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 #87: OK [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 Sun Jun-17-07 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #79
87. OK
The 66% apparent increase in turnout in the Big Cities in that table is I presume an artefact of the reweighting. Though that in itself is also a guess.

Your guess is simply that a guess. And your explanation that it is due to simple polling error doesn't really cut it. That presumes that almost no thought went into compiling that table - and that in turn smacks of the unprofessionalism that I mentioned earlier.

I also would have thought that actual turnout numbers would have gone into the mix when compiling that table.


Well, obviously it's an informed guess. We have the National spreadsheet, with the weights, so we know something about how they were applied, and of course, as you know, I have access to data on the 1250 precincts in the E-M evaluation, together with vote counts from 2000 and 2004, which is why I was able to compute the correlation between change in Bush's vote share and the degree of discrepancy in the poll.

But I am all for using real data (I've been arguing for looking at the actual returns, as opposed to the exit poll data for years now). I simply don't think that the NEP data is suitable for this purpose. It is relatively good for demographics on the voters (as long as we are aware of its limitations and the extent to which it was reweighted, because the sample of voters is large, but it is a very small sample of precincts.

We cannot infer from the NEP that turnout was up 66% in big cities, and it is extremely unlikely that it was. It is not difficult to account for the discrepancy between 66% and a more likely figure. If the more likely figure still looks fishy, by all means look into it. Although your suggestion that the election was stolen in non NEP precincts doesn't quite work because the vote returns from NEP precincts were close to the vote returns from each state as a whole. In other words, in the state polls, the precinct sampling was good. So that doesn't avoid the problem for the massive fraud theory that there is no correlation between exit poll discrepancy and increase in Bush's vote share.

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