Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scoop & Autorank: Michael Collins Full Report - "Election 2004: The Urban Legend"

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
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 04:25 AM
Original message
Scoop & Autorank: Michael Collins Full Report - "Election 2004: The Urban Legend"
From: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00165.htm


Scoop American Coup II is deeply honoured to present...

Election 2004: The Urban Legend


Michael Collins
Scoop Independent News


This analysis is based on original, unpublished research by web commentator, anaxarchos, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude




See also companion article Sludge Report #177 Bigger Than Watergate II"


The night of November 2, 2004, was exhilarating or devastating, depending on how you voted and where you were. If you were a rural conservative who voted based on your religious affinity to Bush, you were elated. You were also relieved, because your peers had not turned out with the same enthusiasm that they had shown in 2000. If you were in the suburbs and had campaigned hard for Kerry, you were probably devastated. After all that work in your first campaign ever, the big crowds and the optimistic polls, your man lost. But if you were white, living in a large city, and probably a returning voter after missing several elections, you were positively exuberant. You and your like-minded peers continued George W. Bushs reign as the 43rd President of the United States. It was a miracle.

This election was a sight to see. Few in the country had the vantage point of network news commentators. Throughout the day these experts received a stream of information from the exit polls of the National Election Pool (NEP). Sponsored by a media consortium consisting of the four major television networks plus CNN and the Associated Press, the NEP provided the most sophisticated polling data ever.

The pundits had the national Exit Poll of 13,660 respondents (1) and parallel State Exit Polls of over 77,000 respondents. The NEP was the only source on who voted for each candidate; why the voters in each area made critical choices; and where geographical differences on candidates and issues were a factor.

If you paid attention and knew your craft, you were on fire. Election 2004 was the best thing to happen since Truman beat Dewey and you probably werent around for that. It was a unique moment. Just a day or two after the election, experienced analyst Charles Cook practically gushed after he studied the exit polls saying the Bush effort was unquestionably the best planned, best executed presidential campaign ever.(2)

Based on what he knew at the time, this made sense. Cook reflected that, Perhaps the most interesting, and maybe puzzling, exit poll finding is that (compared to 2000) Kerry lost 11 points among the 13 percent of Americans who live in cities with populations over 500,000, while President Bush jumped up 13 points (since 2000). He concluded that the surprising urban performance, required for a Bush win, was a result of defections from the Kerry camp by black, Latinos, and Jewish voters. This is the stuff of legends.

Cooks analysis pinpointed the actual location the Bush victory: urban voters. His mistake was to think that the normal Democratic constituencies in the cities did anything different from what they had always done. Cook himself was one of a few who actually saw and understood the critical role large cities played in providing the Bush victory margin.

The Conventional Wisdom

On election eve, a different story prevailed. While they had access to the same exit polls that Cook had, the news people did not notice the same trends and numbers that Cook noticed. Network anchors and others talked about the red-versus-blue battle. There were the very red rural evangelicals, almost all white. The media rolled out the newly minted security moms in the purple suburbs plus the true blue Democrats in our largest cities, a predictable group if there ever was one. Unlike Cook, who studied the exit polls, the popular news casters assumed that the Rove strategy had materialized.

It was all about country versus city, red versus blue and sotto voce white versus non white. They were right about an election; but that election had taken place four years earlier. The public received a regurgitation of election 2000 analysis for 2004. The follow up consensus was formed from this inaccurate analysis. The remarkable Rove had done it again with those energized evangelicals. And, hed grabbed enough van driving suburban moms to make the difference.



USA Today (3) echoed much of the analysis when they concluded their election wrap up with this insight:

In the end, the states broke for Bush much as they did in 2000. Bush lost one state that he won in 2000: New Hampshire. Late Wednesday, the Associated Press reported New Mexico went to Bush. Iowa was still undecided. Both states backed Gore in 2000. (4)


During the week or so after Election Day, there were additional flourishes added to the portrait of Bushs remarkable victory. He had captured the values voters, a new demographic. These voters cast aside their normal allegiances and turned red in a full embrace of the values of the administration. According to the National Exit Poll, Bush supposedly achieved another remarkable feat. He moved the Latino vote from a Democratic mainstay to a competitive playing field. Unlike the typical 60-40% margins Democrats counted on, in 2004 Latino votes were divided 54% - 46%, a 12 point swing. These two additional findings hinted at but did not address directly the Bush urban wave.

There was no broad public debate on the legitimacy of the outcome. Intensive debate on the Internet was stimulated by accidental release of preliminary exit poll data throughout Election Day which showed Kerry winning 51% to 48%. Totaling over 11,000 respondents, these polls were marked Not for on air use. This fueled charges of election fraud due to the winning margin for Kerry in all exit polls but the final released on the day after the election. In addition, the debate focused on what was called the red shift, Bush victory in a number of key states, all of which were said to be outside the margin of error for the poll. Aside from these interesting but largely ignored exchanges, Americans settled in for four more years of George Bush.

****************************************


The National Election Pool (NEP) and has been a feature of recent American political life. The polling company which conducts these surveys describes their purpose as follows:

Exit polls / voter surveys are taken only minutes after citizens vote. The results are primary sources from which we can understand the motivations and patterns behind the actual vote. Exit Polls Tell Us: WHO voted for each candidate; WHY voters in your area made critical choices; WHERE geographical differences on candidates and issues were a factor. Edison-Mitofsky Web site 03 May 2007

We use the final revised national exit poll issued the afternoon of Nov. 3, 2004 for this analysis. All of the charts and figures presented come from the 2000 and 2004 National Exit Polls except those at the very end of the essay, where the alternate source is clearly marked.

See also Appendix 2


****************************************


Is this what actually happened?

According to the final National Exit Poll, there was a lot more to the 2004 election than Red versus Blue.



FIGURE 1. The 2004 rural vote must have alarmed the Bush camp. It was less as a percentage of the overall vote, dropping from 23% to 16%. Bushs total rural vote went from 14 million in 2000 to just short of 12 million in 2004. These totals added up to a devastating loss of 2 plus million votes from his base instead of an increase by the 3 to 4 million the campaign needed. This was very bad news for the White House. Their core rural base was absent without leave.


Bush scored a huge victory margin in 2000 in rural America. The 2004 narrative was that the Red versus Blue contest was also the basis for the 2004 victory. But in 2004, rural America provided fewer voters and fewer votes for Bush. Sure, he won the rural segment of the population but this was hardly a victory in comparison to 2000. What happened to the wave of born again Christians supposedly so loyal to Bush? Did they stay home? Did they vote by not voting, a time honored American practice? Did they sit out this most critical of elections despite their spirited performance in 2000 and the exhortations from pulpits, televisions, and over the phone?

We need to put our narrative on pause for a moment and interject a note of ugly reality. In a high turnout election, a presidential candidate who loses a big chunk in his base constituency loses the election. This is axiomatic. There are no exceptions in modern election history. The loss of his core constituency through a drop from 23% to 16% of total vote share was bad enough. In addition, according to the NEP, Bush lost expected votes. At 23% of the vote in 2000, Bush had 14.1 million rural votes. At 16% of the vote in 2004, the rural segment provided only 11.6 million votes. This is an absolute loss of 2.5 million votes in an election that had a 16% increase in turnout compared to 2000.

We are now faced with an incredible situation. Bush won the election according to the declared vote count. Yet he did so with his core constituency on strike: fewer votes from his core constituency in actual terms and fewer votes as a percentage of total votes. It is important to keep this in mind as we move forward because the novelties compound one upon another to present an outcome that is simply not believable.

Bush also lost significant ground in the small towns, the other element of his values coalition. Small towns are defined as towns of 10 to 50 thousand residents.



FIGURE 2. In 2000 Bush owned small town America. In small towns, he beat Gore 60% to 40% and walked off with a 1.0 million vote margin. In 2004, turnout increased dramatically, but the race evened with the Bush margin at just below 0.2 million votes. Were these the real values voters? This shows even further erosion of the Bush 2000 base.


The small towns were the other significant part of the Bush base. While many rural voters expressed their disenchantment, according to the Exit polls, by staying home, the citizens of small towns increased their turnout by 88% in 2004 and evened the playing field by voting in near equal numbers for John Kerry. Bush had 4.9 million small town votes to Kerrys 4.7 million for a total of 9.5 million. Small towns had given 2000 to Bush over Gore by 3.1 to 2.0 million votes.

The suburbs were only somewhat better for Bush in 2004 than in 2000. His victory margin there was 5% over Kerry, where it had been just 2% above Gores 2000 effort. The suburbs comprise nearly half of the total votes.

Bush took 28.3 million to Kerrys 25.6 million votes. But, it was not nearly enough. Given the decay in the rural and small town margins and the historical Democratic margin in the cities (the blue on the election maps), the 2004 Presidential contest was as good as lost for Bush.

Now, however, the exit poll narrative changes. According to the polls, Bush made very surprising gains in the smaller cities, those with populations between 50 and 500 thousand. There Bush trailed Gore by 17 points in 2000, 8.4 million to 12.0 million respectively. In 2004, the smaller cities were almost even with Kerry at 11.36 million and Bush at 11.39 million. Turnout was up just 9%. It is very difficult to explain such a trend. Nevertheless, taking the rural voters, the suburbs, and the break even smaller cities as a group, we see that Bush was still in real trouble heading into the larger cities. Had Kerry just held Bush close to the Gore big city margins for 2000 in these Democratic friendly venues, he would have won the election.

Why not expect a strong Kerry showing? Bush had not been a city-friendly President and he had not gone out of his way to help large cities with any initiatives of note. In our largest city, New York, things looked particularly bad. A 2003 poll showed that over 50% of the residents thought that the administration had foreknowledge of the 911 attacks and did nothing, hardly a predictor of great success in that largest of large cities.

But something very unusual happened, as Charles Cook pointed out. According to the NEP, Bush made incredible gains in the cities over his 2000 vote share. These gains were large enough to offset his drop in core support in rural areas and give him a 3% victory.

In addition, big city voters must have been motivated by something. Compared to 2000, rural turnout was down 2.0 million, small towns up sharply at 88% (yet still a small segment), and suburban turnout up slightly, with the smaller cities showing a modest increase which was still less than the reported national average. Turnout in cities over 500 thousand in population increased by 66%. What was this all about? The answer to that question and the plausibility of the answer to that question is vital in understanding the story we were told of the 2004 election results.



FIGURE 3. We are expected to believe that after doing poorly in the rural area and small towns, Bush attracted several million new big city voters and pulled off a last minute victory. In the small towns he was well below his 2000 performance for total votes. In the red zone, rural America, he got fewer votes in 2004 than he did in 2000 while turnout was up across the nation.


Bush didnt win the cities. He didnt have to, he was already winning. Ultimately he had to achieve a better split in the big cities than he had in 2000. Looking at the chart above, you see the increase in Bush votes in the five location categories.

According to the vote totals, the real kill shot for the Bush victory came from large urban areas, big cities, defined as those with a population of half a million or more, e.g., New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc. These cities had been the strongest base for Democrats since the Great Depression. There had been variations in turnout from presidential election to election, but the margins had always remained strong.

The Bush Urban Wave of 2004 by the Numbers

The most instructive way to look at the remarkable and certainly unpredictable Bush urban wave is to take his cumulative margin starting with the rural areas and moving to progressively more dense population areas ending up with the big cities.

Bush started out with a 5.0 million vote margin in rural America in 2000 when 105 million votes were cast. With 122 million cast in 2004, his core constituency gave him only a 3.9 million margin by comparison. There were 23.8 million votes cast in the rural segment in 2000 and just under 20 million in 2004. In fact, given the very high rural turnout rates from 2000, it would have been unlikely that the total margin could increase in 2004.

Towns with a population or 10 to 50 thousand accounted for 5.0 million votes in 2000 with Bush taking this group 60 - 40% over Gore. Votes totals reached nearly 10 million and there was a 48% Kerry - 50% Bush split. These added just 175 thousand votes to the accumulated margin for Bush. In 2000, Bush added 1.1 million votes to his margin for this segment.

At this point things were looking grim for George W. Bush. His rural base stayed home and small town voters nearly doubled their 2000 vote totals and split even. After these Republican core area totals, he was up by 4 million votes. In 2000, at this juncture, he had been up 6.3 million votes with a smaller electorate.

The suburbs, the largest voting block, showed slight improvement for Bush. He increased his 2000 victory margin there from two to five percent and the suburban share went from 43% to 45%. Yet his cumulative margin at this juncture was 6.8 million compared to 7.3 million in 2000 and there were many more Americans yet to vote.



Figure 4. Graph reads from left to right, e.g., 2004 3.8 million rural lead in rural areas; adding the small town margin, Bush has only 4.0 million cumulative - net lead when 2004 small town votes are factored in. This shows that Bush won, not by building up a huge lead that was eroded in urban areas, but by building up a much smaller lead that was not nearly as dramatically eroded in the cities.


Gore had fared worse than Kerry by a long shot in Rural and Small Town America but then broke even in the suburbs. Once he hit the smaller and big cities, Gore was on a roll and pulled out the forgotten half million popular vote victory.

In 2004, Bush struggled in the rural and small town segments. He gained a modest advantage in the suburbs. Things werent looking good compared to his 2000 performance.

Then the urban wave began to form. According to the final exit poll, despite being abandoned by his 2000 base, which was specifically targeted for even more votes in 2004, Bush rallied in the smaller cities. He went from a loss of 60%-40% in 2000 to a dubious break even in 2004. Instead of an inadequate 3.8 million advantage in 2000, Bush went downtown, so to speak, with a seemingly staggering 6.8 million vote advantage over Kerry.

Remarkably, that was not going to be enough for a Bush win. Had Kerry maintained the Gore big city margin of 2000 with the 60% increase in turnout, he would have won the election easily, both numerically and in terms of electoral votes. And why wouldnt he maintain that margin? Bush was indifferent to the big cities and there was little campaign activity there; the turnout increase in the NEP was huge, from 9.2 million to 15.2 million. These people must have been motivated. Kerry was on deck with a big bat against a weak opposing team.



Figure 5. Unprecedented! Thats the only word necessary to show the dichotomy of 2004 Bush losing actual votes in his base, rural America, while gaining an exponential increase in big cities.


But something happened. The Urban Legend appeared in the form of a tidal wave of increased Bush support. While his rural, conservative, white, Christian voters were staying home or changing candidates, it seemed that his appeal to urban voters went off the charts. He increased from 26% to 39% of the big city vote total, from a 2.7 million total in 2000 to 5.9 million total votes in 2004. What was happening? The urban legend was born.

Who would have thought?

Who would have thought that the margin for the Bush victory would come from cities, particularly Americas largest cities, those with over 500 thousand people? In truth, it did because it had to. The red base, rural America, could not match its relative performance in 2000 relative to a 19% increase in the total vote. In fact, the base receded. Small towns showed major increases in turnout but that benefited Kerry; surprisingly, he broke even there. The suburbs were slightly improved but Bush turnout was not spectacular. The smaller cities, population 50 to 500 thousand, had only a 9% increase in turnout over 2000.

But voters were hitting the streets of the big cities, with a 66% increase in turnout. That meant only one thing as preliminary exit poll data was reviewed throughout Election Day: the end of the road for G.W. Bush.

According to the Exits Polls, something was happening in the big cities and it was happening in a big city way. For every 100 voters returning from 2000 there were 66 new voters showing up at polls to vote. Without any doubt, these voters were the most motivated block segment compared to a 9% increase in the smaller cities, a 19% in the suburbs and a decrease in rural turnout of 17%. Only the small towns, a much smaller segment, had close to this level of turnout.

Running behind his 2000 totals in his base area, Bush had little hope until the returns from the cities came in. The smaller cities had moved from a 57% to 40% split for Democrats in 2000 to break even in 2004. This was no slight accomplishment. Bush picked up 3.0 million votes over his 2000 total. Turnout for this segment was up only 1.8 million votes.

But that was nothing compared to the big cities. Here we have voters who are typically referred to as the core Democratic constituency. These were the people that the Democrats would always count on and who the Republicans used as surrogates to rally their mostly white suburban and rural base. Turnout was up 60%, the big city share of the national vote total was up 25%, but there was an entirely new voting pattern.

After four years of national struggle and focus overseas, inner city Americans came to the polls in record numbers, voted more Republican than before or since, and gave George Bush the necessary votes for his victory in 2004!

Is this Pattern Plausible or even Possible?

Accepting this strange event requires accepting that an election without any precedent occurred. The Democrats have seen retreats in urban turnout and vote share but these have never been accompanied by retreats in the Republican base area. The two phenomena just dont happen in the same election. Democrats increased their votes in a diminished rural voting block, significantly improved performance in the small towns, and held close in the suburbs. They were taking three out of every five new voters around the country - but then we are expected to believe that they lost the election in the big cities after taking a similar beating in the smaller cities. This combination of events has never happened before in American history. It is unprecedented and unbelievable.

An Urban Legend or a Potemkin Village

To understand the real explanation of the urban legend of 2004, we need to look for any election efforts aimed at big city voters. What stimulated the big turnout increase and what pushed returning or new voters into the Republican camp?

If this Bush urban wave actually materialized, you would expect a general and a proximate cause. The general cause would have come in the form of an issue(s) that moved voters to such a degree that they either they switched decades old party loyalty or candidate preference held sway over party loyalty.

The proximate cause would show up as big city activity focused on get out the vote (GOTV) efforts combined with advertising and major campaign events. Noticeable campaign efforts would have been essential. How could Bush make huge gains in admittedly hostile territory with out these efforts?

The general cause would have come in the form of a city-friendly charismatic Republican incumbent. Wed expect to see Bush in the cities laying on the charm, so to speak, and announcing a few high profile federal projects.

There is no apparent general cause for a shift in loyalties and voting in big cities. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who emphasized big city enterprise zones, Bush seemed indifferent to the needs of urban dwellers. Bush was not a city type of guy and rarely went to New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles for anything other than high level events. Not big on mixing with the masses, he demonstrated a clear preference for the solitary activity of clearing trees and brush from the Texas ranch he acquired just before the 2000 primaries. To the extent that 911 sensibilities may be considered, they seem to have been a far larger factor in the suburban than in the urban vote, at least as far as the exit polls indicate.

As for the proximate causes needed to turn opinion and attitude into an actual voting experience for the converted, they were certainly not evident. The Republican focus was always on ramping up the rural base and increasing the suburban vote. We found little if any comment in the Republican media machine about push polls, new programs for or special events in big cities to drive the vote. Bush gave speeches around the country, but you often needed a ticket to attend. Think back to any Bush big city rallies or events; rare and not a priority. Big city strategy was not a featured item in the 2004 Republican playbook.

How do we know this? To begin with, the core Democratic blocks in big cities didnt change their votes according to the National Exit Polls. The NEP showed that black, Latino, and Jewish city voters went for Kerry at rates of 95%, 66%, and 80%.

The National Exit Poll gathers data each year on various campaign activities. The vital activity accompanying any significant vote increase is called GOTV - get out the vote. According to the NEP, only 1 in 10 urban residents contacted received Republican GOTV calls. Media buys in big cities were not even close to those in the suburbs where Bush only netted an extra 3% vote share over 2000, and campaign events for these urban groups were virtually non existent.

