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 #22: Well, I already addressed these, prolifically, but.... [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 Thu Feb-08-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Well, I already addressed these, prolifically, but....
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:
Ok, then where did Bush find 16 million new voters?
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes ...


That is not a response to my point. I don't know the answer to your question, but I can suggest some places to look.


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


http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/slides.html
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/3
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/7

Plus the finding I mentioned here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Plus the the strong correlations I found (as also reported in E-M evaluation document) between the magnitude of precinct level discrepancy and methodological variables, including the interviewing rate.


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as long as you discount the raw precinct-level questionnaires that have been archived at the Roper Center since January 2005, and were available for public download for more than a year, as well as the precinct-level vote shares for Ohio, which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


Too late. You had a year to do it in for free, but it seems you didn't bother. I don't have a subscription. If you want one you will have to pay for one. I gave you the URL on numerous occasions.


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 ...


I have explained before, on countless occasions. I see no particular reason to do so yet again. But in short:

There are only two reasons why there should be an discrepancy between an exit poll and the count:

  1. the votes were miscounted in favor of one candidate (i.e Bush, over all in 2004)
  2. voters for one candidate participated in the poll at a higher rate than voters for the other (i.e. voters for Kerry, overall, in 2004).


Frankly, I suspect some of both, but the evidence strongly supports (2), only weakly supports (1), and actually contra-indicates (1) by DREs, or on a scale of millions. So that leaves (2). Why Kerry voters should have participated at a higher rate than Bush voters cannot, of course be determined. However, there is strong evidence that they did so. This evidence lies in the strong correlations between the magnitude of the discrepancy and methodological factors that would have tended to make departures from strict Nth voter sampling protocol more likely. It is also borne out by actual experimental evidence, in which exit poll discrepancies (in the redshift direction) have been associated with certain methodological factors. It is also borne out by an opinion poll conducted shortly before the 2006 election that indicated that Democrats were more likely to take part in an exit poll than Republicans. It is also borne out be evidence from Steve Freeman's exit poll (you'll have to google for that, I'm afraid, don't have the link to hand). It is also borne out by a study of exit poll discrepancy by Michael Butterworth (on data from 2006). There is massive evidence that the polls are not true random samples - this is evidenced by the non-response data apart from anything else. No pollster can assume a random sample. Your own pre-election polls data indicates that polls have a substantial amount of non-sampling error. There are vast text books written on the subject. There is also substantial evidence both from longitudinal panel data, and from past exit polls, that people tend to over-report having voted for the incumbent. There is also evidence to suggest that they over-report having voted at all.


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?


Well, I'm part of "they" and I investigated it - for Warren Mitofsky, so he can be "they" as well. Yes, I considered it, and yes I reported my findings to Mitofsky who was interested in the result.



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.


The Edison-Mitofsky evaluation reports findings from an investigation into the correlation between voting technology and exit poll discrepancy. I repeated this investigation, rather more rigorously, I think (see above). Also check out the swing-shift correlation above. That was a direct test of the hypothesis that fraud was responsible for the exit poll discrepancy. Of course I do not say "there was no fraud". What is untrue is the assertion that "They never consider that the discrepancies could be due to fraud." They did. I have posted prolifically on this. If you are not lying then the only alternative interpretation is that you haven't bothered to read my analysis. In which case, I suggest you do so.

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 ...


No. I'd much rather comment (as I have done, extensively) on the actual estimates made by E-M on the basis of the raw exit poll data, as well as the actual raw exit poll data collected at the precinct. As for your pre-election polls, my only comment is that even on your very generous (to Kerry) interpretation of them, the discrepancy between them and the official result is completely uncorrelated with the exit poll discrepancy, suggesting that the discrepancies arise from different causes.



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 ...


Done.


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

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


Done already. Ad nauseam. By not only me but many other commentators.



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"?


Dunno. Who the hell were you talking about?


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.


