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 #48: TIA Fact Refresher: 1) 2000/2004 recorded vote, 2) mortality, 3) 2000 voter turnout in 2004 [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 Fri Feb-09-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #30
48. TIA Fact Refresher: 1) 2000/2004 recorded vote, 2) mortality, 3) 2000 voter turnout in 2004
Edited on Fri Feb-09-07 11:38 PM by caruso
FEBBLE
TIA, all your analysis assume that exit poll sampling is unbiased, and that people correctly report what they did four years ago (e.g. whether they voted; who they voted for). While it is possible that these two assumptions are correct, there is no reason to believe that there are, and a fair bit of reason to believe they are not.

TIA
Once again, you avoid the FACTS about the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I have stated the following over and over again. We already know the MAXIMUM "How voted in 2000" weights because we KNOW how many Bush and Gore voters were still alive and could vote in 2004.

Yet you still assume that the weightings are the result of a flawed sample. That is flawed reasoning. WE ALREADY KNOW THE WEIGHTS SINCE WE KNOW THAT ALL MEN ARE MORTAL.

THEREFORE, it is IRRELEVANT whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters IF they said they voted for Bush. What IS RELEVANT IS WHO THEY VOTED FOR FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THEY WERE EXIT POLLED - and 91% said it was Kerry.

The 2000 and 2004 recorded votes and the annual MORTALITY rate are historic and documented FACTS. They are both NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT to determine the MAXIMUM number of Bush and Gore voters who COULD HAVE VOTED in 2004.

Only Bush and Gore 2000 VOTER TURNOUT in 2004 is UNKNOWN. But turnout can be ESTIMATED in order to determine PLAUSIBLE WEIGHTS (95% is the base case used in the True Vote Model). The model indicates that Kerry won by 66-58 million votes, a 52.56-46.43% vote share.

TIA True Vote Model
Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNV 21.49% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 38.23% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 37.83% 10% 90% 0%
Other 2.45% 71% 21% 8%

Share 100% 52.56% 46.43% 1.01%
Votes 125.7 66.09 58.38 1.27

The assumptions were BOTH plausible (believable) AND feasible (mathematically possible):

1) only Gore, Bush and Nader 2000 voters still living could vote in 2004.
THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, BUT APPARENTLY IT IS NOT. IT IS A FACT, NOT AN ASSUMPTION. AND IT BLOWS ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS RIGHT OUT OF THE WATER.

2) 0.87% annual mortality rate (FACT)

4) 95% turnout of Gore, Bush and other 2000 voters
Regardless of the turnout ASSUMPTION, Kerry wins.

5) 125.7mm total votes cast (2004 Census). You can call it an assumption.
There are still those who claim the Census is inaccurate; it never matches the vote count. Of course it doesn't - millions of votes cast in every election (mostly Democratic) are never counted. And that's a FACT. For you to claim otherwise is pure propaganda.

But the Census total is NOT required for the analysis; the TRUE VOTE SHARES remain the same if we assume the 122.3mm RECORDED vote. Total votes CAST is used to determine a more accurate TRUE VOTE COUNT.

6) I assume the 12:22am NEP vote shares as the BEST EVIDENCE of who the voters ACTUALLY voted for FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THEY TOLD THE EXIT POLLSTER. If you disagree with the base case 12:22am vote shares, then consider this.

The following unlikely scenarios are further evidence that Kerry won, even when the base case assumptions (shown in parenthesis) are changed to favor Bush .

Scenario 1:
10% advantage in turnout of Bush 2000 voters over Gore voters.
Gore turnout: 90% (95%)
Bush turnout: 100% (95%)
Kerry wins by 3.62mm votes (51.0-48%).

Scenario 2:
Reduce Kerry share of DNV by 6% and Gore 2000 voter turnout by 4%.
DNV share: 51% (57%)
Gore turnout: 91% (95%)
Bush turnout: 95% (95%)
Kerry wins by 2.88mm votes (50.6%-48.4%).

Scenario 3:
Reduce Kerry share of Gore voters by 4% and Bush voters by 2%.
Assume: 95% turnout of Gore and Bush voters
Gore share: 87% (91%)
Bush share: 8% (10%)
Kerry wins by 1.97mm votes (50.3%-48.7%).

_________________________________________________________________

Sensitivity Analysis

DNV2k: first-time and other voters who did not vote in 2000
Base case assumptions and Kerry vote share are shown in bold print.

How does Gore/Bush 2000 voter turnout effect Kerry's national vote?
Assume:
100% Bush 2000 voter turnout
95% Gore voter turnout
Kerry wins by 51.6 - 47.4%, a 5.32 million vote margin.


KERRY VOTE SHARE
(sensitivity to Gore and Bush 2000 voter turnout)

Bush Gore Turnout
Turnout 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%

95% 52.6% 52.7% 52.8% 53.0% 53.1% 53.2%
96% 52.4% 52.5% 52.7% 52.8% 52.9% 53.1%
97% 52.2% 52.3% 52.5% 52.6% 52.7% 52.9%
98% 52.0% 52.1% 52.3% 52.4% 52.6% 52.7%
99% 51.8% 52.0% 52.1% 52.2% 52.4% 52.5%
100% 51.6% 51.8% 51.9% 52.0% 52.2% 52.3%

KERRY VOTE MARGIN (millions)

95% 7.72 8.06 8.40 8.74 9.08 9.42
96% 7.24 7.58 7.92 8.26 8.60 8.93
97% 6.76 7.10 7.44 7.78 8.12 8.45
98% 6.28 6.62 6.96 7.30 7.63 7.97
99% 5.80 6.14 6.48 6.81 7.15 7.49
100% 5.32 5.66 5.99 6.33 6.67 7.01
________________________________________________________

How do changes in Gore voter turnout and Kerry's share of DNV2k impact his national vote?
DNV2k are first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2000.