Scrutiny of the National Exit Poll was not the focus on election night. Hurried analysts looked at the vote totals coming in and offered explanations that we now know were not even remotely accurate. While we were told that this was a red-versus-blue election on November 7, it was also noted that Kerrys GOTV strategy was working, based on increased votes/turnout. Senior analyst Charles Cook assumed that Bush made major inroads in black and Latino city voters but that assumption was not supported by the splits.

Then where did that Bush Urban Wave Originate?

There was a minimal Republican GOTV campaign in big cities and, in general, a minimal presence in the form of advertising and special events. Thus the basis for converting any shift in sympathy to Bush was lacking. Only the National Exit Poll, the revised edition the day after the election, had the special lens necessary to note surges of white big city voters who comprised the Bush victory margin. White voters had to account for the margin and the NEP analysts already knew that. There was no apparent general cause for a shift in loyalties and voting in big cities. The black, Latino, and Jewish voting blocks there had remained essentially unchanged since 2000.

For large urban areas, Latino votes doubled and went from 14% to 16% of the total vote compared to 2000. A small decline in absolute numbers, plus the increased Latino vote pushed the black urban share from 29% to 19% yet the national exit poll showed overall black turnout up 40%.

So the question remains: how do we account for the election winning Bush increases in big city vote share? We know that black, Latino, and Jewish voters in the big cities were strongly in favor of Kerry. The votes came from the only remaining big city voting block. There had to have been an unprecedented out pouring of white voters in large urban areas.



FIGURES 6 & 7. According to the NEP, white voters contributed less than 5 million votes to the big city segment in 2000 but almost 9 million in 2004. This is worthy of the term surge. They accounted almost exclusively for the increase from 2.3 million to 5.9 million big city votes for Bush from 2000 to 2004. Where did they come from? We may never know but they won the election.


The Nature of the Bush White Urban Wave

The white urban wave was shy, reluctant to show its true form and was perhaps a ghost in the machine. White turnout was supposed to go up as part of an overall increase. No one anticipated that it would materialize for Bush in the big cities in the way that it did. Nor does it help that these white voters were apparently shy about talking to pollsters.



Figure 8. The Black and Latino vote in big cities didnt shift much from 2004. Bush lost big again. But he did much better among big city whites than his 2000 performance.


Where then did the Bush swing in the urban wave come from? The simple answer is that it was weighted into existence. The act of reconciling the exit polls to the official vote count created it. The Bush urban voters came into existence because they had to otherwise the official vote count would be wrong.

Weighting is a practice used by the US Census, political consultants, public health officials and others who conduct large scale survey research. If you collect data on a population, Latino voting patterns in the 2004 election for example, and your data is unrepresentative of a subset of that population, you can weight certain responses by a multiplier greater or less than one to make your poll consistent with the population measured. The problem though is when weighting is used to reconcile polling data with a known fact that may not be known at all. The NEP assumes that the official vote total must be accurate and weights accordingly.

The impossible election of 2004

Generating the Bush urban wave was effortless. Only 10% of urban voters required a call. They were not required to attend rallies or watch television ads. In fact, many of them didnt even need to vote. That was taken care of by the weighting process conducted when the national exit poll was found to be inconsistent with the announced vote tallies. After all, how could the unintentionally released Election Day NEP be right in showing a 3% Kerry overall victory margin when the vote tabulators showed a 3% Bush win? Rural Americans didnt produce that margin. Neither did the small towns or the suburbs. Even the improvement in the smaller cities wasnt enough. The big cities, according to announced totals, delivered the vote for Bush.

Never mind the fact that exit polling reported that 95%, 66%, and 80% of black, Latino and Jewish voters supported Kerry. Never mind the fact that these voters represent over 50% of the United States urban population. Never mind the fact that whites in big cities are the most liberal group of whites in the nation. Finally, never mind that the new voter findings nationwide showed a 3 to 2 advantage for Kerry and that 40% of the voters in the big cities were new voters.

If there were ever a campaign that ignored on-the-ground efforts in big cities while espousing positions opposed by many in those cities, it was the 2004 Republican presidential campaign Bush was a divider not a uniter who pitted rural and suburban citizens against urban dwellers using wedge issues: the Iraq war; anti gay marriage amendments; religion forced into competition with science; the refusal to conduct stem cell research based on religious views; and opposition to a living wage for the poor. Then there was the Bush signal of solidarity to white conservatives by refusing to attend even one NAACP annual convention or Martin Luther King Day celebration. Bush was AWOL for the black voters other than the sanitized White House events.

The Bush campaign focused its efforts heavily, almost exclusively, on the rural areas and suburbs in order to counter the anticipated big city Democratic margins. But then the miracle occurred just when it was needed. White ghosts never seen before emerged from parking lots, alleys and perhaps even graveyards in big cities across the country to give George W. Bush a stunning victory in the presidential election of 2004. It had to be this way, otherwise the vote count was wrong and who would tolerate such a notion, despite the clear signs on the ground and in the National Exit Poll? But the convenient and wide spread Red versus Blue story of election eve was maintained through inertia. For those with nagging questions, that story was replaced by the Urban Legend of 2004: Bush won the 2004 Presidential election in big cities.

The exit polls weighted a voting block into existence but the pollsters will have to work much harder to get anyone serious about the election to believe that those voters were found anywhere other than in weighting formulas generated to ratify the vote totals
At this point we have to believe two absurdities:

Bush lost a huge portion of his core constituency, rural America, which dropped from 23% to 16% of the overall vote total; yet he won the election. Rural citizens gave Bush 2.5 million fewer votes in 2004 than they contributed in 2000. In the small town segment, voting increased substantially and helped Kerry get to a break even point Yet Bush managed to be the only presidential candidate to win a high turnout election after losing his base; an election where overall turnout was up 16% overall but total presidential votes were down 17% in the rural base areas.

Bush won a huge increase in urban America, a place where Bush didnt advertise significantly, where the GOTV effort was unnoticeable compared to Kerrys, and where he was clearly an unpopular president; yet he won the election. For example, by 2005 50% of New Yorkers said that the federal government had foreknowledge of 911 yet let it happen, he improved his vote count by over 20%. In the 32 big cities across America, he was able to piece together a remarkable increase in his vote from 2000 to carry him over the top and elect him President. We must believe this if we accept the final vote count as accurate. These cauldrons of hostility and suspicion about Bush paused on Election Day 2004, reflected, and suspended their animus at least when they voted.

It borders on the absurd to believe that Bush won reelection on the basis of this huge increase in big city votes and vote share from 2000 to 2004. Were supposed to believe that he went from 2.3 million big city votes in 2000 to 5.4 million in 2004, a 153% increase. This artifact of the NEPs weighting process is a dead letter that simply cant be delivered. It strains the limits of credulity, although no one noticed or those who did werent talking. There was something very wrong with the NEP weighting process, specifically big city results. This is apparent from the analysis just completed. But theres something much more troubling about the vote total.

And this is the problem

There have been heated debates on the internet regarding the outcome of the 2004 election. Much of the analysis focuses on the disparity between released and unreleased national exit polls. The mainstream media has not covered this controversy. Yet by August, 2006 more than half of Americans had expressed doubts that the 2004 results were fair and square according to a Zogby Poll of 1018 registered voters nationwide. (5) `

For this study, we chose the less controversial approach of using the final, revised exit poll with a focus on the stated purposes of the exit poll, who were the voters and where did they cast their ballots. Why not take the numbers the pollsters finalized the day after the election. Yet after careful scrutiny, weve shown that the NEPs urban demographic data just dont add up to even a remotely convincing explanation for a Bush victory. The data is clearly inconsistent, incompatible, and results in a conundrum rather than clarity about what happened on Nov. 2 2004. Doubt leads to disbelief.

And then theres one more problem that casts doubt on the entire process. The NEP reports a 66% increase in voter turnout in the big cities, from 9 million votes in 2000 to 15 million in 2006. This provides foundation for the increases in Bush urban votes and percentages, even though there is no common sense or historical reason to believe such an increase in Bush votes ever took place, as weve demonstrated.

Now heres the shocker. In addition to the analysis above, the 66% vote increase in the urban areas simply cant be true on the basis of actual reports of big city vote totals. Why hasnt this been widely discussed?

We have no idea but contradictory data exists which represents a huge problem.

While investigating the results of 2004, this inquiry asked about city specific results.

The response from a number of authorities was that these figures were difficult to find. Since counties reported totals; there was no one place that where a complete report of actual voting results for big city voting would show up. Thats true but data is available for 12 of the 24 big cities for 2000 and 2004 and it shows nothing close to a 66% increase in turnout. These cities represent 61% of the total big city population as defined by the NEP; 23 million of the 38 million total inhabitants of big cities in 2004.

Actual Big City Votes 2000 and 2004
Official results reported by state and local boards of elections
These 12 cities represent 61% of the 2004 Big





Chart 1. The cities listed are all big cities as defined by the NEP, major urban areas with populations over 500,000. Turnout percentages represent the increase in votes for president from 2000 to 2004. They are the actual vote totals from the cities listed. They were obtained from either the city board of elections or the state board of elections.


The total vote for these 12 big cities in 2000 was 6.57 million and 2004 7.61 million. That represents a 16% increase in turnout. (6) This accounts for 61% of the big city population. The remaining 39% of the big city group would have required over a 100% increase in turnout to have a big city average of 66% the NEP claims.

We now have a double indictment of the 2004 NEP and a much larger question about the results of the election altogether. For over two years, the facts of the Bush victory have been on the table. On election night what was seemingly the best information on the election was ignored when the broadcasters announced a replay of election 2000, Red versus Blue, fundamentalists versus city voters. The story of the NEPs, the Bush Urban Legend, was there to see but only Charles Cook and a few others pointed the stunning events purported by the exit polls and they failed to take an in depth look to discover the shocking appearance of all those white ghosts.

We are unaware of any major controversy regarding the who voted where totals.

But now this. The explanation of the Bush victory margin through the 66% big city increase evaporates in view of this data. 16% is not even close to 66%. The 66% did not happen. All those white voters are phantoms, ghosts, artifacts born of necessity. There was no 66% increase in urban voting; but there was an increase consistent with the national average, about 16% based on actual voting data from the over 50% sample of big cities presented above.

Now, were left with the following mysteries.

How did the NEP get it so wrong on the urban vote? Was it simple expediency? They had an election to report. They had that 3% problem to handle, you know, the Kerry 51%-48% victory at the end of the days polling. There was very little time to handle it. The urban magic that Charles Cook extolled as a sign of Bush campaign genius was invented. It came to be because it was the only way the poll could match the reported results.

Why was there no analysis of the urban vote based on actual reporting? First, youd have to really want to understand it. There is no neat package and people with expertise tell you its pretty much a lost cause. Yes it is if youre doing derivative research. If you look around in the nooks and crannies, its there, at least enough of it to make an obvious inference, in this case that the urban vote was no different than the rest of the nation in terms of turn out. A 66% increase is utter nonsense.

The net result is this. Take the 9.2 million NEP estimated big city votes in 2000 and apply a 17% increase in turnout for 2004 and you get 10.8 million votes. Subtracting the 10.7 million actual votes and from the NEP claimed 15.2 million for the same segment leaves a 4.5 million vote gap.

Or take a different approach. Use the 12 cities above, 60% of the big city population, and generate estimates for big city totals in 2000 and 2004. You get a total of 12.93 million in 2004. The 12.93 million actual votes in 2004 are 2.35 million short of the NEPs estimated 15.2 million big city votes.

Given either scenario, there are millions of unaccounted for votes. We havent even looked at those counter intuitive results for cities 50 to 500 thousand. What could this mean? How can we be so sloppy with our vote totals and the election results for our big cities? Why are big city data and results apparently not worthy of investigation and comment? Dont look and you wont have to tell. The only way a Bush victory makes sense, given his failure in rural America, is the addition of millions of votes to the urban centers, the impossible phenomenon.

Trying to find a Bush victory in 2004 leads you down a number of dead end streets. What happened to the rural vote? It was less as an over all percent of the national total and this segment provided less actual votes for Bush. What happened in the big cities? White votes were up from 5.0 to 9.0 million in one election; an 80% increase in white big city turnout.

One thing that we can no longer assume is that the election of 2004 produced the current occupant of the White House. In fact, the inability to show a logical path to the popular victory argues for a stance of informed scrutiny and intense skepticism.

If you believe 4.0 million new white big city voters showed up in 2004, you can believe the 2004 election results.

If you believe that Bush could conjure those new voters representing an 80% increase in white turnout over 2000 with just the slightest Get Out the Vote (GOTV) activity in big cities, you can believe the 2004 election results.

If you acknowledge that Bush lost votes in his political base compared to 2004, the rural segment, yet soared to victory on the basis of substantial gains in the urban areas, then you can believe that he was the truly elected president in November 2004.

Those elected must be able demonstrate that they won a majority or plurality of the votes cast. There is no room left for that scenario in 2004. In the end, we are left with only the Bush Urban Legend.

ARTICLE END REFERENCES AND APPENDICES FOLLOW


*************


Please feel free to reprint this and distribute it with attribution of authorship and a link to this article in Scoop Independent News. We encourage a wide distribution of this material in all media.

Acknowledgments: Special thanks and appreciation are offered to Jonathan Simon, Jill Hayroot and others who reviewed this material and provided valuable comments. Also very special thanks to Scoop Independent News and Alastair Thompson for the ongoing leadership in their coverage of election and voting rights issues. A special debt is owed to the voting rights activists of the United States throughout its history. They give their time freely and risk hardship, injury, and sometimes death for our right to vote.

********


References
1. The 2004 National Exit Poll, Edison-Mitofsky, 2004. 2000 National Exit Day Polls, VNS, 2000.

2. GOP Turns Out A Win By Charlie Cook NationalJournal.com November 9, 2004
www.cookpolitical.com/column/2004/110904.php

3. Latest vote, county by county 2004 2000 USAToday. 11/16/2004 -Updated 01:14 AM ET
www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/county...

4. President makes peace offer to political rivals, Bill Nichols and Peter Eisler, USA TODAY Posted 11/2/2004 9:24 PM Updated 11/5/2004 7:10 AM
www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/presid...

5. Zogby - Voters Question Outcome of 04 Election. Michael Collins. Scoop Independent News. Sept. 25, 2006 www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00346.htm

6. Elections for the following city/state election information resource.

California: Los ngeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose
Statement of Vote by Political Division in Counties, California 2000
tinyurl.com/2tgaw3
Statement of Vote by Political Division in Counties, California 2004
www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2004_general/ssov/pres_gene...
Department of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, County of Los Angeles, 2000.
www.chicagoelections.com/wdlevel3.asp?elec_code=120
Chicago Board of Elections, Chicago Presidential Results 2004
www.chicagoelections.com/wdlevel3.asp?elec_code=90

Davidson-Nashville, Tennessee
Tennessee Secretary of State 2004 Presidential Results
www.state.tn.us/sos/election/results/2004-11/index.htm
Tennessee Secretary of State 2004 Presidential Results
www.state.tn.us/sos/election/results/2000-11/index.htm

Denver, Colorado
David Leips Presidential Atlas. Presidential Election Returns 2000 and 2004
www.uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/store_data.php

Detroit, Michigan
Department of State, Wayne County Presidential Results 2000
miboecfr.nicusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/precinct_srch_res.cgi
Department of State, Wayne County Presidential Results 2004
miboecfr.nicusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/precinct_srch_res.cgi

Election Precinct Result Search (Wayne County, Detroit City). Michigan Department of State. miboecfr.nicusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/precinct_srch.cgi

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
City of Milwaukee Elections Commission Presidential Results 2000 - 2004
www.city.milwaukee.gov/ElectionResultsArchi15808.htm
www.city.milwaukee.gov/November720001754.htm

New York, New York
David Liep, Presidential Data, New York City
www.uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/store_data.php

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of State, Elections Information 2000 - 2004
www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.as...

Washington, DC Presidential Election Returns 2000-2004
Washington, DC Board of Election s 2000 & 2004 General Election Results
www.dcboee.org/information/elec_2000/general_elec.shtm
www.dcboee.org/information/elec_2004/pres_general_2004_...

********


APPENDIX ONE



www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/...

2004 Big Cities Smaller Cities Suburbs Small Towns Rural
Percent 13% 19% 45% 8% 16%
NEP Spread Sheet our #s

2004
Kerry 60% 49% 47% 48% 39%
Bush 39% 49% 52% 50% 59%
39% Rural is actually 39.4653% rounded = 40%
CNN


|


www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

2000 Big Cities Smaller Cities Suburbs Small Towns Rural
Percent 9% 20% 43% 5% 23
NEP Spreadsheet our #s

2000
Gore 71% 57% 47% 38% 37%
Bush 26% 40% 49% 59% 59%
CNN


***ENDS***


From: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00165.htm

Refresh | +11 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. GD Cross Post Is here... ERD plz knr the GD version
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. KR.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Hey, think we need tighter election procedures?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bravo, Collins and Scoop.
Dare I say, this is Pulitzer caliber material.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. Charles Cook on exit polls
If you had worked with exit polls in the past, as I have fat a network (first CBS, more recently NBC) or every election since 1990, you would find the suggestion that they can be used to check the accuracy of vote counts totally ridiculous. Network exit polls were never designed to predict the outcome of close races, they can't. no survey is that close. If the outcome of a Senate race, for example, isn't so clear than you can know who will probably win by reading the previous week's Time or Newsweek, then an exit poll won't help.

Exit polls were designed primarily to give journalists a tool to describe who did what. How did whites, blacks, hispanics, men, women, union memmbers, consevatives, housewives, whatever, how they voted and ask why they voted the way you do.

the people using this exit poll/vote count disparity argument don't know jack about exit polls. I purposefully don't look at or listen to any exit poll data until late afternoon on election day (I stayed away from NBC until 5:00pm in 2004 and deliberately did not read any emails or engage in any conversations about exit polls all day, thus didn't allow how the stuff that you guys got all excited about pollute my thinking on election night.

The only races that networks use exit polls to predict are the slam dunks, they use them to confirm that the landslide wins expected are in fact landslide wins of the magnitude anticipated before the election. If the exit poll in Indiana shows that Dick Lugar will win by a margin comparable to what was expected, then they can call it at poll closing time. If the exit poll suggests that he isn't winning by something close to that, he won't. But only used to confirm the no-brainer races. That's it. And don't use the "U.S. State Department recomends the use of exit polls to confirm elections in other countries" argument, because I don't know or care what the U.S. State Department says or does about elections, since that is not their area of expertise.


http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/10/29/92522/378/1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Good grief, don't you guys ever stop your
silliness. The secret vote counting scam has been exposed, LIKE IT OR NOT.

Only a matter of time, my Friend, Only a matter of time.


:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Do you ever
actually read my posts, kster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Absolutely, I always like to hear what people from other countries have to say ..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maryallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
233. Nope,the gatekeepers must persevere or else ...
the gates will come tumbling down.

Can't have that, can we? (sarcasm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #233
235. hahahahahahaha
Take the OTOH challenge: try to defend the OP instead of attacking someone else. Go ahead, just try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. I agree to a great extent...
I'm not a pollster, even though I've done lots of surveys and work in social science research. The continued attempt to say polls don't count is not credible. Surveys, like lots of other evidence, can help us reach a conclusion.

