Reply #34: OTOH and Febble... I am inclined to agree strongly with your opponent here

[althecat]

And my reason is simply this.

Edison Mitofsky has refused to allow a proper analysis of his own data.

As I understand it he has released WPE data without identifying which precincts each data point comes from. The graph data scatter plots etc that Ron is dealing with and which you claim are not statistically significant would be able to be studied in detail across the entire country and with a great deal more likelihood of discovering whether there is PROOF OF FRAUD in the exit poll data if we actually had it.

I.E. If you want to argue that exit polls can or cannot prove fraud then lets have the argument after the data is released and we can analyse it properly. In the meantime we have a moot point in your opinion, and in the non skeptics opinions we have a series of very strong pieces of evidence in the exit poll which back up an enormous range of other pieces of evidence that have been recorded and described ad nauseum around here.

I am not a statistician but the most strong piece of evidence I have ever found in the exit polls that the results are fraudulent is that they show that Kerry received a clear majority among new voters. This occurred in an election when total turnout was enormous and new voters undoubtedly decided the result..... if Kerry had a clear majority of new voters then how could Bush have possibly won.

In these circumstances I find your attempts to brow-beat those who disagee with you by using:
a) terms of statistical art which make very little sense to us non statisticians
b) phrases like "How many times can we torch that straw man, anyway?"
..deeply intellectually dishonest.

The fact that you are so keen to do so and insist on doing so in an intellectual vacuum (i.e. considering the statistical evidence as discussed by the statisticians without considering the withholding of evidence etc.) further makes me more than a little suspicius about your motives.