NATIONAL EXIT POLL ANALYSIS: A DU TIA REFERENCE COLLECTION

[TruthIsAll]

For those who don't frequent the Election 2004 Forum...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x349559

[Al-CIAda]

1. kick!

:yourock:

[papau]

2. kick :-)

:-)

[osiristz]

3. Okay! So now what? Innaugurate Kerry?

Send it to Foxnews.....

[TruthIsAll]

6. FOX News? You must be kidding. How about Conyers instead?

..

[foo_bar]

8. Conyers would inquire about your "credentials"

Even the diehard sycophants might eventually figure out why you've never published any analyses without the benefit of anonymity. They may also figure out why you avoid pure math threads like the bubonic, and lack a mathematician's understanding of the word "proof".

They might also wonder why you can't name the accredited university from which you acquired any of your "three math degrees" (Excel certification isn't a math degree). They may also suspect your uncharacteristic shyness whenever the subject of publishing your work comes up.

Perhaps the case for fraud is better pressed by someone who isn't a practicioner thereof, someone whose work doesn't fear the light of day. Just my $0.02, probably rounded to zero using your methodology.

[TruthIsAll]

10. Go ahead. Ad Hominem. No refutation. Just naysay. Welcome Back. Not.

Now its my anonymity.

Foo, I thought you gave up months back.
But here you are.
Same as ever.
No change.
Still not one piece of analysis.
Just throwing around your strawmen.
Will you ever learn?
You have lost, buddy.
I have beaten you with the math, with the truth, with the facts.
You have nothing.
Just attacks on irrelevant academic credentials.
Of which you know zip.

Still questioning my degrees?
They are ALL from very credited universities.
And they are not germane to the issues at hand.


Forget me, Foo.
I'm just one person.
Why don't you argue the issues?
You just want to demean me personally.
Because you can never demean the analysis.

The only thing that matters are known facts.
I defy you here and now to refute this logic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x349796

Refute the post.
I repeat.
Refute the post
And if you can't, take a long walk.

[foo_bar]

11. there's still time for another edit

You could use the opportunity to learn the meaning of "proof" and "strawman" (hint: not a synonym for fallacy).

[TruthIsAll]

12. Enjoy that walk.Oh, and thanks for kicking my thread.

I thought you guys were through with that.

[foo_bar]

14. kick for truth!

[foo_bar]

15. "very credited universities"

'nuff said.

[TruthIsAll]

18. You have not responded to my challenge. 'Nuff said.

You are one very sad, tormented soul.

You continue to taunt me and in effect call me a liar in front of 60,000 DUers.

You are trying to incite me into a flame war.
You would love to see me banned from DU.
But it ain't gonna happen.

You have an agenda that is as clear as your lack of self-confidence, which you try to overcome with your smug, know-it-all attitude.

You never responded to my challenge.
You never do.

Because you are either smart enough to know you cannot win, or too mathematically immature to express your thoughts in numbers, rather than ad hominems.

And what would you call your continued focus on my veracity in saying that I have 3 (count 'em) degrees in math?

Your focus should be purely on the analysis, my tormented friend.
Can you refute it?
Will you refute it?

Or will you just continue on your path to nowhere?

I have established my bona-fides here on DU.
I have done the work.
What have you done, other than to taunt?

At least the other naysayers tried to present a counter argument.
You are incapable of even that.

I never experienced the pleasure of going toe-to-toe with you in anything more than this petty sniping, of which you are truly a master. You are much better at it than I am.

[foo_bar]

20. the clinical term is "projection"

one very sad, tormented soul
mathematically immature
lack of self-confidence
path to nowhere
(and for added ironic effect) rather than ad hominems (!)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection*

You may recall which one of us spends the day kicking his threads, getting tombstoned for ad hominem attacks, fleeing from real mathematical challenges, and acquiring notoriety for thin-skinnedness, all in the service of vindication for last year's cherrypicked statistics (dropping every pre-election poll with Bush in the lead may have produced a slight bias).

You never responded to my challenge. You never do.

In truth, you've yet to respond to mine. See: Parable of a rigged game, davidgmills, circa 12/2004. You were publicly admonished to demonstrate a freshman's understanding of game theory, for which you could muster only a copycat thread on the terra firma of Microsoft Excel.

I can't prove your credentials are fabricated with a mere mountain of circumstantial evidence, lest I borrow your theologian's misapprehension of "proof". Suffice to say, I lack the free time to debunk the volume of hoaxes you propagate in a day's work, which isn't to say that Creationists and Holocaust deniers "win" (as you so delicately put it) by forfeit. I hope you rise to the challenge of publication, where the sunlight of peer review will remove all doubt as to where the (little t) truth lies.

* "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
- Nietzsche

[TruthIsAll]

22. It's not time that you lack; you have plenty of time for pomposity.

But none for analysis.