The big smoking gun here is pretty obvious to me. When I work in health science or school test scores or whatever, the agency or person wanting to hide something gives themselves away in most cases in two ways:

1.) they avoid producing the evidence when they anticipate what is happening if they have a reason to hide something
2.) they subdivide evidence instead of aggregating the best evidence and obscure the patterns instead of seeking an answer

From 2000 until now, there are been plenty of oportunities for pollsters to get samples of the size and generalizability that would be good evidence of fraud IF they had targeted the precinct level data and concentrated larger samples in depth at key states and races. The pollsters can argue all they want to that it's not their job, but they know good and well that they could do it. If they don't know how, then they are incompetent. Any pollsters who don't plan concentrated large samples in western Florida and urban Ohio for 2008 are avoiding the truth. Well designed surveys accurately predict everything from who will buy a new product to likely new cancer patients...etc., etc....

Lawyers prove things, not scientists. Denying evidence of "proof" in the context of convergent factors on a poll-by-poll or case-by-case basis when the balance of information continues to indicate more information every day that fraud or manipulation of elections occurred and is still occuring is getting silly.

I simply disagree with Febble on one thing. Exit surveys can be used as evidence to discover election manipulations. You can argue "scientific proof" and "p<.05" and other things, but scientists are very aware of statistical vs. practical findings and multiple sources of evidence. Some of the election results from precincts in Florida this last election were statistically "off the chart" in probability terms, and the direction of errors in some cases are so directional that random or systematic computer error are also pretty unlikely. This is not "legal" proof of who did the deed or how they accomplished the manipulation, but in 2008, exit pollsters could be designed to show up unpredictibly at concentrated precincts based on early annectdotal reports and could easily document the problems and send in the investigators to lock up the culprits before the day was over! Our current pollster system doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it, so they won't change the process.

Instead of defending the pollsters, why not demand a more comprehensive process from the pollsters with as much vigor as the defense? An obvious example is this: IF asked to participate in a special "election check", could 100% of a few targeted polling stations be asked to repeat who they voted for 5 minutes after the vote? Clearly, caging would be discovered if 30% of those who thought that they had voted had their ballots discounted. Computer manipulations in Sarasota would be obvious before noon. I can absolutely tell you that the majority of sick and tired voters here in west Florida would be more than gald to participate. At most polling stations, the cooperation would be close to 100%. Try it and tell me it wouldn't work!


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. why don't you?
At most polling stations, the cooperation would be close to 100%. Try it and tell me it wouldn't work!

If you think you can get "close to 100%" cooperation in a parallel election, you can stop berating "the pollsters" and simply do it.

Meanwhile, if you can document where Febble disagreed that "Exit surveys can be used as evidence to discover election manipulations," that would be helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.
Ontheotherhand,

I don't know your agenda, but it isn't worth repeating endless arguments. There is no amount of convincing that would likely satisfy you that the exit poll results from 2000 to date are consistent with lots of other evidence that something illegal happened. Polls may not "prove" election manipulation, but the exit polls certainly contain patterns that are weird and difficulty to explain in many cases. This current article is an example.

As I stated to you over a year ago, people in Sarasota, Clearwater, and other parts of this Florida have come out in droves to vote for referendums to get rid of electronic voting, etc., etc. This is a mostly Republican district! Everyone is pretty tired of the fraud and manipulations. Practically everyone I know has some story of machine malfunction or surprise results or missing votes. Every homeowners association meeting and yacht club dinner recounts some new annecdotal revelation. I don't have any doubt that people want to get things straightened out.

If you want to defend the current pollsters, fine. I don't think they are credible at this point. They are either avoiding the issues, hiding the data, or making a planned decision to avoid precinct level data that would provide newsworthy confirmation of possible manipulation. If it's "not their job", then we need our news providers to hire a different pollster who will be more responsive.

Regardless, it is time for the exit polls to improve their efforts and I challenge them to do it. If the US needs a plan to detect election fraud that doesn't involve pollsters, that is ok too. No more excuses!

Pollsters are one of many convergent sources, but they are clearly hindering instead of helping get to the issues given the exit poll controversies over the last 3 elections. If you think that pollsters are doing a great job, then we agree to disagree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Firstly
Do you understand that the E-M exit polls are not even intended to monitor elections? They are designed for a quite different purpose, which they accomplish rather well.

For more information, see here:

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

Secondly: AFAIK, and IK fairly well, OTOH has no "agenda" other than trying to find out what went wrong in 2004, and to figure out the best way of preventing it, or worse, happening again.

Thirdly: the patterns observed in the exit polls are not particularly difficult to account for, and in fact in the analysis I did for Mitofsky, I accounted for them fairly well, mostly in terms of factors likely to be associated with selection bias.

Fourthly: you are making an allegation that the pollsters are "hiding data". They have released a very large amount of data, including detailed responses from all the questionnaires used in the crosstabulations, and aggregate statistics of the discrepancies between their models and the official vote by state and also for the last five years. What has not been released is information that might allow respondents to be identified, and this is, of course, because the data were collected on the condition that the responses would be regarded as confidential.

If you think you can run an exit poll that would be of assistance in monitoring elections, why not contact Steve Freeman, and offer your services. I'm sure he would be very grateful. But the E-M poll was not designed to do that, and when reverse-engineered to try to do it, the findings did not support the theory that the discrepancy was due fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I agree to a great extent...
The E-M polls were not designed to detect the variability of interest at the unit of interest level. Why not? I joined several groups in analysis of data, and there seems to me there there is an issue.

When we have a "minor" problem in education or health...we target the assessments and sampling to detect the causes. Pollsters continue to take money (as I understand it) from news services and seem to relish in the controversy, but really don't have the goal of finding out the "true vote" as a goal?!?!

If E-M won't do the job, then let's get someone who will. We "assume" that the news services want to report the truth. Your (Feeble) analyses, as technically correct as they are, seem narrow in focus (hypothesis testing) and less descriptive or relational. Both ideas hold a solid place in the discovery of reality.

I can think of many designs that might discover fraud and manipulation. I'm just wondering why 2 or 3 or 4 elections occur that the pollsters don't try them? I don't care if it's complicated (multivariate) or sampling (targeted precincts) or many other solutions.

TIA overreaches the probabilities, and many articles, such as these threads, raise more questions than answers. There is NO QUESTION that 10 times the undervote in an isolated precinct like in Sarasota in the last election MUST be either serious machine error or fraud. Also, caging is illegal, and we have lots of evidence of caging in Fl that is CONSISTENT BUT NOT PROVED by exit poll data and eyewitnesses.

As a "researcher", I'm not immune to social consequences. I just finished a contract with NSF. If I discovered something that harmed people or the environment, I'd report it. If I suspect a legal or ethical issue, I'd design something to refute or confirm it as part of the research. Why doesn't E-M do that?

Sometimes OTOH seems to shoot the messenger. The problem of voting integrity can be solved. Would the entry point of exit pollsters be a logical place to start? If so, we need to hold them to the fire. They should a better job and report evidence that is consistent with the "real vote" or give the job to someone else. If there are inconsistencies, E-M should identify and explain them. The "reluctant responder" and "cute interviewer" stuff has gotten out of hand. If E-M can't resolve the questions, then I'm sure that Freeman and others would be glad to have the contract....



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. "Why not?"?
Read the link I gave you. And although you could "get someone who will" (Steve Freeman, for example) they will never do a very good job for the reasons I give in the link. That's why you need RANDOM AUDITS - sample the votes not the voters, preferably entire precincts, not a sample from precincts, as mandated by HR811.

And if you think my analyses (pun on my handle not appreciated) are "narrow in focus" please specify why you think so, and why they are not sufficiently "descriptive or relational".

You seem confused as to whether your complaint is that the analyses of the data were inadequate or the poll itself was inadequate. By "many designs that might discover fraud and manipulation" I assume you mean poll designs, not analytical models. E-M design their poll to provide the information their clients hire them to find. To design to design a poll do the job you want them to do (which is virtually impossible anyway) they'd need to design a different (and vastly more extensive) poll. Do you expect their clients to pay for this? When it still wouldn't tell you what you want anyway? And when random manual audits will do the job much more accurately and much more cheaply?

And in fact, E-M did exactly what you asked - retropectively investigated, for example, whether there had been greater discrepancies precincts with different voting technologies, then hired me to investigate further, which I did.

So, when you talk about people who "shoot the messenger" - look first in the mirror, please.

Cheers


Lizzie
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. then don't
I don't know your agenda, either. I can only point out shoddy argumentation. And an extrapolation about big-city turnout and vote shares based on a few dozen exit poll precincts nationwide, when the sample isn't designed for that purpose, is nothing if not shoddy. If you don't know this, you should. If there are particular counts you are suspicious of, that would give us some substance to discuss. I'm not going to give deference to arguments that don't merit deference. If you think that complaining that the pollsters aren't "credible" supports your analysis, the burden is on you. If you simply aren't interested in analysis, that's your privilege.

For what it's worth, if you want the networks to investigate in real-time election forensics, then it seems to me that you should lobby them, not the pollsters. But if you are going to claim that researchers would obtain "close to 100%" participation, then that claim obviously would benefit from direct evidence. Has any parallel election or exit poll come close to 100% participation? Assuming you are right that "people want to get things straightened out," that does not appear to be on point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. This is where you are wrong.
"For what it's worth, if you want the networks to investigate in real-time election forensics, then it seems to me that you should lobby them, not the pollsters."

I've been a social science researcher for 30 years...and you are simply wrong. The vast majority of real researchers don't work for clients, companies, institutions, or universities. They want to do the job well and relish in getting it right. E-M is either (figuratively) staying up all night worried about why they can't get the polls to match the final tally, or else they are mercenaries. They are either concerned about election manipulation as a variable or else they are immoral and "not really researchers". The reseacher (pollsters in this case) have the OBLIGATION to get it right and explain undervotes, caging, inconsistent tallys, etc. Lobbying networks is silly. We all know from experience that it is the ethics and desires of the front line professional reseacher(s) that make the questions and report the answers. They have the opportunity and responsibility to explain what happens.

The pollsters, (E-M) in this case, need to show us their efforts to resolve the unknowns with an OPEN BOOK as to what worked and why or why not; or else they are in on the fix for money. If they try to do better and fail, it should be clearly evident why. Real time forensics or whatever else they want to do is not the issue! No more excuses. It is not like they haven't had enough controversy and criticism! They aren't starving either. Hold the front line pollsters to the fire and see what side they are on...

Sorry, if that doesn't make sense, then you simply haven't been there and done it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. no, I don't think so
The vast majority of real researchers don't work for clients, companies, institutions, or universities.

Who do they work for? Or were you speaking figuratively? This is a risky point to be speaking figuratively about, because you appear to advocate that the exit pollsters should spend a pile of the networks' money on something that the networks didn't intend to pay for, as a matter of ethical obligation. Sounds sort of like breach of contract to me.

Now, let me try to be clear about this. If we're talking about trying to sort out whether vote miscount and/or suppression accounted for the exit poll discrepancy, then I do think that's an obligation, and I think E/M fulfilled it. The people doing serious work in election forensics are not pounding on E/M's door, because they can find more and better data elsewhere.

If you think E/M has a further obligation to "explain undervotes, caging, inconsistent tallies, etc.", then I still think your beef is with the networks. You may also want to think about a research strategy you would actually recommend (for exit pollsters and/or others), of course taking account of prior and ongoing work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Sancho, it doesn't sound to me
as though you've actually engaged with the argument I have been making. I was extremely interested in the possibility that the exit poll data might offer evidence in support of the theory that the count had been manipulated, and I tested several hypotheses arising from that theory. The data did not support the hypotheses. On the other hand the data DID support hypotheses arising from the theory that the sample selection was biased.

Please don't attribute to me views I do not hold. I do think that a discrepancy between exit poll responses and the official count can be an indicator of a manipulated election. I thought it possible that the exit poll data from 2004 might indicate a manipulated election. But they didn't. They actually contra-indicated vote corruption on a massive scale, although they did not and could not indicate whether or not vote corruption had occurred on a local scale.

But mandatory random manual audits would be a much better way than exit polls of indicating whether or not the count has been corrupted, which is why I think that HR811 is a huge step in the direction of greater election integrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. "mandatory random manual audits would be a much better way than exit polls of indicating whether
... or not the count has been corrupted"

I think that was worth reposting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. The OP is making an entirely different argument
It is NOT directly attempting to evaluate raw vs. weighted data this time. Did you miss their starting point--that the weighted data was correct, and that they were starting from that assumption and instead looking at the data about who voted where? Seems to me they demonstrated that the weighted data showed a 66% increase in voter turnout in large cities, which does not at all correspond to the actual value of 16%. Back in high school geometry we did that sort of thing all the time--follow the logical sequelae from an initial theorem, and if you wound up with a contradiction, the initial theorem had to be wrong.

It isn't last year's argument any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. No, I am aware that it is a different argument
although it is not one that I think the exit poll data will bear. There simply isn't sufficient data. But it could be investigated much more powerfully by examination of the actual vote returns for 2000 and 2004.

But my point is that the inference drawn in the OP is actually contra-indicated by the exit poll data. If the inference in the OP is correct, then there must have been large scale fraud in some places but not others. This would have been highly likely to have shown up in the exit poll discrepancy data as large redshift (due to fraud) in some places but not in others. And indeed this was observed. However, if the redshift was due to fraud, then Bush would have tended to do better, relative to 2000, where there was redshift (due to fraud) than where there wasn't. In other words, if Bush's vote was boosted over his 2000 showing in some places by fraud (as the OP alleges), then those are the precincts that should have shown the greatest redshift. And there is simply not a sniff of a positive correlation between Bush's improvement in vote-share and the degree to which the exit polls indicated greater Kerry support than did the official count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Not your easiest to parse paragraph Febble....
If the inference in the OP is correct, then there must have been large scale fraud in some places but not others. This would have been highly likely to have shown up in the exit poll discrepancy data as large redshift (due to fraud) in some places but not in others. And indeed this was observed. However, if the redshift was due to fraud, then Bush would have tended to do better, relative to 2000, where there was redshift (due to fraud) than where there wasn't. In other words, if Bush's vote was boosted over his 2000 showing in some places by fraud (as the OP alleges), then those are the precincts that should have shown the greatest redshift. And there is simply not a sniff of a positive correlation between Bush's improvement in vote-share and the degree to which the exit polls indicated greater Kerry support than did the official count.


An alternative approach might be to actually address the information in the Original Post and explain it in some other manner.

E.G.

What's up with the city exit poll numbers which show every group voted Kerry except white people?
What's up with the city exit poll numbers wildly over estimating the turnout?
What's up with the city exit poll numbers which indicate a massive new white voter base to Bush?

If you actually attempt to discuss the real issue rather than burble incomprehensibly I will be happy to attempt to engage you in a serious discussion of the subject matter. Against my better judgment I might add.

alastair
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. why are "city exit poll numbers" the "real issue"?
I'm just scratching my head over here. Do you think you are reporting evidence of massive miscount? If so, where do you think the massive miscount occurred? Or have you not gotten that far yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Well, I'd
hate you to go against your better judgment, but I will ignore the hostility and attempt to address substance.

OK. We know there was a large discrepancy between the raw exit poll responses and the official count. We know, therefore, that the crosstabulations were subjected to an unusually large degree of post-stratification reweighting, using the incoming vote returns.

There are two possible theories: one is that there was massive fraud. The other is that the sample was more than usually biased.

So what predictions arise from these theories?

In both cases we would expect the reweighted cross-tabulations to give a poor indication of who had voted for whom, where.

However, in the first case we would expect the degree of discrepancy to be correlated with the degree to which Bush increased his vote-share. In the second case we would expect no correlation.

The second hypothesis is therefore the disambiguating hypothesis, and it turned out that there was no correlation between increase in Bush's vote share and the degree of discrepancy. This suggests that the discrepancy was largely due to a biased sample. This would therefore also suggest itself as the most likely cause of peculiar looking cross-tabulations. This could arise from non-uniformity in the geographical distribution of the bias. However, it could also arise from the weighting process itself.

Before the vote returns come in, the pollsters can adjust the cross-tabs for age, race and sex differences between the respondents and the non-respondents (those selected but not included). However, if the incoming vote returns are still different from the reweighted responses, all the pollsters can do is to upweight all Bush voters across all demographic groups, as there is no further information about the composition of the apparently missing Bush voters. This means that if the Bush voters who should have been in the polls and weren't have a different demographic composition than Bush voters that should have been in the polls and were, then the demographics will be skewed. As it seems they were.

What the OP suggests is that either fraud was concentrated in the urban areas, or that the sample biasing factors may have been. This particular fraud hypothesis therefore suggests non-uniform fraud. If the fraud was non-uniform, then it is very hard to see how the exit poll discrepancies were totally uncorrelated with increase in Bush's vote share.

Can you suggest how?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/11

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Anyway...
^^^ all pretty incomprehensible to me. None of this explains anything to me I am afraid. One cannot avoid thinking you are being deliberately confusing.

Lets try this another way again:

1. The Big Cities exit poll is a subset of all exit polls.

2. Given the sample size involved in the main poll one might have thought that the exit poll for urban voters would be useful in that area at least. In the OP you can see that it isn't. It doesn't make any sense. Full Stop...

Can you make any sense of it without reference to your previous hypotheses about why the exit poll does not disclose fraud?

Can you explain in layman's terms what might have caused these inexplicable numbers?

Can you answer the questions you are posed rather than going off on an incomprehensible tangent?

regards
alastair

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
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
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Well Febble thats great....
Edited on Fri Jun-15-07 08:40 PM by althecat
Lots of stuff about how much you know about exit polls.

Then the nub of your argument:

"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.


Which is essentially: "I have looked at this already. Made some erroneous assumptions about what I am looking for and how to discern it. And concluded that there is nothing to see."

We already know all that Febble. You have already told us this.

What you need at this point is some new material.

Your final para deserves a rebuttal of its own.

In the meantime a question.

Why do exit poll analysis skeptics in DU hunt in packs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #34
48. Well, if it
deserves a rebuttal, where's the rebuttal?

And please justify your assertion that my assumptions were "erroneous". Erroneous where, and how?

Put up or shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #34
49. Just looked at some of your
other posts left overnight.

Your basis for calling my posts, and those of OTOH and awsi dooger crap seems to be that we are "exit poll skeptics". You do not actually make any counter-argument to any of the arguments we put, you merely crap on our heads. You ask why we "hunt in packs". I am not aware that we do, but when exit poll crap gets posted, then those of us who know a bit about why it's crap point it out. More like scavenging a carcase, than hunting in packs perhaps.

I simply do not understand the utter refusal in some quarters on DU to actually examine evidence. It's as thought the exit poll evidence were sacrosanct somehow, and anyone who dares to point out that polls are not random samples, and that the non-randomness is likely to be responsible for the observed anomalies, is self-evidently a troll.

Well, it isn't true. The posters you crap on are not trolls, AFAICT they are reality based people who wish that Kerry had won, dearly wish to see election reform in the US, and want to see decisions about election integrity policy made on the basis of sound analysis and data, not urban legends about multi-million vote theft.

So when an OP like this gets posted and is widely publicised, and yet is clearly based on a fundamentally flawed premises, then we point that out. And instead of addressing the points, people like you crap on our heads.

OK, let me ask you again:

Where is your rebuttal of my point about the reweighting, about the non-correlation between discrepancy and increase in vote-share, and where is your rebuttal of OTOH's point about precinct sampling?

