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 #29: Well, it would probably [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is locked.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Well, it would probably
be easier to understand if you did not assume a) that I was going off at a tangent and b) that I was being deliberately confusing.

OK, let's forget for now that there is no correlation between the exit poll discrepancy and increase in Bush's vote share.

You want to know why the reweighted exit polls caused results that you find inexplicable.

Well, first of all, consider how the weighting is done.

Ideally, the voters in the poll should be a random sample of all voters. If the exit poll sample really was a random sample of all voters, then if the votes were counted correctly, there should be a very close correspondence between the proportion of voters in the sample who report having voted for each candidate, and the proportion of votes counted for each candidate, and we could calculate very precisely how probable it is that a given discrepancy between the proportion in the sample and the proportion in the count would have occurred by chance.

However, the sample of voters is not a random sample of voters. First of all the pollsters select a sample of precincts, and these are not random, but selected deliberately so as to be representative of the country. Then, at each precinct, an attempt is made to interview a random sample of voters. However, unless the selection is completely unbiased, and unless the response rate is 100%, this is unlikely to be a random sample. The pollsters know this, and so they ask their interviewers to record the age, race and sex of anyone they select who either refuses, or who cannot be interviewed because the interviewer is busy with another respondent. Clearly only visible characteristics of non-respondents can be observed - by definition, the pollsters do not know how the non-respondents voted. But by noting the age, race and sex of the non-respondents, when the responses come in, the pollsters can check whether, say, the proportion of women among the actual respondents is the same as the proportion of women who were selected, including the non-respondents. If they note that the proportion of women in the respondent sample is greater than the proportion of women in the whole selected group, then they figure that women are over-represented in the respondent sample.

So they apply weights to each respondent in their spreadsheet. There is an actual column, headed "weights" that you could download for free (though you now have to pay) and I spent many hours staring at it. OK, so the thing to do, if you find you have too many women, is to upweight the men and/or downweight the women. So all the women may have a weighting of .9 meaning each woman in the poll represents .9 of a woman voter, but the men may have a weighting of 1.1, which means that each man in the poll represents 1.1 of a male voter.

Same with age band (approximately) and race (approximately).

However, other sources are used to reweight the sample. One is pre-election polls - if the results in a given area are out of whack with the pollsters pre-election surveys, they will assume that their exit polls are biased (because getting a representative sample face to face is harder than doing a telephone poll), and they will adjust the weights of each respondent accordingly. If pre-elections polls are more pro-Bush than the exit poll, they will downweight each Kerry respondent a bit, and upweight each Bush voter a bit. Then, as the incoming vote returns arrive, again, the respondents will be weighted according to the incoming returns, because, notoriously, the pollsters assume that if there is a discrepancy, the problem is with the sampling (they know by this stage that there ARE problems with the sampling because of the other two sources, and they regard the incoming vote return simply as another source of data on the actual voting population). So again, if the returns are "redder" than the respondents, Bush voters will be upweighted and Kerry voters downweighted.

And the crosstabulations are done on the weighted data. This is easy enough to do. Instead of computing the percentages on the actual numbers, each respondent's response is multiplied by the weight before the percentage is calculated. Obviously if all the weights are equal to 1 there will be no difference. But if some respondents have weights of greater then 1 and some of less than 1, then the reweighted cross-tabulations will be different from the unweighted crosstabulations.

The problem, however, is that apart from the reweighting done on the basis of the age, race and sex of non-respondents, there is only geographic, not demographic information on exactly who is supposed to be missing from the poll. All the posters know from the pre-election polls and the incoming vote returns is that Kerry voters need to be downweighted and Bush voters upweighted. And there is no guarantee that the missing Bush voters (assumed missing, I mean) are drawn equally from all demographics. If, say, black Bush voters are more likely to evade selection than white Bush voters, then, when all Bush respondents in the poll in a given region are equally upweighted, white Bush voters will tend to be over-represented in the poll. Ditto with agebands.

And clearly, the greater the bias in the sample, the less accurate the reweighted crosstabulations will be. Add to this the fact that in any one state only a few tens of precincts are sampled, meaning that some counties will be completely unrepresented, and only large urban counties are likely to have more than one precinct in the poll. In fact, the NEP exit poll is in many ways best considered as a large number of very small polls - and even that large number is spread very thinly across America. You cannot do county-level analysis from the exit polls, because, as I said, most counties will have one, or no, precinct in the poll.

