get folks interested. Most people have no idea what

HAVA did in allowing the DRE's to multiply. It was like a gift! And if you connect it to being co-sponsored by Duke Cunningham that will get folks ear these days. I'm not fond of Chris Dodd who was the other sponsor,either. He and Lieberman fought to loosen the SEC standards and over rode a Clinton veto. That led to the Dot Com Bubble and all the Wall Street scandal crap we've seen ever since. Back in 93 or 94 was when they did that together. So Dodd co-sponsoring HAVA bill with the "Duke-Stir" doesn't go down well with me.

I'm channeling a "whistle blower" who knows what was done in Florida and another who knows what went on in Ohio. I hope to hell one turns up soon. We worked so hard on the the "VVPB Voter Bill" here in NC and you can see what we are up against. So, it can get very discouraging.

Thanks for all that work. I kind of agree about so many numbers. It's hard to wrap one's mind around it unless you can connect it to HAVA and the machines in a way that someone who has no idea about the machines can understand what the problem is. Sadly, I think most folks are going to feel FLA election is over and done but the results of that stolen election live on in what happened in Ohio and other states. Selection 2004 is fresh enough that having statistics on it are good to keep...hopefully a "Special Prosecutor" can use them soon.. :shrug:

[Febble]

16. Well do check out

your second set of "facts":

2. Late on election day, 2004, with Kerry ahead in the exit polls (scientific polls of voters leaving the voting booth), the corporate news monopolies doctored their exit poll data to fit the results coming from Diebold's and ES&S's secret vote tabulation software. This was not the normal adjustment of exit polls for election demographics. It was a very unusual--indeed, impossible--falsification of the numbers. It has been verified that the real exit polls showed a Kerry win by a 3% margin.

The exit polls were "doctored" not by the "corporate news media" but by those who actually conducted the "scientific polls of voters leaving the voting booth". However this was not "very unusual" - it is what the pollsters do in every election, and, ironically, is probably how they have achieved their reputation for extreme accuracy. Moreover, the "doctoring" was done "late on election day" in the sense that the process started as the first polls closed. This is because the exit poll estimates were as usual, based on three data sources:

How are projections made?
Projections are based on models that use votes from three (3) different sources -- exit poll interviews with voters, vote returns as reported by election officials from the sample precincts, and tabulations of votes by county. The models make estimates from all these vote reports. The models also indicate the likely error in the estimates. The best model estimate may be used to make a projection if it passes a series of tests.

http://www.exit-poll.net/faq.html#a10

As for your word "impossible" - the discrepancy between the unadjusted poll data and the vote count cannot have been due to chance. That is indeed "impossible". It may have been due to fraud in the vote-count. However, bias in the poll is also perfectly possible. Bias can occur when sampling is not random. It rarely is. UK exit polls frequently show bias - and we know it is bias because we can rely on our count (fully hand-counted paper ballots).

Sadly, you can not. This is a grievous problem. But having unreliable vote-counting methods does not make exit polls magically more reliable. "Impossible" exit polls are only too common, even in clean electoral systems. I am still traumatised by Neil Kinnock's defeat, in defiance of the exit polls, in 1992.

(Edited to add: I do agree with you about Gore/Kerry! I was a Gore fan, and still haven't quite got over Florida 2000. That's why I'm here, actually, making a nuisance of myself....)

[Febble]

15. Well, have it your way

if it makes you happy.

But, speaking as the "naysayser" in question, I like my evidence properly bunk-tested, and frankly, this isn't. Not close.

And, unlike Rumsfeld, I actually prefer to go to war debate with the evidence I have, not the evidence I'd like to have.

It improves my chances of winning the argument, which is:

that a country whose citizens cannot be sure who won their election is not a democracy. Your democracy was stolen. You need to get it back.

Lizzie

[autorank]

18. We agree--the fact that there is a question states the problem clearly.

We can argue over the weighting of the reasons to question but, as Land Shark says, the elected need to prove their legitimacy by showing us they were, in fact elected. Well, I said that but that's his point and that of GuvWurld also.

I'm thinking of changing my sign line to say - Go to the British Election System -- All Paper, Hand Counted in Public.

It was no accident that De La Rue sold off Sequoia to Smartmatic (SA, maybe). They were done in England.

Thanks to all those bank tellers who showed the most effective counting and tabulation techniques in the world.

[Febble]

19. Well, thank, auto!

we have our complaints in the UK, of course (like the fact that our system allowed the Tories in for four terms without ever winning the majority vote), but apart from this year's glitch with postal ballots, the voting systems itself really is something to be proud of.

But I have to say, you Americans are good company!

[Chi]

20. Out of curiosity

What percent probability do you think Kerry the winner in an honest Ohio 04 election, based on what you know about machine allocation, registration suppression, voter purges, under-votes, etc.?

Thanx in Advance

[Febble]

23. I don't know

which, of course, is the point.

I think the countable stuff doesn't quite add up to a Kerry victory yet, but the uncountable stuff (the people who never made it to the poll) may well do.

But I'm quite certain that it was an unfair election.

[Joanne98]

21. Can a FAKE President, appoint judges? Somebody needs to

look into that. I think if it is ever proven, Bush was never the President, his judges should be FIRED!

[autorank]

27. Joanne98. Couldn't agree more! Judge Abner Mikva said the same,

shortly after Gore versus Bush resulted in the selection of a minority vote president.

We don't need to keep a single one of them from 200-2004 and those after need to go too, every one of them.

Bring on the RESTORATION! Now not later.

[kiwi_expat]

22. According to TIA's definition, I qualify as a "naysayer".

In a post on PI, TIA used the phrase "exit poll naysayers". (It was a fleeting glimpse: he removed the phrase in an edit.) I believe sampling bias is possible, so, officially, I'm a "naysayer". I don't trust either the official vote count or the exit polls.

I am pretty well convinced that if you include the uncounted votes and voter suppression, Kerry won Ohio. In fact, based on the extent of the documented voter suppression in Ohio, I would go so far as to say "The Election was Stolen".

Maybe "Ohio always LAGS the national Democratic vote" does indicate that the popular vote was stolen too. For all I know, the popular vote may have been stolen by voter suppression. The only other state that I know much about is Florida in 2000, where Gore won on the uncounted (over)votes - but where vast amounts of voter suppression occurred also.

But it is important to keep in mind that voter suppression can not show up in the exit polls.

[philb]

24. I assume everyone knows and agrees that Gore won; but Kerry also appears

to have won; there was just a much more organized and diverse effort to steal the 2004 election than in 2000.
http://www.flcv.com/ohiosum.html
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

[autorank]

26. You state the distilled truth: "more organized and diverse..."

They learned how much they could do in Florida 2000. What was the formula? A Republican Governor and Secretary of State and the will to "win" at any cost. Great links in your post!!!

[Cocoa]

25. Gore won, but Kerry lost

imho.

[philb]

71. Have you bothered to look at the evidence?

See the links provided

If the votes had just been counted properly, Kerry appears to have won in several states he didn't get credit for.

But in a fair election he would have won fairly big.
There was huge manipulation of the election process in most states

http://www.flcv.com/summary.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. dialogue of the deaf?

Many of us have been looking at the evidence for over a year, and quite a few of us have honest disagreements about what the evidence shows.

Linking to a website that concatenates a bunch of reported election problems isn't likely to convince anyone much of anything in particular. We can't even agree what the pre-election polls say, which might seem like a pretty straightforward question of fact.

It has been a very long year, hasn't it?

[PATRICK]

30. With no verifiable vote

and many of the mechanics of Florida 2000 covered by the GOP in advance, kerry had no way to scrounge a victory- if he would be allowed the attempt. Gore kept dribbling away real votes in his attempt to get at the recount. But anyway, the main problem that the MSM refuses to focus upon is the unreliability of election results, the horrors of the system, and its own role of course in putting truth behind us as we forge ahead in fraud.

What Kerry could have done- if completely prepared- which most apparently their team was not- was to build a wide case of fraud with criminal evidence and the unreliability of tabulated and recorded votes. Even the former might have netted some individuals almost caught red-handed by amateurs and observers. For whatever reason, Kerry sacrificed votes way in advance of the election and had no strategy to contest anything except a very unwise assumption they could refight 2000 more diligently and politely. To do that they would have to have had a huge lead, not a closing close margin in the polls. His post election warchest was an empty threat by the end. The votes were gone. The fraud was allowed its cloak of invisibility- and still is. The GOP had closed all the 2000 tarbaby traps this time.

The next time, one assumes currently all the Dem contenders pretty much plan to do the same thing as Kerry, it would appear. The GOP seems free to match any other strategic changes with their own and leave their major advantages totally intact. If THAT equation remains unchanged as it did in 2004 almost anyone can manage to lose.

[autorank]

39. Very well said. An empty war chest in the hands of a reluctant

warrior. I agree with you that a challenge in Ohio and elsewhere, NM and FL in particular, would have caught some scoundrels red handed, particularly in Ohio. I'm afraid that Kerry was disheartened by the size of the popular vote loss and just threw in the towel.

The attitude of the Democrats is dispiriting. The problem starts at DNC with their weak minded response to Ohio (did they even read the Conyers Report) and their failure to say simply: no election produces a legitimate result when there are not paper ballots to count, not for recount purposes but as the means of determining the winner.

There are some signs of hope, in the media, and certainly in the community of relentless citizen atavists who will not go away. Why can't one major Democrat get it and just say, the election system has no legitimacy, it's a joke. People would love it. They have no sense of adventure, no urge to take a slight risk, well done, to make huge gains.

[Neil B Forzod]

40. he did throw in the towel

I'm afraid that Kerry was disheartened by the size of the popular vote loss and just threw in the towel.

Wait, your OP said Kerry won the popular vote. :)

Why can't one major Democrat get it and just say, the election system has no legitimacy, it's a joke.

Because a) it would instantly destroy their credibility with around 90% of the electorate, and b) most of them would like to try to get elected again in the future, which is incompatible with (a).

It's one thing for a major Democrat to highlight problems in the election system and work towards election reform. That's something they can and should do, and I'll be the first to agree that there's not enough of that happening.

It's another thing entirely for a major Democrat to stand up and claim "the election system has no legitimacy" and "the voting machines are all rigged for Bush" and "Al Gore is my president". That's just political suicide.

Neil

[Nothing Without Hope]

31. Bravo! K & R. What will it take to make more people aware that the last

two elections were stolen and that Bush the Lesser was never elected AT ALL?

[nashville_brook]

32. i can tell heads are exploding b/c

my ignore function is getting a workout.

thank you autorank!

KnR, baby.

[understandinglife]

35. Send this post to Krugman. I think he's ready for even more truth:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5499049

Recommed.


Peace.

[Neil B Forzod]

37. these posts are great

I love that kid, he's got spunk. Doesn't know jack about statistics, but if we had a few more people with his persistence and enthusiasm it'd go a long way towards fixing things.

I'm not going to point out all the bad assumptions and their effects on the math; that's already been done (and very effectively) time and time and time again. If someone doesn't know (for example) the difference between sampling and non-sampling error, he should probably just keep any analyses to himself and enroll in a first-year stats course before setting up a web site.

Making sarcastic jabs at people who disagree with you is actually kind of an art form. I do admit I get a guilty kick out of TIA's propensity for talking down to people in a lengthy string of one-to-three-word sentences as though his audience is comprised of small children who are too stupid to understand his vastly superior wisdom. The danger in doing that, however, is that when you make stupid statements yourself, you come off worse than you otherwise might.

Here's a simple, random example. And as a bonus, it's 100% math-free (or as TIA might put it, 100.00000000000000000000000% math-free, because significant digits are apparently something to be ignored, like sampling error), to boot:

Were ALL these pre and post-election polls BIASED?
They ALL confirm that Bush lost.

Well, no. Obviously no pre-election poll can "confirm" that Bush lost, since a pre-election poll is (by definition) taken before a single vote is cast. (Never mind that he picks only polls that support his pre-determined answer, and dismisses all others -- that's beside the point being made here.)

Anyway, I do admire TIA's enthusiasm even if I think his analyses are severely misguided. I wish we had a few more like him and a few less people who concede at the first hint of adversity.

Neil

[Febble]

42. Wow

well, as you've shown an interest in the recipient of the sarcastic jabs, here's the source (in context) of the quote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=401402&mesg_id=401556

Yes, I admire TIA's enthusiasm too, but I do wish his assertions weren't billed as FACTS.

Statistical inferences aren't facts at the best of times, and bad statistical inferences masquerading as facts are worse.

But the dedication and diligence I can only admire. And the cause in which they have been exercised.

:toast:

to TIA.

On edit: I should make clear, in case it isn't, that I disagree with virtually all TIA's inferences....

[Febble]

52. I should also make it clear

that I don't admire TIA's ad hominem attacks on people who are also diligently working to find out what went wrong with the 2004 election, whichever piece of ectoplasm he is embodied in right now.

(On edit: by an ad hominem attack, I mean, for example a response that does not address the argument in question, but denigrates the perceived motivation of the person making the argument.)

[AuntiBush]

43. That Channeling Must Be Working.

At least in my neck-of-the-woods. Everyone I bang into knows it & is real fed-up with *&CO!