If you can't provide it without more crap, then I'll take the crap (I'm almost immune to it by now), but please also provide substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. There is a simple solution.
If you NEP analaysis skeptics actually addressed the evidence being presented rather than postulating your own theories and knocking them over we would not be talking at cross purposes.

In my mind none of the response posts on this page from you, awsi or OTOH contains any insight that adds to the some total of our knowledge. You critcisise for criticisms sake but claim that you want to advance the debate. Beleive me it is very frustrating.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. That is not true
I do not "criticise for criticism's sake". You have no basis on which to make this assertion. You said you didn't understand my post, and accused me of being unclear. I tried to clarify it. If it hasn't added to the sum of your knowledge then I don't understand why you don't understand that it creates a problem for the inference made in the OP.

The OP is based on the weighted data, and I have explained at least some of the problems in making inferences from that heavily weighted data.

As I pointed out to eridani, there are only twenty or thirty big city precincts in the National sample (far fewer than in the full sample). You cannot make generalised inferences about turnout from such a small sample of precincts. It is, as the OP points out, very unlikely that turnout in cities would have increased by 66%. However, it is perfectly possible that it was up by 66% in the handful of precincts that made it into that small National sample of precincts. The MoE on that percentage would be extremely wide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #49
55. Rebuttal....
Where is your rebuttal of my point about the reweighting, about the non-correlation between discrepancy and increase in vote-share, and where is your rebuttal of OTOH's point about precinct sampling?


Why should I rebutt your point which as far as I can see has nothing to do with the argument in the OP. Ditto OTOH's point. Neither of you have a point. You seem to miss the import of the OP and proceed to simply rehash all your usual talking points about the vaguries of Exit Polls.

For example. When it comes to discussion of whether the voters are Big City, Urban, Suburban etc... that isn't even a EP question is it. Isn't that taken from the location of the precinct? And if so then isn't it immune to sampling error?

And if that is the case then how can the EP reweightings be based on so clearly erroneous turnout figures? Again as I am not an EP insider I do not know how these numbers are produced. I would guess that turnout figures are estimated for the NEP from other data/observations. And that these are then used to calculate the weightings used for the vote estimates. Stands to reason this would be the case.

I should have thought that rather than simply dismissing this OP as more of the same discussion that you have addressed in the past you might have been curious about these questions?

Finally. Further down I have asked further civil questions of you. If you awsi and OTOH are genuine then please engage. It would be enlightening for us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. It has everything to do with
the OP.

There are two broad theories that could account for the anomalies that the OP draws attention to: that there was something wrong with the poll and that there was something wrong with the count. I have explained why poll artefacts could account for it. However, if the reason was something wrong with the count, then the implication is that there was vote corruption in certain places - big cities, for example. That Bush's vote was "padded" in some places but not others.

But if this was the case, variance in padding rate should be reflected both in variance in poll-count discrepancies and variance in Bush's performance relative to 2000. And, unfortunately for that theory, these two measures are not correlated with each other. This means that theory two (above) is a lot less likely than theory one.

It looks to me as though National precinct sample of big cities happened to have non-representative turnout rate. This is not surprising in such a small sample. And the demographic composition, will, as I said, be warped by the extent of the reweighting process itself.


To address your question:

You are correct that precinct data isn't an EP question. But that doesn't mean it's immune from sampling error - quite the reverse. It is extremely vulnerable to sampling error because the precinct sample sizes are so small. Remember that precincts are sampled as well, and the sample sizes are small.

The EP weightings would not be based on turnout figures. In fact the national sample would be a very poor source of turnout change estimates by Size of Place, because of the small sample of precincts in each category.

Indeed I'm curious about the question, and actually spent a bit of time corresponding with anaxarchos over it, and poring over the weightings in the National dataset (which were available for free download for over a year). He remained convinced that the reweightings could only be explained by fraud. I was unconvinced by his argument then, and remain unconvinced now, for the reasons I have given.

As for your comment about rehashing old arguments about the vagaries of exit polls: it's an old argument because it's an important one. The exit polls were substantially discrepant from the count. This means either that the exit polls were badly skewed, or the count was. If the exit polls were badly skewed, inferences made from them about the count will also be misleading. Sure, I keep making this point, but it's because it's an important one. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. If the exit poll data had to be substantially reweighted because of bias in the poll then the demographic cross-tabs will be unreliable. There is strong evidence for bias in the poll. Additionally, you cannot reliably infer turnout change figures from a small number of precincts, because of sampling error in the precinct sample.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. Further discussion...
In your 1st para you kindly accept the general thesis being advanced here. Namely that if the NEP is given a bit of credit then the numbers suggest organised vote padding in the cities.

But if this was the case, variance in padding rate should be reflected both in variance in poll-count discrepancies and variance in Bush's performance relative to 2000. And, unfortunately for that theory, these two measures are not correlated with each other. This means that theory two (above) is a lot less likely than theory one.


It is clearly evidence in terms of "variance in Bush's performance relative to 2000" bush did no where near as good in urban areas in 2000 vs 2004. I do not know what you mean by "variance in poll-count discrepancies".

It looks to me as though National precinct sample of big cities happened to have non-representative turnout rate. This is not surprising in such a small sample. And the demographic composition, will, as I said, be warped by the extent of the reweighting process itself.


If you are correct about this then the NEP seems a great deal more amateurish than I would have thought it was. You keep asserting that there are only 30 urban precincts in the exit poll. I thought there were roughly 1800 precincts in the exit poll or something of that order. 30 seems a tad on the low side.

Your suggestion that the 66% over estimation of turnout is due to sampling error and MOE on the small urban sample is I am afraid hard to believe. It is too big an error even for a deeply flawed poll. For the NEP team to have published these "adjusted" figures for the purpose of serious analysis, knowing that they could be some thoroughly flawed is remarkable and negligent.

As time goes by the multi-million NEP - the biggest of its kind ever conduced - appears to become ever more flawed.

Therefore lets go back to where you started from the previous post and consider what you are saying.

If the bush vote was systematically padded in urban areas then where else should we look in the exit poll data to find evidence of this?

In addition if the bush vote was systematically padded in urban areas then where else should we look in the declared results to find evidence of this?

Back to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. OK
The NEP National poll is a subset of the entire poll. That is why the precinct Ns by category are so small.

By "variance in poll-count discrepancies" I mean that the discrepancy between the poll and the count at precinct level varied. Some precincts had large pro-Bush discrepancies (count more pro-Bush than the poll). There were also precincts with large pro-Kerry discrepancies. Fraud would produce discrepancies such as these, so would a biased sample. If the OP is correct, and votes were padded in some places and not others, precincts with padded votes would have larger pro-Bush discrepancies than precincts than those without padding. They would also tend to show greater increases in Bush's vote-share (or smaller decreases). So the two measures - increase in Bush's vote share, and pro-Bush discrepancy - should be correlated. But they aren't.

If the Bush vote was systematically padded in urban areas, then we should see greater discrepancies in urban areas, AND these discrepancies should be associated with greater increase in Bush's vote share. That is what I looked for, and what I failed to find. There were rather greater discrepancies in urban than in rural area, but the increase was not associated with greater advantage to Bush, whichever way I sliced it, and I sliced it a lot of ways. There was some evidence that in urban areas, there were greater discrepancies associated with lever machines, which could be due to greater residual votes among Democratic voters. But it was strongly leveraged by New York. So you might argue that there was massive fraud on New York levers.

If you have to look somewhere, I'd look there. I do notice, however, that New Yorkers are not agitating to get rid of their lever machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #60
67. Further response
Edited on Sat Jun-16-07 09:50 AM by Febble
If you are correct about this then the NEP seems a great deal more amateurish than I would have thought it was. You keep asserting that there are only 30 urban precincts in the exit poll. I thought there were roughly 1800 precincts in the exit poll or something of that order. 30 seems a tad on the low side.


There were over 1400 precincts in the entire poll. Only a fraction of these were in the National Sample, and of these, only a fraction were in big cities. That brings it down to between 20 and 30.

Your suggestion that the 66% over estimation of turnout is due to sampling error and MOE on the small urban sample is I am afraid hard to believe. It is too big an error even for a deeply flawed poll. For the NEP team to have published these "adjusted" figures for the purpose of serious analysis, knowing that they could be some thoroughly flawed is remarkable and negligent.


I am sorry you find it hard to believe. You would, of course need to know the variance before you could compute the MoE. Bear in mind that some precincts would have had boundary changes between 2000 and 2004, so even the raw data won't be that accurate.

But what you need to bear in mind when you talk about a "deeply flawed poll" is that conducting an exit poll that is not vulnerable to flaws is extremely difficult. Voters are not selected at random. Precincts are pre-selected, also not at random, but stratified in order to be representative, and in such a way that each voter in the country has, theoretically, an equal chance of being selected, if sample sizes are equal at each precinct, as they are intended to be. Large precincts are therefore selected at a higher rate than small precincts. If you vote in a large precinct you have a higher chance that your precinct will be in the poll, but a lower chance of being selected by the pollster.

However, precinct size is determined on the previous election's turnout. If this increases non-uniformly, this will affect the representativeness of your sample. In fact, in general, the precinct selection was fairly good (results in selected precincts tended to be representative of the state as a whole). However, it looks as though the precincts subselected to represent big cities in the National sample were not representative of the urban precincts in general. As there were less than thirty of them this is scarcely surprising, and if variance is turnout change was large, then the MoE will be extremely wide.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #67
80. A General Point: This study is not concerned with WPE - Within Precinct Error
Febble,

As I understand it most of your analysis of the NEP involved looking at WPE or precinct error - looking to see correlations etc.

This OP otoh is concerned with the wider numbers - turnout numbers in general - and cross tabs in relation to them. Most importantly it involves an analysis of the apparent illogicality of Bush doing better in the cities than in the rural areas. Contrary to OTOH persistent BS this does not rely in the first instance on the NEP as its basis but the actual turnout numbers and returns.

If you or someone from the NEP can explain how the tables we are discussing.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00165.htm#b

Were actually compiled then that would help in this analysis. Guesses about how they were compiled and what may make them wrong are at this point in the discussion misdirection.

Meanwhile consider this.

You tell us repeatedly that your study of the exit poll data failed to find any statistical evidence of vote fraud.

As I was thinking about this last night - and partly prompted by your criticism of the National exit poll urban sample - I had an idea.

If you are a serious election stealer and you are using the NEP as your basis for stealing elections then it would be easily within your power not to steal votes in the Precincts that were being polled for the NEP.

This would leave no evidence to be discovered through an analysis of WPE.

Anyway food for thought.

al
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #80
95. Well,
YOU: This OP otoh is concerned with the wider numbers -
turnout numbers in general - and cross tabs in relation to
them. Most importantly it involves an analysis of the
apparent illogicality of Bush doing better in the cities than
in the rural areas. Contrary to OTOH persistent BS this does
not rely in the first instance on the NEP as its basis but
the actual turnout numbers and returns.

ME: Not BS.  Please read his posts.

If you or someone from the NEP can explain how the tables we
are discussing.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00165.htm#b

Were actually compiled then that would help in this analysis.
Guesses about how they were compiled and what may make them
wrong are at this point in the discussion misdirection.

ME: Well, I just compiled this one myself, from the National
datafile.  With weights on the proportion of voters from each
category are:

City over 500,000	12.53%
City: 50,000 to 500,000	18.88%
Suburbs	                44.53%
City: 10,000 to 49,999	 7.93%
Rural	                16.13%


With weights off they are:

City over 500,000	10.90%
City: 50,000 to 500,000	20.57%
Suburbs	                45.13%
City: 10,000 to 49,999	 8.48%
Rural	                14.92%


Obviously I do not know exactly how the weights were
computed, but the weights themselves were publicly available.
Here the mean weights by size of place (I log transformed them
before computing the means)

Size of place code	N	Mean    Mean    Std. Dev
                        	log	weight	(log)
City over 500,000	1498	 0.01	1.01	0.50
City: 50,000 to 500,000	2814	-0.20	0.82	0.49
Suburbs	                6193	-0.12	0.89	0.44
City: 10,000 to 49,999	1160	-0.14	0.87	0.38
Rural	                2046	-0.04	0.97	0.45

As you can see, the mean weights for big city respondents is
greater than 1 (log > 0) and the mean weights for
everywhere else was less than 1 (log < 0.  There is
nonetheless considerable variance.

And here are the mean weights for Kerry and Bush voters by
size of place

		               N	Mean	Mean	Std. Dev
Size of place code			log	weight	log
City over 500,000	Kerry	961	-0.07	0.93	0.50
	                Bush	505	 0.19	1.21	0.42
City: 50,000 to 500,000	Kerry	1488	-0.26	0.77	0.45
	                Bush	1276	-0.13	0.88	0.53
Suburbs	                Kerry	3156	-0.20	0.82	0.44
	                Bush	2936	-0.02	0.98	0.42
City: 10,000 to 49,999	Kerry	579	-0.18	0.84	0.37
	                Bush	560	-0.10	0.90	0.38
Rural	                Kerry	876	-0.11	0.89	0.44
	                Bush	1133	 0.03	1.04	0.44


from which you can see that Bush tended to be upweighted more
heavily than Kerry voters, as we know.

YOU: Meanwhile consider this.

You tell us repeatedly that your study of the exit poll data
failed to find any statistical evidence of vote fraud.[/i]

ME: More than that, it revealed a pattern that is difficult
to reconcile with fraud on a scale of millions.  

YOU:As I was thinking about this last night - and partly
prompted by your criticism of the National exit poll urban
sample - I had an idea.

If you are a serious election stealer and you are using the
NEP as your basis for stealing elections then it would be
easily within your power not to steal votes in the Precincts
that were being polled for the NEP.

This would leave no evidence to be discovered through an
analysis of WPE.

Anyway food for thought.

al

ME: Yes, it was something that has been suggested before, but
is contra-indicated by the fact that at state level, the
precinct vote shares in the NEP precincts were a good
estimate of the vote-shares in the entire state.  Check out:

http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

pp 29-30.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #95
119. Thankyou... lots of useful info there....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #119
121. Well, it's extremely informative data
Just let me know if you need to know anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #121
134. Will do....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. The issue of the OP is not the large discrepancy--
--between the raw exit poll responses and the official count, but between the weighted exit poll responses and the official count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #31
51. I am aware of that
I'm saying that given the extent of the reweighting required, the discrepancy between the weighted count and the official count is likely to be an artefact of the weighting process.

The pollsters do not have demographic info on the people who they think weren't in the poll and should have been. They can only upweight geographically. And even then, they do not know if their geographic sampling was representative. There are only going to be twenty or thirty urban precincts in the national poll. Fewer than one per state on average. Any clustering of the sample in one particular state is going to exert large leverage on a small sample.

In other words, there is no reason NOT to expect a discrepancy, given the extent of the reweighting and the small precinct sample numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #51
59. But a 66% increase in urban turnout vs actual turnout of 16%?
Can't understand how there could be that large a discrepancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #59
63. Well, I think
it was unrepresentative precinct selection.

Of the handful of big city precincts in the NEP National sample, an unrepresentative proportion may have had unusually large turnout increases - it happens with small samples. That's what sampling error is about. The sampling error on 20 or 30 precincts would be very large.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #63
71. What about the direction of the error?
Why would sampling error account for such a large increase in projected as opposed to actual turnout? Particularly since we know that vote suppression and other hankypanky reduced turnount in heavily minority precincts? (Like 7% reported turnout in some Cuyahoga county precincts.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. Sampling error would
go either way. Part of the variance in apparent turnout will be due to boundary changes in any case (2004 vote count compared with whatever the closest equivalent precinct was in 2000).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Could you lay out a simplified model--
--which would account for an increase in urban turnout of 66% instead of 16%? What specific numerical assumptions about sampling error would you need to make in order to get that result?

BTW, major precinct boundary changes occurred in 2002, the first election year after the 2000 census. Urban and rural precinct boundaries are the least likely to have major changes, expanding suburban areas the most likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Well,
you'd have to do a log transform first (log of 1.66 and log of 1.16) and compute the difference. Then you could work out the necessary variability from there, given an N of between 20 and 30.

And don't ignore the effect of boundary changes.

If there's one point I'd like to reiterate, it's that at precinct level there is far greater variability than most people credit. And once the cell sizes get small in the cross tabulations, that variability can wreak havoc with your conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. For N = 20, I get STDEV = 0.348
Still doesn't seem to account for the difference between 66% increase vs 16%, especially since rural areas, small cities and suburbs came in at around 16% increase. Of all those categories, suburbs are by far the most likely to have significant boundary changes.

Besides which, if NEP got data from 1800 precincts, whythehell didn't they use all of it instead of a smaller subset?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. Well, the problem is
you can't tell whether it accounts for the difference or not unless you know the actual variance, which you don't. All the computation would tell you is what it would have to be if the 16% value were within the MoE of the observed value.

And it may well be true that "suburbs are by far the most likely to have significant boundary changes". But the point is that in a small sample of big city precincts, it would only take a few to have significant boundary changes to push the variance in apparent turnout through the roof. Or indeed, a small number of precincts with extremely large actual turnout increases, or decreases. Small samples are vulnerable to large leverage by individual data points, and if the datapoints are clustered (as they will tend to be in this instance) then this will compound the problem.

The NEP conducts state polls in each state, with, typically, 30 to 50 precincts in each state. In 2004 it was between 1460 precincts. These are used for predicting the state races. However, to get a picture of the national electorate, a sample of these precincts forms the "National" poll, which does not predict the outcome (because it couldn't, given your Electoral College vote system) but is simply used for cross-tabulations to show who voted for whom, and why. It is selected to be as representative as possible of the country as a whole - if you simply threw all the precincts in the entire poll into the calculation, you'd have too many from small states and not enough from large states.

But this means that if you are dealing with turnout, which is a precinct level value (one turnout value per precinct) the Ns are very small, even though they are large at voter level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #86
89. So, why is the poll designed with too many precincts from small states?
States with large cities tend to have significant rural populations as well.

I seem to be missing quite a bit of information on the study design.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. I don't quite understand your question
Are you asking why the state polls have simmilar numbers of precincts? That's because they need a minimum number to get a representative sample of voters. If 50 precincts will do for a large state, it doesn't mean that 5 will do for a state 1/10 of the size.

And of course states with large cities need to have voters sampled from rural populations as well. That's why they need a fair number of precincts, regardless of the size of the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #89
92. You are intuitively asking exactly the right question!
For one example, two decades ago a well-known statistician described your question (including election polls as one example) in a popular published article that was reproduced in several journals and reports:

"Eelworms, Bullet Holes, and Geraldine Ferraro: Some Problems in Statistically Adjusting for Survey Nonresponse"
Wainer, Howard, 1987
Abstract:
There is no safety in numbers. When data are gathered from a sample in which the selection criteria are unknown, many problems can befall the unwary investigator. This paper explores some of these problems and discuss some solutions. The authors explore methods of covariance adjustment as well as more explicitly model-based adjustment methods. Among the latter, Heckman's Selection Model, Rubin's Mixture Model, and Tukey's Simplified Selection Model are discussed.

The conclusion of the article is simple. All the "weights" and "transformations" will not give a satisfactory result to account for "non-ignorable non-response". The only solution is to use "heroic methods" to get a proper sample.

