You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #41: Sigh [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-23-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Sigh
The Ohio precinct-level exit poll data that was recently released shows highly irregular patterns of exit poll discrepancies that are not explainable by any exit poll error hypothesis, or “hypothetical”, offered to date. Neither a "constant mean" nor a “pervasive” pro-Kerry exit poll bias could possibly explain the E/M national aggregate exit poll data, or the detailed Ohio precinct-level exit poll data.


This is a nonsensical statement. I shan't bother to refute it unless there is a point that strikes you as particularly persuasive.

To date no evidence-supported Exit Poll-based explanation of the Great Discrepancy has been provided.


There was an eighty-odd page report, full of evidence, plus some further analysis by me.

The state and national, as well as the detailed Ohio precinct-level exit poll data provide strong evidence in support of a vote fraud hypothesis.


Well, no.

http://www.geocities.com/lizzielid/TheGunIsSmoking_Review.pdf

The refusal by Edison/Mitofsky to permit independent analysis of their trove of data is has deepened public concern. The shoddy and inadequate analysis (claiming, for example, that linear correlation analysis, or a 56%-to-50% response bias, is sufficient to support the E/M hypothesis)


Who is supposed to have claimed this? Where?

that has been released to the public has deepened the uncertainty about what happened in the 2004 elections. The Mitofsky/Liddle pervasive mean bias conjecture is unsupported by and inconsistent with the publicly available data.


Well I'd certainly like to know what the damn "pervasive mean bias" conjecture is supposed to mean, seeing as it's apparently got my name on it.

Spin and obfuscation have spread the myth that the "exit polls are unreliable". The support of the media for the pollsters' exit poll response bias hypothesis as an explanation of the discrepancies between the exit polls and the election results in the presidential election, without any serious evidence, has been a travesty.


Honestly, Botany, where did you drag this thing up? Could you give a link? Every so often I find some more crap with my name on it. If you are going to post stuff like this, could you please give the source? And preferably a date.

Elizabeth Liddle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC