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 #21: TIA: A response [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
caruso Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-08-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. TIA: A response
Edited on Thu Feb-08-07 01:26 PM by caruso

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...

FEBBLE:
I think the evidence suggests that he won the popular vote - I'm less sure about the EC vote, but I 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.

TIA:

You think? Show us the evidence.
Here's mine.
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...
Let's see yours.

While your'e at it, could you provide a "convincing" case of where Bush found 16 million new voters from 2000? He had 50.5 million votes in 2000. About 2 million died. Assume 95% (46 million) of those STILL ALIVE came out to vote. He had 62 million "recorded" votes in 2004.

So how did he make up the 16 million (62-46) difference?

Was it from first-time voters and those who did not vote in 2000?
Kerry won that group by at least 5-4.

Was it returning Nader voters?
Kerry won those by 3-1.

Was it returning Bush voters?
Give us a percentage - and justify it.

Was it returning Gore voters?
Give us a percentage - and justify it.

Let's see. Anybody left? No that's it.
Let's see whatcha got.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...

FEBBLE:
I have provided extensive statistical evidence to back up my claim.
TIA:
Show us the evidence.


FEBBLE
as long as you discount the raw precinct-level questionnaires that have been archived at the Roper Center since January 2005, and were available for public download for more than a year, as well as the precinct-level vote shares for Ohio, which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.

TIA
Why don't you download it for us?



FEBBLE:
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.

TIA:
Explain why these assumptions are not "tortured".
Explain the rational for the derived Bush vote shares.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...


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

FEBBLE:
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.

TIA:
It is untrue? Where has it been shown to be untrue?


FEBBLE
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.

TIA:
Are you saying there was no fraud? I may be mistaken but I never lie. Show us some examples aof where you and Mitofsky considered fraud.

Febble
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.

TIA
Would you care to comment, in detail, on these final national pre-election polls?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...

Would you care to comment, in detail, on these state pre-election polls?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...



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

Would you care to comment, in detail, on these state pre-election polls?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes...


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

TIA
Name them. And explain exactly what they disagree with.


FEBBLE

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.

TIA:
"They" don't agree? Exactly who are "they"?

This is what Zogby had to say about undecided voters and Bush approval ratings a few days before the election:

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/37588.htm

And here is what Lou Harris, a world-class pollster with over 40 years experience, said about undecided voters on election day:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris%5Fpoll/index.as...

Are you saying you don't believe these world-class, INDEPENDENT pollsters?
Are you questioning their experience, data, expertise?
If so, tell us why.



FEBBLE
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.

TIA
Well, then, scrutinize.
Point out each and every statement and tell us why it is a "bad" argument.
Justify the Lindeman spreadsheet assumptions.

In order to match the recorded vote in the Final National Exit Poll How Voted in 2000 category, the exit pollsters had to: 1) use impossible Bush 43/ Gore 37 weights and 2) increase the Bush vote shares from the 12:22am NEP (which Kerry won 51.4-47.6%). Mark was challenged to provide a mathematically plausible Bush win scenario. It took him several months before he responded to the challenge in the famous Democratic Underground Game thread. Mark did to the How Voted in 2000 vote shares exactly what the exit pollsters did to the weights AND vote shares in the Final NEP: he changed them to implausible levels in order to match the recorded vote.

In order to comply with the rules of the game (to use feasible weights) Mark finally presented a spreadsheet in which he hypothesized how Bush achieved his 3 million vote mandate. The calculation of feasible weights was based on 1) the recorded 2000 and 2004 vote, 2) the annual 0.87% mortality rate and 3) an estimated 2000 voter turnout of 95% in 2004. So far, so good. Unfortunately, although his weights were now feasible, his assumed vote shares were implausible. Using feasible weights, Mark had no choice but to increase the already-inflated Bush vote shares to ridiculous levels.

Marks implausible Bush win scenario was based on the following assumptions:

1) One in 7 (14.63%) Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush in 2004.
The 12:22am NEP reported 8% (10% in the 2pm Final).

2) Kerry won just 52.90% of DNV (new voters and others who did not vote in 2000).
The NEP reported 57% (54% in the Final).

3) Just 7.20% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry.
The NEP reported 10% (9% in the Final).

Are we to believe the implausible 14.63% vote share or the impossible 43 Bush/ 37% Gore weights? The weights imply that 3 million (7.5%) of Gore voters forgot or lied and told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush in 2000.

Was the exit poll match to the recorded vote based on a) the use of plausible 37.84 Gore/ 37.44% Bush weights (see the Lindeman Game model ) and an implausible 14.63% Gore voter defection rate, or b) the impossible 43 Bush / 37% Gore weights (false recall) and plausible 8-10% defection rate?

Mark had to replace the already-debunked reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis with Gore voter false recall. His rationale: an NES post-election survey taken a few years after the election. But Mark contradicted himself when he agreed that the original weights were impossible; it's irrelevant whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters when they said they voted for Bush.

What is relevant is who they voted for in 2004 - and 91% said it was Kerry. The 2000 and 2004 recorded vote and annual mortality rate are historical demographic facts. They are necessary and sufficient to determine the maximum number of Bush and Gore voters who could have voted in 2004. Bush and Gore 2000 voter turnout in 2004 is unknown. Turnout must be estimated in order to determine plausible weights ( 95% in the True Vote Model).

On the other hand, the TrueVote model indicates that Kerry won a 52.56-46.43% landslide - a 7.7 million vote margin. The assumptions were plausible and feasible: 1) only Gore, Bush and Nader 2000 voters still living could vote in 2004, 2) the 12:22am NEP vote shares, 3) 0.87% annual mortality rate, 4) 95% turnout of Gore, Bush and other 2000 voters, 5) 125.74mm total votes cast (Census).

We already know the weights; they are the 2000 recorded vote shares, reduced by mortality and turnout. Once we have determined these feasible weights, we can use the exit poll response to the question "who did you just vote for" to calculate the national vote share. That's why the only exit poll response which matters is the answer to the question: "Who did you vote for in 2004". It follows that "false recall", even if it exists, is irrelevant. On the contrary, we are justified in believing that voters did not falsely recall who they voted for just five minutes earlier. What would be their motivation to lie? Survey responses are confidential.

........TIA True Vote Model The Lindeman Game Model
.......Weight Kerry Bush Other........... Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNV 21.49% 57% 41% 2%............. 21.72% 52.90% 46.50% 0.60%
Gore 38.23% 91% 8% 1%............. 37.84% 84.83% 14.63% 0.54%
Bush 37.83% 10% 90% 0%............. 37.44% 7.20% 92.31% 0.49%
Other 2.45% 71% 21% 8%............. 3.00% 65.90% 18.10% 16.00%

Share 100% 52.56% 46.43% 1.01%... 100% 48.26% 50.74% 1.00%
Votes 125.7 66.09 58.38 1.27............. 122.3 59.02 62.05 1.22


Did the exit poll respondents also lie about their SEX?
GENDER Weight Kerry Bush Other
Male 46% 47% 52% 1%
Female 54% 54% 45% 1%

Share 100% 50.78% 48.22% 1.00%
Votes 122.3 62.10 58.97 1.22



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