No, I am saying that there is more than one reason for a prediction to be in error. And your second link doesn't work

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.


I have been trying to tell you for a couple of years now. I see no point in wasting any more time on it. You show no evidence of actually reading any of my posts anyway.

And aren't you a ghost?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -Up-to-date compendium of TIA's work on 2004 election fraud. bleever  Jan-28-07 06:54 PM   #0 
  - Thanks Bro...  ClassWarrior   Jan-28-07 06:59 PM   #1 
  - Hey Wally?  bleever   Jan-28-07 08:48 PM   #4 
  - ..  Kurovski   Jan-29-07 12:00 PM   #8 
  - ..  autorank   Jun-06-07 03:19 AM   #143 
  - NEW Jan. 27, 2007. OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study  L. Coyote   Feb-11-07 10:27 AM   #78 
  - Latest Update: April 15  glengarry   Apr-17-07 08:49 PM   #140 
  - 4/27 Update: A Recorded State Vote Smoking Gun ? (not a polling analysis)  glengarry   Apr-27-07 11:33 PM   #142 
     - Kick  BeFree   Jun-18-08 11:11 AM   #191 
  - Interesting note - this thread was never recommended, not by even one single person  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-26-08 10:25 AM   #187 
     - The post received many recommendations...  tiptoe   Apr-26-08 12:35 PM   #188 
     - actually, TIA is doomed to be more recced than read  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-26-08 12:53 PM   #189 
  - KR...........nt  kster   Jan-28-07 07:11 PM   #2 
  - kick  tiptoe   Jun-06-08 09:24 AM   #190 
  - Highly, highly recommended!  Peace Patriot   Jan-28-07 08:01 PM   #3 
  - Remembered Conversation - Susan Truitt, Andy Stephenson  truedelphi   Jan-29-07 07:48 PM   #11 
     - That's a memory  bleever   Jan-29-07 10:10 PM   #14 
     - type of nonsense = "...officials, under color of law, depriving citizens of consitutional rights..."  tiptoe   Sep-14-07 05:10 PM   #163 
  - TIA-a true patriot!  mod mom   Jan-28-07 08:51 PM   #5 
  - Who is this person?  troubleinwinter   Jan-28-07 09:36 PM   #6 
  - he was banned from DU n/t  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-11-07 12:56 AM   #65 
  - His name is "Truth" !! Do you need more than that?  galloglas   Feb-17-07 08:05 PM   #101 
     - Not only was TIA tombstoned, so was his sockpuppet, "caruso". How's that for truth?  troubleinwinter   Feb-18-07 03:32 PM   #103 
        - Your point is??  galloglas   Feb-18-07 07:34 PM   #104 
        - The point is that a sockpuppet- pretending to be someone other than who you are-  troubleinwinter   Feb-19-07 06:23 AM   #107 
        - That fails to answer  galloglas   Feb-19-07 12:00 PM   #111 
           - You have lost me.  troubleinwinter   Feb-19-07 12:18 PM   #112 
              - You once were lost, but now you're found.  galloglas   Feb-19-07 01:00 PM   #113 
                 - Nope.  troubleinwinter   Feb-19-07 01:12 PM   #114 
                    - Nope is correct.  galloglas   Feb-19-07 01:35 PM   #116 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-19-07 01:44 PM   #118 
                          - he is confused about "ad hominem," too  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-19-07 03:08 PM   #120 
        - what a remarkably inapposite analogy  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-19-07 08:16 AM   #109 
        - Moved to proper spot  galloglas   Feb-19-07 11:58 AM   #110 
        - what about these new sock puppets?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-19-07 01:30 AM   #106 
  - A big K&R...That's quite a recource...and it's free!  autorank   Jan-29-07 04:29 AM   #7 
  - Too bad there's more money in stealing elections  bleever   Feb-17-07 05:32 PM   #100 
  - Also a section on the 2006  bleever   Jan-29-07 02:44 PM   #9 
  - kick.nt  kster   Jan-29-07 07:37 PM   #10 
  - Thanks Bleever! TIA Rocks and so do you! K&R! n/t  Melissa G   Jan-29-07 08:32 PM   #12 
  - Takes one to know one!  bleever   Jan-29-07 10:01 PM   #13 
