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 #177: Two small corrections: [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 Wed Aug-24-05 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #171
177. Two small corrections:
Edited on Wed Aug-24-05 09:51 AM by Febble
First:

Re Mystery Pollster, aka Mark Blumenthal, is a partner in the polling firm Bennett, Petts and Blumenthal.

http://mysterypollster.typepad.com/about.html

A person who is a partner in a polling firm is generally considered to have polling expertise.

Second: I don't think either OTOH or I have "deserted rBr", although rBr is not my favored description of the hypothesis. My own view is that some form of sampling/response bias was probably a substantial contributor to the exit poll discrepancy, although I do not rule out a contribution from fraud.

The theory put forward in this thread by OTOH (and by myself, earlier) is simply a hypothesis regarding a mechanism by which the "final table" with its apparently "impossible" Gore/Bush proportions could be reconciled with a red shift that was largely due to sampling/response bias.

Otherwise, for myself, I would confirm your timeline, although not the implied causal sequence. And because I dispute the causal sequence I dispute the allegation of bias. I changed my views because I was unbiased (i.e. not committed to a fraud hypothesis come-what-may) not because I was biased. And certainly not because I did work for Mitofsky. The timeline was, as you correctly report, the other way round. My paper resulted in my leaving USCV; my paper subsequently induced Mitofsky firstly to reanalyse the data, and later to commission further analyses from me.

So yes, in your words (elsewhere), I am a NAYSAYER to the case that the exit poll evidence is unambiguous evidence of massive electoral fraud. However I am not by any means a naysayer to efforts to investigate the inequities and illegalities of the 2004 election or to bring about fair, secure, auditable elections in the US. It is why I got involved in the first place.

On edit: just noticed your reference to the religious beliefs of one of my colleagues. This is quite irrelevant and quite unacceptable. I suggest you edit this if there is time.
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