I have waited months for just one substantive rebuttal.
I will wait till hell freezes.

As for David G. Mills, I will let him speak for himself.
He has been a solid proponent of my work.
I'd like to hear what he has to say about your lack of same.

The hoaxes I propagate in a day's work?
You are really on a roll tonight, aren't you, Tootsie?

Holocaust "deniers"?
Use the spell check.

You have real issues, dude.

[foo_bar]

27. denier: n. one who denies [Webster]

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=gcide&Query=Denier

I have waited months for just one substantive rebuttal.

As I have waited for yours:

@
@@@
@@@@@
@@@@@@@

Your move. This should be a cakewalk for anyone with one real math degree.

[TruthIsAll]

38. You got me there. I spelled it wrong. Ok, I guess that means

that you have responded to my challenge.

I apologize.
Thanks for the analysis.

Now perhaps you will respond to my question:
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE 43% BUSH/37% GORE VOTER TURNOUT IS IMPOSSIBLE?

Or will you choose to ignore it?

BTW, why don't you come on over to the Election 2004 forum - are you too shy, or are you just gun-shy?

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Has Conyers been given this info?

:shrug:

[foo_bar]

21. probably not for lack of trying

Herein lies the parable of crying "smoking gun!". What the dittosayers (forgive the expression) lack in critical faculty they compensate for in numbing persistence, further inuring the powers-that-be to any truthful epiphanies attained with honest science. Hence these proofs-in-name-only rarely escape the confines of the Amen Dungeon.

[TruthIsAll]

24. You must really be hurting right now.

Your pompous prose is a dead giveaway.
Your words don't impress anyone around here.
That's all they are.
Words.

Well, foo, talk is cheap.
Crunch some numbers.
Or get out of the way.

Oh, I forgot.
You don't have the time.

You've been gone for quite a while.
What brought you back to DU?

Want to commiserate with your one admirer?
Yourself?

[foo_bar]

30. resorting to ad hominems indicates a losing argument

Want to commiserate with your one admirer?

Appeals to popularity only reinforce the perception.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Does anyone know if Conyers has been given this information?

:shrug:

[DELUSIONAL]

4. Kick and nominate

[Coexist]

5. kick and nominate

[BlueIris]

7. Thanks again, TIA. n/t

[LilBitRad]

9. Kick it for after work n/t

[tritsofme]

13. I thought this stuff

was confined to the circus of "2004 Election Results and Discussion"

[TruthIsAll]

23. If I kept it there, I would not have had the pleasure of your post.

.

[leftofthedial]

16. TIA, you flat out rock

[ChiciB1]

17. All This Info Is Fantastic, But It Only Makes Me

want to cry!!! We still can't get our on Party to "Wake Up" and defend us. I'm a life-long Democrat, but a weary one.

But I will hang in here and keep the pressure on, maybe they will wake up and my nightmare will end!!!

[Awsi Dooger]

25. I don't know how TIA's math skills can be questioned

I almost never agree with his conclusions, which are inevitably pre-determined, but no question his mathematical applications are expert. In the past I have wasted time checking and doublechecking, trying to find basic or even concealed flaws.

I prefer basic analysis, necessary since my job is sports related and takes up 90+% of my computer time. When you look at isolated representative precincts coast-to-coast, there is a small but unmistakeable shift toward Bush and the GOP from 2000 to 2004. This is regardless of voting mechanism. I've studied counties and precincts in states that didn't have publicized exit polls, simply in regard to how they compared in 2000 and 2004. Other than the Pacific Northwest and New England regions, everything points to a legit small trend toward the GOP. I believe it is 9/11 related, a party affiliation shift that has been understated, despite the widespread nature: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750 I posted that link on DU BEFORE last year's election.

After the debates thought Kerry would win. In fact, I lost high four figures backing that desperation-over-numbers projection. But there were considerable factors that pointed toward Bush. I mentioned them on DU:

1) No way Kerry was going to receive the typical undecideds-toward-challenger split. I put it at 62% and even that turned out high. If you look at high profile incumbent races in the 50/50 range according to polls, the undecideds always break less dramatically toward the challenger. I sampled at least 20 races like that and it held up like clockwork.

2) Bush would receive the automatic benefit of a doubt as an incumbent whose party had been in office only 1 term. It's now 11 of 12 re-elections in that mode since 1900. Carter was the only failure. The GOP in that mode is overwhelming, usually at least 54%.

3) White women were always going to decide this election and the 9/11 fears tilted them toward the GOP. Again, that is apparent in virtually every poll, pre- and post-election. I have no idea how a TIA or Steven Freeman can make claims regarding 2004 without focusing on that block above any other. If we had broken even, or even close, among white women then I would default to the phony election claims. But when even obscure states that we won or lost by huge margin demonstrate a shift among white women toward Bush, in relation to 2000, no Monty Python chance I'm going to ignore that and rely on selective analysis.

