Reply #59: Anax: I was just "Channel Surfing TIA" and voila...

[autorank]

The Final NEP 43/37 weighting is an eternal albatross which
will never explain without resorting to the mantra:
False recall, false recall, false recall.
Forgetful Gore voters, forgetful Gore voters, forgetful Gore
voters.

It's catapulting the propaganda.
It's classic obfuscation....

...of how Gore voter "false recall" explains their 
implausible hypothesis that 14.6% voted for Bush.

Well, I don't see it, not because the logic is quite
convoluted, which it is, but because I don't accept the
premise.

It doesn't pass the smell test.
It's a Hail Mary pass.
It's designed for Immaculate Deception.

In a bizzaro universe, 14.6% of Gore voters switch to Bush. 
In a rational one, Gore voters were out in force for Kerry -
to kick the thieves out of the WH.

In a bizzaro universe, only 52.6% of DNV voted for Kerry.
In a rational one,  massive Democratic registrations brought  
new voters out in droves (55-60%) for Kerry.

In a bizarro universe, a 48.5% average Bush approval 
rating (1% MoE)  morphs into a 3 million vote mandate.
In a rational one, a rating that low means Bush is toast. 

The related regression scatter chart of incumbent approval vs.
vote count is meant to mislead, not illuminate. It appears
interesting, until we apply full perspective to the actual
numbers:

SIX OF THE NINE ELECTIONS CITES WERE LANDSLIDES!

REGARDLESS of how high an incumbent's approval rating,
there is a REALISTIC 60% UPPER LIMIT on his final vote share.
This is a HISTORICAL FACT.

The CONVERSE is ALSO TRUE:
REGARDLESS of how LOW an incumbent's approval rating,
there is a REALISTIC 40% LOWER LIMIT on his final vote share.
This is a HISTORICAL FACT.

INCUMBENTS LOST FOUR OF THE NINE ELECTIONS CITED. 
Ford, Carter, Bush 92...AND Bush 2004.
EACH HAD AN APPROVAL RATING UNDER 50%.
OF THE FIVE WINNERS, CLINTON HAD THE LOWEST APPROVAL
RATING:55% 

BOTTOM LINE: 
THE NUMBERS PROVE THE 50% RULE. 
PERIOD.

The graph is a classic straw man, a diversion from the truth.
It uses real numbers, but hides their meaning.

Skeptics have a fondness for using scatter charts in lieu of 
analyzing the numbers which make up the scatter. 

There's a reason for this. Watch close.

Here's what the numbers are REALLY telling us:
 
			Votes (mm)	Incumbent				
Year	Pres.	Appr	Incumb	Opp.	2pty		Result	Ap>50?	Match
result?
1956	Eisen.	70	35.6	25	58.7%		Won	Yes	yes
1964	Johnson	75	43.1	27.2	61.3%		Won	Yes	yes
1972	Nixon	59	47.2	29.2	61.8%		Won	Yes	yes
1976	Ford	46	39.1	40.8	48.9%		Lost	No	yes
1980	Carter	31	36.5	43.9	45.4%		Lost	No	yes
1984	Reagan	60	54.5	37.6	59.2%		Won	Yes	yes
1992	Bush	30	39.1	44.9	46.5%		Lost	No	yes
1996	Clinton	55	47.4	39.2	54.7%		Won	Yes	yes
									
2004	Bush	48	62	59	51.2%		Won	No	No

In the three elections prior to 2004 in which incumbents were 
defeated, the average incumbent 2-party vote share was 47%.
The 12:22am NEP gives a Bush 2-party vote of 48%.

Of the nine elections, 2004 is the only one in which the 50%
approval 
rule did NOT hold up. It sticks out like a sore thumb, doesn't
it?

Query mas?

In a bizarro universe, one radically adjusts every NEP vote
share in order to conjure up an implausible Bush win scenario.
 In a rational one, a case is built based on the weight of all
 the evidence - without using tortured hypotheticals.

In coming up with the implausible Bush win scenario, sly
sleight of  hand was used to mislead readers unfamiliar with
NEP demographic calculations with the assumption that 26.5mm
2004 voters were DNV 2000 (21.7%). 

The 12:22am NEP demographic had it at 21.5mm (17.6%), so the
discrepancy is far in excess of the MoE. Increasing the DNV
group by 5mm and lowering Kerry's vote share to 52.6% reduced
Kerry's DNV margin from 4mm to 1.7mm. 

In the NEP timeline: 
Kerry's DNV share was 59% at 7:33pm, 57% at 12:22am, 54% at
1:25pm.

This is the conundrum that skeptics have to deal with: 
They cannot use the impossible final NEP 43/37 weights.
Their only "wiggle" room is to inflate Bush's vote
shares.
And they must inflate them way beyond the MoE to match the
vote count.

a) NAYSAYERS NOW USE IMPLAUSIBLE BUSH VOTE SHARES TO MATCH THE
VOTE COUNT.
b) THE FINAL 1:25PM NEP USED IMPOSSIBLE WEIGHTINGS TO MATCH
THE COUNT.

WHAT DOES THIS TELL US ABOUT THE VOTE COUNT? 
IS IT 
a) JUST EXTREMELY IMPLAUSIBLE OR  
b) ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE?

THAT'S THE QUESTION.
PICK ONE.
THINK.