[mod mom]

44. As usual Autorank-YOU ROCK! Why won't the MSM embrace the GAO Report?

It's unbiased. They should start there and proceed to finding the truth. What are they afraid of, finding out the most incompetent least compassionate, war mongering president in the history of the country was elected by his cronies not the american people? I would think the truth would be a relief!

[katinmn]

45. As usual, we will have to force their attention on the GAO report

like the DSM and so many other things.

Time is running out and no one is representing us!

[mod mom]

46. Here is a ray of hope in the DNC:

<snip>

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends touch screen (DRE) machines not
be used until a reliable voter verifiable audit feature can be uniformly incorporated into these
systems and that in the event of a recount, the paper or other auditable record should be
considered the official record; and

<snip>


DNC Resolution in Support of Election Reform
November 19th, 2005

The following resolution will be considered by the DNC Resolutions Committee at its meeting on December 1, 2005, in conjunction with the meetings of the Democratic National Committee, December 1-3, 2005.
Submitted by: Donna L. Brazile, At Large/District of Columbia
Hartina Flournoy, At-Large/District of Columbia
Ben Johnson, At Large/District of Columbia
Resolution in Support of Election Reform
WHEREAS, in June, 2005, the Democratic National Committee completed its exhaustive
review of the presidential campaign in Ohio; and
WHEREAS, the resulting report, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” documents
that more than one quarter of Ohio voters reported problems with their voting experience, and
African Americans were more than two times as likely as white voters to claim they encountered
problems with their voting experience; and
WHEREAS, this report confirms evidence of widespread voter confusion; voter suppression;
negligence and incompetence on the part of election officials; long lines at the polls; improper
requests for voter identification, particularly among young voters and African American voters;
the failure to properly process absentee ballots and the improper use of provisional ballots in
Ohio on Election Day 2004; and
WHEREAS, evaluations of the administrative processes and technology used by election
officials in Ohio revealed that inadequate and insecure voting systems were pervasive
throughout Ohio—unreliable punch card systems and insecure, unverifiable direct record
electronic (DRE) machines; and
WHEREAS, 71 percent of white voters in Ohio were very confident their vote was counted but
only 19 percent of African American voters were confident their votes were counted; and
WHEREAS, the right to vote and to have that vote accurately counted is the bedrock on which
our democracy stands and nothing is more fundamental to our freedom than our confidence in
the integrity of our democratic institutions; and
WHEREAS, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” makes recommendations for
future action by parties, legislators and local election officials to improve future elections;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will
continue to work with Members of Congress, lawmakers in all 50 United States, the District of
Columbia, and all U.S. Territories, local election officials, and community leaders to update and
reform our election laws to ensure that voter confidence in our election system is restored and
maintained;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in
Ohio” recommends several actions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends states, the District of Columbia
and all U. S. Territories codify into law all required election practices, including requirements for
the adequate training of official poll workers; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommend lawmakers adopt uniform and clear
published standards for the distribution of voting equipment and the assignment of official poll
workers among precincts, to ensure adequate and nondiscriminatory access, and that these
procedures be based on set ratios of numbers of machines and poll workers per number of voters
expected to turn out, and should be made available for pub lic comment before being adopted;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers adopt legislation to
make clear and uniform the rules on voter registration; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers and local election
officials adopt clear and uniform rules on the use of, and the counting of, provisional ballots, and
distribute them for public comment well in advance of each Election Day, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends touch screen (DRE) machines not
be used until a reliable voter verifiable audit feature can be uniformly incorporated into these
systems and that in the event of a recount, the paper or other auditable record should be
considered the official record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends remaining punch card systems
should be discontinued; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers make it easier for
college students to vote in the jurisdiction in which their school is located; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers develop procedures to
ensure that voting is facilitated, without compromising security or privacy, for all eligible voters
living overseas; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers make voter suppression
a criminal offense in all states, the District of Columbia and all U.S. Territories; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers and election officials
should improve the training of poll workers.


http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=426

Anyone here any details how the Dec 1 DNC meeting went regarding this?

[autorank]

53. CM (corporate media) and GAO....CM is the subject of the report

I wish I could remember the user who came up with this obvious truth, but the CM is complicit.

The real nexis is the suppression, by CM, of the raw data from the National and State Election Polls. We can complain about Edison Mitofsky, the pollsters, all we want (and we will) but they did these polls for a client, the media group (Networks, CNN, Washington Post, etc.). When Conyers wrote EM and said show us the data, CM could have stepped in and said, show them the data (while maintaining confidentiality for respondents). They didn't. Why? Don't know but the fact that they didn't is on the record. Will they cover themselves doing a cover up...Headline: "Cover up exposed by those covering up!"

On larger scale, they are in the don't rock the boat category. NBC makes good money for GE but GE makes damn good money and has a huge business without NBC. You think they're going to let NBC mess with them. Same with the press. The best stuff I see in the print media on election fraud, and it is emerging lately, is in regional or local papers.....NEVER IN THE CORPORATE PRINT MEDIA.

Keep up your great work!

[foo_bar]

47. TIA didn't learn anything here

Do the math.
1 in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Where the math stands:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=369374#378106

The naysayers continue their relentless attempts to mask the overwhelming evidence provided by confirmation of hundreds of pre=election and exit polls

What did the pre-election polls say at the time?

9/19 ELECTION MODEL: KERRY 248 EV, 49.47% VOTE, 14% WIN PROB

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2383790

Hey, TIA accidentally nailed the outcome within 3 EVs (and +1% of the popular) using pre-election polls. "Hundreds of pre-election polls" now means dozens cherry-picked from the hundreds, after the tepid response to the projection above.

So life goes on. Febble's work is extra credit in statistics this semester, and TIA retains his niche status alongside the time traveler dude. Since TIA never responded directly to criticism anyway, these seance sessions only reinforce his position in the internet pantheon.

[pat_k]

48. The burden of proof is NOT on us

We must stop falling into the trap that the burden of proof is on us.

From autorank above:

as Land Shark says, the elected need to prove their legitimacy by showing us they were, in fact elected.

In the above, "the elected" could be misconstrued to mean the "wnning" candidate. We need to be clear. Elected and appointed officials (any tools of the state) must conduct elections in a manner that instills confidence.

In the event that reasonable doubts about an election are established (and, as the original post illustrates, reasonable doubts are very easy to establish), the burden of proof shifts to the state. Election officials must take the actions deemed necessary to eliminate the doubt. The logic is inescapable. See Burden of Proof in an Election.

Dysfunctional thinking about our elections has been infecting us -- and has gone largely unchallenged -- for too long.

A vast majority of us (me included) have had our thinking about our elections muddled by all sorts of wrong-headed assumptions and rationalizations. Reasoning from first principles is only way through the quagmire.

The cool thing is that when you internalize a few simple truths and moral principles, rationalizations start falling apart pretty fast. You can back naysayers into a corner from which they cannot escape. It doesn't require a lot of detail -- in fact detail is counter productive. No need to haul out volumes of evidence that our last two Presidential Elections were stolen.

People reject secret vote counting as a matter of principle – no convincing needed. Rejecting DREs as secret vote counters is not much of a stretch.

Discriminatory treatment alone is sufficient to invalidate an election.

We need to pose simple questions (e.g., "Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor, minority voters AND none for affluent, white voters a tolerable condition for you?" or "Can we tolerate secret vote counting?").

A couple other examples:

Rationalization: If the results declare a winner by a large margin, unless you can prove the number of votes that were suppressed exceeds the margin of victory, the problems fall "outside the zone of litigation."

Challenge: If you accept this notion -- that allegations of vote suppression can be dismissed when a state has declared a winner by a large margin -- then you accept the notion that some of our states (particularly those in the South where official margins are often very large) can engage in massive vote suppression with no risk of consequence. The official (o-fishy) results of statewide elections in Mississippi are usually 60% Rep / 40% Dem (since this mirrors almost precisely the white/black breakdown of the population, there are apparently no white Democrats in the state). As long as conventional wisdom buys the "outside the zone of litigation" notion, election officials throughout the state of Mississippi can rest assured that they'll never face serious scrutiny. Of course, this is an absurd position. No matter what the margin of victory, the results of a discriminatory election must be rejected. Disparate treatment of voters alone is sufficient to invalidate an election.

Rationalization: We are trapped and limited by the "letter of the law" ("They have all the judges" or "A contest must be resolved by an arbitrary deadline, or it becomes irrelevant.").

Challenge: We the People, through our representatives, have defined our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will. If, in any state, there is a reasonable doubt that the election results reflect the will of the voters, and application of the law fails to provide a remedy that eliminates the doubt, then We the People must demand a political remedy; one that trumps all legalisms and cynical misuse of our courts. See "Burden of Proof in an Election" at http://thedeanpeople.com/election2004_burden_of_proof.htm.

There are no deadlines in the law. The dates we specify for completion of certain actions are moved as a matter of course. Like everything in the law, actions are dictated by a "balance-of-interests" test that must be grounded in the values embodied in our constitution. The right of the People to have confidence that they are being afforded free and fair elections for their government officials is a right that no other consideration can supersede. When rigid adherence to a deadline would destroy the public's trust in the integrity of an election, the balance-of-interests test would demand an extension.

The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. We can never again allow a "technical" or "legal" argument trump reality as we did in the Presidential Elections of 2000 and 2004.

Rationalization: The candidate conceded.

Challenge: So what. The people are the real stakeholders in an election. The public has a right to have confidence that their elections reflect their will. It doesn't matter what the candidates think.

[roseBudd]

50. The answer: It takes way too much time to read the mind numbingly dry

information contained in all these sources. And we can expect only a small percentage of the populace to actually do this. We need a yada yada version.

Which is why all us boring people on DU need to admit we really really need the Daily Show version of Stolen Election even though boring people like us really don't find it at all humorous.

I'm talking about http://bushcheated04.com

It would take a concerted DU and lefty blogger effort to virally spread this site far and wide. I tried and failed to get it on fark.com and boingboing.net

This needs to be a DU activist task IMHO

Karl Rove would do this in a heart beat. Remember we must learn to mock the competition relentlessly.

[pat_k]

51. Yes. As I point out above, simple truths are lost in detailed argument and

Yes. As I try to point out above, simple truths are lost in detailed argument and endless review of the massive amount of evidence.

[autorank]

54. bushcheated04.com IS a GREAT site.

Far and wide is right. It's worth going after these other out lets again. I can tell you that if you write long or short, CM will ignore things until "it's their time."

Post the addresses and submission protocols for places you want this to go with a clear subject field and I'll do my thing and others will again.

That is a great site, particularly the vocals.

Also, lets find the dzika link for the Ohio video. That was brilliant also.

[roseBudd]

64. And none of the super serious election fraud web sites will link to it

The beauty of BushCheated04.com is you can show it to a certain segment of the population and they will believe it in a heart beat. The beauty of parody is you don't have to infer, you can come right out and say it.

Compare that to trying to convince some of the educated elites and it's like pulling teeth.

We need for everybody to be mad as hell about election fraud, especially African Americans because suppression is a big part of the GOP arsenal. Suppression of minority voting strength is I think one of our strongest arguments. It's the easiest to document, because it happened to people.

IMHO the photo ID bullshit is all about P. Diddy's Vote or Die. It scared the shit out of the GOP. I was in Ohio and you couldn't walk 2 blocks without seeing a clipboard in the ghetto.

[PATRICK]

55. The odd thing about the statistical debate

is the difference between the use and availability of data for the 2004 election and the now infamous Ohio ballot proposals. I might concede that someone put their finger on the scales on that one considering the challenge to the whole vote fraud network, but instead of a three legged horse we usually have to ride against the national elections we were automatically reduced to two or one. Yet THAT result more than any data proof tipped the suspicious populace into easy challenge mode. With noting in the way of exit polling and only the pre-election polls weighed against the last minute ad blitz and the numbing shock of the overlong, complex proposals as they actually appeared on the ballot, you would think someone would have to concede the verification was lost in the fog.

The main issue of being unable to trust and verify vapor ballots still didn't get through, but with no one in either party organization challenging or defending, the odd result was to leave the field open to the doubters. The attitude of both party organizations was more aggressive in squelching doubters in 2004, for obvious reasons. Yet this was a last straw. Both parties whistling in the dark as the results pass unquestioned into history, the unverifiability of the ballots, the lack even of any analysis of why the discrepancy, is much more damning than any charge made on a single poll.

Who isn't sick of being treated like an ignorant sucker who, seeing the cards falling out of the cheat's sleeve or the magnets under the roulette table, is ignored(2005) or put down(2006) when they lodge an angry and legitimate complaint? There is room for a million kinds of fraud when on this single issue we do have indeed a Tweedledee and Tweedledum "contest" where the public, "Alice", is insulted and abused by both, but each year must help them gird themselves for battle.

[BamaBecky]

56. kick

[autorank]

57. Measuring accuracy in TIA's prediction.

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

Accurate and honest vote counting were once the measure of accurate polling. We now know to well that here and elsewhere, vote counting is not verifiable. The vote goes in the vendors machine, is counted on the vendors tabulator, and we get the results, fait accompli. We don't get to examine much, if anything, and there is rarely true parallel verification.

Accurate and honest polling is another thing to measure. Without the accurate and honest vote counting and method of verifying such, you have a couple of criteria at least -- showing your work and providing a method of verifying the work.

The final TIA poll on 11/01/05 had Kerry with 51% of the vote.
The final National Exit Poll (12:22AM) had Kerry with 50i.8%.