  - KICK FOR FEB 4 UPDATE  caruso   Feb-04-07 02:46 PM   #15 
  - Contents and Introduction to the FAQ response  caruso   Feb-06-07 10:13 PM   #16 
     - fact check  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-07-07 08:01 AM   #17 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-07-07 11:02 AM   #19 
     - this ad hominem rant doesn't respond to the content of my post  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-07-07 11:35 AM   #20 
     - soon they will be able to do this same thing over 2008 election  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-19-07 01:29 PM   #115 
        - or even if it isn't -- unverified voting is a no-win  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-19-07 02:50 PM   #119 
     - Well...  Febble   Feb-07-07 08:57 AM   #18 
     - TIA: A response  caruso   Feb-08-07 12:45 PM   #21 
        - Well, I already addressed these, prolifically, but....  Febble   Feb-08-07 01:47 PM   #22 
           - the Harris link worked for me, but it isn't Lou Harris  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-08-07 02:08 PM   #23 
           - TIA: Many words, no numbers....  caruso   Feb-08-07 04:58 PM   #24 
              - Clearly  Febble   Feb-09-07 03:09 AM   #25 
                 - ah, the wit and wisdom of TIA  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 06:30 AM   #26 
                 - Well, I didn't exactly miss it  Febble   Feb-09-07 07:16 AM   #27 
                    - sure, I'm just trying to skip the step where  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 07:46 AM   #28 
                       - Hardly likely  BeFree   Feb-09-07 02:11 PM   #31 
                          - well...  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 02:34 PM   #32 
                             - TIA: Not 10%, it was 8% Check the NEP time line  caruso   Feb-09-07 03:50 PM   #33 
                             - Here's an interesting analysis,  Febble   Feb-09-07 04:00 PM   #34 
                             - well, I think they are both wrong  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 04:27 PM   #35 
                                - Bad numbers?  BeFree   Feb-09-07 05:34 PM   #38 
                                   - you might try actually reading the paper  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 05:42 PM   #40 
                                      - But your evidence  BeFree   Feb-09-07 05:54 PM   #41 
                                         - as I said, you might try reading the paper  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 05:57 PM   #42 
                                            - Your paper?  BeFree   Feb-09-07 06:31 PM   #45 
                                            - you can't intelligently criticize an argument you won't read  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 07:00 PM   #46 
                             - Faith based?That's a laugh.  BeFree   Feb-09-07 05:08 PM   #36 
                                - actually not  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 05:23 PM   #37 
                                   - I edited that post  BeFree   Feb-09-07 05:41 PM   #39 
                                      - why?  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 06:05 PM   #43 
                                         - My basis is as good as your's, even better  BeFree   Feb-09-07 06:27 PM   #44 
                                            - of course I will "quibble" about that  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-09-07 07:01 PM   #47 
                 - TIA: Historical NEP data you are probably unaware of  caruso   Feb-09-07 09:55 AM   #29 
                    - OK  Febble   Feb-09-07 12:46 PM   #30 
                       - TIA Fact Refresher: 1) 2000/2004 recorded vote, 2) mortality, 3) 2000 voter turnout in 2004  caruso   Feb-09-07 10:58 PM   #48 
                          - Weights....  Febble   Feb-10-07 04:18 AM   #49 
                          - TIA: Still not clear to you? OK, let's try again.  caruso   Feb-10-07 07:52 AM   #51 