I hope that is comprehensible. Now I will go off "at a tangent". None of the above means that fraud was not the reason the exit poll had to be so substantially reweighted in 2004. We know the reweighting was substantial, and your contention, I take it, is that the reason it was necessary was that it was the count, not the poll sample, that was biased. And the contention in the OP is that this is supported by the anomalous looking cross-tabulations - made on the reweighted respondent data. My point is that if the anomalies were due to fraud in particular places - if, in other words, that Bush's anomalous looking increase in vote-share among some demographics was due to vote-switching, then it implies that the fraud was non-uniform. It happened in some places, but not others. Yes? Now, fraud will tend to produce a discrepancy between the poll and the count. And the greater the fraud, the greater the discrepancy will be. In addition, the greater the fraud, the better Bush will tend to do than expected on the basis of his 2000 vote share. So, IF we found that in just those precincts where the discrepancy was greatest, Bush's gains were greatest, and that he did relatively badly in those precincts where the discrepancy was least, or, indeed, apparently biased the other way, then that would be strong support for the fraud hypothesis. The trouble is that there isn't even a hint of that pattern. There is absolutely no tendency, observable in the data, for Bush to do better where the discrepancy was greater, or worse where it was less.

He did tend to improve his vote share most where Gore did best (which you would expect - he had more votes to win) and improved least where he did best in 2000 (which you would expect - he had nowhere to go but down). But there is no tendency for the discrepancy pattern to follow this trend, or to have any trend at all relative to Bush's performance relative to 2000.

So to summarise: the anomalies you note in the reweighted cross-tabs are perfectly consistent with the extent of the reweighting applied. They would also be consistent with fraud; but if due to fraud, we'd also expect to see a correlation between increase in apparent turnout for Bush and the extent of the precinct-level discrepancy, and we don't see this.

Diary on the way the NEP exit polls work here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/4/135126/905