Since the vendors who took and counted much of the 2004 vote do not show their work, do not show their methods and software fully, and have no paper trail, the vote count, polluted by their Republican biased presence, is not reliable.

The NEP has a paper trail (which we will see some day) and methods which are openly discussed. TIA has a detailed listing of his work.

My vote is for the accuracy of the 12:22AM NEP and TIA. To say otherwise is to endorse the Diebold's of the world.

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. "the final TIA poll" is contradicted by, well, the actual polls

http://pollingreport.com/2004.htm (Bush leads in 5 of 8 projections, 10 of 14 trial heats)

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=102 (slightly different list of trial heats, Bush again leads in 10 of 14)

I could go on, but we have done this before.

My vote is for the accuracy of the 12:22AM NEP and TIA. To say otherwise is to endorse the Diebold's of the world.

An impressive new contender for the FEMME Trophy (Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Most Egregious).

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. ah, TIA seems to be channeling himself elsewhere on the Net

but I have no idea what the DU protocol is for responding to someone who Isn't There. (EDIT: "but I have idea" could've been some weird meta pun, but wasn't)

Anyway, the line seems to be: pay no attention to what anyone else -- including the pollsters themselves -- say their polls indicate.

Sure, those darn MSM analysts at Pew said "Slight Bush Margin in Final Days of Campaign", but the illuminati know that it shoulda been Kerry +1.

pollingreport.com, shmollingreport.com -- WeGo YouGov.

All those poli sci models that called the election for Bush -- best not to mention those, much less refute them.

The goofuses over at "Polly's Page", well, who wants to listen to parrots, anyway? Might as well argue with a stone.

[autorank]

59. "A job once well done is twice done" Correction to my post #57

My father was right!

Correction (of typo & rounding):

TIA's final poll on 11/01/04 showed Kerry with 51.8% of the two party vote or 51.3% of the total vote.

The final National Exit Poll (12:22AM) had Kerry with 50.8%

------------------------------------------------------
The rest is the same(and not really impacted by the typo or rounding;)
"Accuracy in Media" even on the 2nd try.

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

Accurate and honest vote counting were once the measure of accurate polling. We now know to well that here and elsewhere, vote counting is not verifiable. The vote goes in the vendors machine, is counted on the vendors tabulator, and we get the results, fait accompli. We don't get to examine much, if anything, and there is rarely true parallel verification.

Accurate and honest polling is another thing to measure. Without the accurate and honest vote counting and method of verifying such, you have a couple of criteria at least -- showing your work and providing a method of verifying the work.

Since the vendors who took and counted much of the 2004 vote do not show their work, do not show their methods and software fully, and have no paper trail, the vote count, polluted by their Republican biased presence, is not reliable.

The NEP has a paper trail (which we will see some day) and methods which are openly discussed. TIA has a detailed listing of his work.

My vote is for the accuracy of the 12:22AM NEP and TIA. To say otherwise is to endorse the Diebold's of the world.

[Febble]

60. Let me get this straight:

your link to TIA's "final poll" says:

Election Model Projections

If the election were held today, then based on recent state polling, the Electoral Vote Simulation model calculates that John Kerry has a 99.8% probability of winning an electoral vote majority by a 337-201 margin and 51.80% of the popular vote. Kerry won 4990 of 5000 Monte Carlo simulated election trials.

Based on the average of eighteen national polls, the National Vote Projection model calculates that Kerry has a 99.99% probability of winning a popular vote majority with 51.63% of the vote.

So TIA was actually saying, on the eve of the election, that Kerry a 99.8 probability of winning the popular vote by nearly four percentage points?

Well, I have to confess, I am gobsmacked, as we say around here.

Every single pollster, including all those cited by TIA, was saying it was "too close to call" - and yet TIA thought that Kerry was a dead cert (99.8 is a dead cert in statistics) for a massive win of the popular vote?

(On edit: well I suppose nearly 4% isn't really massive, but that makes giving it a probability of 99.8% even more, well... odd.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. well, TIA said two things, both rather odd

TIA said that Kerry had a 99.99% (not 99.8%) probability of winning the popular vote. Let's not lowball things here, eh?

He also said that

If the election were held today, then based on recent state polling, the Electoral Vote Simulation model calculates that John Kerry has a 99.8% probability of winning an electoral vote majority by a 337-201 margin and 51.80% of the popular vote.

But he cannot have meant quite that. Surely he didn't mean that Kerry had a 99.8% chance of winning 51.80% of the popular vote. (And 0.2% chance of winning 51.81%?!) Those figures (51.80% for the Electoral Vote Simulation, 51.63% for the National Vote Projection) are just his mean expected values, surely.

Anyway, as I always say, if you disagree with TIA, you probably work for Diebold. (Actually, that is a freehand paraphrase, but real election reformers shouldn't get hung up on words.)

[Febble]

62. Ah!

Riiiiight.

So Kerry had a 99.8% (or maybe 99.99%)chance of winning, with an expected margin of a bit under 4%. And an EV margin of 136.

You know what? I think TIA works for Mitofsky....

[autorank]

65. Probability Questions & Poll Accuracy, the Muse Speaks

I’m getting new data from my channeling TIA function.  
Voila!  
-----------------------------------------
Someone said:
"TIA said that Kerry had a 99.99% (not 99.8%) probability
of winning the popular vote. Let's not lowball things here,
eh?"

Now it's my turn:
Yes, I said it.

Want to check the math?
"If the election were held today, then based on recent
state polling, the Electoral Vote Simulation model calculates
that John Kerry has a 99.8% probability of winning an
electoral vote majority by a 337-201 margin and 51.80% of the
popular vote".

Now for some pro bono public education.

In the model, I calculated that Kerry had a 99.8% chance of
winning the electoral vote (at least 270 votes).
That's the result of winning 4990 of 5000 simulation trials.
And 337 is the expected mean EV, assuming Kerry won 75% of the
undecided vote.

The probabilities are:
18 national polls- 99.9994% (to win the popular vote),
9 national independent polls: 99.9799% (to win the popular
vote)
5000 trial EV simulation (51 states): 99.8% to get at least
270 EV

Want to check the math?

The math is correct.
Febble has always agreed in the past.

For 18 national polls (18000 total sample)
MoE = 0.73%
Kerry 2-party projected vote (mean): 51.63%
Prob =normdist(.5163,.5,0.0073/1.96,true)
Prob= 99.9994%

For the 9 independent pollster subset (9000 sample)
MoE = 1.03%
Kerry 2-party projected vote (mean): 51.86%
Prob = normdist(.5186,.5,0.0103/1.96,true)
Prob= 99.9799%

See ya guys...

HERE'S A COMPREHENSIVE ELECTION 2004 SITE:
POLLING DATA, ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION
and...
THE EXCEL INTERACTIVE ELECTION MODEL
http://www.truthisall.net/



		
Polling Date Accuracy Referenced 
							
	FINAL NATIONAL PRE-ELECTION POLLS				
               
18 Poll Summary:						
Kerry won 9, Bush 8, 1 tie						
Kerry won 5 of 9 Registered Voter (RV) Polls				 
and 4 of 9 Likely Voter (LV) Polls				
									
									
Polling Data Source:							
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/YouGovS.pdf								
		
	
Total	Poll	Total	Weighted Average			67%	33%
		Sample	Sample	MoE	KERRY	BUSH		KERRY	BUSH
Date		26961	Group	0.60%	47.55	47.30		49.95	49.05
									
1-Nov	Marist	1166	LV	2.87%	50	49		50.13	48.87
1-Nov	Econ	2903	RV	1.82%	50	47		51.24	47.76
1-Nov	TIPP	1284	LV	2.73%	44	47		50.35	48.65
1-Nov	CBS	1125	RV	2.92%	47	48		48.35	50.65
1-Nov	Harris	1509	LV	2.52%	48	49		51.31	47.69
									
31-Oct	Zogby	1200	LV	2.83%	47	48		48.37	50.63
31-Oct	FOX	1400	RV	2.62%	48	45		51.40	47.60
31-Oct	DemCorp	1018	LV	3.07%	48	47		47.75	51.25
31-Oct	Gallup	1866	RV	2.27%	48	46		50.51	48.49
31-Oct	NBC	1014	LV	3.08%	47	48		46.01	52.99
									
31-Oct	ABC	3511	RV	1.65%	47	48		48.65	50.35
30-Oct	ARG	1258	LV	2.76%	49	48		49.05	49.95
30-Oct	Pew	2408	RV	2.00%	46	45		50.55	48.45
29-Oct	Nwk	1005	RV	3.09%	44	48		48.78	50.22
26-Oct	ICR	817	RV	3.43%	48	48		53.16	45.84
									
24-Oct	LAT	1698	RV	2.38%	48	47		51.26	47.74
21-Oct	Time	803	LV	3.46%	46	51		47.38	51.62
20-Oct	AP	976	LV	3.14%	49	46		53.16	45.84
									
									
---------------------------------------------------------------------						
									
	BUSH	KERRY							
									
			Zogby Poll						
1 LV	48	47	10/4-31/04 REUTERS/ZOGBY TRACKING POLL: 3-day
rolling sample of approx. 1,200 likely voters nationwide. MoE
± 2.9. 						
					Bush	Kerry	Nader	Other	
				10/29-31/04	48	47	1	4	
									
2 LV	49	50	Marist College Poll. Nov. 1, 2004. N=1,166
registered voters nationwide (MoE ± 3); 1,026 likely voters
(MoE ± 3).						
					Bush	Kerry	Unsure		
				11/1/2004	49	50	1		
									
									
3 RV	47	50	Economist  YouGov 		2903	total; MoE +/-2%			
			10/30-11/01 Bush	Kerry			
					45	49			
									

4 LV	47	44	TIPP tracking poll conducted by TechnoMetrica
Market Intelligence. Oct. 30-Nov. 1, 2004. N=1,284 likely
voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.8.   						
					Bush	Kerry			
				10/30 - 11/1/04	47	44			

5 RV	48	47	CBS News Poll. Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2004. N=1,125 likely
voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. 						
					Bush/	Kerry/			
					Cheney	Edwards			
				10/29 - 11/1/04	48	47			
									
6 LV	49	48	The Harris Poll. Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2004: N=1,509
likely voters nationwide who express a preference. MoE ±
2.5.						
					Bush	Kerry	Nader	Other (vol.)	
				10/29 - 11/1/04	49	48	2	1	
									
7 RV	45	48	FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 30-31, 2004.
N=1,400 registered voters nationwide (MoE ± 3); 1,200 likely
voters (MoE ± 3).						
					George	John	Other 	Wouldn't					W. Bush	Kerry	Not
Sure	Vote (vol.)	
				10/30-31/04	45	48	7	-	
									
8 LV	47	48	Democracy Corps Poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan
Rosner Research (D). Oct. 29-31, 2004. N=1,018 likely voters
nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.						
					George	John	Ralph	Other	Unsure
					Bush	Kerry	Nader	(vol.)	
			10/29-31/04	47	48	1	1	3

9 RV	46	48	CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 29-31, 2004.
N=1,866 registered voters nationwide (MoE ± 3); 1,573 likely
voters (MoE ± 3).						
					Bush/	Kerry/	Nader/	Other	None/
					Cheney	Edwards	Camejo	(vol.)	Unsure
			10/29-31/04	46	48	1	1	4


10 LV	48	47	NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the
polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff
(R). Oct. 29-31, 2004. N=1,014 likely voters nationwide. MoE ±
3.1.						
			Bush/	Kerry/	Nader/	None/	Unsure
			Cheney	Edwards	Camejo	Other (vol.)	
	10/29-31/04	48	47	1	2	2
									

11 RV	48	47	ABC News Tracking Poll and Washington Post
Tracking Poll. Rolling sample. Fieldwork by TNS. ABC News and
The Washington Post share data collection for this tracking
poll, but calculate and report the results independently.
WASHINGTON POST: Oct. 28-31, 200						
			Bush/	Kerry/	Nader/	None/	No
			Cheney	Edwards	Camejo	Wouldn'tOpinion
			ABC News Tracking Poll 						
	10/28-31/04	48	47	1	2	2
									
									
12 LV	48	49	American Research Group Poll. Oct. 28-30, 2004.
N=1,500 registered voters nationwide (MoE ± 2.5); 1,258 likely
voters (MoE ± 2.8).						
			Bush/	Kerry/	Other/		
			Cheney	Edwards	Unsure		
			48	49	3		

13 RV	45	46	Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Oct. 27-30, 2004. N=2,408 registered voters
nationwide (MoE ± 2.5); 1,925 likely voters (MoE ± 2.5).						
				Bush/	Kerry/	Nader/	Other/	
				Cheney	Edwards	Camejo	Unsure	
		10/27-30/04	45	46	1	8	
									


14 RV	48	44	Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey
Research Associates International. Oct. 27-29, 2004. N=1,005
registered voters nationwide (MoE ± 4); 882 likely voters (MoE
± 4).						
				Bush/	Kerry/	Nader/	Other (vol.)/	
				Cheney	Edwards	Camejo	Undecided	
		10/27-29/04	48	44	1	7	



15 RV	48	48	ICR/International Communications Research poll.
Oct. 22-26, 2004. N=817 registered voters nationwide (MoE ±
3.4); 741 likely voters (MoE ± 3.6).						
			Bush/	Kerry/	Other	Neither	Unsure
			Cheney	Edwards	(vol.)	(vol.)	
		10/22-26/04	48	48	-	1	4
									


16 RV	47	48	Los Angeles Times Poll. Oct. 21-24, 2004. N=1,698
registered voters nationwide (MoE ± 3); 881 likely voters (MoE
± 3).						
			Bush/	Kerry/	Unsure		
			Cheney	Edwards			
	10/21-24/04	47	48	5		
									


17 LV	51	46	Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca &
Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. Oct. 19-21, 2004. N=1,059
registered voters nationwide (MoE ± 3); 803 likely voters (MoE
± 4). 						
			Bush	Kerry	Nader	Unsure	
	10/19-21/04	51	46	2	1	
									.