                             - OK  Febble   Feb-10-07 09:27 AM   #53 
                             - one thing back on point 8  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-10-07 11:03 AM   #57 
                             - Ah, thanks  Febble   Feb-10-07 11:21 AM   #58 
                             - TIA: The "false recall" explanation for Voted2k weights is moot; focus on the vote share scenarios  caruso   Feb-10-07 03:29 PM   #59 
                                - bullshit, TIA, I call bullshit  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-10-07 04:04 PM   #60 
                                - TIA: So you believe that Bush's 48.5% rating is consonant with a 14.6% Gore defection to Bush?  caruso   Feb-10-07 06:10 PM   #62 
                                - oh, brother  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-10-07 09:14 PM   #63 
                                   - TIA: So if its not a mathematical impossibility, that makes it plausible?  caruso   Feb-10-07 11:04 PM   #64 
                                      - Caruso, one question  kster   Feb-11-07 01:46 AM   #70 
                                      - As you never consider a single point  Febble   Feb-11-07 02:31 AM   #71 
                                      - You. Have. Nothing.  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-11-07 08:06 AM   #74 
                                      - TIA: Is this your rationale of why 15% of Gore voters defected?  caruso   Feb-11-07 08:23 AM   #75 
                                      - In other words  Febble   Feb-11-07 09:04 AM   #76 
                                      - TIA: You have it exactly back-wards  caruso   Feb-11-07 10:13 AM   #77 
                                      - TIA:  Febble   Feb-11-07 12:08 PM   #79 
                                      - TIA: I never said "no Gore voter would have voted for Bush"  caruso   Feb-11-07 12:18 PM   #80 
                                      - OK, rephrase  Febble   Feb-11-07 12:32 PM   #81 
                                      - your actual argument is even worse  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-11-07 01:06 PM   #85 
                                      - as usual, you did not respond to the substance of my post  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-11-07 12:43 PM   #82 
                                - while arguing with a banned DU'er, a crises is ignored  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-11-07 12:58 AM   #66 
                                   - in self-defense  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-11-07 12:52 PM   #83 
                                   - Let me put in a good word for my friend too  Febble   Feb-11-07 01:02 PM   #84 
                                - sigh....  Febble   Feb-10-07 04:21 PM   #61 
                             - And just so's you don't miss it....  Febble   Feb-10-07 10:08 AM   #55 
                          - TIA, you are still multiplying irrelevancies  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-10-07 05:13 AM   #50 
                             - why misreporting of past votes matters  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-10-07 09:08 AM   #52 
                                - Thanks - another possibility  Febble   Feb-10-07 09:48 AM   #54 
                                - certainly -- I was just trying to make it as simple as possible  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-10-07 10:58 AM   #56 
                                - TIA: That's a very weak example. Unrealistic.  caruso   Feb-11-07 06:18 PM   #86 
                                - you sure are predictable, TIA  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-11-07 07:00 PM   #87 
                                - TIA: Where did Bush find 20 million new votes?  caruso   Feb-12-07 09:50 AM   #90 
                                   - caruso:  Febble   Feb-12-07 10:16 AM   #91 