In this case, the pollsters avoid getting the proper samples and continue to produce non-generalizable results for many questions. Reliance on parametric distributions and corrections (called weighting in the case of exit polls) to estimate error becomes a wild guess when the underlying distributions of the non-respondents are unknown.

Sorry if that seems too technical...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. And yet you do not
specify the "heroic methods" you think should be used.

But your point is taken - that the exit poll sample is likely to be skewed by sample bias.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #93
94. The "heroic methods" are obvious and I've stated them before...short list...
all of these are well-documented and are standard operating procedure in the measurement literature and likely could be done with minimal expense given the entire budget:

1.) there have to be targeted samples that are reactive as data come in..as soon as a sampling need is discovered by annedoctal response or early returns...a traveling team or local group need to go to some precincts and hit all the polling stations in that precinct or some such idea (this is old survey methodology)...could even be done with volunteers, local college students, etc...
2.) multivariate (equation modeling) variables have to be correlated with demographics and very careful subsamples have to be identified to test questions about city/rural, reluctant responders, previous voting records, etc...this happens between elections with pilots, etc. and guides the survery creation and leads to number 3 (next)
3.) much better recording of demographics of 100% going in each of targeted polling stations have to be recorded (even by observation and registration records) if responders are "reluctant"; hell, in Florida you can write down auto plates and look them up!
4.) pre and post surveys of actual voters that, again, target specific precincts and unusual voter turnout and absentee participation and voting method have to be contrasted with actual voter results; takes a larger sample in those targeted precincts
5.) websites that voluntarily allow ALL voters to log in and answer a poll, record their precinct, poll statiion, etc. have to be 100% available and advertised; ever heard of American Idol?
6.) all polls have to quickly and automatically compare local and national elections, voting method, unusual pre-election polls results, early unusual turnout, etc. for "before noon" awareness of outlier patterns needing attention
7.) all surveys have to report more sophisticated analysis (IRT) for rater effects, differential person functioning, etc.
8.) precinct level data must be collected and reported in some cases (yes, the idea of identity is a solvable problem...don't even ask it's so easy and it is done every day from kindergarten to medical procedures)
9.) yes, I've had plenty of near 100% participation in surveys from kindergarten parents to patients in medical procedures to participants in a conference evaluating a speaker...it's a matter of the samples motivation/value in filling out the poll vs. time/fear at filling it out. IF an advertisement was broadcast that some precincts would be targeted for polling for quality control, and some people were pre-contacted, and the more frustrated voters were involved....some key polling stations and precincts would have a very large exit poll participation...buy-in takes work and skill to prepare the sample to participate; our current pollsters don't develop a confident set of participants with "secret data" and bad predictions!
10.) much better audio and video recording of voting (within legal limits) and recording of voting experiences (interviews) have to accompany voters as they enter / exit (and yes, if you don't know how to do this annonymously, then take a class); must target any voter problems or those turned away or those who can't wait in long lines, or those who fill out alternative ballots if they aren't on the registration, etc.

This could be a long post, and I'm sure that OTOH will debate all the procedural issues (well documented in the literature) with all the methods (and how to do them correctly) in this quick and easy list, and I'm sure that Freeman and others are very aware of these...our pollsters either don't do these, don't do them well, or don't report them...and there are some local attempts to implement these by watch dog groups as you know...No more excuses!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. I'm sorry, Sancho
but this is pretty much gobbledygook AFAICT.

I suggest you send this list to Joe Lenski and offer your services for 2008. I'd love to know what his response is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. this gobblebegook...
is 100% documented in survey and measurement literature (at least in my circles). Sorry if I didn't take the time to go into details. It is not the first time that I've written something that is confusing. I have presented at ASA, but not at this division. You can see examples of the gobblegook in the titles of this link: http://www.amstat.org/Sections/Srms/Proceedings/y2005/y... if you get interested...maybe you were there?

My colleagues, consulting partners, and clients would recognize all these "sampling techniques" instantly. I just tried to tone down the terminology for the post. Heaven knows I didn't get into anything technical...even though I admit it was a quick list. I even avoided the obscure statistical things: decision theories, threshold analyses, etc. I suspect we all run in different worlds.

I already have a rather busy consulting calendar in 2008, but not with exit poll clients. I did some analysis as a volunteer in the last year and sent the results to interested parties who found them pretty useful and presented them in a report. In fact, I did get an offer to participate in a poll/election analysis, but I didn't pursue it. I also got a referral to a lawyer challenging an election here in Florida based on some analysis. I do consulting as a neutral expert (or openingly reveal any affiliation), and I would not take a contract that didn't allow complete and open external review of the process and data (except for identities of responders), so I guess I'll keep my day job.

I still think the exit poll process needs lots of sampling improvement. OTOH seems convinced that it's not the pollster's job to make some changes (if I understand correctly, I'm not trying to misrepresent OTOH) . You seem to be more interested in the parametric statistics of poll analysis, but not necessarily in changing the sampling methods (if I understand you correctly, sorry if I'm misinterpreting), but you likely think the entire voting process in the US is flawed and the polls don't have the power to detect most problems.

Since I don't read all the posts on DU or other blogs, I may have missed something. Unless I see something new, I'll continue to disagree with our and OTOH and suggest that exit pollsters broaden their data collection methods and be more responsive to the needs for public information about potential election manipulations. As I've read and explored over the last year or so, I'm more convinced than ever that exit polls could offer useful information to investigations of election "mistakes" or manipulation. TIA et. al. may not "prove" anything, but they are certainly suggesting where to look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. Of course
exit pollsters want to improve their samples. But I see no relevance of the techniques you list to the design of a survey of a nationful of voters on a single day.

I think you need to "take the time to go into details" if you want to persuade me that you have a better poll. Most of what you list would tend to make it a worse poll, AFAICT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #94
101. well, I'm puzzled about cost
For instance, you say:
3.) much better recording of demographics of 100% going in each of targeted polling stations have to be recorded (even by observation and registration records) if responders are "reluctant"; hell, in Florida you can write down auto plates and look them up!

Well, are you suggesting that the single interviewer currently assigned to each polling station can record demographic information on every voter? That seems far-fetched.
...and advertised; ever heard of American Idol?

Are you proposing that an advertising campaign that would make a large fraction of voters aware of a voter verification website could be mounted at nominal cost?

I'm really not very interested in contesting the inherent merits of these proposals. If you believe that the polling principals are ethically obligated to implement all these suggestions on their own dime, then I disagree, and I think your opinion is far outside the mainstream. If you are interested in persuading the polling principals and/or networks to implement some of these suggestions, it might be a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. ah....the comments of the expected!
# 3 is OLD HAT....let's see, you have a $200 video camera at the polling station that records the incoming cars' plates...been there, done that...with HS students. Now you pay someone for minimum wage to spend a day looking up license plates? .....no $'s involved. Same video records number of voters, race, etc. going in the booth. Is that the same as the voter registrations? What if 30% of the black voters disappear in reported results? Caging?

Ethics:

What is the point of pollsters and predictions (going back to Walter C. in 1952 who first used the term "computer" on a national television broadcast to predict an election!)? Accurate prediction, early "calls", NEWS! The ethics is finding and reporting the truth.

If the pollsters are really wanting the news as ethical truth, then they are actually in the mainstream! What would be more "interesting" than finding a fixed election, caging problem, or disputed election!? Shades of Paris Hilton! Headline in Podunck, America: "Cheating on elections proven!" That is worth some dollars.

I really don't care who does it, and I suspect that contracting all the "pollsters" into one company may be a mistake. SOMEONE needs to be prepared to plan to answer all the questions that TIA and friends continue to broadcast. I think that exit polls could (at the least) provide enough evidence to cause an election to be challenged. If designed correctly, exit polls could provide evidence of manipulation beyond a simple challenge.

Hypothetical:
Let's say that in Sarasota, FL (or Cleveland, etc.), at NOON there were already reports of machine errors and complaints of misrecorded votes. EM flys into action and tells the class of students at the University of Florida political science class that volunteered and were previously trained by EM by CD (video) to jump in vans and visit 20 of 55 precincts in the questionable voting district and gather as many interviews a possible. Voters have already been informed of the EM/UF study to get to the bottom of the machine issues as public announcements in the local paper.

The student volunteers collect 50% to 70% of voters as exit polls (a total of over 500 interviews) in the 20 precincts between 3 and 8 PM. The undervote and number of voters and party line votes for 8 of 10 precincts are statistically impossible for the data collected and the offical results! All the volunteer students swear in court that they collected the data honestly. Meanwhile, over 50% of the "on-line" reports from the same district also disagree with the reported results. Finally, there are 7 video recordings of specific voters claiming their vote was miscounted by the stupid machine shown on tv shown the night of the election. None suggest they were confused. All 7 report the machine refuse to record their vote. Cost: 20 students get extra credit and a "B" in a course. Value: Priceless!
Results: A judge orders an investigation and the machines held in a safe. The election in investigated the next day.

That is a LOT different than 3 years later some experts disagreeing about if the machines worked or didn't....and it all starts with being prepared to do heroic exit polls. Now repeat that scene in 50 states all over the country....hmmmm....I work in a building adjacent to one of the most advanced journalism programs in the world that includes a national center for ethics. Not my field, but sometimes things run over into my direction...I can's speak for them, but I'd guess what they would say...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. hey, whatever
You have to choose an audience. Haranguing me about what you think E/M should do in order for the networks to have better stories seems like an inefficient use of time -- but if it helps build your enthusiasm for actually carrying some water, it's all for the good. I think "I really don't care who does it" is probably a good attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. we agree to disagree...
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #106
112. How does
hiring 1450 people on minimum wage for a day mean that ".....no $'s involved"?

And you do realise that fewer than one precinct per county on average is actually polled under the present design, don't you?

Why don't you cost it out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #112
140. Again...you're simply wrong
I do this all the time...the hit squad (we're only talking about one of the 10 suggestions which are only one of many, many possibilities) is virtually cost free. Each state has one or two volunteer faculty in journalism or political science collect 20 to 25 students (one per state) who are trained by CD or on-line to run in during the election and collect information on a target. Most would be volunteers.

No cost or very little. I'm sorry, but I've had many, many funded contracts and projects and surveys that hired hundreds of raters, scorers, and data collectors. I can cost anything you want to the penny.

You are simply trying to defend the undefensible. EXIT POLLSTERS have had a bad system for years and they don't want to fix it. Why not?

But even it it cost 1500 employees $150 per day for a day's work. IF it uncoverd clear fraud and manipulations, the data would be worth many, many more dollars than a single commercial on prime time every day in US TV. God knows it would be less than one tank in Iraq. It would also be less than any single candidate raises every election for US Senate or House....

Peanuts....you're trying to find an excuse to avoid being critical of what needs to be done. No more excuses!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #140
144. What do you mean
"you're simply wrong"?

Lay out a plan with approximate costs for a single state.

How would you design a good exit poll for Florida, say. How many precincts? How many workers? How much training? What procedures?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #93
110. Why, in 50 years of election polling--
--haven't pollsters learned about improving their sample selection process?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #110
141. Two reasons...
1.) Lack of good sense.

2.) Don't really want to find what they know is out there.

Social science is full of bad assessment, measures, and polls that don't want the truth. Tobacco studies, new drugs, etc. etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #92
109. What I want to know is if Mitofsky is supposed to be a leading pro inthe field--
--what is this shit about inadequate sampling procedures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #109
111. Well I think that
Sancho is wrong. Exit polling is a very special kind of survey because it is a) vast and b) takes place on a single day. Most importantly, it is not intended to be a check on the accuracy of the vote count

For the purposes for which it is commissioned it is a pretty good design, although of course it can be improved. Mitofsky spent a huge amount of time and effort trying to figure out just how, by analysing the factors associated with the discrepancies in 2004. That was what he commissioned me to do further. If Sancho wants to design some polling exercise that IS intended to be a check on the accuracy of the vote count, good luck to him, but it is not at all clear to me that his suggestions would a)be possible or b) actually help.

If you want to know more about what they are supposed to be for and how they work, I wrote this piece here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/4/135126/905
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #111
143. You said it!
Do you really, really think that news services predicting elections state by state all night using EM data are expecting to say, "but this is not accurate, so we're just guessing?" That is BS. The news and public are, in fact, expecting accurate predictions. Otherwise, why do the polls at all?

Or maybe the idea (as I understand you) is to determine the characteristics of those who voted in a certain way? If so, EM certainly has some amazing differences between their results, the "reported outcome", multiple other polls, dead zombie Republicans voting, reluctant responders (we use cute blond UF coeds in Florida that the only reluctant responders are accompanied by their wives to the polls), and other excuses. No more excuses. Either report results that make sense, or report nothing: "EM states that they did a bad job and have no conclusions."

Whatever EM is doing, they need to improve. Whatever it takes. I'm currently saying their sampling plan is less than creative and simple by survey standards. More based on "that's the way we've always done it" than anything else.

I understand exactly what EM is doing now (I didn't a year ago). I think it is a minimal response to many, many reported challenges. I also think they hide their problems. They certainly needs some competition.

I hope that more and more people become aware of the voting systems and do whatever they can to assure some honesty. I also hope that exit polls are not reported or used any more until the process is open and useful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. to interpret your post slightly differently
I'm not quite sure whether Collins actually thinks that there were ghost urban votes for Bush, or whether he is only making the point that the exit poll is internally inconsistent, and that this somehow points to fraud. To paraphrase your post, since we wind up with a contradiction, the initial theorem has to be wrong.

I haven't seen any evidence of ghost urban votes in the official returns. The argument appears to hinge on the inconsistency of this table with the official returns.

It seems to me that there is a very basic confusion here. If the purpose of the final weighting is to match the official returns, and it doesn't match the official returns, then we can infer that something was wrong with the weighting. That's about it.

And, alas, 'impossible weightings' would be very much last year's argument, and the year before's -- although the specifics are different.

Conceivably the urban overweight could be a "clue" as to the location of miscounted votes, but if it doesn't point to ghost urban votes, where does it point? And if it does point to ghost urban votes, where are they? They don't appear to be in New York City or Chicago, which together contribute over 1/3 of the big-city precincts in the national subsample.

It would be nice for someone who finds Collins' work compelling to try to answer such questions. Pointing to Exit Poll Contradictions is not an end in itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. Internal inconsistency points to fraud
Not proof, mind you, but PROBABLE CAUSE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. so, it's last year's argument
So, where do you think the miscount(s) occurred?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Without a real investigation, how could you tell?
That's the point of evidence which establishes probable cause--go and do the trial and/or investigation that will uncover the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. oh no, we're going in circles
You think this is evidence. Evidence of what? Do you at least have some idea what should be investigated?

The early exits have the same apparent overrepresentation of big-city votes as the weighted exits. Why would one not just conclude that maybe the pollsters included a few too many LA precincts in the national sample and forgot to compensate for it? Or, for all we know, NEP relaxed their interpretation of "big city." If the early exits have too many big-city voters, how does that have any bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of fraud?

Really, I'm totally lost here. The fact that the anomaly appears before the results are weighted to the official returns makes your argument even more obscure to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Snohomish County, WA would have been a great start
Serious anomalies when comparing the opscan favoring the Democratic gubernatorial candidate vs the touchscreens favoring the Repub, with lots of reported "malfunctions." Was this accidental or on purpose? You can only find out by getting into the machine innards and looking, which Sequoia refused to let citizens do.

And thousands of similar cases all across the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #45
66. well, maybe
The most interesting part of the Lehto and Hoffman paper, unfortunately, appears in an appendix that AFAIK has never been distributed. That would be the documentation supporting Chart 2 on page 18. Chart 4 is sort of interesting, but the authors inexplicably disregard an obvious alternative explanation: other machines in the same polling places have similar results because those polling places were more Republican in the first place. In the aggregate, Snohomish came out about where one would expect.

But anyway, the question I'm trying to ask is: in what way, if at all, do you think the current study sheds light on where votes may have been miscounted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. It's like a dead body in your back yard
Its existent per se is not evidence of foul play, but the situtation damned well ought to be investigated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #70
105. Found a dead body chuck it in the Research Thread....
Edited on Sun Jun-17-07 04:42 PM by althecat
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. Have you looked? Would you know how?
"I haven't seen any evidence of ghost urban votes in the official returns. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. yes; have you?
Honestly, what do you think your story means? or are you leaving that for others to figure out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. When you find your answer please find a new rejoinder...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. what a dreadful post
Not only can you not get past random insults and ad hominem spew, but you can't even be bothered to keep track of whom you're insulting. Who's not paying attention here? Be serious.

I am asking a reasonable, straightforward, and obvious question: if you think you have evidence of urban ghost votes, then where do you think they are? What do you think actually happened?

If you have no answer to these questions, then I can only infer that you actually don't give a damn what happened in 2004, in which case we obviously have nothing to talk about. The people whose heads you're crapping on have all explained at length their thoughts, speculations, and questions about what happened in 2004. If you're not interested, you don't have to complain about how confuuuuusing it all is.

Fish or cut bait, sir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. I think it's more looking ONLY at statistics--
--and not factoring in outside common sense, ike obvious falsity of the notion of more liberal whites and highly anti-Bush minorities in large cities would provide the Bush 2004 victory margin. Without that, you get trapped in circular arguments.

Sort of like Rosalind Franklin looking at her X-ray crystallography data as mainly a physical chemistry problem, whereas the biologists Watson and Crick brought in biological questions and solved then DNA structure faster. (Note: it was NOT OKAY for Watson and Crick to steal her data when she was on vacation--she probably would have gotten around to the biological aspect eventually.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #33
52. I would be happy to engage
in a discussion of the OP with you if I didn't have to wade through this kind of crap to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Ok how about this for a starting point....
Ok how about this for a starting point....

1. What in the OP do you find interesting, intriguing?

2. What avenues of further inquiry does it beg?

3. If there is anything that can be inferred from the OP about what this discrepancy is likely to mean in terms of vote fraud - and I ask you to temporarily suspend you disbelief that the exit poll is wrong - what is it? I.e. what sort of vote fraud and where is indicated by this statistical anomaly assuming that the weighting artefacts are caused by fraud not a bias in the NEP?

P.S. In relation to your erroneous assumptions I meant your assumption that what is being looked for is vote switching (and then finding that there is no evidence to support that). That is not what the OP infers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #53
58. I found it interesting
that turnout was supposed to be increased by 66% in the Big Cities according to the National reweighted numbers (and not dissimilarly in tne pre-reweighted numbers). Then I realised that the actual numbers of precincts in each category would be very small, and so the 66% is almost certainly wrong (as the official returns suggest). So the most likely explanation is that the Big City precincts in the NEP National sample were unrepresentative.

2, I'd look into actual turnout figures, rather than the NEP estimates made on such a tiny sample.

3. I am not at all sure what is inferred by the OP, because it not only suggests that the NEP data indicates padded turnout in the big cities but that this is belied by the actual returns. I suppose one could argue that the NEP data is correct, that the turnout was fraudulently padded, then covered up in the official returns. But there is a much more parsimonious explanation.