18 LV	46	49	Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by
Ipsos-Public Affairs. Oct. 18-20, 2004. N=1,330 registered
voters nationwide (MoE ± 2.5); 976 likely voters (MoE ±
3).						
			Bush/	Kerry/	Nader/	Other/	
			Cheney	Edwards	Camejo	None (vol.)/	
	10/18-20/04	46	49	2	3	

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. whoa: I actually AM arguing with a stone... cool...

This is not a math question.

In the real world, one can't get everyone to agree to work from TIA's list of Real poll results. See also my #63.

Moreover, it is not S.O.P. in meta-analysis to just add a bunch of surveys together to make One Big Survey. And even if one did, it would be pretty wishful to assume that sampling error is the only error source in the model.

But all this, and more, has been explained before.

[Febble]

70. Qualification:

I confess I had not looked at this "final poll" before, but if "the math" gives a 99.9% (or even a 99.8%) probability of a Kerry win, then something about the math is wrong. I was optimistically putting it the odds at about 50:50 myself, and hoping that even if the popular vote was pretty evenly split, the EV would benefit Kerry. Which is sort of what happened (in the official vote anyway), in that a few thousand more (official) votes for Kerry in Ohio would have given him the presidency, but not the (official) popular vote.

(And more generally, when I say I agree with TIA's math, I certainly trust him to perform the computations he does correctly - the issue is usually whether we can legitimately infer from them what he infers from them. But his probability calcs are frequently invalidated by the assumptions that underlie them, and a probability calc based on erroneous assumptions is not a correct calculation).

So what is wrong with this particular probability calc? Well for a start, as OTOH says, a good meta-analysis is a complex thing to do, and one thing it involves is using ALL data you can find (including unpublished data, if you can find that) and weighting it appropriately. "Appropriately" is the hard part of course, and it is difficult to avoid the charge of "cherry-picking". There are, however, systematic ways of weighting studies according to statistical power and cleanliness of methodology. But the fact remains that meta-analyses in general (and meta-analyses of these pre-election polls in particular) are acutely sensitive to the studies you pick and the assumptions you make. In the case of the pre-election polls, some analysts called it for Bush (but with nothing like 99.9% confidence; others sat on the fence; and a few brave souls like Sam Wang (I think) called the EV for Kerry (with a wing and a prayer).

Yet TIA called it for Kerry with 99.9% confidence? From a eighteen polls in which (unweighted) the mean difference between Kerry and Bush was not (on my calcs) significantly different from zero?

Look, I don't think that election was on the up and up, and I think the exit poll stuff was worth investigating. And apart from anything else, it also energised a lot of people (including me) into investigating stuff that brought the election result into serious doubt. But claiming that Kerry's probability of victory, in both the electoral college and popular vote, was 99.9% - well, as we say on our side of the pond, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Were any bookies offering 100:1 odds on a Bush win?

[Febble]

76. Update

Just checked Sam Wang:

http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html

Looks like he did indeed commit himself to a 98% probability of a Kerry EV win, bless him (he doesn't seem to give a probability for his Popular Vote estimate)

And it's still on a wing and prayer, though. He modified his "gut estimate" to 6:1 after a Bayesian adjustment as to whether his assumptions were likely to be correct.

Well, there you go. Sam Wang and TIA agreed, at least on the EV win.

I'm afraid it doesn't convince me that either of them were correct.

Actually, Sam Wang doesn't seem that convinced he was correct either:

http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc_letters_aftermath.html

but he has interesting things to say about why he might have been wrong:

I think the purely statistical aspects of the analysis did extremely well. The electoral outcome looks like it will be close to the decided-voter outcome predicted by the polls. Victory margins are quantitatively close to the pre-election polls: out of 23 battlegrounds, the direction of the outcome was predicted in 22 (the exception was Wisconsin, where the polling margin was 0.4% for Bush and the actual margin was about 0.4% for Kerry). Quantitatively, 12 victory margins were within one standard error and 17 were within the 95% confidence interval. Not perfect, but not bad.

The most significant errors had to do the net effect of other factors not encompassed by polls. To make a final prediction, I used previous patterns of uncommitted voters breaking for the challenger as a guide, but this break either did not occur or was cancelled by other factors. My assumption of high turnout was flat out wrong! In the end, the likely-voter models of pollsters were not too far off.

There has been talk of other factors, but a parsimonious explanation may be that the net effect of all other factors was zero. This isn't always true - in past years the outcome seems to have not matched final polls. There seems to be some mystery offset that varies a bit. On the other hand, this year we had more data - maybe it's just a question of having enough data and the right answer falls out.

One advantage of rigorous statistical modeling is that you can see a clear separation between factual information and assumptions of less certainty. In this case my baseline calculation was quite accurate, but the intangibles were wrong. As I said, in previous years at least one of the assumptions would have worked. What happened this year is a question for the political and policy people - in the end it goes to show that I am at my best with the numbers!

(my bold)

See also:

http://election.princeton.edu/

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. yes, Wang gets big points for isolating crucial assumptions:

Note that all of these probabilites are conditional on the turnout and undecided voter assumptions being correct. The true probability is obtained by multiplying by a measure that is a function of whether my assumptions are accurate. The chance that I am wrong makes the true probability substantially lower than 100%! As Niels Bohr (and Yogi Berra) said, "Prediction is hard, especially of the future."

http://election.princeton.edu

Wang is confusing when he refers to his "assumption of high turnout" -- rather, his assumption was that high turnout would favor Kerry. Surely in some places it did (and conceivably fraud conceals some of its actual impact). But as we've discussed, it was never empirically all that obvious that high turnout 'had to' favor Kerry. TIA's parallel leap was to prefer Registered Voter results to Likely Voter results, although he uses some of each.

[onthebench]

67. i am new to the stolen election based on poll result debate

please bear with this question. I scanned through and have not seen these questions asked.

Questions - Is it possible that the conspiracy is in the poll numbers not the election results? The possible link here is the disbanding of the voter news consortium in 2002. Have Edison/Mitofsky been fully vetted? Would it be easier to bribe one company than an entire state? Would it be easier to screw with pre-election polls? Have these polls (pre and exit) been open for audit?

One other thing that caught my eye...

Your quote - "That the Census 2004 Vote Survey was wrong?
According to the Census, 125.7 million voted in 2004.
That's 3.4mm more than the recorded 122.3 million.
The Census Gender demographic MoE is 0.30%.
Should we believe the 122.3mm recorded vote?
The Final Exit Poll has a 1.0% MoE, according to Mitofsky"

The census of vote on the EAC website states that 2% on average do not vote for the highest office but vote other parts of the ballot - undervote. Would that not account for that difference?

I will keep trying to be up to speed.

Thanks to all for being so welcoming.

Peace

[autorank]

68. Welcome to DU! Unfortunately, there's spin everywhere, some of it

illegal, and I'm talking about alterations in the vote count due to any number of factors. The argent I believe is that the four National exit Polls showing a Kerry win were more accurate than the voting process/tabulation/reporting. Why, because the NEP had no apparent bias through the 12:22AM final poll and because there is an actual existing paper trail for the entire National/State Exit Poll. As far as the elections go, just look at OHIO (see this site to start
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/
and New Mexico (this article is just one example of the many NM problems) http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00067.htm.

The exit poll pointers to fraud are just one piece of the larger picture which includes voter suppression, voting machine and tabulator vulnerability, outright political preference for right wing Republican views by the owners of the major voting machine companies, and the mack daddy of all arguments: if we can't see and count the votes ourselves, those politicians elected through privatized or even publicly owned voting machines are not legitimately elected. This is actually the simplest point. Once a vote enters a touch screen, it disappears from public scrutiny until that vote is aggregated and counted by tabulation software on private vendor software. The county and state election officials who buy voting machines and tabulation software almost always sign contracts that contain restrictions on examination of the methods and software on the machines. Hence, we've "outsourced" our elections to private companies who won't let us see our votes and who fight paper trails. Strange huh?

Welcome aboard. Election fraud research and action to counter it through supporting real election integrity (fully open and transparent election systems) is, IMHO, the most basic issue we face to preserve our democracy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. E/M, and the census

Some folks think that Mitofsky has been rigging exit polls for, umm, I guess decades. I guess for them, the disbanding of VNS is the least of the worries. (Dick Morris thought the exit polls were rigged to discourage Republicans; some folks have suggested instead that they were rigged to lull Democrats into complacency.) I honestly don't quite understand why anyone believes any of this. AFAICT, most public opinion researchers think that the exit polls were wrong, and a few think that the exit polls were basically right and the vote count was wrong; few see any need for the hypothesis that the exit polls (and/or pre-election polls) were rigged. Anything is possible, I guess.

I didn't notice the "Census 2004 Vote Survey" chestnut coming back. It's actually the Voting and Registration Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS). To quote a 1998 Census Bureau press release, "The CPS routinely overestimates voter turnout" (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-146.html), so most of us don't waste much time trying to reconcile the figures. You may well be right that presidential undervoting accounts for part of the discrepancy; I would have to look more closely.

[Febble]

75. OK, these are my words:

.....................................................................
"So I would argue that the Totality of the Evidence at present adds up to this:
1. The election was corrupt.
2. Democrats were the net losers from the corruption.
3. Voter (and vote) suppression remains a key problem, and may have cost Kerry Ohio.
4. Kerry probably lost the popular vote.
5. But we do not know for sure who actually won either the popular or the electoral vote, and this insupportable (sic.)"
.....................................................................

The naysayser confirms the corruption in points 1,2,3.
But still keeps from going all the way in points 4 and 5.

So, my response:

Even though all available evidence says otherwise.

Not in my view

So let's summarize some important FACTS ...

Al Gore was ELECTED in 2000.
It was not just stolen from him.
It was stolen from US.
But at least Al fought.

Certainly Gore had more intended votes in Florida than Bush, and won the popular vote.

John Kerry was ELECTED in 2004.
It was not just stolen from him.
It was stolen from US.
John, we hardly knew 'ye.

Not facts.

TIME FOR SOME FACTS:

The naysayers continue their relentless attempts to mask the overwhelming evidence provided by confirmation of hundreds of pre=election and exit polls:

Not a fact.


1) Pre-election state. Total sample: 50 polls* 600 = 30,000
2) Pre-election national. Total Sample: 18 polls *1500 = 27,000
3) Pre-election 48.5% Bush approval. Total: 11 polls*1000 = 11,000
4) 12:22am state exit polls: 73,600 respondents
5) 12:22am national exit poll: 13,047 respondents

These are facts in the sense that these polls were published. However the numbers are inferences from samples, and their margins of error assume random sampling. All the polls cited had high non-response rates, and cannot be assumed to consist of random samples, although one hopes they did.

And to this we must add have all the massive documented evidence of vote miscounts:
OH, FL, PA, NV, NM, VA, NC, MN, IA, WI, MO, NY…

This is a qualitative statement, not quantitative. "Massive" needs to be supported by quantitative data before I will accept it as a "fact". But yes, I agree there is good evidence of "irregularities", and probably in all these states. More than vote miscounts, however - some of the best documented evidence includes incidents where the voter was unable to vote at all.

Were ALL these pre and post-election polls BIASED?

Probably not.

They ALL confirm that Bush lost.

A pre election poll cannot "confirm" what happened in an election. And I was following the pre-election polls closely, and they certainly weren't telling me that "Bush lost". And yes, they may have been biased, some more than others, some in on direction some in another.

What is it about these polls that is so difficult to understand?

I dunno - what is it about "too close to call" that is so difficult to understand?

Where is the evidence that the exit polls were biased?
Was it shy Bush voters (rBr)?
Debunked in NEP by Mitofksky 43%Bush/37% Gore?

I have no idea why TIA thinks the recalled vote data "debunks" non-response bias as an explanation for the discrepancy between poll and count. I certainly wouldn't describe the hypothesis as "shy Bush voters", but I find it perfectly plausible to postulate that slightly more of the "reluctant" voters (and we know there were a lot) were Bush voters than Kerry voters. Of the "non-reluctant" voters, I also find it perfectly plausible that some Gore voters mistakenly recalled voting for Bush; OTOH cited an actual longitudinal study in which voters who voted for Gore later recalled voting for Bush. If similar proportions did so in the exit poll, it would account for the exit poll data Bush/Gore proportions.

Was it early Kerry voters?
Debunked. View the time line Kerry led at 4pm, 7:33pm, 12:22am

Was it early women voters?
Debunked.
Female vote share
4pm: 58%, 7:33pm: 54%, 12:22am: 54%, 1:25pm 54%

Neither of these, as we both know. The timeline is irrelevant. The timeline simply reflects dynamic re-weighting processes. We know, in any case, from the E-M report that the problem was at the level of the precincts - a greater proportion of Kerry voters were sampled on the poll than were represented in the vote.