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -Scoop & Autorank: Michael Collins Full Report - "Election 2004: The Urban Legend" althecat  Jun-13-07 04:25 AM   #0 
  - GD Cross Post Is here... ERD plz knr the GD version  althecat   Jun-13-07 04:27 AM   #1 
  - KR.nt  kster   Jun-13-07 04:57 PM   #2 
  - Hey, think we need tighter election procedures?  autorank   Jun-13-07 07:22 PM   #4 
  - Bravo, Collins and Scoop.  bleever   Jun-13-07 06:20 PM   #3 
  - Charles Cook on exit polls  Febble   Jun-14-07 02:33 AM   #5 
  - Good grief, don't you guys ever stop your  kster   Jun-14-07 02:49 AM   #6 
  - Do you ever  Febble   Jun-14-07 03:41 AM   #7 
  - Absolutely, I always like to hear what people from other countries have to say ..nt  kster   Jun-14-07 03:51 AM   #8 
  - Nope,the gatekeepers must persevere or else ...  maryallen   Feb-09-08 12:45 PM   #233 
     - hahahahahahaha  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-09-08 06:32 AM   #235 
  - I agree to a great extent...  Sancho   Jun-14-07 07:05 AM   #9 
     - why don't you?  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-14-07 07:26 AM   #10 
     - Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.  Sancho   Jun-14-07 08:31 AM   #12 
        - Firstly  Febble   Jun-14-07 08:49 AM   #13 
        - I agree to a great extent...  Sancho   Jun-14-07 06:16 PM   #15 
           - "Why not?"?  Febble   Jun-15-07 01:38 AM   #19 
        - then don't  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-14-07 09:17 AM   #14 
           - This is where you are wrong.  Sancho   Jun-14-07 07:02 PM   #16 
              - no, I don't think so  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-14-07 08:13 PM   #17 
     - Sancho, it doesn't sound to me  Febble   Jun-14-07 08:08 AM   #11 
        - "mandatory random manual audits would be a much better way than exit polls of indicating whether  troubleinwinter   Jun-14-07 11:16 PM   #18 
        - The OP is making an entirely different argument  eridani   Jun-15-07 02:11 AM   #20 
        - No, I am aware that it is a different argument  Febble   Jun-15-07 03:19 AM   #21 
        - Not your easiest to parse paragraph Febble....  althecat   Jun-15-07 04:55 AM   #23 
           - why are "city exit poll numbers" the "real issue"?  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-15-07 07:30 AM   #26 
           - Well, I'd  Febble   Jun-15-07 09:25 AM   #27 
              - Anyway...  althecat   Jun-15-07 03:42 PM   #28 
              - Well, it would probably  Febble   Jun-15-07 05:12 PM   #29 
                 - Well Febble thats great....  althecat   Jun-15-07 08:40 PM   #34 
                    - Well, if it  Febble   Jun-16-07 01:35 AM   #48 
                    - Just looked at some of your  Febble   Jun-16-07 02:03 AM   #49 
                       - There is a simple solution.  althecat   Jun-16-07 03:39 AM   #54 
                       - That is not true  Febble   Jun-16-07 03:56 AM   #56 
                       - Rebuttal....  althecat   Jun-16-07 03:53 AM   #55 
                          - It has everything to do with  Febble   Jun-16-07 04:24 AM   #57 
                             - Further discussion...  althecat   Jun-16-07 04:48 AM   #60 
                                - OK  Febble   Jun-16-07 05:02 AM   #62 
                                - Further response  Febble   Jun-16-07 09:50 AM   #67 
                                   - A General Point: This study is not concerned with WPE - Within Precinct Error  althecat   Jun-16-07 07:34 PM   #80 
                                      - Well,  Febble   Jun-17-07 10:37 AM   #95 
                                         - Thankyou... lots of useful info there....  althecat   Jun-18-07 02:32 PM   #119 
                                            - Well, it's extremely informative data  Febble   Jun-18-07 02:47 PM   #121 
                                            - Will do....  althecat   Jun-18-07 04:25 PM   #134 
              - The issue of the OP is not the large discrepancy--  eridani   Jun-15-07 07:08 PM   #31 
                 - I am aware of that  Febble   Jun-16-07 02:53 AM   #51 
                    - But a 66% increase in urban turnout vs actual turnout of 16%?  eridani   Jun-16-07 04:46 AM   #59 
                       - Well, I think  Febble   Jun-16-07 05:04 AM   #63 
                          - What about the direction of the error?  eridani   Jun-16-07 12:26 PM   #71 
                             - Sampling error would  Febble   Jun-16-07 12:30 PM   #72 
                                - Could you lay out a simplified model--  eridani   Jun-16-07 04:21 PM   #73 
                                   - Well,  Febble   Jun-16-07 06:22 PM   #76 
                                      - For N = 20, I get STDEV = 0.348  eridani   Jun-16-07 11:49 PM   #83 
                                         - Well, the problem is  Febble   Jun-17-07 01:50 AM   #86 
                                            - So, why is the poll designed with too many precincts from small states?  eridani   Jun-17-07 04:33 AM   #89 
                                               - I don't quite understand your question  Febble   Jun-17-07 04:57 AM   #90 
                                               - You are intuitively asking exactly the right question!  Sancho   Jun-17-07 06:34 AM   #92 
                                               - And yet you do not  Febble   Jun-17-07 08:51 AM   #93 