So you are not looking for vote-switching? Or vote deletion? Or ballot stuffing? What are you looking for? Those are what I was looking for, when I wasn't also looking for voter suppression (which I found).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. Interesting... I will answer this further in the morning. Finally some progress.
I have always been looking for ballot stuffing. Ever since election night. I did not beleive that the bush turnout figures made sense then and I do not beleive they do now. As I read the post from you that led to this exchange you were looking for vote switching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. OK, see you tomorrow n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #58
79. Further discussion....
I found it interesting that turnout was supposed to be increased by 66% in the Big Cities according to the National reweighted numbers (and not dissimilarly in tne pre-reweighted numbers). Then I realised that the actual numbers of precincts in each category would be very small, and so the 66% is almost certainly wrong (as the official returns suggest). So the most likely explanation is that the Big City precincts in the NEP National sample were unrepresentative.


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.

2, I'd look into actual turnout figures, rather than the NEP estimates made on such a tiny sample.


Yes. Seems a sensible place to start. However, do you actually think it is worth doing so.... or have you already decided that there will be nothing to find?

3. I am not at all sure what is inferred by the OP, because it not only suggests that the NEP data indicates padded turnout in the big cities but that this is belied by the actual returns.


Why do you and OTOH keep saying that. The actual returns show a substantial increase in turnout in the big cities. They also show an actual larger increase in the bush vote than for the gore/kerry. This is not NEP data it is real data. It is also counter intuitive and it deserves further investigation.

I suppose one could argue that the NEP data is correct, that the turnout was fraudulently padded, then covered up in the official returns. But there is a much more parsimonious explanation.


I don't know. But I think it deserves exploration.

So you are not looking for vote-switching? Or vote deletion? Or ballot stuffing? What are you looking for? Those are what I was looking for, when I wasn't also looking for voter suppression (which I found).


As explained I am looking for ballot stuffing. My background is as a political journalist. Bush's turnout figures in 2004made no sense before this analysis - they make even less sense if the bush vote is stacked in places where it shouldn't logically be.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 03:22 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
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. Ok lets look at the actual returns and see what we find...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freedom fighter jh Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
99. This is what I think he means
Mike, please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, OTOH, as you say, the absurd results that you get fromwei ghting show that something was wrong with the weighting. But it doesn't stop there. The weighted exit poll has been used to support Bush's win, which some suspect was not a true win. The raw exit poll data, however, show (I believe) a 3-point win for Kerry in the popular vote and a win in the Electoral College. How did Kerry's 3 points in the raw data become Bush's 3 (or so) points in the final data? Weighting. If the weighting is wrong, then maybe the raw data are closer to the truth. And with the more accurate raw data showing a win for Kerry, maybe it really was a win for Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. here's the problem in this context
I think I completely agree with what you've said; it's been the crux of the exit poll debate(s?) from the beginning. Febble has written a lot about the reasons for thinking that the raw data aren't closer to the truth (OK, I guess now I have too), but it isn't something one would want to assume.

The pivot of this article is that the NEP national subsample crosstab has too many people voting in big cities, as well as too many of them voting for Bush. A point I don't think I've made clearly enough is that this was already true before the results were reweighted to put Bush ahead. So, at least at first glance, the fact that the table has too many big-city voters has nothing to do with whether the exits put Kerry or Bush ahead.

Here, again, is a link so you can see what I mean -- I don't remember the page number. But you'll see that this table shows Kerry ahead of Bush, and shows 13% of voters in big cities.

If the model hadn't put so many voters in big cities, it probably also wouldn't have shown such a large percentage swing to Bush.

Since we haven't discussed this subject before: I think it's possible that Kerry would have won the electoral vote in some parallel universe not far from this one. I don't think it's at all likely that the exit polls were anywhere near right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
142. I agree...
random checks would find some issues. Also, a team that responded to early patterns would resolve issues. Convergent analyses with multivariate statistics would find issues. Etc., etc.

We agree there needs to be multiple checks on the system.

I DON'T agree with your finding that there no manipulation in the 2004 election (if that is what you claim, and I apologize in advance if that is not what you meant). You did not find evidence with your particular parametric analysis. You may not have power in the data to detect the difference in such a test. Your finding DOES NOT MEAN that there was not a problem - only that your test was not able to detect the problem and reject the null.

That is part of the continuing debate between you, TIA, OTOH, etc.

I'm ready to quit arguing about the "correct" use of statistical assumptions, and challenge the system to be able to detect any and all possible future manipulations if they occur. Exit polls could help with that IF they would alter or add some sampling design to their overall plan.....at least that's my opinion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #142
147. Well, let me clarify:
I DON'T agree with your finding that there no manipulation in the 2004 election (if that is what you claim, and I apologize in advance if that is not what you meant).


It is certainly not what I meant and not what I have ever said.. I think there was very probably manipulation in the 2004 election, and I have spent a few hundred hours trying to uncover some of it. However what I found was evidence that contra-indicates the hypothesis that the manipulation was on a scale to account for the exit poll discrepancy (i.e. the theft of a Kerry margin equivalent to Bush's winning margin), nor even that of manipulation on a scale to account for Bush's popular vote win.

You did not find evidence with your particular parametric analysis. You may not have power in the data to detect the difference in such a test.


On the contrary, because of the large amount of power in the data, I was able to put tight confidence limits on the size of the effect.

Your finding DOES NOT MEAN that there was not a problem - only that your test was not able to detect the problem and reject the null.


Which means that the effect was either a) extraordinarily uniform, which no-one to my knowledge has claimed or b) much smaller than the theft of the popular vote. When you retain the null, as you know, the next step is to calculate the confidence limits. I went further, and explored the degree of uniformity of fraud one would have to hypothesise in order to account for the data in the presence of popular vote-over-turning election theft.

As for Ohio - I am not yet persuaded that Kerry would have won Ohio, and therefore the Electoral College vote, and therefore the presidency, on a level playing field, but I am damn sure the playing field was not level, there, or anywhere. Particularly New Mexico. I think Kerry probably won New Mexico.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
22. What happened to the analysis of number of rural votes?
Edited on Fri Jun-15-07 04:04 AM by Awsi Dooger
Now that basketball season is over I guess I'll look at this election stuff again.

I scanned that OP quickly, whatever it was. The primary assertion was rural votes declined, from 23% total in 2000 to 16% in 2004. Okay, demonstrate. You say Bush lost 2.5 million rural votes. It shouldn't be difficult to look at rural counties and notice a dramatic decline in vote totals. That's the obvious balance, to go along with the inspection of vote totals from the largest cities, the ones that supposedly soared 66%.

Somehow, I don't think rural areas were scrutinized for this article. Or, if so, the numbers and findings were quietly shuffled aside when they didn't fit the NEP premise.

I've never been confident in that 2000 NEP. I seldom refer to it or quote numbers. It wasn't a major topic since all the focus was on Florida, but when I was entering the data at the time plenty of it didn't compute. For one thing, the percentage of self-identified conservatives is bizarre, down to 29%. That made no sense given the pre-election polling by PEW or Harris, or any polling before or since. Gore should have won handily if the nation were indeed only 29% self-identified conservatives. There is no greater correlation to statewide voting tendency than the liberal/conservative percentages.

BTW, I noticed there was no mention of the self-identified conservatives spiking wildly from 29% in 2000 to 34% in 2004. It's clear the fraud crew decided to scan the 2000 and 2004 NEPs looking for any oddity to frame an article, or 20, around. Since that 5% bump overwhelmingly favored Bush, they ignored it. I'd love to wager every penny and piece of real estate on this planet that if it had declined 5%, or the self-identified liberals had jumped 5%, or anything approaching that, they would have cyber hugged and written something even more elongated and declarative than this thread.

FWIW, there are two versions of the statewide 2000 exit polls available on the internet. That's been the case for years, although I don't know that I've ever seen it mentioned. I've tinkered with the differences from time to time. CNN has one version and MSNBC the other. There are dramatic variances, obviously one a pre-weighted version and the other a final. Some states are missing but you've got plenty to work with.

You'll note the NEP is identical on both CNN and MSNBC. But MSNBC also includes regional exit polls -- East, West, Midwest, South -- while CNN does not.

http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=N...

Regarding exit polls, here's an excellent link I've been looking at recently. It's from the NY Times, called "Portrait of the Electorate," and includes voting percentage breakdowns in many categories in every presidential election from 1972 to 1996:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/elect-port.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. good questions
As I just got finished saying, I don't think the OP really commits to a view of what happened to rural votes. Like so many of these arguments, it seems to stop with the conclusion that the exit poll tables Don't Add Up. It's akin to other areas where people poke holes in what they take to be The Official Story, but don't seem to try to figure out what The Real Story might be.

As you point out, basically the 2004 table we're discussing indicates a large 'shift' of votes from rural to urban (and especially big-city). We don't think this shift actually happened, and I've certainly seen no sign of it in the official returns that the weights are intended to match. It's interesting to try to figure out why the national weightings misfired in this way. Aspects that don't vary within precincts, and that aren't explicitly factored into the weightings, are especially volatile (and that would be true in 2000 as well). The 2004 national subsample contains 26 precincts in eight states standing in for the entire big-city vote. It appears that some of those precincts got upweighted for some other reason, throwing the urban/rural balance out of plumb -- and/or the 2000 subsample was out of plumb in the opposite direction.

I can't think of any way to work out what this particular table actually ought to say (in order to match the official returns), because election returns aren't consistently reported by municipality. We can probably work out the big-city part, but not the whole thing. It's much easier to look at the county level, and I will fiddle with that some once I get another paper 'out the door.'

I haven't thought a lot about the liberal/conservative mix in 2000 versus 2004. In fairness, I imagine the "fraud crew" would say that the apparent spike in conservatives in 2004 just proves how the exit polls were jiggered. Of course, that doesn't work very well, since even in the "early" national exits, conservatives were at 33%. Oh, but I should point out that there is a five-point drop in moderates, so the liberal/conservative balance goes from 20/29 to 21/34 (or 22/33 in the "early" version). At some point I will fill in the tenths place.

Oh, nitpick: "You'll note the NEP is identical on both CNN and MSNBC." NEP is the name of the consortium that sponsored the exits in 2004 and 2006, not a good abbreviation for the national tables. Anyway, no, I didn't realize that there were two different versions of the 2000 state tables up on the web. I can imagine where that might come in really handy in some myth-busting -- and maybe in other ways, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. Ok in CAPITALS so the extremely dim can understand
As I just got finished saying, I don't think the OP really commits to a view of what happened to rural votes.

BOLLOCKS: IT SAYS THE RURAL VOTE FOR BUSH DECLINED WHICH IT DID.

Like so many of these arguments, it seems to stop with the conclusion that the exit poll tables Don't Add Up.

NOPE AGAIN: SAYS LOADS MORE THAN THAT

It's akin to other areas where people poke holes in what they take to be The Official Story, but don't seem to try to figure out what The Real Story might be.

THE CLEAR INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE OP IS THAT BUSH'S VOTE IS PADDED PROBABLY IN THE SUBURBS THE SMALL CITIES AND THE BIG CITIES. SOMEONE LIKE YOU THAT HAS READ AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ THAT INFERENCE. THE OP DELIBERATELY DOES NOT ACTUALLY STATE THIS AS ITS INTENTION IS TO OPEN A QUESTION FOR OTHERS TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER.

As you point out, basically the 2004 table we're discussing indicates a large 'shift' of votes from rural to urban (and especially big-city).

NOPE: VOTE SHIFT FROM RURAL TO URBAN IS A PARTICULARLY STUPID WAY TO PUT IT. BUSH'S RURAL VOTE DECLINED. HIS SMALL TOWN VOTE IS STATIC. HIS URBAN VOTE EXPLODED. THIS IS NOT ABOUT SHIFT IT IS ABOUT CHANGE.

We don't think this shift actually happened, and I've certainly seen no sign of it in the official returns that the weights are intended to match.

THIS SENTENCE IS NONSENSE.

It's interesting to try to figure out why the national weightings misfired in this way.

YES INTERESTING AND PLEASE PROVIDE A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION.

Aspects that don't vary within precincts, and that aren't explicitly factored into the weightings, are especially volatile (and that would be true in 2000 as well). The 2004 national subsample contains 26 precincts in eight states standing in for the entire big-city vote.

WELL THATS AN INTERESTING PIECE OF ACTUAL INFORMATION WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE - REFERENCE PLEASE.

It appears that some of those precincts got upweighted for some other reason, throwing the urban/rural balance out of plumb -- and/or the 2000 subsample was out of plumb in the opposite direction.

IT APPEARS BECAUSE WHY? BECAUSE YOUR THIRD FINGER FOLLOWED YOUR SECOND WHEN TYPIING THE SENTENCE?

I can't think of any way to work out what this particular table actually ought to say (in order to match the official returns), because election returns aren't consistently reported by municipality.

IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS NO ANSWER SO DON'T BOTHER LOOKING.

We can probably work out the big-city part, but not the whole thing.

WELL THAT WILL BE INTERESTING. PLEASE BE SURE TO TELL US WHEN YOU DO.

It's much easier to look at the county level, and I will fiddle with that some once I get another paper 'out the door.'

IN OTHER WORDS I AM AN IMPORTANT PERSON WRITING IMPORTANT PAPERS SO BELEIVE WHAT I SAY.

I haven't thought a lot about the liberal/conservative mix in 2000 versus 2004. In fairness, I imagine the "fraud crew" would say that the apparent spike in conservatives in 2004 just proves how the exit polls were jiggered. Of course, that doesn't work very well, since even in the "early" national exits, conservatives were at 33%. Oh, but I should point out that there is a five-point drop in moderates, so the liberal/conservative balance goes from 20/29 to 21/34 (or 22/33 in the "early" version). At some point I will fill in the tenths place.

WHILE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT THIS PARA GIVES THE ILLUSION THAT THE POSTER ACTUALLY KNOWS SOMETHING.

Oh, nitpick: "You'll note the NEP is identical on both CNN and MSNBC." NEP is the name of the consortium that sponsored the exits in 2004 and 2006, not a good abbreviation for the national tables.

YIP NITPICK. IRRELEVANT. UNRELATED TO THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH.

Anyway, no, I didn't realize that there were two different versions of the 2000 state tables up on the web. I can imagine where that might come in really handy in some myth-busting -- and maybe in other ways, too.

NO IDEA WHAT THATS ABOUT BUT THEN MOST OF THIS CONVERSATION IS TAKING PLACE IN AN ECHO CHAMBER SO ITS HARDLY SURPRISING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. is this your final answer?
It's your view that the tables in the OP represent the official vote? even though the OP actually documents that it doesn't?

Yeesh. Good luck with that. I'll be mopping this up over the next week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. I love it... as predicted you take the answer and misrepresent it.....
Yes that's my answer for now. The OP suggests that Bush's urban vote is padded. Even at 16% turnout increase it suggests that the Bush urban vote is padded.

The fact that the official figures are completely nonsensical is however the main point of the OP. It is not up to us to reconcile them. That is the job of the people who produced the figures.

It is sadly completely predictable that you would seek to twist all this to somehow support your ongoing contention that there is no point in looking further into the NEP.

Anyhoo.... now I have answered your question can we have some reciprocation.

I will pose some questions for you and challenge you to answer them.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #46
74. I don't think you are accurately representing the OP
Edited on Sat Jun-16-07 05:02 PM by OnTheOtherHand
The fact that the official figures are completely nonsensical is however the main point of the OP.

Really? It hardly seems so to me. The OP argues at length that the exit poll figures are completely nonsensical. For instance:
This artifact of the NEPs weighting process is a dead letter that simply cant be delivered.... There was something very wrong with the NEP weighting process, specifically big city results.... The NEP reports a 66% increase in voter turnout in the big cities, from 9 million votes in 2000 to 15 million in 2006.... In addition to the analysis above, the 66% vote increase in the urban areas simply cant be true on the basis of actual reports of big city vote totals.... We now have a double indictment of the 2004 NEP.... How did the NEP get it so wrong on the urban vote?

Remarkably, the OP cites vote counts from several big cities and states, "They are the actual vote totals from the cities listed" (emphasis added). That is very far from arguing that the official figures are completely nonsensical.

This is a very fundamental distinction. Much confusion comes of not stating clearly how you believe the exit poll results relate to the official results, and in turn to the actual results.

Now, when you say, for instance, that the OP "SAYS THE RURAL VOTE FOR BUSH DECLINED WHICH IT DID," are you saying that it declined according to the exit poll table, to the official returns, and/or to your own view of what actually happened? I am skeptical that the rural vote for Bush declined, although without knowing the population figures for "rural," I certainly can't say one way or the other.

When you assert that Bush's "URBAN VOTE EXPLODED," is that according to the exit poll table, to the official returns, and/or to your own view?

If you do not state your central claims unambiguously, then, obviously, I have no way of knowing what they are. In all honesty, I am not certain that you know what they are.

If you are committed to the view that Bush's urban vote exploded in the official returns (through stuffing and/or shifting), then we can simply tally the official returns from the big cities and see whether it's true. Right?

If you're not committed to that view, then we appear only to be discussing how the table could be so wrong about the big-city vote share -- a question that Febble has addressed elsewhere.

Now I will see about answering your questions.

ETA: Oh, I'll go back and answer a bonus CAPITALIZED question.

"IT APPEARS BECAUSE WHY? BECAUSE YOUR THIRD FINGER FOLLOWED YOUR SECOND WHEN TYPIING THE SENTENCE?"

No, it appears because I actually looked at the weights in the data file, which I assume you have yourself since it was available for over a year, and saw that the big-city weights are on average greater than 1. It's trivial to compute the average weights by precinct. If no one at Scoop has done this, then again, it's hard to avoid the inference that you actually aren't very interested in the data that you are purporting to describe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. As promised OTOH - your questions...
Just a sample to start with. If you answer these I will give some new ones.

Can you explain in layman's terms what might have caused the discrepancy between the exit poll estimation of the size of the urban vote and the actual urban vote as declared? (Aren't the NEP statisticians supposed to be professionals)

Can you explain how bush managed to pull off a massive increase in his total vote among suburban, small city and urban voters? (note this requires 3 answers)

And can you explain in particular how he did so in urban areas without the benefit of any substantial urban GOTV campaign and at the same time?


And for your bonus question...

Why do exit poll analysis skeptics in DU hunt in packs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ellipsis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. "Why do exit poll analysis skeptics in DU hunt in packs?"
Dare I say "oh pooh". OTOH and his pack only make for sharpened arguments... so they PM... big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #50
65. actually, since you mention it
I appreciate your post. Yet I'm afraid that someone will be put off by "OTOH and his pack," although I'm sure you meant it tongue-in-cheek. Actually, the posts under discussion aren't coordinated at all, unless it counts that I e-mailed Febble last night to say 'I wish you had made such-and-such point,' to which the response came back, 'Huh?' (And we've traded other e-mails, trying to figure out just what is being argued here.) althecat has complained about four people in this thread. Let me review what I know about who those people are.

Febble is a charter member of U.S. Count Votes whose work on machine allocation in Franklin County is mentioned in Greg Palast's latest book (she's in the index -- with two page numbers, even!), along with the estimable Joe Knapp's. Febble also did some of the best early work on undervotes in New Mexico. Lots of other people deserve credit for that work, but surely she does. She has done more to legitimize forensic inquiry into the 2004 election than, I have to think, all her detractors combined. Febble and I do exchange e-mails frequently; we're both always looking for a new angle on what really happened in 2004.

Awsi Dooger is, among other things, a Democratic activist, a professional gambler (so his skills for sensible inferences from incomplete data are finely honed by necessity), and a very knowledgeable political observer. I give him credit for prodding me to look more closely at the narrowing of the gender gap in 2004, and he knows things about state polls that I wouldn't even try to learn. I haven't corresponded with him since sometime last year.