Was it False Gore voter recall?
Ridiculous on its face.
Bush voters recall who they voted for...
Gore voters suffer from Alzheimer's?

I have to believe this assertion (not a fact) is willful denial of perfectly good evidence. Check back to the Game thread for OTOH's source. Inaccurate vote recall is a well-attested phenomenon, and often favours the incumbent.

Was it Bad weather early in the day keeping Bush voters home?
Right.
Breaking News! Republicans buy umbrellas at Walmart.

Well, they didn't have to queue as long in Ohio, so maybe. But the evidence suggests not.

Was it inexperienced pollsters?
Mitofsky trained them. Who is better qualified?

This is my best guess. They had, I understand, a brief telephone training. Not enough for what is actually a remarkably difficult job.

Was it the exit poll "cluster effect"?
Do I hear 20%? 30%? 50%?

TIA should stop using these scare quotes, and find out what a DESR actually is (I've attempted to explain, and even gave him a link).

Ok, enter your "design effect" into the Interactive Election Model.
Let's see how many states will deviate beyond the MoE for Bush.
The model will calculate the probabilities.
Maybe not 1 in 19 trillion (16 exceeding MoE), but still astronomical.

No, because I do not share the assumption of the model that the only source of error in the polls is sampling error (DESR is also an estimate of sampling error).

And how does one explain 30% poll deviations in the Ohio 2005 election?

Well I think there are a number of possible explanations, but I thought we were talking about 2004? Possible there was fraud, although the finding by Klinkner that the discrepancy was not greater in DRE counties doesn't suggest DRE fraud particularly. But as I keep saying, until Ohio gets cleaned up, no-one will know the answer.

How much evidence is necessary to prove the DRE fix?

How much? Well, I'd like to see something more convincing that we've got. But I agree they are a terrible idea, on many, many, counts, and quite absurdly insecure, as the GAO report points out.

Were the pre-election polls biased, as well?

Oh, I thought we'd done this bit. Probably they were, but clearly not all in one direction. I think TIA eliminated the polls he thought were biased for Bush. I am sure they had non-sampling error, and tracking polls suggested some polls tended to track higher than others. This suggests that bias was a problem, and that certain pollsters tended to have a particular bias. This is highly likely, as bias is a function of methodology. One of the reasons I dispute TIA's lumping of polls together is that it ignores between-poll error (what is sometimes called "random effects" variance. It seems fairly clear that each poll had a characteristic "bias". It's the same in the UK. The one I like is ICM (for the Guardian) as it allows for "shy Tories" - it therefore tends to track Labour lower than the others - and generally gets closer to the result.


Naysayers can't blame it on "cluster effect".
Or bad weather.
Or shy Bush voters.
Or Gore voter Faulty Recall.
Or untrained pollsters.
These were PRE-ELECTION POLLS.

This is pure rhetoric, not argument. See above.

For naysayers to say that they wanted a Kerry win is a canard.
They claim to be Democrats or Indies searching for the truth.
To prevent fraud in the NEXT election.
As if THAT gives them credibility.

They want to have it both ways.
Deny that Kerry won and that the polls were right.
Yet at the same time claim that they wanted him to win.
Naysayer allegiance to Mitofsky is obvious.

Again, this is pure rhetoric. I will leave well alone.

They say the math is correct.
No argument there.
But they don't agree with the assumptions.
What assumptions?

1. Random sampling
2. Random sampling
3. Random sampling

That pre-election polls favored Kerry?
I can prove it. Go to pollingreport.com

See mine (and others', including OTOH's, responses on this thread.

That undecided voters went for Kerry by almost 2-1?
That new voters went to Kerry by 3-2?
That Nader voters went to Kerry by 4-1?
See the National Exit Poll time lines.

Don't understand this. See my comment re time-line. We also can't distinguish "new voters" from "rare voters". New voters will tend to be young and might be expected to favour Kerry. Rare voters - who knows?


That the 43/37% Bush/Gore voter share of the 2004 vote was impossible?
It took a long time for the naysayers to agree.
After all, even they would not claim Bush voter immortality.

Oh dear, round, and round, and round we go. No, I agree, that it is unlikely that Bush voters are immortal. False recall seems much more likely as an explanation - we actually know this is a phenomenon. The only immortal I know personally is a Kerry voter (or I assume he is...)

That the Final Exit Poll must be wrong?
Well, to match the vote, it applied fictitious weightings.
That's a no-brainer.

That all other Final demographics/vote shares must be wrong, as well?
Well, that's just simple logic.
If A = FALSE
and A = B
then B = FALSE
Do I hear heads exploding?
Or is it just another terror alert?

That Kerry's Gender share was manipulated?
It went from 54% at 12:22am to 51% at 1:25pm.
Was it a massive sex change in 12 hours?
Christine Jorgensen never owned a computer back in 1952.

That the Party ID split was manipulated?
From 38 Dem/35 Rep to 37/37.
Was it Massive Fundie conversions in those 12 hours.

OK, this is getting silly. You seem to have forgotten that the projections were continuously reweighted (and that they actually had some glitch with the gender thing - it's in the E-M report, look it up).

That the Census 2004 Vote Survey was wrong?
According to the Census, 125.7 million voted in 2004.
That's 3.4mm more than the recorded 122.3 million.
The Census Gender demographic MoE is 0.30%.
Should we believe the 122.3mm recorded vote?

Well the Census people think that it overstates the # voted. But it seems clear that spoilage will contribute to the discrepancy.
The Final Exit Poll has a 1.0% MoE, according to Mitofsky.

That millions of votes are spoiled in every election?
Intentional or innocent spoilage?
Does it matter?

Dunno about millions, but yes it matters. It matters desperately, whether it is intentional or structural discrimination. It is a serious Civil Rights issue, and virtually certainly resulted in the Wrong Man being inaugurated in January 2001.

Yay, we agree on something! :)

That the trend in Kerry/Bush response (alpha) disproves rBr?
The ratio declines from 1.50 in High Bush precincts to 1.0 in High Kerry.

Well, as the coiner of "alpha" (actually it was my husband's term, as he couldn't read my "x"s, but I suggested the measure, and gave it that name) yes, I vigorously dispute this. Mitofsky tested precisely this, and no, it does not decline. The line is statistically flat.

USCV proved rBr was a myth using simulation.

Correction: some members of USCV claimed their simulation indicated that rBr was unlikely. Another member claimed his simulation indicated it was perfectly possible. The first lot then accused the second lot of accusing them of claiming that they'd proved rBr was a myth. Then there was a big fight. I think the ones that claimed that alpha was higher in high Bush precincts got it wrong.

I confirmed the USCV using the Exit Poll Response Optimizer.

Well, I think "you" did too, for the same reasons as USCV did. I wrote an entire geeky paper about it. But more to the point, Mitofsky actually did the calculation, using the whole dataset, and it isn't.

That Bush job approval on election day 2004 was not 48.5%?
That's an 11-poll average.
I can prove it.
You can look it up at pollingreport.com.
The combined MoE (11000 sample) is approx. 1.0%.

Well, prove it then. But remember that MoE assumes random sampling.

That there is no way Bush could overcome 48.5% approval?
Oh, well there is one.
He could steal it.

Well, I seriously wondered if he could. My conclusion is probably didn't.

That the Ohio exit poll showed Kerry the 52-48 winner?
Of the 49 exit poll precincts:
36 deviated from Kerry to Bush,
10 from Bush to Kerry,
3 were unchanged.

Yup, something was biased. Was it the poll? Was it the count? That is the question.

That if Kerry won Ohio, he must have done better nationally?
Check the record books.
Ohio always LAGS the national Democratic vote.
Naysayers agree there was fraud in Ohio

Cite please. And remember, as they say in the investment prospectuses, past performance is no guide to future performance. Social science isn't physics. Also there is an IF in there.

But what about the other states?
NM, NV, FL, NC, NY, MN, etc..

That the 12:22am state and national exit polls each
confirming a Kerry victory is not believable?
Well, forty-two of 50 states deviated to Bush.
That's 1 in 2 million odds.

Oh boy, round and round and round and round. Yes, the poll, or the count, or both, seem to have been systematically. It certainly wasn't chance.

That 50 state exit polls mirror 49 Ohio exit poll precincts?
Just a coincidence?

It certainly wasn't chance. It certainly wasn't chance. It certainly wasn't chance. It certainly wazzzzzzzzzz.......


Move along. Nothing to see here.
Take a trip to Brazile, Donna.

....zzzzzzzz....

That the 9% disparity between the voting shares of Florida optiscans and DREs is virtually impossible?

Dem/Rep registrations were essentially equal in Optiscan and DRE counties.

Ah! Now I did some of this stuff.... What do you mean? Do you mean Hout's finding that DRE's had greater discrepancies? Or Liddle/Dopp's/Mitteldorf's finding that Optiscans did? Actually I think both analyses are invalid, as there were huge demographic confounds - No DREs were used in very rural counties, and no optiscans in the very large urban counties. Florida smells, to me, but the machine thing is completely inconclusive.


That sixteen of 50 states deviated beyond the MoE for Bush, none for Kerry?
The probability of that is 1 in 19 trillion.

....round and round and round and round......

That ALL 22 Eastern Time Zone states deviated from Kerry to Bush?
1 in 4 million.

Hey! I thought it was the swing states? Oh no, it was the Republican precincts - Oh no, it was the Democratic states....What is the point here exactly?

That eighty-six of 88 documented touch screens switched Kerry votes to Bush?
See the EIRS database.
Do the math.
1 in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

The math here is truly bosh. Do we know how many machines these 88 incidents represent? Do we know whether the EIRS number was equally well publicised in Dem as in Rep areas? If not, then we can't do that math. I'll give you, it does look as though some machines may have defaulted to Bush. It requires serious investigation (and abolition of those dratted machines. It does not require idiotic probability calculations.

THOSE ARE FACTS, NOT ASSUMPTIONS.

Ha! The bits that aren't pure rhetoric (including purely rhetorical questions) are not facts at all! They are inferences based on assumptions - every single one. You can't DO inferential statistics without making assumptions, and the biggest one is RANDOM SAMPLING. In not a single case cited can we assume anything like random sampling. What the probabilities therefore tell us is that the "facts" inferred ARE NOT DUE TO CHANCE. They do not tell us whether the non-chance cause was fraud or not. For answers to that question we have to do further investigation. I've done quite a bit of that myself, in terms of math, and many others have done quite a bit of on the ground investigation. And having looked at the accumulating evidence, some things are supported, some look shaky (like the exit poll story, which I now believe does NOT support the case for large-scale fraud).

But to assert that these are FACTS is quite misleading, and to imply that the astromical (im)probability estimates are prima facie evidence of fraud is to seriously misunderstand the nature of inferential statistics. And, frankly, to mislead.


Take a look at the graph below.
It shows a time line of pre-election and post election polls.

I'll pass on this, as the graph doesn't seem to have channelled properly.

Naysayers claim the "evidence" shows that Bush won the popular vote.
I ask, what evidence?

Well, I say that the only real evidence that Bush won the popular vote was the exit poll discrepancy (I certainly don't count the pre-election polls), and that if this was due to fraud, then fraud should have been correlated with "swing" (change in Bush's vote since 2000). It wasn't, and I think this makes the fraud explanation difficult to sustain. I certainly do not claim that the "evidence" shohws that Bush won the popular vote. I merely say that I do not believe that the exit poll provide any evidence at all that he did not. And absent that evidence, I think it is unlikely that Kerry did.

If Kerry won the popular vote, doesn't that mean the exit polls (state and national (12:22am) were therefore close to the truth?

Except, that is, for the 1:25pm Final National Poll
We know this one is pure, unadulterated BS. Why?
Look at the How Voted in 2000 demographic.
Focus on the 43%/37% Bush/Gore weights.
They are mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

Here's the PROOF:
Bush got 50.45 million votes in 2000.
That's 41.25% of the 122.3mm who voted in 2004.
But 3.5% of them died, according to annual U.S. mortality rates (0.87%).
Therefore, AT MOST, 48.7mm of Bush 2000 voters came to the polls in 2004.
That's 39.8% of the 122.3mm total.

....round and round and round and round....

THE BOTTOM LINE:
Assuming REALISTIC, PLAUSIBLE, EQUAL weightings for Bush and Gore voters,
KERRY WINS EASILY, EVEN IF FINAL EXIT POLL PERCENTAGES,
WHICH WERE BIASED IN FAVOR OF BUSH, ARE USED.
PERIOD.
CASE CLOSED.
FINITO.
THE SMOKING GUN.
QUERE MAS?

As I said, if it makes you happy.

Once again, I challenge the naysayers to a real-time debate using the Interactive Election model.

Let's begin where the DU "Game" thread abruptly ended:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In the "Game", the naysayers claimed that Bush won 15% of Gore voters.
And that Kerry won only 52% of those who did not vote in 2000.

Can they ever come up with a plausible Bush win scenario?
I doubt it.

....random sampling random sampling random sampling....

Note to Land Shark:
The TOTALITY of pre-election and exit poll data provide SOLID CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the election was stolen.
The NUMBERS have been silently screaming for a year.

