RBR: IT'S ALL THEY HAVE LEFT

[TruthIsAll]

THE RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER.
THAT'S IT.
THEY ARE HANGING ON THAT SLIM THREAD.

THE EXIT POLLS WERE WRONG.
BECAUSE REPUBLICANS WERE SHY.
THEY NEVER WERE BEFORE.
BUT THEY WERE SHY.
JUST THIS TIME.

THE EXIT POLLS WERE WRONG.
BECAUSE BUSH VOTERS WERE RETICENT.
THEY NEVER WERE BEFORE.
BUT THEY WERE.
JUST THIS TIME.

TO BELIEVE THAT BUSH WON THE ELECTION, YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT BUSH VOTERS WERE RELUCTANT TO BE EXIT POLLED.
THIS TIME ONLY.
NEVER BEFORE.
JUST THIS TIME.

QUITE A PREMISE.

TO BELIEVE THAT BUSH VOTERS WERE RELUCTANT, SO MUCH SO THAT IT CAUSED MASSIVE 6.5% VOTE DISCREPANCIES, THEN YOU MUST DISBELIEVE THE PH D'S FROM MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICAL DEPARTMENTS AT WORLD-CLASS AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES WHO ENDORSED THE USCOUNTVOTES PAPER REBUTTING THE RBR.

TO BELIEVE THAT BUSH VOTERS WERE RELUCTANT TO BE EXIT POLLED, AND THAT THIS SHYNESS ACCOUNTS FOR THE EXIT POLL DISCREPANCIES, YOU MUST ALSO BELIEVE THE RETICENCE WAS CONTAGIOUS AND SPREAD FAR AND WIDE, THROUGH VIRTUALLY EVERY SAMPLED PRECINCT, FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA.

YOU MUST BELIEVE ALL THIS.

BELIEVE, TRUE BELIEVER, BUT IF YOU MUST:
DO NOT BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES.

[MontageOfFreedom]

1. Can you do me a favor....

And get a hold of those question results? So the closer can be put on the reluctant "silent bush" responder theory once and for all.

Then the whole of america can really start waking up, I don't see any conceivable way the entire united states split down divergant party lines in one night.

[glitch]

2. Typical shy republicans

[bleever]

5. LOL. Real shrinking violets.

Good one.

[tommcintyre]

3. Nice logic TIA, but no need. RBR isn't even a theory - It's just a "guess"

According to the scientific method (which is the most valid form of reasoning), RBR is only a hypothesis (a guess or hunch that needs testing BEFORE it is given ANY value - see below). Even the following report, which is generally supportive of the January 19, 2005 Edison/Mitofsky report, points out the following in regards to the "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis:

http://elections.ssrc.org/research/ExitPollReport031005.pdf
"A Review of Recent Controversies Concerning the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Polls"

(page 8) Furthermore, it is complicated in a way that many post-survey evaluations are by the fact that some information is essentially unknowable. This is especially true when one of the concerns is nonresponse, and there is no information from the nonrespondents to analyze. As a result, there are some sections of the report in which there is an extremely detailed level of disclosure about what the exit poll data show, but in other parts of the report there are only hypotheses about what might have been the cause for a particular observation. These hypotheses can guide future experiments in exit polling methodology or even direct changes in the methods, but they cannot explain in a strict causal sense what happened in the 2004 data collection.

The "reluctant Bush responder" "theory" is really only a hypothesis, which they are trying to pass off as fact.

"...theories are never <untested> hunches or guesses..." <see below>

In stark contrast, the predictable correlation between exit polls and actual election results is well-established and tested. So this correlation is considered a sound and solid theory, which should've been able to reliably predict the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election.

The real problem here is the pro-Bush faction is trying to "put the cart before the horse". i.e. choose the result they want (Bush really won), and tamper with the tried-and-true process (exit poll prediction) to create that result. This is just a feeble attempt to "create doubt", as they so often try to do.

WE shouldn't take the bait and try to prove the RBR is NOT true. Instead, scientific method says THEY must prove it's true. And, simply put, that can't. GAME OVER, CHECK MATE, etc.

---------------------------------------------------------------
<some info on theories and hypotheses:>

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml
Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.

A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.


-

[Sancho]

4. I agree with this....but I'd go a step futher...

I think that E-M has correlations/data that are not revealed when they propose the RBR...and when someone doesn't provide evidence for something that they have, that is an answer!

I posted an article title a few weeks ago, "Eelworms, Bulletholes, and Geraldine Ferrero" by Howard Wainer. The idea is the "non-ignorable non-respondent" plus all the statistical methods used to predict what the results "would have been" and heroic efforts to get data from non-respondents.