L Coyote appears to be the author of arguably the most extensive analysis of "caterpillar crawl" in Cuyahoga County (again, Joe Knapp did some excellent work, as of course did Richard Hayes Phillips). L Coyote is althecat's natural ally, since as far as I can tell, he is convinced that Kerry did win the election, whereas the rest of us are not. Given the time that he has spent poring meticulously over precinct-level election returns, his impatience with endless analysis of an exit poll subsample is easy enough to understand. We've had limited correspondence (none about this subject).

I'm a political scientist who keyed into some of the early quantitative controversies about the 2004 election, and keeps hoping that if we can stop making some of the same analytical mistakes over and over and over again, we will make more sense and form better judgments. I've pitched in on forensic work in Ohio and New Mexico, and I've worked with Howard Stanisevic and others to try to promote more effective audit protocols. I'm not exactly an activist, but I don't feel that I'm a free rider or a ghoul, either.

As far as I can tell, we all wish that Kerry had won in 2004, we vary in our views about whether he did win in 2004, and we're all trying to sort out what did and didn't happen. Anyone who actually reads our posts will notice that we don't always agree. So, when some people (not you!) insinuate or state outright that our posts represent a coordinated effort to impede inquiry into the 2004 election, I think it's defamatory and ridiculous, and I'm sure my tone reflects that -- sometimes more than it should. I also think that the habit of imputing nefarious motives to people who disagree -- about anything -- tends to make the election integrity movement insular and sectarian, which seems objectively dangerous.

End of meta.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ellipsis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #65
68. It was tongue in cheek.
I only meant you and Febble. Your meta is appreciated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Bless you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #47
75. OK
Can you explain in layman's terms what might have caused the discrepancy between the exit poll estimation of the size of the urban vote and the actual urban vote as declared?

Hard to say, since AFAIK no one knows yet what the actual big-city vote share was. But 13% does look high. I think Febble's idea is plausible: some of the few dozen big-city precincts in the national subsample may have had large actual or apparent turnout changes, and that could have thrown off the estimate. I will underscore again that NEP pegged the big-city vote share at 13% even before it reweighted from Kerry +3 to Bush +3 -- so whatever happened, it seems to have happened early, not late.

(Aren't the NEP statisticians supposed to be professionals)

I would conjecture that if they had expected someone to be looking at that table for insight into the big-city proportion of the total vote, they would have built the model differently.

Can you explain how bush managed to pull off a massive increase in his total vote among suburban, small city and urban voters? (note this requires 3 answers)

Actually, it requires no answers, because you haven't established the premise. As far as I can tell, you are relying upon the results of an exit poll table that the OP argues is implausible. That seems strange, doesn't it?

Pending further evidence, my impression is that Bush pulled off (at least in the official returns) a moderate increase in his total vote in big cities, medium cities, small cities, suburbs, and rural areas alike. I will try to do some county-level analysis to see whether that account broadly seems to hold up.

And can you explain in particular how he did so in urban areas without the benefit of any substantial urban GOTV campaign and at the same time?

I'm mystified, because when I pointed out in particular that Bush did not pull off a "massive increase" in the official returns from New York or Chicago, you just got mad. This contributes to my confusion about what you think your argument actually is.

This point is really quite basic. Absent evidence that Bush actually had a "massive increase" in official big-city returns, what on earth are we talking about? Essentially the same question that L Coyote posed on GD, back when I was trying to ignore this whole thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. no, there isn't
There is a massive increase in bush vote in the official returns from New York.

No, there isn't. The increase was about 187,000, in a city that by itself constituted over 20% of the big city vote. The OP asserts that Bush gained an extra 3.2 million votes in big cities from 2000 to 2004. So, I ask yet again, not without justifiable impatience: where did the votes come from? Obviously not from New York City.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. Lord knows where that statistic comes from....
A reference would be nice.

Looking at the wider picture

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

We see this

2004 --|-- 2000 --|-- difference --|-- % --|-- increase --|--

Big Democratic States (where no one will look and where you can pad the popular vote)

NJ --|-- 1587494 --|-- 1253791 --|-- 333703 --|-- 0.266155204 --|--
NY --|-- 2780749 --|-- 2235776 --|-- 544973 --|-- 0.243751163 --|--
IL --|-- 2313415 --|-- 2019256 --|-- 294159 --|-- 0.145676923 --|--

These figures are election night figures and considerably lighter than the final ones.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. hmm... where did I get New York City election returns?
Right. The New York City Board of Elections. (Actually, it likes to be called the "Board of Elections in the City of New York.")

http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2004/general/g2004rec...
http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2000/generalelection/...

New York City is the only big city (500,000+) in the state of New York.

Just denigration, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. Lets have a closer look at those returns now then OTOH and see what they show
Edited on Sun Jun-17-07 12:04 AM by althecat
County Vote 2000 to 2004

New York County     79487 ---> 104883 +25%
Bronx County 33224 ---> 53738 + 50%+
Kings  90366 ---> 159200 + 60%+
Queens 113528 ----> 157948 + 30%
59187 ----> 85302 + 40% 

Meanwhile Gore Kerry vote increase was

1633525 ----> 1769808 + 8%

How precisely do these vote return figures disprove the
inference that city votes were padded to bush?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #82
85. NYC Bush Vote 2000 375k ----> 2004 Vote 561k + 50%
NYC Bush Vote 2000 375k ----> 2004 Vote 561k + 50%

By comparison...

NYC Gore Vote 2000 1.63mn ----> 2004 Vote 1.77mn + 8%

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #85
91. in other words, you concede that I was right
+187K votes (depending on how one rounds) -- not much headway toward a supposed 3.2 million Bush vote increase in urban areas. As I said.

But then, this could not come as much surprise, since (1) the OP numerical analysis is posited on the assumption that big cities made up a much larger share of all votes in 2004 than in 2000, and (2) the OP pretty much demonstrates big cities did not make up a much larger share of all votes in 2004 than in 2000, even in the official returns.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to state your central claims clearly, but you have unaccountably failed to do so.

In your other post, you ask: "How precisely do these vote return figures disprove the inference that city votes were padded to bush?"

Charitably, this is confused; less charitably, you are moving the goalposts as a distraction. I do not know whether "city votes were padded to bush," in general. I am still waiting for you to tell me whether you think that Bush got 3.2 million more big-city votes in the official returns (hint: the OP itself all but proves that he didn't) -- or just according to one extrapolation from a table in the national subsample -- or what. Your decision to begin a research thread is a promising sign that you are finally beginning to catch on.

Now, if you would like to discuss whether it is likely that Bush's performance in New York City was due to ballot-stuffing (figuratively, since NYC uses lever machines), I am open to hear any arguments that you might have. I will point out, as I have many times before, that four statewide polls in the week before the election gave Kerry slightly smaller winning margins than he received in the official count. It therefore seems a priori unlikely to me that massive tampering of any kind favoring Bush took place in the state. Since over 40% of state residents live in New York City, that presumption applies to the city as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #91
102. ....
Edited on Sun Jun-17-07 04:37 PM by althecat
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #91
103. I wish this post was worth reading... n/t
Edited on Sun Jun-17-07 04:38 PM by althecat
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #91
104. Yet I know in advance it won't be. How can this be? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #104
113. OP: "We're supposed to believe... 153% increase"
Hey, keep digging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #113
114. I really do not know what you are doing in this forum OTOH.... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #114
115. I'm presenting facts. You? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. Just for the sake of disclosure...
are you now or have you ever been a Republican?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. Oh for pete's sake....
sometimes I despair of this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. Sure you do.
But that's not an answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #118
120. Of course it's not an answer
but your question implies that facts are something progessives are afraid of. I thought this was supposed to be the reality based community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. Nice try.
We've been through this before.

We got into Iraq based on facts. BushCo, Republican-styled facts.

Has OTOH ever been a Republican? Is he one now?



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #123
124. Tough.
Is OTOH a Republican now? If not, did he switch over? Like say, Theresa LePore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. Thx, Eugene.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #125
126. Did you mis-post?
Is OTOH's name Eugene?

And OTOH...are you a Republican? Have you worked on Republican campaigns? Who did you support in 2000, 2004, 2006?

The newer inquiries are really none of my business, but I await an answer to the original questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. The tag-team rapid-response war-room crew
is frequently so quick to jump in with the all facts they wish to represent.

Why now so slow and so evasive regarding a simple question that requires easily stated fact(s)?

Is there an e-mail conference going on in how to avoid this question? What's the hold-up?

It's a simple fact I seek.

Is a "fucking enormous chart" required for a response?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. Suggest Med-Review.
IMMEDIATELY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. You do that.
In the mean time, what's the answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #128
131. probably
because the "tag-team" has better things to do, like actually finding some facts.

And if you doubt the facts you could check them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. I'm seeking one fact now.
But thank you for the suggestion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. are you now or have you ever been an inquisitor?
No, I've never been a Republican. If you're curious, you can find some of my political biography in past posts.

For future reference, since I don't necessarily spend my days hitting Refresh on the ER board, if you have questions for me, e-mail works pretty well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #133
135. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. you had others?
So, wait, you're suggesting that because I've worked with a conservative, therefore Bush really did pick up over three million votes in big cities?

See, there's a reason why ad hominem argumentation is classified as an informal logical fallacy: because it's fallacious. If you're not interested in where Bush picked up votes, then why on earth are you posting on this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. Yes, I did have others. Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, 2006?
But there's no need to answer. Such things are respected as private.

I would probably take it with a grain of salt anyway.

I'm here to get to know you better. It happens often on DU threads. You know..."all work and no play makes Jack, etc,."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. you could ask autorank -- I already told him
So you can take your salt together.

Sorry, I'm not here to get to know you better. That would be the Lounge, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #138
139. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #136
145. It's arguable that Rick Brady is a conservative.
His casual view of Bush's role in the Katrina disaster alone would qualify him as an extreme right-winger, and he awaits Armageddon. IMO, his blog reveals the story.

As the Bev Harris debate proves, it really does matter to many people who you choose to work with. Some in ER point out folks working with Bev Harris and criticize them for it, I see no difference in pointing out the simple fact that you and febble worked together with a right-winger. I'm criticizing the wisdom in that.

But you are absolutely correct, that is no proof that Bush really did pick up over three million votes in big cities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #145
146. Rick Brady is a Republican
I came across him on Daily Kos, where he posted on one of my exit poll threads. It was through conversation by email with Rick that I developed the paper I wrote describing an alternative approach to quantifying the degree of discrepancy at precinct level between the exit poll and the count, and which led to Warren Mitofsky's reanalysis of his data, and his subsequent commissioning of me to do more. Later, Mark Lindeman, Rick, I developed the approach still further, and Mark presented the approach at the American Statistical Association's meeting in Minneapolis in 2005.

Rick is one of the smartest and most intellectually honest guys I have ever worked with. He can spot a flaw in an argument at 50 paces, so working with him was an envigorating experience. But I also found him refreshingly without ego - he is one of these people who wants the right answer, whether it suits his preconceptions or not.

Yes, he's a Republican and an evangelical Christian. I'm a life-long progressive (UK Labour Party) and a liberal catholic. Yes, we disagree about many things, but we also share, as does Mark Lindeman, a few core values such as a intellectual rigour and honesty. I only know a little about his views on the Katrina disaster, but he spent several months working in New Orleans, trying to put lives and places back together, and his emails and photos from devastated area were deeply moving.

I know very little about Bev Harris, so I can't make any comment, but I am not aware that criticisms of her have been for her political or religious views. On the contrary, from what I understand of the criticisms, they have ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO RICK BRADY.

And even if they did, they have ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO THIS DEBATE. An argument stands or falls on its merits, not on the merits, or perceived demerits, of those making the argument.

I am becoming extremely angry over these ad hominem posts of yours, Kurovski.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #146
148. Well,
"...intellectually honest... He can spot a flaw in an argument at 50 paces..."?

So he goes from this...

"A Cool $10K on Global Warming

This story reinforces my belief that although the earth is certainly warming, the cause of the warming is not certain, nor is the conclusion that some global pact can stop it. I find it interesting that a leading global climate change expert would not give a skeptic 50:1 odds that the earth would cool. If he is so certain about global warming, why not? At least there is now real money on the line between scientists with competing theories."


To this:

"Revelation Upon Us?

Tens of thousands dead from an earthquake in Iran. Tens of thousands more dead from a heat wave in Europe. Hundreds of thousands dead from a tsunami in Asia. 90,000 square miles ravaged by a hurricane. What do they have in common? All very recent natural disasters of "Biblical proportion."

Now come doomsday predictions from the World Health Organization of a potential plague or pestilence of Biblical proportion - the Avian Bird Flu (ABF).

Keep your eye on FluWiki for details on National ABF Awareness Week sometime in October.

A non-Christian dentist friend of mine told me not to worry about global pandemics. With a heavy dose of snark, he exhorted me to "Trust in the Lord." Well, duh... But just as I trust in the Lord for the safety of my family, I still lock the door.

I have to wonder...Is Revelation upon us?"

And here I thought science teaches us that fiercer hurricanes are a result of increasingly warming waters.

It just goes on and on. He states that he's proud of "Mr. President" in regard to his very late and worthless "taking of responsibility". We know about this brand of intellectual honesty. It brings us Intelligent design advocates and science deniers who will nevertheless creatively manipulate any fact to suit their needs.

So we disagree here.

http://www.stonescryout.org/archives/by_contributor/ric...


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #148
149. And your point is.....? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #149
152. It matters who you choose to work with.
Someone who will imply End Times as being a hurricane's reason for existence, over warming seas from global warming is not quite the rigorous intellect you describe him to be.

You think so. I don't.

It matters who you choose to work with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. You seem
rather to have missed Rick's point. Not that it matters. It makes not one iota of difference to his valuable ability to spot logical flaws in an argument.

Check out his FluWiki link. You might learn some interesting science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #146
150. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #150
151. What the hell do you mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #151
156. Have you recommended today's ERD?
Just a friendly request to do so if you have not yet.

Thank you in advance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #145
157. "Extreme right-winger"
Edited on Tue Jun-19-07 05:11 PM by Febble

http://www.stonescryout.org/archives/by_contributor/ric...

The Market: Why Worship It?

(Jim, this isn't directed at you - just a related rant.)

There are so many non-"Oh my! Gas is $4/gallon!" reasons to demand alternative energy sources.

If we know that our petroleum consumption is not sustainable, causes environmental damage, and supports terrorist nations, then our government should take steps to push the market to supply alternatives.

"Market" theory, when dealing with anything other than rivalrous/excludable goods, often fails, or only works itself out in the "long run." Well, in the long run: a) we're all dead; or b) irreversible long-term damage is done before the market kicks in.

Like lemmings, we design our regions so that the car is for most people the only feasible mode of travel. We fill tank after tank of petrol but know that we contribute marginally to the cumulative problem, so the free rider effect wins and we keep sucking the petrol.

Poisonous air, polluted runoff, acid rain, terrorist attacks - all products of our reliance on oil - are examples of externalities not adequately considered by our idol, the market.

My idea of a good Republican is one who understands economics well enough to know that markets are rarely perfect, and the only time they work well is when dealing with a certain type of good (pure private goods). A good Republican realizes that government can prime markets or push them to move in certain directions through taxation, regulation, and prohibition. A good Republican believes that government can be a good compliment to the market, not an enemy. A good Republican would have supported higher gas taxes to fund R&D of alternative fuels a long time ago. If this Republican isn't considered a "conservative" for her worldview, so be it.

Unfortunately, most Republicans I know continue to worship their idol, the market, ignorant of its theoretical and practical limitations. Markets aren't perfect. The government isn't perfect. Why worship either?

The river of truth flows through the valley of two extremes. Market economics is not the answer. Socialism is not the answer. But moderate government intervention of markets can be a very good thing.


As for his views on Katrina, if you read his blog you will find that Rick probably knows as much about Katrina and its aftermath, and has responded with as much dedication, as the most ardent progressive you could wish for.

And no, that doesn't make me a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #157
158. He's an ardent supporter of George W. Bush.
And that right there is why it was such a very bad idea to work with him. That fact alone.

He never acknowledges the fact that Bush sat on his hands for a week while New Orleans and her people died. He says that he's PROUD of Mr. President. He can play rescuer without saying why things went so wrong. He pushes the FEMA nightmare toxic trailer holding camps.

The fact that another religious right-winger got a position in this administration impresses me not at all. Many have been rewarded for their help in acquiring the "presidency" for George W. Bush.

God bless the man for any help and comfort he managed to provide, but he's part of the problem to begin with.

There's plenty there in the blog. His views on the SC, his affinity for FOX news, his imaginary fantasy (shared by all extreme right-wingers) that the media is a liberal entity.

He seems reasonable enough on a few issues, but his support of Bush overrides all and destroys any trust I'd place in the man's motivation.





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #158
160. And you,
frankly, are also part of the problem that this benighted world faces.

Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #160
162. I've thought about it every day for ten years.
And your assessment is your opinion, as is mine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #162
163. Exactly
And opinions are what we express in a democracy. An argument, on the other hand, needs to be assessed on its merits.

So why don't we get back to the OP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #163
167. I hold no trust in you.
But you go ahead without me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #158
161. you are presuming on Febble's fairness
Paul Lehto wrote back in January 2005, "My law partner is a very committed Republican, yet he's still talking to me." Did you ever call him out about what a very bad idea it was to work with such a man?

No one cares whether you trust Rick Brady's motivations. If you can poke a hole in what he wrote about elections, fine; otherwise, he is completely immaterial, except as a way to bait Febble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #161
166. I'd have to know more details.
John Dean is a conservative, Georgie Ann Geyer is a conservative, there are a number of conservatives whom I respect and admire.

Was that partner a true conservative?

Since no one is interested perhaps it's time to wrap this up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #166
168. so, NOW you're ready to discuss substance?
OK. So, do you think people will find an extra several million votes for Bush (compared to 2000) in the big-city returns? Or if not, what do you think is the point of Collins' article? I keep trying to get someone to explain that. I think althecat is banking on the several million votes. What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #168
169. Now I'm ready to take a shower and then make dinner.
I certainly can not convince you of anything. No one here can. Not in any of the "Urban Ghosts" threads here at DU. Not anywhere, not ever.

See you later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #169
170. well, you might try to convince SOMEONE
Are you always going to give up on yourself just when it is time actually to do some work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #170
172. OTOH if you really want the answer why don't you do the work? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #172
174. but, al...
you never believe anything I tell you, so why would you believe me when I tell you that in the official returns, Bush did better compared to 2000 in less urban counties? or that big-city precincts were overweighted in the exit poll even before the pollsters had vote counts? (You could have looked that up yourself.)

Minds and parachutes, man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #174
179. So you have already done the numbers then?
If so post the results here and save the rest of us the suspense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #179
180. I once visited a universe where...
journalists 'did the numbers' before publishing; they certainly wouldn't leave their publisher to indignantly push the 'research' onto readers. Weird, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-07 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #180
181. I didn't ask you I asked OTOH...
And when I next need advice on how a publisher needs to behave I will be sure to PM you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #172
175. THIS WORK.... FILL IN THE GAPS PLEASE.. (& Febble you can help too)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #145
159. well, I'm criticizing the wisdom in a blatant derail
What's with the compulsion to avoid substantive discussion of the article?

