Reply #79: You may want to reformulate this...

[anaxarchos]

...before you invite me to respond to it. This one is really a stretch.

First, response error is response error is response error. It don't correlate to nuthin', or more properly, it changes from survey to survey, year to year, etc. Even the better understood "Did you vote?" isn't that well understood. "It ranges from a little to a lot...", etc. (12% to 18%? 10% to 20%? 13% to 22%?). Thank you very much. Gimme a break.

Second, TIA pointed to the 43/37 split as evidence that the "metamorphic pressure", as Febble calls it, needed to reconcile the actual vote to the exit polls was not possible, i.e. that the exit polls were not reconcilable with the actual vote. The actual exit poll numbers, prior to "blending", were around 41/39 if I remember correctly. They had to be put under some impossible "metamorphic pressure" in order to turn this lump of tar into a diamond. I'm the one that added the next piece, that this was because of the internal math of Bush/Gore returning voters from 2000. You then argued that a 43/37 split was possible because it could be caused by response error to the "who did you vote for in 2000?", question. The inference was that response error made that question unreliable (or if you REALLY push it, "reliable" in its inverse) and masked a greater defection rate, Gore->Bush, than might otherwise be indicated. This has now become your theory, repeated here, as to how Bush won.

How does one challenge that except by reference to other tabs? We look at the other tabs to see if your argument is sustainable. Is it? Nope.

BTW, the reason for going to several other questions was to take differing swipes at the defection rate (and to increase proportionately the percentage of defectors who would have to exist in the remaining "un-sampled" portion). By the time we hit Florida, we were sampling virtually all Bush/Gore voters from 2000 (perhaps 70% of a voting population which had increased by 40%).

My logic stands. You will have to take a different whack at it. Ask your psychologist friend who is sounding "desperate" by this point.

As far your 2000 scenario goes, I suppose we have to start with inferring what part of each elections' sample actually voted in the previous election and how the response error differed year to year, and .... No thanks. What a sink hole.

And no, I do not expect to move you or to be taken "seriously", etc. I have long ago decided that you are a dedicated partisan of your cause.

I'm just polishing off some of those smug edges...