                                               - The "heroic methods" are obvious and I've stated them before...short list...  Sancho   Jun-17-07 10:33 AM   #94 
                                               - I'm sorry, Sancho  Febble   Jun-17-07 11:05 AM   #96 
                                               - this gobblebegook...  Sancho   Jun-17-07 12:06 PM   #97 
                                               - Of course  Febble   Jun-17-07 12:35 PM   #98 
                                               - well, I'm puzzled about cost  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-17-07 01:41 PM   #101 
                                               - ah....the comments of the expected!  Sancho   Jun-17-07 06:05 PM   #106 
                                               - hey, whatever  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-17-07 06:40 PM   #107 
                                               - we agree to disagree...  Sancho   Jun-17-07 06:45 PM   #108 
                                               - How does  Febble   Jun-18-07 01:41 AM   #112 
                                               - Again...you're simply wrong  Sancho   Jun-18-07 05:58 PM   #140 
                                               - What do you mean  Febble   Jun-19-07 02:00 AM   #144 
                                               - Why, in 50 years of election polling--  eridani   Jun-17-07 09:48 PM   #110 
                                               - Two reasons...  Sancho   Jun-18-07 06:00 PM   #141 
                                               - What I want to know is if Mitofsky is supposed to be a leading pro inthe field--  eridani   Jun-17-07 09:46 PM   #109 
                                               - Well I think that  Febble   Jun-18-07 01:33 AM   #111 
                                               - You said it!  Sancho   Jun-18-07 06:25 PM   #143 
        - to interpret your post slightly differently  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-15-07 05:36 AM   #24 
           - Internal inconsistency points to fraud  eridani   Jun-15-07 07:02 PM   #30 
           - so, it's last year's argument  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-15-07 09:03 PM   #35 
              - Without a real investigation, how could you tell?  eridani   Jun-15-07 09:29 PM   #38 
                 - oh no, we're going in circles  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-15-07 09:44 PM   #40 
                    - Snohomish County, WA would have been a great start  eridani   Jun-15-07 10:19 PM   #45 
                       - well, maybe  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-16-07 09:03 AM   #66 
                          - It's like a dead body in your back yard  eridani   Jun-16-07 12:22 PM   #70 
                             - Found a dead body chuck it in the Research Thread....  althecat   Jun-17-07 04:41 PM   #105 
           - Have you looked? Would you know how?  althecat   Jun-15-07 07:22 PM   #32 
           - yes; have you?  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-15-07 09:06 PM   #36 
              - When you find your answer please find a new rejoinder...  althecat   Jun-15-07 09:53 PM   #43 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-15-07 07:39 PM   #33 
           - what a dreadful post  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-15-07 09:13 PM   #37 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-15-07 09:52 PM   #42 
           - I think it's more looking ONLY at statistics--  eridani   Jun-15-07 09:43 PM   #39 
           - I would be happy to engage  Febble   Jun-16-07 03:02 AM   #52 
              - Ok how about this for a starting point....  althecat   Jun-16-07 03:35 AM   #53 
                 - I found it interesting  Febble   Jun-16-07 04:46 AM   #58 
                    - Interesting... I will answer this further in the morning. Finally some progress.  althecat   Jun-16-07 04:51 AM   #61 
                    - OK, see you tomorrow n/t  Febble   Jun-16-07 05:05 AM   #64 
                    - Further discussion....  althecat   Jun-16-07 07:22 PM   #79 
                       - OK  Febble   Jun-17-07 03:22 AM   #87 
                          - Ok lets look at the actual returns and see what we find...  althecat   Jun-17-07 04:10 AM   #88 
           - This is what I think he means  freedom fighter jh   Jun-17-07 12:56 PM   #99 
              - here's the problem in this context  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-17-07 01:15 PM   #100 
        - I agree...  Sancho   Jun-18-07 06:09 PM   #142 
           - Well, let me clarify:  Febble   Jun-19-07 03:42 PM   #147 
  - What happened to the analysis of number of rural votes?  Awsi Dooger   Jun-15-07 04:02 AM   #22 
  - good questions  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-15-07 06:24 AM   #25 
     - Ok in CAPITALS so the extremely dim can understand  althecat   Jun-15-07 09:49 PM   #41 
        - is this your final answer?  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-15-07 10:17 PM   #44 
           - I love it... as predicted you take the answer and misrepresent it.....  althecat   Jun-15-07 10:30 PM   #46 
           - I don't think you are accurately representing the OP  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-16-07 04:24 PM   #74 
           - As promised OTOH - your questions...  althecat   Jun-15-07 10:38 PM   #47 