This year it's early exit polls. After 2002 it was the most favorable pre-election polls. The only poll that matters will turn our way once we identify the more likeable candidate, and 9/11 dread has faded. At that point, the Free Republic version of TIA, whoever that is, can massage numbers and scream fraud without rest.

[TruthIsAll]

28. Awsie, focus on how they voted in 2000 and new voters, not gender...

THAT, MY FRIEND, IS THE SMOKING GUN...
If you believe the math, Kerry won - easily.
And the math is irrefutable.

The How Voted in 2000 NEP demographic blows it all open.
It is impossible for Bush to have won, because it is impossible that 43% of 2004 voters were Bush 2000 voters, as the exit poll claims.

Here is mathematical proof..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x350225

[foo_bar]

32. first learn what "mathematical proof" means

Words mean things. If you feel disadvantaged in a war of words, perhaps a message board isn't the place to complain about it.

Here's what a proof doesn't look like:

Assume 100% ... Next assume that 45.23 million ...
In fact, we are going to assume that ... WE ASSUME A MISERABLE

Assuming your post contained the form and function of a mathematical proof, this would need to be axiomatic:

KV= Kerry Vote = MG + Kerry % of New Voters
BV= Bush Vote = MB + Bush % of New Voters

So the foundational premise is that living Gore voters will deterministically vote for the (D) in any presidential election. Not exactly the stuff of mathematics.

This is a MINIMUM MARGIN, because the earlier, believable exit polls gave him 57%-59% of New Voters.

Believable in the sense of religious belief? Before the election, every poll with Bush in the lead was stricken from your poll-of-polls, because you didn't "believe" them. Now we're to believe that "believable exit polls" (labeled "Preliminary" in large caps) trump the polls you don't personally believe in. I can imagine why Conyers isn't returning the metaphoric phone call.

[TruthIsAll]

33. DO YOU AGREE THAT THE 43% BUSH/37% GORE VOTER TURNOUT IS IMPOSSIBLE?

ANSWER THAT ONE QUESTION OR TAKE ANOTHER WALK.

Kerry wins 120 of 120 scenarios based on REAL numbers.

One should always analyze a range of scenarios to illustrate the sensitivity of the result to multiple possibilities.

I bet you don't even know what sensitivity analysis is alll about.
No, foo, it's not related to sensitivity training.

This is the real world, foo.
It's not the dream world you live in.

[foo_bar]

29. the "skills" aren't in question, just the academic credentials

Academia gives us falsifiable hypotheses, peer review, publication in a form accessible to other academicians, and a consensus definition of mathematical proof. When our purveyors of "proof" (in the Reader's Digest sense) stumble upon the words to make their case to a wider distribution than the choir, I'll surely be the millionth monkey's uncle.

[TruthIsAll]

34. Still questioning my academic credentials? You are totally in denial.

Apparently, my "skills" are not in question, though.

You attempt to conjure up the impression that I am a liar about my degrees, because you have nothing else. That is real character assassination, Mr. Ad Hominem.

It really irks you that I have a BS and two MS degrees in Applied Math and won't tell you the schools, doesn't it?

Do I question your academic credentials?
Do I give a rat's ass where you got your degrees from?
Do I make an issue out of anything other than your complete and utter failure to rebut any of my analysis?

You have this personal vendetta which permeates every damn post you write.

All because I crunch numbers which only confirm what 99% of DUers already know: The election was stolen.

You can't live with that, can you?

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Does anyone know if Conyers has been given this information?

:shrug:

[TruthIsAll]

39. Patience. patience.

.

[captain crunch]

35. By the way, has anyone given this information to Conyers?

[TruthIsAll]

36. Conyers got the links yesterday..

.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. I suppose that he will be having a press conference in a few days

to announce this proof.

[TruthIsAll]

40. Ah, sarcasm. Do you dream about Conyers -or have nightmares about him?

.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. You don't think that Conyers will publicize this material?

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Three days and still no word from Conyers...

Perhaps he is witing for a slow news day to spring news on the American public?

[ArkDem]

41. Wow! I didn't know that TIA was still providing comic relief!

Everyone one occasionally needs a good chuckle!!!! THANKS!!!!

[Yupster]

43. My same thought exactly ArkDem

I gave up on him when he was using the pre-election Pew Poll to prove Kerry won.

Final Pew Poll pre-election ---- Bush 51 % Kerry 48 %
Final Election results ---- Bush 51 % Kerry 48 %

When I asked him what he was talking about, he said he used registered, not likely voters for that one and with registered voters, Kerry was ahead. That's when TIA became comic relief for me.

I wish election 2004 discussion would stay in the election 2004 forum. Then the dittoheads can visit as they wish and the rest of us wouldn't see it.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ArkDem]

46. I gotta tell ya that whatifsports.com is GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!