The fact that ONE YEAR LATER, there's strong DOUBT about who really won,
should be sufficient to convince the public that something must be done ASAP to restore our democracy.

And again, I whole-heartedly agree! :) The fact that this conversation is even happening is evidence of the degree to which your democracy has been sabotaged!

And of course, I am encouraged, from a purely mathematical point of view, that you accept that there is DOUBT about who won (although I would much prefer it if Kerry was in the White House right now). Yes, indeed, there is doubt.

:toast:

Beyond that, we will have to agree to differ.

Lizzie

[autorank]

78. Well, OK these are the Truth's words...cheers Is All :toast:

Channeling to avoid "the Chunnel":

Febble, here is my response to your latest post.
Do you want to post it on DU?
Or do you want it channelled?
Either way, it will soon appear on DU.
Look at this as a heads-up.

Before I begin, I have three questions:
Of the 50 state pre-election polls, and
of the 18 national pre-election polls, and
of the 11 Bush approval polls, and
of the 50 state exit polls, and
of the first 3 national exit poll timelines...

1) Which were not random sample polls?
2) Which were not done by well-known pollsters?
3) In your experience, has there ever been a poll that you
believed?

Just asking.

FEBBLE:
I confess I had not looked at this "final poll"
before, but if "the math" gives a 99.9% (or even a
99.8%) probability of a Kerry win, then something about the
math is wrong. I was optimistically putting it the odds at
about 50:50 myself, and hoping that even if the popular vote
was pretty evenly split, the EV would benefit Kerry. Which is
sort of what happened (in the official vote anyway), in that a
few thousand more (official) votes for Kerry in Ohio would
have given him the presidency, but not the (official) popular
vote.

TIA:
I thought that you would have some familiarity with the logic
behind my election model by this late date. It is quite
disappointing to see you criticize the analysis without having
done your homework. It's obvious that you are not too familiar
with U.S. elections; you fail to take the undecided vote into
account. The undecideds invariably break for the challenger -
especially when the incumbent has a 48.5% job approval. 

It just makes logical, intuitive sense when you think about
it. An  undecided voter must be unhappy with an incumbent,
otherwise why would he/she consider voting for the challenger?
Makes sense, yes? You fail to consider this in your election
analysis- and the omission makes anything you say highly
suspect from the get-go. Without considering undecides, your
analysis is faith-based and unrealistic.

The fact is, Kerry won the late undecided vote, according to
all the polls. And the undecided allocation was a key driver
in my state and national projections. Yet you never even
consider this, other than to vaguely refer to faulty model
"assumptions". You are never specific about them.
Did you mean  undecided vote assumptions? Read on.

FEBBLE:
(And more generally, when I say I agree with TIA's math, I
certainly trust him to perform the computations he does
correctly - the issue is usually whether we can legitimately
infer from them what he infers from them. But his probability
calcs are frequently invalidated by the assumptions that
underlie them, and a probability calc based on erroneous
assumptions is not a correct calculation).

TIA:
What you call “inferences” are in fact the result of valid
assumptions. You may disagree with the assumptions, but they
are based on historical precedent. You fail to recognize or
appreciate the significance of the undecided vote factor in
U.S. elections. The  base case model assumption was that Kerry
would win 75% of the undecided. But this was just a
most-likely base case estimate. That's why I ran the analysis
for a range of five undecided vote shares, from 60% to an
admittedly high 87%. Kerry wins all the scenarios. 

If Kerry won just 60% of the undecided vote (and the exit
polls say he did better than that) then based on the Monte
Carlo simulation, the probability was 98.02% that he would win
the electoral vote with a median 322 EV. 

Furthermore, based on 18 national polls, the probability was
97.55% that he would win the popular vote with an expected
50.73% of the two-party vote, again assuming that he won 60%
of the undecideds.

You really ought to take a trip to Monte Carlo sometime.

Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation 
Based on State Pre-election Polling
5000 Simulated Elections			

Kerry   Undecided Allocation				
Pct        60%	  67%	  75%	  80%	  87%
Wins	 4901	4972	4993	4997	4999
					
Projected Vote share%					
Kerry	 51.02	51.38	51.80	52.07	52.43
Bush	 48.98	48.62	48.20	47.93	47.57
					
EV Win Probability%					
Kerry	 98.02	99.44	99.86	99.94	99.98
Bush	  1.98	0.56	0.14	0.06	0.02
					
Electoral Vote					
Average 320	328	338	343	352
Median  322	329	338	345	353
Maximum 379	388	396	405	412
Minimum 211	237	242	243	254
					
95% Conf. Interval					
Upper	361	368	377	382	389
Lower	278	288	299	305	315
					

National 18-Polls
Vote%	50.73	51.15	51.63	51.92	52.34

Probability of Kerry popular vote majority
Prob%	97.55	99.90	99.99	100.00	100.00

					
					


FEBBLE:
So what is wrong with this particular probability calc? Well
for a start, as OTOH says, a good meta-analysis is a complex
thing to do, and one thing it involves is using ALL data you
can find (including unpublished data, if you can find that)
and weighting it appropriately. "Appropriately" is
the hard part of course, and it is difficult to avoid the
charge of "cherry-picking". There are, however,
systematic ways of weighting studies according to statistical
power and cleanliness of methodology. But the fact remains
that meta-analyses in general (and meta-analyses of these
pre-election polls in particular) are acutely sensitive to the
studies you pick and the assumptions you make. In the case of
the pre-election polls, some analysts called it for Bush (but
with nothing like 99.9% confidence; others sat on the fence;
and a few brave souls like Sam Wang (I think) called the EV
for Kerry (with a wing and a prayer).

Yet TIA called it for Kerry with 99.9% confidence? From a
eighteen polls in which (unweighted) the mean difference
between Kerry and Bush was not (on my calcs) significantly
different from zero?

TIA:
Once again, you forget the basics: UNDECIDED VOTER ALLOCATION

Let’s consider the 18 national polls. As a researcher, you
must not forget the bedrock of applied statistics: The Law of
Large Numbers. I analyzed eighteen independent national
pre-election polls. If we assume that each poll sampled
approximately 1000, than the total sample is mathematically
equivalent to a single poll of 18,000. In fact, I was being
conservative back in Nov. 2004. The total 18-poll  sample was
over 27,000 (1500 per poll). The  individual polling margin of
error ranged from  2.5- 3%. Using the 18,000 total figure, 
the MoE for the aggregate mean is reduced to just 0.73%.
That’s just basic statistics. That’s just common sense.

Febble, your lack of modeling experience is obvious to me. All
of a sudden, you and OTOH have a new talking-point:
META-ANALYSIS. Professor Sam Wang of Princeton did a
Meta-analysis. I am well aware of it; I looked at his
published code and we communicated.  His code was very
complex, based on combinatorics.  The Professor would be the
first to admit that he's not a quantitative software
developer; he's a biologist. 

I used Monte Carlo simulation analysis, which I dare say was
both more comprehensive and at the same time less complicated
than Dr. Wang's Meta-analysis. In fact Professor Wang and I
traded e-mails on the subject. We both used the same state
polling data from electoral_vote.com. In any case, his
analysis agreed with mine; he also calculated a near 100%
Kerry EV win probability.

FEBBLE:
Look, I don't think that election was on the up and up, and I
think the exit poll stuff was worth investigating. And apart
from anything else, it also energised a lot of people
(including me) into investigating stuff that brought the
election result into serious doubt. But claiming that Kerry's
probability of victory, in both the electoral college and
popular vote, was 99.9% - well, as we say on our side of the
pond, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Were any bookies offering 100:1 odds on a Bush win?

TIA:
For that you can thank people like Dr. Wang and myself. We
created the models; we made certain assumptions; we posted
them every day. And lo and behold, each of our independent
analyses gave Kerry a 99% probability of winning. For the
probability calculation, I refer you to the normal
distribution function.

So there it is.
It’s very logical.

Here are the steps:
1- Collect final state and national poll data 
2- Assume a range of undecided voter allocation scenarios

3- Run the analysis based on:
a) projected aggregate Kerry mean vote share of 18 final
National pre-election polls; 
b) projected individual state Kerry vote share based on final
state polling, using a  Monte Carlo simulation of 5000
election trials, to determine the number of Kerry EV trial
wins.

4- Calculate a) Kerry's projected popular vote share (from the
18 poll projection) and b) his expected national vote share
and mean, median, maximum and minimum electoral vote (from the
simulation).

5- Derive probabilities of a Kerry victory using the results
of the Monte Carlo election trials and the Normal Distribution
Function (margin of error)

6- Analyze the results:
The probabilities obtained by the state Monte Carlo simulation
are of similar magnitude to those of the National popular vote
(normal distribution). 
And they agree with those of Profesor Sam Wang. 

Or should I dare say: his Meta agrees with my Monte. 

Do you get it yet?
Do I still have your attention?

See ya

P.S.
I just read your most recent post.
Your head must be exploding.

You conveniently skip over the impossible Final Exit Poll
weightings.
I'm referring to the 43/37% Bush/Gore share of the 2004 vote.
Of course you can't refute it.
So you just avoid it.
Like the plague.

All you can do is repeat your time-worn mantra:
"RANDOM SAMPLE. RANDOM SAMPLE, RANDOM SAMPLE"

So I will repeat Mitofsky's note from the Final Exit Poll
timeline:
1.0% MOE. 13047 RANDOMLY SAMPLED. 
1.0% MOE. 13047 RANDOMLY SAMPLED. 
1.0% MOE. 13047 RANDOMLY SAMPLED.

Let's look at the numbers

National Exit Poll
 12:22am (13047 respondents)		

CATEGORY	Kerry	Bush	Other
Average	        50.79%	47.84%	1.03%
Votes (mm) 	62.05	58.45	1.26
			
Gender	        50.78%	48.22%	1.00%
Party-ID	50.69%	47.50%	1.27%
Voted 2000	51.41%	47.62%	0.97%
Region	        50.53%	47.95%	1.00%
Education	50.43%	48.18%	1.39%
			
Race	        50.94%	47.86%	1.00%
Age	        50.26%	47.69%	1.05%
Income	        51.39%	47.39%	0.94%
Ideology	49.85%	48.15%	1.00%
Religion	50.78%	47.94%	1.21%
			
Military	51.20%	47.62%	1.00%
Decided	        51.23%	47.95%	0.54%


Have it your way.

And then you close with:
"And of course, I am encouraged, from a purely
mathematical point of view, that you accept that there is
DOUBT about who won (although I would much prefer it if Kerry
was in the White House right now). Yes, indeed, there is
doubt".

Not true.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I was referring to doubt on the part of those not as 
versed in the numbers as you or I.

They smell the rotting fish.
They see the corruption.
They hear the lies.
But they are not mathematically sophisticated.
They need to be educated, not brainwashed.
They need to know the truth.
And the numbers do not lie.

Np, Febble, to me, it is BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Kerry won. 
The election was stolen. 
Deep down, you know it to be true.
Remember.
IT'S THE UNDECIDED VOTERS.
IT'S THE NEW VOTERS.
IT'S THE NADER VOTERS.
IT'S THE GORE VOTERS.
THEY ADD UP TO...A WINNER.

The totality of the evidence is overwhelming,
your protestations to the contrary not withstanding.

see ya 

[Febble]

79. Well, to save winged Mercury trouble

I'll post this response here:

I'm going offline for a bit as I HAVE to finish my dissertation, and it still needs re-ordering.

I did, in fact, look carefully at your model - what I hadn't looked in detail was your 1st November post. I knew you had a high probability for Kerry winning the EV. I hadn't appreciated that you had extended it to the popular vote.

Your model does assume that the polls were random samples (Wang's did not, although my understanding is that he assumed that overall there was no net bias). This is the problem I have with it. I did understand your assumption about undecideds - that was not the problem. Although I think that you should also have put a probability value on your assumptions being correct, as Wang did. But your model allows us to put in our own assumptions, which is fair enough. But it still assumes that the only error in the polls was sampling error. It does not allow the possiblity for bias in the polls. The point of my "mantra" is simply that your probability estimates depend on the assumption of random sampling, and we simply cannot make that assumption when it comes to polls.

That is one respect in which we differ. The other is that I do not accept that what has happened before will necessarily happen again - or that trends will continue as they are going. It's why I took issue with your 4th degree polynomial, although I completely agree that the approval numbers look terrible for Bush. But my experience with trends is that they often change direction. So I did not put a lot of certainty in the incumbent rule, nor in the undecideds-break-for-the-challenger rule. Although I desperately hoped they would hold.

As for the Gore-Bush thing - as I said in the post, and I've said many times before, given what we KNOW about the way people report past vote, I do not see this as a clincher. Yes, those proportions are impossible IF people reported their 2000 vote correctly. But we know they do not, and that they often misreport having voted for the incumbent. This has been shown in longitudinal studies where the pollsters KNOW how their respondents said they in a given year, yet the SAME voters report having voted for someone different when asked several years later, in both the UK and the US. So we know we cannot rely on "reported vote" data.

Anyway, happy holidays to you and to all! See you after I've submitted my dissertation.

Lizzie

PS: link to OTOH post re recalled vote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=390193&mesg_id=390341

[autorank]

84. Why would undecided voters not follow the "rules" this time?

TruthIsAll:

FEBBLE:
I did, in fact, look carefully at your model - what I hadn't
looked in detail was your 1st November post. I knew you had a
high probability for Kerry winning the EV. I hadn't
appreciated that you had extended it to the popular vote. 