              - "Why do exit poll analysis skeptics in DU hunt in packs?"  btmlndfrmr   Jun-16-07 02:04 AM   #50 
              - actually, since you mention it  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-16-07 06:38 AM   #65 
                 - It was tongue in cheek.  btmlndfrmr   Jun-16-07 11:58 AM   #68 
                    - Bless you. n/t  Febble   Jun-16-07 12:03 PM   #69 
              - OK  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-16-07 04:46 PM   #75 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-16-07 07:04 PM   #77 
                    - no, there isn't  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-16-07 07:15 PM   #78 
                       - Lord knows where that statistic comes from....  althecat   Jun-16-07 07:55 PM   #81 
                          - hmm... where did I get New York City election returns?  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-16-07 09:15 PM   #82 
                             - Lets have a closer look at those returns now then OTOH and see what they show  althecat   Jun-16-07 11:57 PM   #84 
                             - NYC Bush Vote 2000 375k ----> 2004 Vote 561k + 50%  althecat   Jun-17-07 12:16 AM   #85 
                                - in other words, you concede that I was right  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-17-07 06:14 AM   #91 
                                   - ....  althecat   Jun-17-07 04:34 PM   #102 
                                   - I wish this post was worth reading... n/t  althecat   Jun-17-07 04:35 PM   #103 
                                   - Yet I know in advance it won't be. How can this be? n/t  althecat   Jun-17-07 04:38 PM   #104 
                                      - OP: "We're supposed to believe... 153% increase"  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-18-07 05:08 AM   #113 
                                         - I really do not know what you are doing in this forum OTOH.... n/t  althecat   Jun-18-07 05:17 AM   #114 
                                            - I'm presenting facts. You? n/t  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-18-07 06:02 AM   #115 
                                               - Just for the sake of disclosure...  Kurovski   Jun-18-07 02:00 PM   #116 
                                                  - Oh for pete's sake....  Febble   Jun-18-07 02:26 PM   #117 
                                                  - Sure you do.  Kurovski   Jun-18-07 02:30 PM   #118 
                                                  - Of course it's not an answer  Febble   Jun-18-07 02:46 PM   #120 
                                                  - Nice try.  Kurovski   Jun-18-07 03:07 PM   #122 
                                                  - Disgusting.  yowzayowzayowza   Jun-18-07 03:08 PM   #123 
                                                  - Tough.  Kurovski   Jun-18-07 03:14 PM   #124 
                                                  - Thx, Eugene.  yowzayowzayowza   Jun-18-07 03:27 PM   #125 
                                                  - Did you mis-post?  Kurovski   Jun-18-07 03:34 PM   #126 
                                                  - No.  yowzayowzayowza   Jun-18-07 03:40 PM   #127 
                                                  - The tag-team rapid-response war-room crew  Kurovski   Jun-18-07 04:10 PM   #128 
                                                  - Suggest Med-Review.  yowzayowzayowza   Jun-18-07 04:11 PM   #129 
                                                  - You do that.  Kurovski   Jun-18-07 04:14 PM   #130 
                                                  - probably  Febble   Jun-18-07 04:16 PM   #131 
                                                  - I'm seeking one fact now.  Kurovski   Jun-18-07 04:21 PM   #132 
                                                  - are you now or have you ever been an inquisitor?  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-18-07 04:22 PM   #133 
                                                  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-18-07 05:17 PM   #135 
                                                  - you had others?  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-18-07 05:25 PM   #136 
                                                  - Yes, I did have others. Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, 2006?  Kurovski   Jun-18-07 05:32 PM   #137 
                                                  - you could ask autorank -- I already told him  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-18-07 05:40 PM   #138 
                                                  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-18-07 05:42 PM   #139 
                                                  - It's arguable that Rick Brady is a conservative.  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 02:33 PM   #145 
                                                  - Rick Brady is a Republican  Febble   Jun-19-07 02:55 PM   #146 
                                                  - Well,  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 03:52 PM   #148 
                                                  - And your point is.....? n/t  Febble   Jun-19-07 03:57 PM   #149 
                                                  - It matters who you choose to work with.  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 04:06 PM   #152 
                                                  - You seem  Febble   Jun-19-07 04:48 PM   #155 