Assume:
Gore 2000 voter turnout: 91%
Bush 2000 voter turnout: 95%
Kerry share of DNV2k: 54%

Kerry's wins by 51.3 - 47.7%, a 4.62 million vote margin.

KERRY VOTE SHARE
(sensitivity to Gore 2000 voter turnout and share of DNV2k)

Gore Kerry Share of DNV2k
Turnout 54% 55% 56% 57% 58% 59%

100% 52.7% 52.9% 53.1% 53.2% 53.4% 53.6%
99% 52.5% 52.7% 52.9% 53.1% 53.3% 53.5%
98% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% 53.2% 53.4%
97% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% 53.3%
96% 52.1% 52.3% 52.5% 52.7% 52.9% 53.1%

95% 51.9% 52.1% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0%
94% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6% 52.9%
93% 51.6% 51.8% 52.1% 52.3% 52.5% 52.7%
92% 51.5% 51.7% 51.9% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6%
91% 51.3% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.5%

KERRY VOTE MARGIN (millions)

100% 7.95 8.44 8.93 9.42 9.91 10.40
99% 7.58 8.08 8.58 9.08 9.58 10.08
98% 7.21 7.72 8.23 8.74 9.25 9.76
97% 6.84 7.36 7.88 8.40 8.92 9.44
96% 6.47 7.00 7.53 8.06 8.59 9.12

95% 6.10 6.64 7.18 7.72 8.26 8.80
94% 5.73 6.28 6.83 7.38 7.93 8.48
93% 5.36 5.92 6.48 7.04 7.60 8.16
92% 4.99 5.56 6.13 6.70 7.27 7.84
91% 4.62 5.20 5.78 6.36 6.94 7.53
________________________________________________________________________
How does Kerry's share of returning Gore and Bush voters impact his national vote?

Assume (per the Final Exit Poll):
Kerry won 89% of Gore voters
Kerry won 9% of Bush voters

Kerry wins by 51.4 - 47.6%, a 4.85 million margin.

KERRY VOTE SHARE
(sensitivity to Kerry share of returning Gore and Bush voters)

Assume 2000 Voter Turnout: 95% Gore; 95% Bush

Bush Gore Voter Share
Voter 89% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94%
Share
10% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7%
9% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0% 53.3%
8% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0%
7% 50.7% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6%

6% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2%
5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4% 51.8%
4% 49.5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4%
3% 49.2% 49.5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1%

KERRY VOTE MARGIN (millions)

10% 5.80 6.76 7.72 8.68 9.64 10.60
9% 4.85 5.81 6.77 7.73 8.69 9.65
8% 3.89 4.86 5.82 6.78 7.74 8.70
7% 2.94 3.90 4.87 5.83 6.79 7.75

6% 1.99 2.95 3.91 4.88 5.84 6.80
5% 1.04 2.00 2.96 3.93 4.89 5.85
4% 0.09 1.05 2.01 2.97 3.94 4.90
3% -0.86 0.10 1.06 2.02 2.98 3.95


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

To repeat, we already KNOW the weights; they are based on the 2000 and 2004 recorded votes, with 2000 voters reduced by voter mortality and voter turnout in 2004.

Since we have determined FEASIBLE (mathematically possible) weights, we just need the response to ONE question in order to calculate the national vote share. That's why the ONLY exit poll response which MATTERS is the answer to THIS question: "Who did you JUST VOTE FOR 5 MINUTES AGO"?

It follows that "false recall" of the 2000 vote, even IF it exists, is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. On the contrary, we ARE justified in believing that voters DID NOT not falsely recall who they voted for JUST FIVE MINUTES earlier. What would be their MOTIVATION to lie? Survey responses are CONFIDENTIAL - AS YOU KEEP REMINDING US.

I strongly suggest that you look over this extensive NEP sensitivity analysis for all essential demographics. KERRY EMERGES AS THE WINNER, REGARDLESS OF THE COMBINATION PAIR OF PLAUSIBLE VOTE SHARE ASSUMPTIONS.

THE REASON KERRY COMES OUT A WINNER IS THAT WE HAVE CALCULATED FEASIBLE WEIGHTS WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR IN 2000?

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

ONCE AGAIN, FROM THE PEAK OF TRUTH MOUNTAIN SO THAT YOU DON'T FORGET IT:

***********************************************************************
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF GORE, BUSH AND NADER 2000 VOTERS WHO COULD HAVE VOTED IN 2004 (I.E. THE WEIGHTS) IS A FUNCTION OF 1) (F)ACTUAL 2000/2004 RECORDED VOTE DATA, 2) THE ANNUAL 0.87% MORTALITY RATE AND 3) AN ESTIMATED 2000 VOTER PERCENTAGE TURNOUT IN 2004. THAT'S IT.
***********************************************************************

Do us all a favor and accept the reality of the above statement. Your avoidance of this COMPELLING evidence for almost two years is truly astounding,being that you are an extremely intelligent individual.

So why do you do keep doing it?

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