TIA
Pleasant surprise, yes?
Febble, my quantitative engine just won't quit, will it?
Leaves no stones crying out.

FEBBLE
Your model does assume that the polls were random samples
(Wang's did not, although my understanding is that he assumed
that overall there was no net bias). This is the problem I
have with it. I did understand your assumption about
undecideds - that was not the problem. Although I think that
you should also have put a probability value on your
assumptions being correct, as Wang did. But your model allows
us to put in our own assumptions, which is fair enough. But it
still assumes that the only error in the polls was sampling
error. It does not allow the possiblity for bias in the polls.
The point of my "mantra" is simply that your
probability estimates depend on the assumption of random
sampling, and we simply cannot make that assumption when it
comes to polls.

TIA
Just when you think I'm all done, you find another 
analysis of mine that you must try to rebut.
Notice I said "try".

You imply that the polls were not random samples.
Yet the national and state professional pollsters claimed they
were.
Who are you to question their methodologies?
They all quoted MoEs calculated using the standard formula: 
MoE = .98/sqrt(n).

Only Mitofsky's Exit Poll MoEs were adjusted - "cluster
effect".
But even he claims a 1.0% MoE for the National Exit Poll.
Of 13047 "randomly sampled" respondents.

Ok, that's your job.
To question time-tested sampling techniques.
To naysay the results.

You dare not argue the math.
But ALWAYS find fault with the "assumptions".

Now it's the breakout of the undecided vote (UV).
I understand.
We all must do what we 'gotta do.

In the state and national projection model, I used sensitivity
analysis (SA) to test a variety of UV allocation assumptions.
I always do this. It's a powerful tool. SA implicitly
recognizes uncertainty in key model drivers. In this case, the
main "driver" is the UV; that's why I ran 5000
simulations for each of five Kerry UV allocation scenarios.
Each scenario assumed that Kerry would win the majority of
UVs: 
60%, 67%, 75%, 80%, 87%...

In fact, all National Exit poll timelines (as well as the Ohio
Exit poll) had Kerry winning UVs in the week prior to the
election by over 60%. 

FEBBLE:
That is one respect in which we differ. The other is that I do
not accept that what has happened before will necessarily
happen again - or that trends will continue as they are going.
It's why I took issue with your 4th degree polynomial,
although I completely agree that the approval numbers look
terrible for Bush. But my experience with trends is that they
often change direction. 

TIA:
Who is talking about "trends" here?
Are you building a strawman for the holidays?
That UVs break for the challenger is a historic fact.
Don't let OTOH try to convince you otherwise.
He's just blowin' smoke on this one.

As for your comment that "my experience with trends is
that they often change direction". Just what are you
trying to say here? What is the point? Let's dispense with any
new talking-point generalities. I don't know which trends you
are referring to, but the UV breakout is not a trend. Of
course trends eventually change direction; but it's a strawman
argument, because I never used or considered trends in my UV
assumptions. 

As Friday used to say: Just the facts, maam'. 

FEBBLE:
So I did not put a lot of certainty in the incumbent rule, nor
in the undecideds-break-for-the-challenger rule. Although I
desperately hoped they would hold. 

TIA
Careful, now. That's a contradiction. Why did you hope the
"rules" would hold unless you knew that they held in
the past? That's why they're called "rules". 

What was it in this election which caused you to lack
confidence in the "rules"? Did human nature really
change in this election? Or was it that  you knew that Bush
was running for re-selection again? And that the
"rules" don't apply to him. Is that why? Anyway,
that begs the issue. Do you have evidence as to why the
"rules"  did not hold in this election? If so,
enlighten us. 

No, Febble. The incumbency and approval rules held. Everyone
agrees that Kerry won the late undecideds and that Bush job
approval was 48.5% on election day. Everyone, that is, except
you.

FEBBLE
As for the Gore-Bush thing - as I said in the post, and I've
said many times before, given what we KNOW about the way
people report past vote, I do not see this as a clincher. Yes,
those proportions are impossible IF people reported their 2000
vote correctly. But we know they do not, and that they often
misreport having voted for the incumbent. 

TIA
Which voters misrepresented: Gore or Bush?
Don't answer. I already know what you are going to say.

FEBBLE
This has been shown in longitudinal studies where the
pollsters KNOW how their respondents said they in a given
year, yet the SAME voters report having voted for someone
different when asked several years later, in both the UK and
the US. So we know we cannot rely on "reported vote"
data.

TIA
Latitude. Longitude.
Febble, you're way off the map.

So I guess we can't rely on any surveys of past behavior.
So much for the scientific method.
So much for experimental design.
So much for pollsters.
So much for Mitofsky.

FEBBLE
Anyway, happy holidays to you and to all! See you after I've
submitted my dissertation.

TIA
Happy holidays.
Good luck in your research.
But be careful not to rely on any survey data in your
dissertation.
Can't trust 'em.

[Febble]

86. Ramdom samples

"You imply that the polls were not random samples.
Yet the national and state professional pollsters claimed
they were."

No they didn't, because they never are. This is what you consistently fail to understand. Suggest you read a text book on survey methodology.

Right, I really am gone now....

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. "They need to be educated, not brainwashed."

Sigh.

While I waste my time trying to explain things to a stone, my colleagues are publishing their books about why Bush won. Not only do they not accept TIA's arguments, they don't even care. Frankly, "intelligent design" or probably even young-earth creationism is more pertinent to expert debate than TIA's notions about how the polls prove that Kerry won.

This isn't to say that TIA is wrong, although I believe that he is. It is to say that, so far, he is irrelevant outside a fairly small subculture. One does need to consider this in deciding how much time to spend explaining why his arguments haven't convinced many experts.

Here's a fun one: "The undecideds invariably break for the challenger - especially when the incumbent has a 48.5% job approval." I'm sure that is based on extensive empirical evidence... not.

Let's see, the last time a challenger beat an incumbent was in 1992. I see six pre-election polls: Clinton +6, +12, +8, +8, +7, +8. Clinton final margin +6.
http://www.ncpp.org/1936-2000.htm
And this was in a year where the incumbent had an approval rating under 40%, and interest and turnout were relatively high. Hmm....

[anaxarchos]

83. Whoa Dr. Other...

... you have finally touched me heart.

You are right. While you waste your time with a "fairly small subculture", your career is going right down the shitter. Time to think about A-number one and the family. Time to chase after the "colleagues" who by now must have sold a good 5 or 6 hundred copies of their books. Time to write your own book "about why Bush won". You'll be missed but we understand.

Bon Voyage...

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. bummer... I was hoping for a substantive response

but hey, this one had some cute twists.

I don't think we need any more books on why Bush won -- do you?

I will certainly continue to warn against the corrosive effects of TIA Thought. I think most people who are interested in the issues have already caught on that the pre-election and exit polls actually don't prove very much. The folks who Believe, really want to Believe. (Then, of course, there are lots of people who believe the 2004 election was stolen on much more reasonable grounds.) So I can spend more of my time here talking about other things, which is more satisfying.

[anaxarchos]

87. Well, since you asked...

yes, I do...

Yes, I think we need a lot more books on HOW Bush won. I can't think of one (well, not a serious one).

And yes, I think you are just the guy to do it...

Books are hard. They must stand by themselves and live by a certain internal logic, even if it is crap logic. This is the perfect exercise for you.

"Why" Bush won? Well, there have been a few books there but even that would be useful... and a LOT harder than what is required of you in fighting TIAT. Perhaps you could tell us about exurbs, and security moms, and the Osama tape. There might be a ready fan base for all that.

Worst case, Mitofsky could wave it over his head as he explains why he won't release his data.

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. umm, thanks, I guess n/t

[autorank]

81. CONFIRMATION of Election Model projections & Exit Polls:Kerry vote % ; win

CONFIRMATION: 
Comparison of Nov. 1, 2004 Election Model projections  
and the 12:22am State and National Exit Polls.

Two-party and total vote share:
Convert Election Model 2-party projections to include 3rd
parties 1% vote.
Deduct 0.5% from Kerry and 0.5% from Bush projected shares.

Assumption: Kerry won 67% of undecided voters.
All percentages are for Kerry.

ELECTION MODEL PROJECTIONS
Nov.1, 2004 

Final State Pre-election Polls
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation 
5000 trials     2pty% Total% WinProb
Wtd Average     51.38% 50.88% 99.44% (Kerry wins 4972/5000 EV
trials)

18 National Polls
Average         51.15  50.75  99.90 (assumes 0.73% MoE)
Difference       0.23%  0.13%  0.46% 

________________________________________________________

STATE EXIT POLLS  
12:22am Nov.3
73607 respondents

Projections    2pty% Total% WinProb
Gender Vote    50.52% 50.02% 99.71% (0.37% MoE)
Difference      0.86%  0.86%  0.27% (compared to Monte Carlo)

Probability of Kerry majority (Gender demographic)
Normal Distribution 
Prob = NORMDIST(0.5052,0.5,0.0037/1.96,TRUE)
Prob = 0.997061699 = 99.71%


NATIONAL EXIT POLL  
12:22am Nov.3
13047 respondents
Projections    2pty%  Total% WinProb
Gender Vote    51.30% 50.78% 99.46% (assumes 1.0% MOE)
Difference      0.15%  0.03%  0.44% (from 18 National Polls)

Probability of Kerry majority (Gender demographic)
Normal Distribution 
Prob = NORMDIST(0.513,0.5,0.01/1.96,TRUE)
Prob = 0.994582852 = 99.46%

[autorank]

82. CONFIRMATION. This is the Final Word. This post is FOR THE RECORD.

Winged Mercury or Dime Bag?



OR

[autorank]

89. Channel TIA: THE TIA-NAYSAYER DEBATE: FROM START TO FINISH

(This link has it all!!!)
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/DUDebate.htm

TruthIsAll...

I never responded FULLY TO THIS POST until now.
I'll make sure to add this to the DEBATE RECORD

OnTheOtherHand (889 posts) 
 Fri Dec-02-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #58

63. ah, TIA seems to be channeling himself elsewhere on the
Net
 Edited on Fri Dec-02-05 07:12 PM by OnTheOtherHand

but I have no idea what the DU protocol is for responding to
someone who Isn't There. 

(EDIT: "but I have idea" could've been some weird
meta pun, but wasn't)
Anyway, the line seems to be: pay no attention to what anyone
else -- including the pollsters themselves -- say their polls
indicate. Sure, those darn MSM analysts at Pew said
"Slight Bush Margin in Final Days of Campaign", but
the illuminati know that it shoulda been Kerry +1. 
pollingreport.com, shmollingreport.com -- WeGo YouGov. 

All those poli sci models that called the election for Bush --
best not to mention those, much less refute them. 

The goofuses over at "Polly's Page", well, who wants
to listen to parrots, anyway? Might as well argue with a
stone.
...................................................

OTOH, since you are too lazy (or embarrassed) to show the poli
sci 
model projections, I'll do it for you.

http://www.apsanet.org/content_13000.cfm

All the models presented here were not even close to the 
corrupted recorded vote, much less the TRUE vote.
Except for Beck/Thien, that is.

Author          Pick 2-pty  Date   Win Probability
Abramowitz      Bush 53.7%  7/31/04 -
Campbell        Bush 53.8%  9/06/04 97%
Wlezien/Ericson Bush 52.9%  7/27/04 75%
Holbrook        Bush 54.5%  8/30/04 92%
Beck/Tien       Kerry 50.1% 8/27/04 50%
Lockabie        Bush 57.6%  5/21/04 92%
Norpoth         Bush 54.7%  1/29/04 95%


First of all, look at the model dates.
The latest was 9/6.
These guys should know that things change every day in a race.
The electorate is a dynamic organism.
Couldn't they have run the models on Nov.1, like I did?
As I did every day for four months leading up to the election?

Maybe next time they'll get it right, but I doubt it.
They are by nature too conservative to change their approach.

Their combined Bush 2-party average forecast of 54% isn't even
close
to the recorded vote, much less the true vote. The average is 
off by more than 5%, since Bush got about 48.5% of the
two-party vote.

The only one which was even close was Beck/Tien.
They had it 49.9% for Bush, and were off by 2%.
Not bad. The rest? Fuggedabout it.

One other thing.

There is no way Lockabie's 57.6% Bush popular vote equates 
to anything less than a 100% EV and/or popular vote win
probability.
His 92% Bush win probability doesn't say too much for his
model.
At a 97.5% one-tail level of confidence, it implies an
equivalent 
MoE of +/-7.6% based on the 57.6% projection. 

Not good, especially when winning 52% of the popular vote 
means a virtual 100% probability of winning the electoral
vote. 

The same goes for the rest of the models. 
Only Beck-Tien's 50% probability made sense, 
since they projected a virtual dead heat.

Gee, OTOH, I sure teach you a lot, don't I?
And you're the political science professor. 
Yet you say I'm irrelevant to your colleagues.

Does MP also consider me irrelevant?
He learned a little math from my postings also.
What about Ruy Texeira?
At least he questioned the Hispanic vote.

Now, with all due respect to the poly scientists above:
Have these guys ever used Monte Carlo simulation?
Did they ever consider projecting individual states to,
you know, calculate the Bush probability of winning the
electoral vote?

