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 #79: TIA: [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 Sun Feb-11-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. TIA:
Edited on Sun Feb-11-07 12:36 PM by Febble
This is bullshit. I have addressed every-one of these assertions of yours, countless times. I don't know whether you simply ignore my responses, or fail to understand them. I will address them again, only once. From this point onwards, I will simply link to my rebuttals:

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


I don't know if there was fraud or not. I do not believe that the pre-election or the exit polls are evidence of it. I think that the exit poll data if anything suggests that it did not happen on a scale of millions.

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


I know a fair bit about survey research, and like all involved in survey research I am aware that non-sampling error can be substantial, particularly when face-to-face selection methods are used, and where non-completion rates are high.

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


I believe in sound statistical analysis, whatever it indicates. I don't consider yours sound.

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.


As I said, the Law of Large numbers refers to random samples. If you still think that the only error variance in surveys is sampling error then you have learned nothing over the last two years.

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


See above.

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.


My evaluation of any test of any hypothesis has nothing to do with whether or not I happen to like the result. It has to do with the validity of the assumptions. I do not share your assumptions. Your implication that my interpretation of data depends on whether I like the result is offensive.

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.


I believe in interpreting regression analyses coherently. I don't know what you are inferring from this one, but it makes no sense. What you probably mean is that redshift tended to be uncorrelated with response rate. This is true, and some have tried to use this finding as evidence that non-response bias cannot have been the cause of the exit poll discrepancy. Unfortunately, this argument does not bear close scrutiny, and is falsified by the data. The reason it does not bear scrutiny is that it is an example of the ecological fallacy. Bias will only occur if there is a discrepancy between the response rates of Kerry voters and the response rates of Bush voters. It doesn't matter what the overall response rates are, and these may be determined by quite different factors to those that are associated with differentials between Bush and Kerry response rates.

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


This is a totally false statement, and is evidence that either you do not read my posts, or you willfully interpret them.


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 still fail to understand the point made by both Lindeman and myself that the magnitude of the discrepancy between the offical results and the exit polls is completely uncorrelated with the discrepancy between the official results and the pre-election polls, even using your own very generous (to Kerry) pre-election poll estimates. If things are completely uncorrelated, they cannot, in any reasonable sense, be said to "match". If you want to re-invent the English language, feel free, but warn us that you are speaking something other than English.

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.


TIA, think. Of course I am not "excluding" evidence as to whom voters said they just voted for. What I am regarding with some circumspection is the evidence as to who those voters voted for in 2000. Either you are deliberately misrepresenting my position or you have still failed to comprehend it.

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.


I have no strong views on whether Bush or Kerry "won" Ohio, which I consider a thoroughly corrupt election. I am so far unpersuaded that the evidence suggests that Kerry would actually have won on a level playing field, but I certainly consider it possible. The fact that we don't know is itself a scandal. What I do say is that the exit poll evidence in itself is not evidence of fraud in Ohio.

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.


Oh, for goodness sake. You do know, don't you, that that analysis has actually been withdrawn? It was thoroughly rebutted. There is as much evidence to suggest the opposite, as Kathy Dopp originally suggested - and I also agreed, at the time. After some further analysis I found the evidence completely inconclusive. I would be astonished if there was not fraud in Florida in 2004, but there is no evidence that it divided along technological lines.

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.


Oh, I'm impressed. But it's not data you can do valid inferential statistics on.

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.


And I have critiqued those analyses elsewhere, as has Mark Lindeman. I think theirs, like yours is flawed.

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.


They did not. The "error" in the quoted margin of error refers to sampling error, which is not the only source of error in a survey. I have referred you many times to Mitofsky's own words about this, which as usual, you have chosen to ignore. So here they are again:

Mitofsky: I want to say a few words about reporting sampling error. A number of people who have spoken here have talked of not reporting sampling error because it was confusing all those dear mindless souls who listen to our results. They were concerned we would make people think that sampling error was the only error in the survey. I guess I am not too sympathetic with that point of view.


It appears that Mitofsky had reckoned without you.


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.


Yes, I think we can draw inferences from the poll data. I think it is enormously valuable data. But as with all data, inferences need to be drawn with care, and sources of error need to be modelled carefully. You have considered only one (or at most two) sources of error. There are many more.

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.


This is macho strutting, TIA. "My analysis is bigger than your analysis". I have presented cogent analysis. One cogent analysis is worth any number of flawed analyses. Yours are flawed because you refuse to accept what anyone who knows anything about survey research knows, which is that survey data is vulnerable to both sampling error and non-sampling error. Ignoring the latter completely invalidates your analyses.

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


The axes are marked. I have explained the units. The R squared is given. The N is 1250, as you could have inferred from the E-M report, but I did not make clear. You can compute the confidence interval of the regression line for yourself. You can also compute the correlation coefficient by taking the square root of the R squared value, and noting that the slope is slightly negative. You need no more in order to evaluate the analysis, and I have, in any case, interpreted it for you.

TIA, I suggest that instead you actually read my responses for once. If you have a substantive response, I shall, as always, be happy to hear it. I'm always happy to hear alternative ways of interpreting the data, and many hard-working DUers have helped me to figure out just what fraud might look like in the data, and how to frame testable hypotheses that might reveal it. But what you have posted not only completely evades the content of my posts, it mis-represents them. I shall put it down to ignorance this time. Next time I shall have to conclude you are lying.


edited for formatting and typo
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