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 #77: TIA: You have it exactly back-wards [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 Sun Feb-11-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #76
77. TIA: You have it exactly back-wards
Edited on Sun Feb-11-07 11:25 AM by caruso
I back up my data, mathematics and models with real-world observations.

You and OTOH have not done so. This thread proves it.

Now, would you comment on the Gore voter incentives to defect to Bush?
Would you provide us with your pre-election state and national polL data?
Would you provide us with your post-election state and national poll data?
Would you provide us with the models you used to analyze them?

I have provided all of the above. You and OTOH have provided nothing but tortured hypotheticals and contradictions.

You believe there was fraud, but do not believe it can be detected in the pre-election and post-election polls.

You believe in scieentific polling, but do not believe the results.

You believe in statistical analysis, but not when it indicates that Kerry won the election.

You believe in the Law of Large numbers, but not when it applies to multiple pre-election polls taken for the same population at the same time.

You believe in probability analysis, but not if it indicates that Bush stole the election.

You believe in playing "what-if" sensitivity analysis (or as you prefer, hypothesis testing), but not if the analysis shows Kerry to be the winner of all plausible (and some implausible) scenarios in which vote share and turnout assumptions favor Bush.

You believe in regression analysis, except if it shows that Kerry did better in states with low exit poll response and Bush did better in states of high response.

You don't believe in faith-based analysis, but you disregard the fact that 43 states deviated from the exit polls to Bush.

You don't accept that the pre-election polls matched the exit polls, even when I presented the data in this thread which proves it.

You claim to be a scientist, but you cling to an unproven theory of false voter recall based on a single NES study to explain the exit poll discrepancies. That is very unscientific. You are excluding the best evidence - which is who the respondents actually said theyvoted for just FIVE minutes after voting.

You claim to have seen the raw data which indicate that Bush won, yet the Ohio ballot data which has been made available to investigators such as Richard Hayes Phillips, Fitrakis and others indicate just the opposite.

You know that Bush stole the election from Gore in Florida, yet you claim that he won the state in 2004, despite the University of Berkeley study which corroborates the documented fraud.

You welcome real-world evidence which proves that election was stolen, yet you fail to be impressed by the documented incidental data of switched and lost votes at the touch screens which heavily favored Bush.

You keep telling us that you have looked for fraud in the data and did not find it, and yet many other researchers have found the data to be highly circumstantial evidence of fraud.

You tell us that exit polls are not true random samples and therefore one cannot use them for any probability analysis, yet the exit pollsters themselves claim a 1% margin of error with individuals randomly selected as they exited the polling station.

You still believe that polls serve a purpose, but at the same time say that we cannot draw inferences from them - like the inference that Kerry won.

You have not presented a comprehensive pre- and post-election state and national exit poll analysis. Nor have you analyzed the 2006 Generic polls. Nor have you analyzed the Bush job approvals.
I have done analyzed them all. They are all in this thread.

Where is your analysis? Instead of that scatter diagram, could you show us some actual NUMBERS?

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