From what I could tell in my admittedly cursory review of the
PDFs, 
they essentially all used the same factor analysis regression
method, 
based on macro-economic/financial data. Polling was mentioned,
but
not much. They should check out the Election Model for the
next election (assuming it's relatively clean) and consider a
Monte Carlo
 simulation.

IN MY OPINION, REGRESSION-BASED ELECTION FORECASTING MODELS
ARE AN EXERCISE IN ACADEMIC ONE-UPSMANSHIP: "MY MODEL IS
BETTER THAN YOURS" SORT OF A MASTURBATORY CIRCLE-JERK
APPROACH.

REGRESSION FACTOR-ANALYSIS IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO FORECAST
ELECTIONS!
JUST LOOK AT THE (IN)FAMOUS FAIR MODEL.

ANALYZING SELECTED STATE AND NATIONAL POLLING RESULTS IS FAR
SUPERIOR.
IT MAY BE MUNDANE AND NOT AS SEXY AS FACTOR ANALYSIS, BUT IT'S
MORE ACCURATE. AND THAT'S THE NAME OF THE GAME, ISN'T IT?

BUT... ALL FORECASTS ASSUMED AN HONEST ELECTION.
I DID NOT SEE ANY FRAUD VARIABLES, OR SPOILED VOTE FACTORS, 
OR DISENFRANCHISEMENT PARAMETERS, OR VOTER INTIMIDATION 
FACTORED INTO THE MODELS. NOT A WORD ABOUT POTENTIAL FRAUD.
JUST ECONOMIC AND/OR FINANCIAL FACTORS.

WITHOUT A PAPER TRAIL, LOUSY FORECAST MODELS MAY CORRECTLY
PROJECT THE "WINNER" IF HE STEALS THE ELECTION.
SOMETHING LIKE THE FINAL 1:25PM NATIONAL EXIT POLL.

So what does it all prove?
Which model was right?
Well, if you believe the election was stolen, mine was.
OTOH, do you believe the election was stolen?

ONLY MY PRE-ELECTION STATE AND NATIONAL ELECTION MODEL 
MATCHED THE EXITS.

BY THE WAY, OTOH.
WHERE IS YOUR MODEL?

Ah, what's the use?
Talking to you is like talking to a stone.
________________________________________


[b]www/truthisall.net[/b]

[OnTheOtherHand]

90. missing the point as usual

Strangely, the blob quotes all my points, and then chooses to address only the one that he feels he has the best shot at. (Of course it disregards other posts altogether, which is probably best under the circumstances.)

Yes, exactly right, those models don't incorporate polls. There are articles about that sort of thing, you know (don't you?). But the models indicate that historically speaking, Kerry was struggling against some heavy disadvantages just to do as well as he did. The whole notion that Kerry was headed for inevitable victory distorts the polls and ignores other evidence altogether, while inventing evidence that doesn't exist (like the "50% rule").

People can believe it if they want. But if they think it's science, they are whistling past the graveyard.

[Febble]

91. As this is kicked anyway -

the blithe spirit asks:

Which model was right?

And answers:

Well, if you believe the election was stolen, mine was.

Dunno about anyone else, but as a scientist, I usually decide what I believe after I've concluded which model is "right", rather before.

[autorank]

92. TruthTeller Alert! Nailing "the point as usual!"

"You can't stand the truth!"  Jack Nicholson

TruthIsAll..

OTOH,
This is the COMPLETE RESPONSE that you were looking for.
Just in case you forgot..
_____________________________________________________________

OnTheOtherHand (889 posts) 
 Fri Dec-02-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #58

63. ah, TIA seems to be channeling himself elsewhere on the
Net
 Edited on Fri Dec-02-05 07:12 PM by OnTheOtherHand

but I have no idea what the DU protocol is for responding to
someone who
Isn't There. 

(EDIT: "but I have idea" could've been some weird
meta pun, but wasn't)
Anyway, the line seems to be: pay no attention to what anyone
else --
including the pollsters themselves -- say their polls
indicate. Sure, those
darn MSM analysts at Pew said "Slight Bush Margin in
Final Days of
Campaign", but the illuminati know that it shoulda been
Kerry +1. 
pollingreport.com, shmollingreport.com -- WeGo YouGov. 

All those poli sci models that called the election for Bush --
best not to
mention those, much less refute them. 

The goofuses over at "Polly's Page", well, who wants
to listen to
parrots, anyway? Might as well argue with a stone.
...................................................

Act I:
OTOH, REGARDING THE ILLUMINATI AT PEW, THANKS FOR THE LINKS:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=232

http://people-press.org/reports/images/232-1.gif

Slight Bush Margin in Final Days of Campaign 
No Impact Detected from bin Laden Tape

Released: October 31, 2004
Summary of Findings

President George W. Bush holds a slight edge over Senator John
Kerry in the
final days of Campaign 2004. The Pew Research Center's final
pre-election
poll of 1,925 likely voters, conducted Oct. 27-30, finds Bush
with a
three-point edge (48% to 45% for Kerry); Ralph Nader draws 1%,
and 6% are
undecided. 

The poll finds indications that turnout will be significantly
higher than
in the two previous presidential elections, especially among
younger
people. Yet Bush gets the boost Republican candidates
typically receive
when the sample is narrowed from the base of 2,408 registered
voters to
those most likely to vote. (Among all registered voters, Kerry
and Bush are
in a virtual tie: 46% Kerry, 45% Bush). 

HERE'S THE  TREND in the RV poll:
Kerry came from 7 points down to lead by a point.
Not too shabby, eh?

Oct      3 19 30
Bush    48 45 45
Kerry   41 45 46

_______________________________________________________

Act II:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3403224

He said, she said, nobody knew
Nov 18th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

The first of two pieces looking back at the mechanics of the
election assesses the pollsters' performance

FOUR years ago, misled by the exit polls, America's television
networks predicted and unpredicted the result half a dozen
times. In 2004, after spending millions on a new system, the
exit polls were wrong again, in a brand new way. Early on
polling day, they showed John Kerry with a commanding lead. To
misquote Lady Bracknell, to mess up one election may be
considered a misfortune. To muck up two looks like
carelessness.

Polling is in trouble, and not just exit polling. More voters
are refusing to answer pollsters' questions. Representative
samples of the population are harder to come by. Pollsters
cannot properly survey the increasing numbers of people who
use mobile phones or the internet. “Some pundits”, says John
Zogby, a pollster, “are ready to declare that polls are dead.”
more....

OTOH, YouGov called it right for Kerry, but these guys just
didn't know it.
I'm sure they are having second thoughts. 
The article was written just two weeks after the election.
We've learned a great deal since then, haven't we?

OTOH, do you agree that the authors were WRONG about the 2000
election?
Do you agree that the exit polls showing Gore winning FL were
right and the networks were also when they originally called
it for Gore?
And then, because of that infamous Volusia Diebold
"glich", they reversed and called it for Bush.

You remember, don't you, that 16,022 votes were  mysteriously
dropped from the Gore total? 
And John Ellis at Fox (Bush's cousin) was the first to call it
for Bush.

Now, OTOH, don't you dare call that a conspiracy.
It was just a coincidence, no doubt.

Now, back to your article: 
So the polls weren't "mucked up" as the authors
claimed.
Kerry won Florida and the RECORDED national popular vote by
540,000. 
And you just KNOW his TRUE vote had to be better than that.

The authors say exit polling is in "trouble".
They call it "carelessness" on the part of the
pollsters.
They were clueless when they wrote the article.
Based on what they said about Florida, they probably still
are.

Yet they quoted Zogby who called the last two elections
exactly right.
And Zogby knows it.
He's hoping the next election will finally be a clean one.
Right now, he's feeling unwashed by the last two.

Hey OTOH,
Wanna know a dirty little secret?
Yes, they really do rig elections.
Shh...


_______________________________________________

Act III:

Now about those polly parrots, take a look at this graph of
the Iowa Electronic Markets. 
Let's see who was ahead in the markets on Election Day. 

http://morris.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast/Political/PDFs/pollygraph1.pdf

See the Blue line? That's Bush. 
See where he was on the morning of Nov.2? 
At 49%, trending down...just like the Pew pollsters had it
(see above). 

It's further proof the election was stolen late in the
evening,
when the odds suddenly changed TO BUSH as the fraud kicked in.

I remember it well. 
Do you?

________________________________________________________________________

Act IV:

OTOH, since you are too lazy (or embarrassed) to show the poli
sci 
model projections, I'll do it for you.

http://www.apsanet.org/content_13000.cfm

All the models presented  were not even close to the corrupt
recorded vote, much less the TRUE vote. Except for Beck/Tien,
that is.

Author          Pick 2-pty  Date   Win Probability
Abramowitz      Bush 53.7%  7/31/04 -
Campbell        Bush 53.8%  9/06/04 97%
Wlezien/Ericson Bush 52.9%  7/27/04 75%
Holbrook        Bush 54.5%  8/30/04 92%
Beck/Tien       Kerry 50.1% 8/27/04 50%
Lockabie        Bush 57.6%  5/21/04 92%
Norpoth         Bush 54.7%  1/29/04 95%


First of all, look at the model final prediction dates.
The latest was 9/6/04.
These guys should know that things change every day in a
horserace.

The electorate is a dynamic organism.
Couldn't they have run their models on Nov.1 like I did?
As I did every day for four months leading up to the election?

Maybe next time they'll get it right, but I doubt it.
They are by nature too conservative to change their approach.

The combined Bush 2-party average 54% projection isn't even
close
to the recorded vote, much less the true vote. 
It's off by more than 5%, if Bush got 48.5% of the two-party
vote.
Well, that's if you believe my election model.
And the exit polls. 

The only model which was even close was Beck/Tien.
They had it 49.9% for Bush. Not bad. 
As for the others? Fuggedabout it.

One other thing.

There's no way Lockabie's 57.6% Bush popular vote equates to
anything less
than a 100% EV and/or popular vote win probability.
His 92% Bush win probability doesn't say too much for his
model.
At a one-tail (97.5%) level of confidence, it implies an
equivalent 
MoE of +/-7.6% based on the 57.6% projection. 

Not good, especially when winning 52% of the popular vote 
means a virtual 100% probability of winning the electoral
vote. 

The same goes for the rest of the models. 
Only Beck-Tien's 50% probability made sense, 
since they projected a virtual dead heat.

Gee, OTOH, I sure teach you a lot, don't I?
And you're the political science professor. 
Yet you say I'm irrelevant to your colleagues.

Does MP also consider me irrelevant?
He learned a little math from my postings also.
What about Ruy Texeira?
At least he questioned the Hispanic vote.

Now, with all due respect to the poly scientists above:
Have these guys ever used Monte Carlo simulation?
Did they ever consider projecting individual states to,
you know, calculate the Bush probability of winning the
electoral vote?

From what I could tell in my admittedly cursory review of the
PDFs, 
they essentially all used the same factor analysis regression
method, 
based on macro-economic/financial data. Polling was mentioned,
but
not much. They should check out the Election Model for the
next election 
(assuming it's relatively clean) and consider a Monte Carlo
simulation.

IN MY OPINION, REGRESSION-BASED ELECTION FORECASTING MODELS
ARE AN 
EXERCISE IN ACADEMIC ONE-UPSMANSHIP: "MY MODEL IS BETTER
THAN
YOURS".
SORT OF A MASTURBATORY CIRCLE-JERK APPROACH.

REGRESSION FACTOR-ANALYSIS IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO FORECAST
ELECTIONS!
JUST LOOK AT THE (IN)FAMOUS FAIR MODEL.

ANALYZING SELECTED STATE AND NATIONAL POLLING RESULTS IS FAR
SUPERIOR.
IT MAY BE MUNDANE AND NOT AS SEXY AS FACTOR ANALYSIS, 
BUT IT'S MORE ACCURATE. AND THAT'S THE NAME OF THE GAME, ISN'T
IT?

BUT... ALL FORECASTS ASSUMED AN HONEST ELECTION.
I DID NOT SEE ANY FRAUD VARIABLES, OR SPOILED VOTE FACTORS, 
OR DISENFRANCHISEMENT PARAMETERS, OR VOTER INTIMIDATION 
FACTORED INTO THE MODELS. NOT A WORD ABOUT POTENTIAL FRAUD.
JUST ECONOMIC AND/OR FINANCIAL FACTORS.

WITHOUT A PAPER TRAIL, LOUSY FORECAST MODELS MAY CORRECTLY
PROJECT THE "WINNER" IF HE STEALS THE ELECTION.
SOMETHING LIKE THE FINAL 1:25PM NATIONAL EXIT POLL.

So what does it all prove?
Which model was right?
Well, if you believe the election was stolen, mine was.
OTOH, do you believe the election was stolen?

ONLY MY PRE-ELECTION STATE AND NATIONAL ELECTION MODEL 
MATCHED THE EXITS.

BY THE WAY, OTOH.
WHERE IS YOUR MODEL?

Ah, what's the use?
Talking to you is like talking to a stone.
________________________________________


OTOH, that's four out of four.
Quere mas?

________________________________________

[OnTheOtherHand]

94. forgot? did this appear on DU?

Looks like more ranting from someone who isn't allowed to post
here.

[mod mom]

95. Thanks for this refresher. It's also important for those newly joining

us will be exposed to this information.

peace.