Simply put, RBR's should be identified by weird correlations and internal responses to the set of questions by any number of techniques depending on your academic background (profile analyses, differential question functioning, discriminant analysis, etc. - any would result in a problem being revealed). RBR's exact number and nature are there; IF they exist.

Meanwhile, the generalizabilty of the sample by gender, race, party, income, etc. is also VERY predictable and the "population" (voters that actually turned out) is KNOWN (names on the roll who voted) so they can be sampled, analysized, compared, etc.

E-M does not provide EVIDENCE of either as a cause of "bias", so they must be purposefully in a coverup OR don't know what they are doing....

[tommcintyre]

15. All you say may be true. But I prefer to let them "hang themselves".

Which they have done all-too-well by claiming the RBR as an explanation for the discrepancy in the exit polls, without providing data to back it up.

So they put the noose around their collective necks - let's help 'em out. I say we kick the chair out from under them.:evilgrin:

[autorank]

19. Sancho, the voice of reason!

"I think that E-M has correlations/data that are not revealed when they propose the RBR...and when someone doesn't provide evidence for something that they have, that is an answer!" This is what's known as a slam dunk.

[davidgmills]

10. Tom you hit the nail on the head.

Fraud is a hypothesis capable of becoming a provable theory.

rBr is a hypothesis incapable of becoming a theory until fraud is ruled out.

[davidgmills]

14. More

A Mytofsky supporter whose name shall remain unknown told me that the rBr hypothesis can be proved.

My response was: "So you are telling me that math can now be used to tell us what unknown persons think."

That is a real interesting argument.

[tommcintyre]

17. Great! Then tell 'em "show me the money"!

Keep the onus on them to prove it (exactly where it belongs). Saying it can be proved, and NOT proving it (or providing that proof), is no better than not proving it in the first place. ;)

[tommcintyre]

16. If they ever provide data, let 'em have RBR I say

Since there is no claim for data backing up the RBR "guess", I must conclude: 1 - It does NOT exist; or 2 - It is so insignificant that it can NOT explain away the exit poll discrepancies, so they are purposely withholding it.

Either way, they lose.
-------------

"Fraud is a hypothesis capable of becoming a provable theory."

Yes, but we must now synthesize hypotheses of HOW they did it if this is ever going to happen (see this thread for more information).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x362509

[bleever]

6. They call this science? "We don't what happened, so it MUST have been

reluctance on the part of * voters."

Lamest. Explanation. Ever.

And, as noted above, if this was a real phenomenon, there would be correlations and other patterns to be found in the data to point to.

[intensitymedia]

7. There must be a historical precedent for this kind of behavior, right?

Otherwise we're talking about a completely unique, unheard-of pattern of activity which has never before occurred in the history of the universe.

I mean, that would make it rather *special!*

Oh, and wasn't there something about exit polls being accurate some states and not others?

So this was selectively unprecedented behavior.



peace - but never give up the struggle -

che

[jen4clark]

8. Any ideas

on how we can demand the release of the raw data of Edison/Mitofsky's exit polls? It's absurd that it's never been released!

[davidgmills]

9. Isn't the rBr hypothesis an act of scientific moral bankruptcy?

If the hypothesis can not be proven anymore than the hypothesis that GWB won the election because Jupiter aligned with Mars, isn't it an act of moral bankrupcty to imply that this hypothesis is one capable of being proven?

Granted, it is more plausible to imply that rBr caused the discrepancy, but no more possible to prove than Jupiter aligned with Mars.

The only real proof of rBr would be to contact the non-responders themselves and ask them if they voted for Bush, but of course, no one knows who the non-responders are.

On the other hand fraud could be proven if the right people speak up or if paper ballots are enacted and the Democratic bias goes away.

[pauldp]

11. It's the biggest, fattest, stinkiest...

SMOKING GUN!!!

There is no logical explanation except fraud. Almost 6 months later and everyone still believes the Emperor is wearing clothes.

[torque]

12. TIA do you have a website where your work is posted?

Some place where all your studies are linked from one page? With a brief for each link? Do you want a site? Thanks.

[TruthIsAll]

13. Here is my electionmodel site.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/

[kster]

18. Kick.nt

[autorank]

20. Excellent! rBv is explained by eFd!!!

eFd = entuhsiastic Fraud denier

eFd syndrome is largely responsible for rBv delusions. The enthusiasm of fraud denial of a few months ago is melting under the constant weight of evidence released (again and again) and new evidence produced. Now, a tactical move is to invent something totally rediculous, rBv. While under the cloak of "scientific" analysis, rBv is just a sublimated version of eFd. Enough quibbling around the margins. Time to move forward.

The point about demanding that the data be produced is a good one. Parallel to that, there needs to be a verification process.

:kick: Recommend!

[Coexist]

21. kick