                                                  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-19-07 03:59 PM   #150 
                                                  - What the hell do you mean?  Febble   Jun-19-07 04:01 PM   #151 
                                                  - Have you recommended today's ERD?  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 04:51 PM   #156 
                                                  - "Extreme right-winger"  Febble   Jun-19-07 05:10 PM   #157 
                                                  - He's an ardent supporter of George W. Bush.  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 05:48 PM   #158 
                                                  - And you,  Febble   Jun-19-07 05:59 PM   #160 
                                                  - I've thought about it every day for ten years.  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 06:06 PM   #162 
                                                  - Exactly  Febble   Jun-19-07 06:07 PM   #163 
                                                  - I hold no trust in you.  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 06:29 PM   #167 
                                                  - you are presuming on Febble's fairness  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-19-07 06:03 PM   #161 
                                                  - I'd have to know more details.  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 06:17 PM   #166 
                                                  - so, NOW you're ready to discuss substance?  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-19-07 07:04 PM   #168 
                                                  - Now I'm ready to take a shower and then make dinner.  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 07:12 PM   #169 
                                                  - well, you might try to convince SOMEONE  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-19-07 07:21 PM   #170 
                                                  - OTOH if you really want the answer why don't you do the work? n/t  althecat   Jun-19-07 07:48 PM   #172 
                                                  - but, al...  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-19-07 07:57 PM   #174 
                                                  - So you have already done the numbers then?  althecat   Jun-20-07 12:04 AM   #179 
                                                  - I once visited a universe where...  yowzayowzayowza   Jun-20-07 12:56 AM   #180 
                                                  - I didn't ask you I asked OTOH...  althecat   Jun-20-07 01:45 AM   #181 
                                                  - THIS WORK.... FILL IN THE GAPS PLEASE.. (& Febble you can help too)  althecat   Jun-19-07 07:58 PM   #175 
                                                  - well, I'm criticizing the wisdom in a blatant derail  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-19-07 05:58 PM   #159 
                                                  - Yes, after these past few years,  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 06:08 PM   #164 
                                                  - Meaning?  Febble   Jun-19-07 06:10 PM   #165 
                                                  - ROFLMHO  althecat   Jun-19-07 07:41 PM   #171 
                                                  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-19-07 04:14 PM   #153 
                                                     - Thank you.  Kurovski   Jun-19-07 04:46 PM   #154 
                                                     - What on earth are you talking about?  althecat   Jun-19-07 07:57 PM   #173 
                                                     - Bev Dudley, you mean.  foo_bar   Jun-21-07 06:14 PM   #185 
                                                     - As for me...  anaxarchos   Jun-19-07 08:32 PM   #176 
                                                     - kewl, I got anax to post on his own thread  foo_bar   Jun-19-07 10:31 PM   #177 
                                                     - There was no 4ever implied there...  anaxarchos   Jun-19-07 11:32 PM   #178 
                                                     - so we're not amused?  foo_bar   Jun-20-07 04:53 PM   #182 
                                                     - You got me! I dun it! And I'd do it agin'  galloglas   Jun-20-07 10:20 PM   #183 
                                                     - anax can defend his research without coaching from the roleplaying fantasy squad  foo_bar   Jun-21-07 06:13 PM   #184 
                                                     - No more qwezshunts!  galloglas   Jun-21-07 06:38 PM   #186 
                                                     - Sooch a sad dayen!  Kurovski   Jun-21-07 07:18 PM   #187 
                                                     - "You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets."  foo_bar   Jun-21-07 07:47 PM   #188 
                                                     - O'Driscoll  galloglas   Jun-21-07 10:53 PM   #189 
                                                     - and what slough bleats? this hour, comrade o'glas  foo_bar   Jun-22-07 07:00 AM   #190 
                                                     - I write it in a verse -  galloglas   Jun-22-07 08:02 AM   #191 
