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 #18: Well... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Well...
Those who still believe that Bush won


I think the evidence suggests that he won the popular vote - I'm less sure about the EC vote, butI do indeed

maintain that the early state exit polls and the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP), which Kerry won by 51-47%, are not convincing evidence of fraud.


However far from this being the case:

They provide no statistical evidence to back up there claim.


I have provided extensive statistical evidence to back up my claim.

The media-controlled exit pollsters will not release raw precinct-level data.


as long as you discount the raw precinct-level questionnaires that have been archived at the Roper Center since January 2005, and were available for public download for more than a year, as well as the precinct-level vote shares for Ohio, which were "blurred" to prevent voter identification, and published in a paper by ESI. In addition, of course, state-level close-of-poll estimates based on a) raw, stratified exit poll data and b) raw stratified exit poll data weighted by pre-election polls have also been published, and publicly available since January 2005.

On the other hand, they invent hypothetical theories to explain why the polls are wrong.


bit of tautology here - sure, to test a hypothesis, you "invent" - propose - a hypothesis, based on a theory, possibly several.

Debunk one theory and they quickly come up with another.


All conclusions should be subjected to rigorous testing, and further disambiguation, and, to my knowledge (seeing as I did a fair bit of myself), were.

Tortured explanations for exit poll discrepancies include but are not limited to the following: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; Bush voters lied or forgot who they voted for in 2000; polls are not true random samples; exit polls are not designed to expose fraud in the U.S. They point out that Democrats always do better in the polls than in the vote count because of this endemic bias.


None of which are "tortured" at all, and many of which are supported both by the 2004 data and by data from other elections.

They never consider that in every election, a significant percentage of total votes cast are never counted and overwhelmingly Democratic.


This is simply untrue. Not only did "they" consider it, but "they" actively investigated whether this was a likely contributor to the exit poll discrepancy.

They never consider that the discrepancies could be due to fraud.


And again, this is not simply untrue, but a lie. TIA knows it is untrue; in any case it clear from the Edison-Mitofsky report that at least one fraud hypothesis was actually tested. I myself tested more.

They dismiss the pre-election and early exit polls.


"They" certainly do not dismiss the pre-election polls, and if by "early exit polls" TIA means the estimates made on the basis of the polling data alone (and not weighted by the vote returns) this is not true either, as he would know if he had read the E-M evaluation, and indeed, if he'd bothered to read any of my posts.

They disregard the fact that the 2004 pre-election polls matched exit polls.


Not only do "they" NOT disregard this, but they have pointed out that the pre-election polls do not support TIA's case.

They ignore the experience of world-class pollsters who claim that undecided voters break for the challenger, especially when the incumbent is unpopular.


And TIA ignores the experience of world-class pollsters who disagree with him.

They dismiss Bushs election-day 48.5% approval rating as not relevant.


Again "they" do not. "They" looked very carefully at the historical precedent for incumbents fighting re-lection on a low approval rating, and came to a different conclusion from TIA.

They never consider that the final exit polls (both State and National) are always forced to match the recorded vote. They never consider the possibility of a fraudulent vote count.


:rofl:

If they did, they would be forced to admit that the early polls were closer to the true vote.


Well, no.

The truth is that the exit poll evidence does not stack up to evidence of a stolen election - if anything, it contra-indicates the case for theft on a scale of millions of votes. But it does not rule out corruption, and it does not rule out unjust disenfranchisement, particularly of those who had most to gain from a Kerry win. I don't know whether Kerry would have won on a level playing field, but I do know that the playing field wasn't, and isn't, level. And I also know that had it been level in 2000, Gore would be your president now.

But I see absolutely no point in using bad statistical arguments to advance a good cause. TIA's statistical arguments are bad. They don't stand up to scrutiny, and his characterisations of those who have attempted to try to find out what the exit polls actually DID mean are actually dishonest. Good people have spent a lot of time looking at that data. Those people include people who demonstrated conclusively that Gore won Florida in 2000. They do not concur with TIA's conclusions. This is NOT because they were unwilling to consider fraud as a possible source of the exit poll discrepancy. As for me, it was precisely because I was willing to consider fraud as a possible source of the exit poll discrepancy that I ended up analysing the data to try to find out. But the hypothesis was not supported by the data.

Cheers

Lizzie
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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