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 #59: TIA: The "false recall" explanation for Voted2k weights is moot; focus on the vote share scenarios [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 Sat Feb-10-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. TIA: The "false recall" explanation for Voted2k weights is moot; focus on the vote share scenarios
Edited on Sat Feb-10-07 03:34 PM by caruso
TIA
You have said YES to points 1-5. In fact, you have implicitly agreed to all points except #10.

6) Do you agree that we have now determined feasible vote share weighting "multipliers"?

Yes or No

FEBBLE
Well what do you mean by "feasible vote share weighting "multipliers" "? What are you multiplying? The only thing that makes sense is that you are "weighting" some cross-tabulation from the National Exit Poll, and you say below that "we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll".

TIA
Yes, I am anticipating using the multipliers as weights for the NEP vote shares. And yes, I have not yet mention the National Exit Poll, so I will rephrase the question:

Do you agree that we have now determined feasible NEP vote share weighting "multipliers"?

Yes or No

I take your answer to be YES, since I was referring to the NEP, although I did not explicitly say so.

7) Do you agree that we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll, much less sampling error or voter response?

Yes or No

FEBBLE
Well, what on earth are you multiplying ("weighting") if not the NEP?

TIA
Semantics. Of course, Im referring to the NEP. So lets move on.
Nothing to discuss here.

8) Do you agree that the ONLY remaining unknowns are Kerry and Bush vote shares of returning Gore, Bush, Nader and DNV2k voters?

Yes or No

FEBBLE
Well, assuming that what you are trying to calculate is the proportion of voters who voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004, no, of course I don't agree, because we have no way of knowing the vote shares for Kerry and Bush among those who didn't vote in 2000 either. That's a huge unknown, unless we are considering the exit poll data, which you just said we weren't considering at this point. On the other hand, if what you are calculating is the proportion of 2000 voters who voted for Kerry and Bush, then, yes, I agree it is an unknown - presumably that's why you are trying to calculate it.

TIA
Why the confusion? I calculate the ratio (proportion, share) of returning 2000 Gore, Bush and Nader voters to the 122.3mm total 2004 recorded vote. The remaining share must be the proportion of DNV2k voters to the total vote.

So I take your answer to be YES.

9) Do you agree that National Exit Poll vote shares can be considered to be the base case assumptions in calculating the National vote shares?

FEBBLE
Well, I suppose you have to start somewhere. I would have started with the NEP spreadsheet myself (and did), not the derived crosstabs.

TIA
I take your answer to be YES. NEP vote shares CAN be considered as the base case.

10) Do you agree that since there is a margin of error (which we need not argue about here) for the base case vote share assumptions, it makes sense to "stress test" the base case by analyzing alternative vote shares?

FEBBLE
I certainly don't consider that the total error in the NEP was limited to sampling error, and so I therefore would not agree that there was any inherent limit to any "stress test". In other words, demonstrating that only by "stressing" the data beyond the MoE could the data produce a Bush win would not demonstrate that a Bush win was "mathematically impossible" as you appear to conclude. It would merely demonstrate that if Bush in reality won, then the error in the poll was not limited to sampling error. For which there is abundant evidence, evidence you consistently ignore.

TIA
The Final NEP weights are mathematically impossible (not feasible). Both you and OTOH have already stipulated to that in the Game thread of August 2005. So any discussion of the How Voted weights is moot. We passed that hurdle a long time ago. We were in agreement then. So why are we still talking about false recall when it is no longer an issue. I thought we agreed on the the use of feasible weights a long time ago.

The original false recall argument was predicated on how the 2004 NEP respondents said they voted in 2000. Are you now saying that false recall also applies to how the respondents said they voted in 2004, just a few minutes after actually voting? Why would they lie about it?

It should be obvious to anyone reading this thread that the false recall argument is a rotting carcass.

So now you must focus on the vote shares. In the Game thread, you and your buddy provided a vote share scenario forced to match the Bush recorded vote. But the votes shares are extremely implausible when put in juxtaposition to the Bush 48.5% rating on Election Day, the final 30-day undecided vote break to Kerry (60-38% based on the NEP), the many accounts of documented fraud in Ohio (including the recent recount convictions), the documented evidence of fraud in many other states. And to top it off, DNV2k and Nader 2000 voters were solidly for Kerry.

In light of all this, an impartial observer would clearly agree: any Bush win scenario is implausible and does not pass the smell test.
Know this: If Kerry won the popular vote in Ohio by 52-48%, as the documented vote-switching and spoiled vote evidence now indicates, he did better than 52-48 overall. The Ohio Democratic presidential vote share always trails the rest of the nation.

TIA
11) Do you agree that the best way to "stress test" the base case is to employ a sensitivity analysis (two-way table) for the vote shares? In other words, to play what-if?

Yes, I agree that playing "what-if?" is the right approach. It's called hypthesis testing, and, in essence, it's what I do for a living. However, I do not agree that the plausibility limits to any such test can be computed from a calculation of sampling error. In the end, what limits the plausibility of your inference is your own credulity. Arguments from incredulity are not mathematical arguments.

TIA
I take your answer to be YES, playing what-if is the right approach.


FEBBLE
Your "search space" is bounded by plausibility assumptions that you do not state. There are many other "solutions" that you do not test because they would violate your implicit assumptions.

Any inference is only as good as your assumptions. There are implicit assumptions in your analysis that go far beyond the perfectly justified assumption "that the number of students who attended class on any given day was the simply the total who were registered in the class minus those who were sick or just decided not to show up."

You need to state what they are, and justify them. I do not consider them justified by the evidence.

TIA
And just what are those implicit plausibility assumptions? What are the solutions I am not testing? Be specific. You are welcome to make your own assumptions as to the vote shares and turnout percentages.

I have provided you with a detailed solution space. Its the sensitivity analysis. Do you have another solution space? Then show us your scenario matrix. And tell us why yours is plausible.

The whole point of the sensitivity analysis is to provide a wide range of scenarios of alternative Gore and Bush voter turnout and Kerry and Bush vote share scenarios.

You have never shown us one sensitivity analysis. Why not? You just keep on displaying that same, lame scatter chart- over and over again. Is that the full extent of your analysis? You can do better than that.

Enlighten us. Provide one plausible Bush winning scenario.

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