  - Kick.  Kurovski   Jun-22-07 03:46 PM   #192 
  - Kick for a Sunday afternoon.  Kurovski   Jun-24-07 04:00 PM   #193 
  - Kick.  Kurovski   Jul-02-07 05:02 PM   #194 
  - Exit Polls SUCK! Get over it! nt  Bill Bored   Jul-02-07 06:50 PM   #195 
  - KICK.NT  kster   Jul-03-07 02:34 AM   #196 
  - kick  kster   Jul-11-07 04:04 AM   #197 
  - so, any clue what this research means?  OnTheOtherHand   Jul-11-07 05:27 AM   #198 
  - No Clue?  BeFree   Aug-18-07 06:10 PM   #207 
     - personally  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-18-07 09:59 PM   #208 
  - Kick. (nt)  Kurovski   Jul-11-07 08:26 PM   #199 
  - Incoming.  Kurovski   Jul-29-07 12:26 AM   #200 
  - Is that Tippy Hedrin in "The Birds"?  autorank   Aug-01-07 12:02 AM   #201 
     - ....watcha talkin about willis...  althecat   Aug-02-07 12:42 AM   #202 
     - .... kaboom....  althecat   Aug-02-07 04:45 AM   #203 
     - What a lot of equipment it takes  galloglas   Aug-02-07 09:10 AM   #204 
     - Yes, it's Miss Tippi. From "The Birds".  Kurovski   Aug-04-07 05:16 PM   #205 
  - K (nt)  Kurovski   Aug-15-07 01:06 PM   #206 
  - If networks had nothing to hide, they would give Conyers the raw exit polls  McCamy Taylor   Aug-22-07 04:48 PM   #209 
  - Wow, look at all those views of this thread.  bleever   Aug-23-07 09:42 PM   #210 
  - Kick. (nt)  Kurovski   Sep-06-07 09:24 AM   #211 
  - K*R History Review - It could & did happen here.  autorank   Sep-06-07 11:49 PM   #212 
  - Getting close to four figures......  althecat   Sep-06-07 11:55 PM   #213 
  - Kick for the upcoming primaries...  autorank   Oct-09-07 02:17 PM   #214 
  - Kick. (nt)  Kurovski   Nov-15-07 12:25 PM   #215 
  - K  Kurovski   Dec-28-07 08:29 AM   #216 
  - Kickety kick  FogerRox   Dec-28-07 11:06 AM   #217 
  - Kick  autorank   Jan-11-08 12:06 AM   #218 
  - Thanks for kicking this into view.. I've never read the whole thing !  K Gardner   Jan-11-08 12:36 AM   #219 
     - You're welcome.  autorank   Jan-11-08 02:58 AM   #220 
     - so, can you explain what you think it means?  OnTheOtherHand   Jan-11-08 06:40 AM   #223 
        - Not yet, I *still* haven't read the whole thing.. printed it out so I can  K Gardner   Jan-11-08 10:28 AM   #224 
           - Don't mind OTOH.  Kurovski   Jan-12-08 11:01 AM   #226 
           - kicking an incoherent OP is "mystical"?  OnTheOtherHand   Jan-12-08 11:37 AM   #227 
           - Mystical ?? By Gad, you're right !!  galloglas   Jan-13-08 01:53 AM   #229 
              - You are very, very, very, very, very, very, very  Kurovski   Jan-13-08 02:08 PM   #231 
           - seriously  OnTheOtherHand   Jan-13-08 06:34 AM   #230 
  - K&R!!!  Stevepol   Jan-11-08 04:07 AM   #221 
  - Our "portal" to the other side.  Kurovski   Jan-11-08 04:58 AM   #222 
  - It's alive...  autorank   Jan-12-08 04:41 AM   #225 
     - ...with pleasure!  Kurovski   Jan-12-08 10:34 PM   #228 
  - *  Kurovski   Feb-08-08 01:04 PM   #232 
  - It never stops.  autorank   Mar-08-08 09:15 PM   #234 
  - Kick  autorank   Mar-31-08 01:56 AM   #236 
  - Kick.  Kurovski   Apr-12-08 01:18 AM   #237 
  - K. (nt)  Kurovski   May-06-08 08:51 PM   #238 
  - KNT  Kurovski   Jul-27-08 06:06 PM   #239 
  - "Thirty days to another election" kick. (nt)  Kurovski   Oct-05-08 04:26 PM   #240 
  - Changed title as My Forums seems to be functioning ok again  althecat   Oct-08-08 12:30 AM   #241 
     - You're up late  autorank   Oct-09-08 11:22 AM   #242 
     - Late? Yeah.  BeFree   Oct-09-08 11:29 AM   #243 
     - Hi, Al!  Kurovski   Oct-18-08 03:31 PM   #244 
        - That reminds me of this story about how banking is like a box of chocolates...  althecat   Oct-18-08 04:27 PM   #245 
           - The moral of the story is clear...  Kurovski   Oct-18-08 04:49 PM   #246 
  - There's an old adage.....  USofFascism   Oct-22-08 10:35 AM   #247 
  - "Two words: Bill and Ayers"  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-22-08 12:39 PM   #248 
     - Freeman  USofFascism   Oct-22-08 05:53 PM   #249 
        - your pattern of distraction and evasion continues  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-22-08 06:22 PM   #250 
           - Did you speak out against the contras?  USofFascism   Oct-22-08 07:14 PM   #251 
              - yes, I did, for what it's worth  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-22-08 07:34 PM   #252 
                 - It's worth something  USofFascism   Oct-22-08 10:33 PM   #253 
                 - thanks for identifying yourself  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-23-08 06:07 AM   #256 
                    - Thank You  DoNotLie   Oct-23-08 05:56 PM   #257 
                       - Leo has told me that Bozos gets confused  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-23-08 07:18 PM   #258 
                          - Thanks for the dialogue and bit of closure  DoNotLie   Oct-23-08 08:12 PM   #259 
                             - oops  DoNotLie   Oct-23-08 08:25 PM   #260 
                 - You know this post is really revealing....  althecat   Oct-23-08 04:09 AM   #254 
                    - no, I didn't say that at all  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-23-08 05:59 AM   #255 
                       - Who Is really in charge? Is it Burch, Kimberlin, and Rivero?  uwilllosedu   Oct-24-08 05:23 AM   #261 
  - locking  Wickerman   Oct-24-08 11:10 AM   #262 
 

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