                                   - he did not need "major voter blocs"  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-12-07 11:07 AM   #93 
                                - Here's a toy model for TIA to play with  Febble   Feb-12-07 05:27 PM   #96 
                                   - And if you want to respond....  Febble   Feb-13-07 11:42 AM   #98 
                                - TIA: If you can say 15% Gore voters defected to Bush, I can say 15% of Bush voters defected to Kerry  caruso   Feb-12-07 08:25 AM   #88 
                                   - OK, your sensitivity analysis finally acknowledges  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-12-07 11:10 AM   #94 
     - "Cooliers caught the networks simply making up the exit poll numbers"  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-11-07 01:15 AM   #69 
        - Well, for a start  Febble   Feb-11-07 02:45 AM   #72 
        - Yes!  BeFree   Feb-18-07 10:36 AM   #102 
  - Lynn Landes: Exit Poll Madness  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-11-07 01:04 AM   #67 
  - No mention of 'secret' (unaired) preliminary polls & publicized ('forced') Final "poll" -- useless.  tiptoe   Aug-30-07 11:55 PM   #162 
  - "belief in exit polls is a trap that's had tragic consequences ....."  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-11-07 01:11 AM   #68 
  - TIA: Landes is saying your vote will NOT be counted; Zogby pre-election state polls  caruso   Feb-11-07 07:26 AM   #73 
  - Descriptive statistics vs. inferential statistics = NO MOE vs. MOE  L. Coyote   Feb-12-07 09:19 AM   #89 
  - TIA: The inferential national 7.3% vote-switch rate confirms your descriptive Ohio 6.15% rate.  caruso   Feb-12-07 10:56 AM   #92 
     - If only it were that simple OR since every vote counts  L. Coyote   Feb-12-07 04:36 PM   #95 
  - Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW! Nothing more and Nothing less!  In Truth We Trust   Feb-13-07 10:15 AM   #97 
  - Thank you for your persistence.  bleever   Feb-24-07 05:37 PM   #121 
  - I haven't seen that.  troubleinwinter   Feb-25-07 09:36 PM   #122 
     - It's Land Shark's poll  Febble   Feb-26-07 02:39 AM   #123 
        - well, maybe -- maybe it's something else? on a substantive note...  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-26-07 07:38 AM   #124 
        - No,  troubleinwinter   Feb-26-07 10:25 AM   #126 
           - factual inaccuracy on a TIA thread?!  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-26-07 11:09 AM   #127 
              - "spinning the dickens out of public opinion"  troubleinwinter   Feb-26-07 12:11 PM   #128 
                 - Well it's very difficult to interpret the poll at all  Febble   Feb-26-07 12:15 PM   #129 
                    - That's the problem.  troubleinwinter   Feb-26-07 01:42 PM   #130 
                       - I couldn't agree more.  Febble   Feb-26-07 03:00 PM   #131 
        - Egads  troubleinwinter   Feb-26-07 08:59 AM   #125 
  - KICK.nt  kster   Jul-17-08 11:13 PM   #193 
  - The dynamic changes from cycle to cycle  Awsi Dooger   Feb-13-07 06:45 PM   #99 
  - Why WAS TIA banned? Why is TIA allowed to use Sock Puppets?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-19-07 01:28 AM   #105 
  - I think it's a tough call for the mods  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-19-07 07:12 AM   #108 
     - I agree  troubleinwinter   Feb-19-07 01:41 PM   #117 
  - Kickin 'cuz I heard rumors of a March 14th update  Melissa G   Mar-14-07 09:35 PM   #132 
  - This is a graduate course in Election Fraud Analytics  glengarry   Apr-12-07 12:00 AM   #133 
  - Ahh...memories.  Kurovski   Apr-12-07 04:03 AM   #134 
     - Hi Kurovski, Always nice to see your lovely sig  Melissa G   Apr-12-07 10:14 AM   #135 
        - Your sig is even better!  Kurovski   Apr-12-07 12:15 PM   #137 
  - Thanks  TEDIUM   Apr-12-07 11:09 AM   #136 
  - Kick. (nt)  Kurovski   Apr-13-07 10:23 AM   #138 
  - So here you are! Kick  autorank   Apr-14-07 11:12 PM   #139 
  - Thanks for keeping this out there bleever.  Stevepol   Apr-21-07 04:39 PM   #141 
  - Kick.  Kurovski   Jun-06-07 08:22 PM   #144 
  - Kick. (nt)  Kurovski   Jun-07-07 02:37 AM   #145 
  - It's interesting to note individuals who decry others publicly interpreting  Kurovski   Jun-07-07 05:34 PM   #146 
  - Hi to Bleever and those that follow this work...  Melissa G   Jun-25-07 11:21 AM   #147 
  - There has been an update posted to the TIA FAQ  Melissa G   Jul-16-07 10:00 AM   #148 
  - "The Democrats actually won all FIVE elections by an average 8.9 M...Run the numbers yourself..."  tiptoe   Jul-16-07 03:46 PM   #149 
  - Wow 9080 views! and there has been a recent update also.  Melissa G   Aug-05-07 09:16 PM   #150 
  - There has been an update posted with Urban Legend discussion impact  Melissa G   Aug-23-07 04:07 PM   #151 
  - well, I do appreciate the repeated promotion  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-23-07 04:50 PM   #152 
  - Refute this.  althecat   Aug-24-07 01:56 AM   #155 
     - so you never read the FAQ either  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-24-07 08:13 AM   #157 
        - I trust expressing yourself on the subject has made you feel better.....  althecat   Aug-25-07 09:24 PM   #158 
           - I accept your concession n/t  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-25-07 09:36 PM   #159 
  - Here is althecat's research thread post that addresses this  Melissa G   Aug-23-07 09:35 PM   #153 
  - Aha... 10,000 views not far away now...  althecat   Aug-24-07 01:41 AM   #154 
  - 17 more views....  althecat   Aug-24-07 04:53 AM   #156 
  - Nice to see this drop around again  galloglas   Aug-25-07 10:15 PM   #160 
  - kick for Gonzo resignation!  tiptoe   Aug-28-07 12:56 AM   #161 
  - k  tiptoe   Nov-25-07 04:36 PM   #172 
  - Significant correlation between the state exit polls and the 5m late recorded votes:  tiptoe   Oct-09-07 06:48 PM   #164 
  - TIA always did have a way with plots  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-09-07 08:02 PM   #165 
  - Updated Oct 26: The 2000 Election...  tiptoe   Oct-27-07 08:54 AM   #166 
  - Updated Nov 2: Election Fraud Analysis: Bush Approval Ratings  tiptoe   Nov-03-07 12:32 PM   #167 
  - nope  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-03-07 02:28 PM   #168 
     - chart  tiptoe   Nov-04-07 11:00 AM   #169 
        - Doesn't help  Febble   Nov-04-07 06:35 PM   #170 
  - Updated  tiptoe   Nov-22-07 03:15 AM   #171 
  - Corrections for section "State Exit Polls: Average Within Precinct Error..."  tiptoe   Nov-26-07 02:04 AM   #173 
     - What the hell took so long!?!  Wilms   Nov-26-07 09:47 AM   #174 
        - Tell us what matters, Mr. Wilms  tiptoe   Nov-29-07 04:48 AM   #175 
           - For one, audits, as I mentioned.  Wilms   Nov-29-07 05:25 AM   #176 
              - Alright, just one...  tiptoe   Nov-30-07 04:18 AM   #177 
                 - Thanks for taking the time to post all of that.  Wilms   Nov-30-07 10:51 PM   #178 
                 - really?  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-01-07 09:42 AM   #179 
  - When Decided: Further confirmation of a Kerry landslide  tiptoe   Dec-12-07 04:58 AM   #180 
  - I wish he would get the facts right  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-12-07 06:36 AM   #181 
  - Updated: Conservative Scenarios Analysis  tiptoe   Jan-06-08 01:27 PM   #182 
  - Final Exit Polls: Adjusted to Match the Recorded Vote  tiptoe   Jan-18-08 12:57 AM   #183 
  - k.  tiptoe   Apr-26-08 08:47 AM   #186 
  - Since Corporate Media is Sitting on Election Fraud . . . HOW DO WE GET IT OUT THERE!!??  BillDouglas   Jan-18-08 04:14 PM   #184 
  - Gallup assigned 90% of the undecided vote to Kerry.  tiptoe   Mar-07-08 04:54 PM   #185 
  - 2004 Election Model: Summary, Polling Analysis, National & State Model Tables -- TruthIsAll  tiptoe   Jul-16-08 10:29 PM   #192 
     - kick!  tiptoe   Oct-12-10 08:07 AM   #194 
 

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