Would you care to summarize why you think the article is important? Do you actually think the article is important? No sign of it yet. You want to talk about Bev, you want to talk about Rick Brady, and of course you want to talk about Febble and me. Pretty transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #159
164. Yes, after these past few years,
it is all transparent to those who have been along for the ride.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #164
165. Meaning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #128
171. ROFLMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #116
153. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. Thank you.
Yes, Ireland is a lovely country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #153
173. What on earth are you talking about?
Sorry for being dim.

In words of 2 syllables or less would be better.

alastair thompson
Scoop

I am Michael Collins publisher and I know who he is. I was Bev Harris's publisher back in the distant past and if Febble or OTOH ever wrote anything worth publishing I would be happy to be their publisher too.

I feel a little like Asterix "These Americans are Crazy"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #173
185. Bev Dudley, you mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #153
176. As for me...
personally, I prefer James Connolly...



"Our demands most moderate are
We only want the earth!"

James Connolly: Be Moderate



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. kewl, I got anax to post on his own thread
Well, we all have our immoderate "I'm leaving DU 4ever!" moments. Nu, how's the rest of the gang? Was Kerry's "big bat" your idea? Why does scoop's "based on original, unpublished research by anaxarchos" link lead to the same article? What does "based on" mean in a journalistic context, anyway?
For this study, we chose the less controversial approach of using the final, revised exit poll with a focus on the stated purposes of the exit poll, who were the voters and where did they cast their ballots.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Who's "we", Kemosabe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #177
178. There was no 4ever implied there...

..bwana. That drama queen shit was your specialty if I remember right. I've posted a few dozen times since but I certainly did "drift away". I'm happy I did, too. I'm only "visiting" because I was asked to. As far as the article goes, talk to Collins. I'm not the least interested in playin'. There is never any outcome here.

Connolly's "we" is inclusive. It certainly includes me. It may not include you, sein' as how you are such a big "individual" and all.

Nice to see you too... The other turkeys, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #178
182. so we're not amused?
I'm only "visiting" because I was asked to.

Fascinating.

That drama queen shit was your specialty if I remember right.

Don't be modest:

I'm not the least interested in playin'. There is never any outcome here.
1) I ain't playin' here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... (c. two years ago)

You have to admit it sounds a little emo by the second repetition. I've had my moments of angst, but you didn't hear me sulk about Mt. Olympus when my oxen were laid low.

He who argues only with himself...
...need never worry about losing to anyone else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... (c. 2.4 years)

Connolly's "we" is inclusive.

Not what I had in mind:
This analysis is based on original, unpublished research by web commentator, anaxarchos, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude

For this study, we chose the less controversial approach of using the final, revised exit poll with a focus on the stated purposes of the exit poll, who were the voters and where did they cast their ballots. (sic) Why not take the numbers the pollsters finalized the day after the election. (sic)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Who is the "we" that conducted this study? I realize you can't take credit for the analysis, but maybe you possess insight into the "unpublished research" that begot it. Is it locked in a safe somewhere? Did it include this "study", or was that designed by a team of scoopco experts? On that note, scoop's lack of research capability strikes me as odd (without a certain spiritual presence, hence "Any good mediums out there?"? (-DU)), especially when the "original" researcher shows up to announce he can only answer James Connolly related questions.

According to the Exits Polls, something was happening in the big cities and it was happening in a big city way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Well, I've never left the Truth Train. And since you never bought a ticket to the promised land of the Truth, the Train has left you far behind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #182
183. You got me! I dun it! And I'd do it agin'
Or , we would. Me/I. would . We

I'm guilty. Bloody Saxon swine!

Killed Emmett, Pearse.
Split our Country. Think we wouldna' hae a split in our own cy-kee.

But, ya' got me Foo-Bar, I give in to yer'... interogating.

Just please stop the harangue. It's worse than a hooley in the trolley.... er, Kitchen... maybe Hitchen.

That's it! It was him! Hitchen! The weasly Sasanach... where's de Valera?

I dun it. It done. Drag me a way. I want to be drawed in quarters.

Just don't Say no more !! OK?





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #183
184. anax can defend his research without coaching from the roleplaying fantasy squad
Is the Irish revolution an appropriate template for electoral reform in the states, or is the idea to drape oneself in other movements' icons, "M. Collins" and the bloody pope approve this message?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #184
186. No more qwezshunts!
Pleza, back ooof, Mr. Rowdy-Dowdy! I surrendered!



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #186
187. Sooch a sad dayen!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #187
188. "You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #188
189. O'Driscoll
... drove with a song
The wild duck and the drake
From the tall and the tufted reeds
Of the drear Hart Lake.

And Foo_Bar but yimmered and yammered
Of Collins, a name so common
Eyes fixed so on finding some cabal,
Foo flew into nets at Roscommon





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #189
190. and what slough bleats? this hour, comrade o'glas

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #190
191. I write it in a verse -

MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
192. Kick.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
193. Kick for a Sunday afternoon.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-02-07 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
194. Kick.
3,819 views last Monday, up to 4,314 views this monday.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-02-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
195. Exit Polls SUCK! Get over it! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
196. KICK.NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 04:04 AM
Response to Original message
197. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #197
198. so, any clue what this research means?
Did those millions of urban ghost votes ever turn up? Or was this just another story about "ohmigosh, there's an exit poll table that's wrong -- It Must Be Fraud"? (Or something else?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-18-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #198
207. No Clue?
From what I gather the research means that the people who put out the numbers cooked them through and through and that the only... ONLY numbers that are of any use to any of us are the raw numbers. Raw meaning pre-cooked.

The 66% increase in the vote turnouts were cooked into the raw numbers as a last gasp to make the final NEP numbers match the diebold and ES&S cooked up numbers.

Too, one must remember that only one person on this board has had the opportunity to look at the whole raw number sets only because the diebold and ES&S numbers didn't match the NEP's. And the outcome of that effort as represented here on DU has never, NEVER, been peer reviewed and as we all know such 'science' can't be taken on faith alone. Whoops, not all of us... some do have faith in those privately established findings.

In short, this research shows, once again, how this nation was screwed in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-18-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #207
208. personally
I think it shows how DU was screwed in 2007. Thanks for comparing notes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #197
199. Kick. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-29-07 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
200. Incoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #200
201. Is that Tippy Hedrin in "The Birds"?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #201
202. ....watcha talkin about willis...
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #201
203. .... kaboom....
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0707/S00414.htm

:bounce: & wave to autorank from Ruapehu...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #203
204. What a lot of equipment it takes
to break into NZ Coca-Cola machines !! I'd no idea. Was it a tough go ??

Wish the US could be half as thorough about protecting our voting mechanisms...


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-04-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #201
205. Yes, it's Miss Tippi. From "The Birds".
Don't ask why. It was just something in the air at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-15-07 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
206. K (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
209. If networks had nothing to hide, they would give Conyers the raw exit polls
The news networks cooked the exit polls to match the Karl Rove numbers because the Bush FCC had promised to go to court to fight for administrative rule changes to federal media ownership guidelines which a lower court had struck down. Viacom, the Tribune Co. and Fox needed those changes to be in compliance with the law. The NYT and others just wanted them. Kerry had criticized those changes.

It was in the financial best interest of the corporate media for Bush to stay in office.

The sad part was the day after Bush was sworn in for a second term, Michael Powell, retiring FCC chair and son of Colin Powell made it clear how Rove had persuaded the MSM---and rubbed their noses in the dirt--by announcing in the WaPo that the administration was dropping the federal appeals of the lower court ruling. The networks would get nothing in exchange for cooking the exit polls.

The networks' responses to Katrina---blaming it on the Bush administration---can be traced directly to their anger at having been used. If they were happy with Bush, they would have found a way to blame it all on NOLA instead. They did a great job of sucking up to Bush between 2001-2004 when they thought there was something in it for them.

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/060112.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
210. Wow, look at all those views of this thread.
Pretty impressive for just a handful of us arguing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
211. Kick. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
212. K*R History Review - It could & did happen here.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
213. Getting close to four figures......
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
214. Kick for the upcoming primaries...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-15-07 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
215. Kick. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
216. K
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
217. Kickety kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
218. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #218
219. Thanks for kicking this into view.. I've never read the whole thing !
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #219
220. You're welcome.
Hope it was helpful in understanding some aspects of what we're going through.

I never realized it had 15,000 reads... damn ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #219
223. so, can you explain what you think it means?
I've never gotten anyone to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #223
224. Not yet, I *still* haven't read the whole thing.. printed it out so I can
try to dissect it. You know, kind of like War and Peace...its not a quick read !
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #224
226. Don't mind OTOH.
This is just an elaborate, "mystical" joke on a couple of ER "regs", and they still don't get it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #226
227. kicking an incoherent OP is "mystical"?
You're right: I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #226
229. Mystical ?? By Gad, you're right !!
OTOH spelled backwards is HOTO !

Quite obviously it is mystical!! Simply because one "Hand On The Other" would be the sound of that Hand clapping "On The Other Hand" !!

Yet the sum addition of "On The Other Hand" to the Universal ER Knowledge is of "One Hand Clapping", not One Hand On The Other Hand !!

You've done it, Kurovski !! You've broken the Code !! Never again must we fall to the Foolish Foible of our Fumbling Hands. Never again will we find ourselves FU Beyond All Realization.

And after all of the misery of this year's Global Warming weather, it is soooooo heartening to know that your discovery will spare us all any more inclementata.

Just think! No more trouble in this winter!! It is enough to make me jump foojoy!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #229
231. You are very, very, very, very, very, very, very
bad. :rofl: I'm enfeebled by :rofl:

God surely loves you best of all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #224
230. seriously
The OP basically argues: 'In order to match the official returns, the size-of-place exit poll tab had to postulate a huge increase in Bush voters in big cities. But the official returns don't show that huge increase. This is a reason to doubt the official returns.'

(In other words, the exit poll tab actually doesn't match the official returns. It has Bush winning, but the votes aren't in the right places.)

Actually, this is a reason to conclude that something was wrong with the exit poll tab. And in fact, the exit poll tab had "too many" big-city voters, even before it was reweighted to official returns. You can look it up on exitpollz and see for yourself.

That's it. That's all. Exit Poll True Believers can keep on true-believing if they want, but this argument doesn't add anything to their case. But some people don't want to hear it, so they shoot the messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 04:07 AM
Response to Original message
221. K&R!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
222. Our "portal" to the other side.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #222
225. It's alive...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #225
228. ...with pleasure!
Newport. :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
232. *
*
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
234. It never stops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-31-08 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
236. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
237. Kick.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
238. K. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-08 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
239. KNT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-05-08 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
240. "Thirty days to another election" kick. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-08 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #240
241. Changed title as My Forums seems to be functioning ok again
Edited on Wed Oct-08-08 12:35 AM by althecat
Hi Kurovski

http://usacoup.scoop.co.nz

regards
al
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #241
242. You're up late
Maybe we should give the network consortium a call and see if they've ever bothered to fix the
'big city' turnout section of the poll. Two choices: correct the 66% turnout increase OR
admit that 2004 was fixed and run a series of stories between now and election day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #242
243. Late? Yeah.
Auto, my friend.... how's things?

Asking the media to admit it fucked up is courageous as hell. I hope you are a success. This whole thread was quite an examination of the stolection and we only had a few who are so far up bushco's ass to complain. Well, I've been working on clearing the deck. Did you read the quote from Lindy that the exit-pollers from Fla. 2000 blew the call? Probably not, as ignore is your friend, but if you want to see it, I'll post it up so you can hit another homer. Go Mets!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #241
244. Hi, Al!
Oh, my friends, my fellow prisoners, woe betide the threat to Democracy we face when Mickey Mouse votes.

McCain is a turdburger. That is now his legacy. A turdburger that was once imprisoned for five and one half years without refrigeration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #244
245. That reminds me of this story about how banking is like a box of chocolates...
Forrest Gump Explains Mortgage Backed Securities:

Mortgage backed Securities are like boxes of chocolates. Criminals on Wall Street stole a few chocolates from the boxes and replaced them with turds. Their criminal buddies at Standard & Poor rated these boxes AAA Investment Grade chocolates. These boxes were then sold all over the world to investors. Eventually somebody bites into a turd and discovers the crime. Suddenly nobody trusts American chocolates anymore worldwide.

Hank Paulson now wants the American taxpayers to buy up and hold all these boxes of turd-infested chocolates for $700 billion dollars until the market for turds returns to normal. Meanwhile, Hanks buddies, the Wall Street criminals who stole all the good chocolates, are not being investigated, arrested, or indicted.

Mama always said: Sniff the chocolates first, Forrest.

Source
http://solari.com/blog/?p=1694
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #245
246. The moral of the story is clear...
it's time to start enjoying turds. I thought the past eight years of being served shit sandwiches would have already done that.
:shrug:

Why is everyone suddenly complaining? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
USofFascism Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
247. There's an old adage.....
Edited on Wed Oct-22-08 10:35 AM by USofFascism
It all comes out in the wash.



Two words: Rick and Brady



:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #247
248. "Two words: Bill and Ayers"
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, you keep using the word "progressive," but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Or there is the adage that one of my daughter's middle school teachers likes to use: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

The fundamental issue of this thread is that the OP tries to use evidence that the exit poll was wrong (at all times, it had "too many" big city voters) as evidence that the exit poll was right. We can get a lot more specific -- and Febble and I did -- but that is the upshot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
USofFascism Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #248
249. Freeman
You make a big deal out of Professor Freeman not being a Mathematician. Have you seen his academic transcripts? How are you and the person from Britain more qualified than him in regards to analysing data?


A true progressive would speak out against illegal wars and would never work with rabid rightwingers.

Professors in this country used to help organise student protest. Is there an anti-war group on your campus? Since you have put {in your own mind} the exit poll debate to rest, maybe you could help find a way to get our country to stop charring innocent babies. Maybe you could write up a paper on the White House Iraq Group. :shrug:


the people united will never be defeated
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #249
250. your pattern of distraction and evasion continues
Actually, I couldn't care less whether Freeman is "a Mathematician." That's completely irrelevant. I don't affix my credentials to my posts because the credentials should be irrelevant as well, although they aren't secret. In my view, people should muster the simple courage to read the arguments and judge the extent to which they make sense. It does not seem very hard to me. I do it with other people's arguments, not knowing what (if any) credentials they may have.

Let's suppose that Freeman, I and "the person from Britain" are equally qualified to analyze data. What would you do next? Would you judge who makes a better speech against U.S. foreign policy? Or would you try to evaluate our arguments? (Given your track record so far, I guess I already know the answer to that.)

There is probably videotape somewhere of me on Nicaraguan TV speaking out against the contra war, and perhaps you could trace my arrest record -- but all that should be irrelevant, too. Your attack on my associations actually goes somewhat beyond the illogic of McCain's attack on Obama, and again is irrelevant in any case. If you intend to decide what happened in 2004 based on your untethered perceptions of my politics, then I can only conclude that you aren't very interested in 2004. That's a valid choice, but could you just admit it and move on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
USofFascism Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #250
251. Did you speak out against the contras?
If so, thanks.

I admit I am not the one to be debating you over the merits of exit polls in 2004. Happy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #251
252. yes, I did, for what it's worth
Nothing about this, umm, conversation has made me happy. I am not looking for a debate over the exit polls or anything else. If certain of the self-appointed leaders of the election integrity movement would just Get Off that subject, I would be delighted to drop it. We have more than enough other things to worry about, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
USofFascism Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #252
253. It's worth something
I think your problem is an inability to understand how the last two elections shaped history. There is real anger out here. You have already admitted elsewhere, unless I am mistaken, that the elections may have been rigged, even if you don't believe there is proof that is what happened.

Or look at it this way, please, Ronald Reagan said we would never deal with terrorists. Yet, there he was dealing with both the Iranians and the contras. Our freedoms have been systematically dismantled. Our country and the world, in fact, is on the edge of economic collapse. My point is, if Ronald Reagan could be such a hypocrite and cause such sadness through criminal activity..... if the WHIG and this illegal war could cause so much misery..... then there is your probable cause that such people probably did steal those elections. Karl Rove had Siegelman put in prison. Gonzales and Yoo declared torture as legal. The list is endless how corrupt our country has become. I'm not trying to chatter your head off, but the bottom line is that our present leadership is full of ruthless killers. If they are so insensitive to the plight of masses of people, then indeed they are not gonna hesistate stealing elections.

Perhaps on this and other threads, there is a fixation on these exit polls. Yet, if you have proven your case, then what else need you do? I personally would embrace you as a leader if I saw you showing clarity on the other issues, such as with the bs stuff with ACORN, etc., with how people are being stripped of their voter registrations, stuff like that.

This is the blogosphere. When it was picking up in intensity the last ten years, we the people were given the illusion that democracy could be influenced by masses of people. That any one of us nobodies could through are own good faith efforts contribute to making this a better world.

Dialogue is a two-way street. No one is more important than anyone else. It is beyond ridiculous how Markos Zuniga has been running his website. It is not ok to frame everything that jeopardizes the status quo as being some sort of tinfoil product. The White House Iraq Group is proof that many conspiracy theories are true. Karl Rove is proof. Gonzales, Cheney, on and on.

A month or so ago you didn't want to hear about Steven Hertzberg and his escapades over at a tinfoil website called BreakForNews. But think about it. That guy used to post here. There was something very fishy about his internet presence.

You might not want to hear it, but insidious astroturfers are all over the internet, and unless we make things clear, we are all under suspicion of being conmen.

I have uncovered concrete proof that there is covert weather manipulation going on in our skies. But when folks keep getting bopped in the head with tinfoil this, tinfoil that, the undemocratic activities continue.

I am sorry to go off topic. I will wrap this up. We are living in a fascist country right now. We need to use our power of numbers and start forcing positive, social change.

You may have a migraine from thinking of all these people you don't agree with over exit polls or whether Bush stole elections. That is your prerogative. I get a migraine whever I see things that seem to be rabbit holes also.

But the bottom line is that these are war criminals. That being the case, it is more likely than not that they stole those elections. You've had your say. You've had such a presence here, that people have been forced to hear you out. But to be honest, it doesn't seem to sink in with you that even if you are correct that talk of exit polls is a dead-end, which I humbly diagree with you, that you don't realise that instead of wasting all this extra effort debunking the others, you could have spent time studying the many other aspects of election fraud. That you don't cover anything other than the debunker viewpoint, well, this is why a lot of people think you have a dog in the hunt.

I'm out of this section. I'm not even sure if DU will let me stay. Good luck to you, for I think it will sink in that you have been neglecting other aspects of social reality in lieu of some technical debate. It wouldn't hurt your cause to maybe have a toke, have a cry, and get off of your high horse and start working for the masses of people who are hurting here and abroad.

These people are criminals. Criminals do things like steal elections. You may think you have been doing the right thing, but unless you move on also, I don't think you are part of any solution. You kind of got to knock it off with the pretentiousness. That's not helping your image. You have to can the snark. You need to let your hair grow and start learning how to give the middle finger to these fat cats destroying humanity. It's late in the game. I am asking you to seize the historical moment, become more idealistic, and do whatever is in your power to promote social justice. I am assigning for your homework to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. And I am not being a smartass. I wrote this post from the heart.


socrates

http://allaircraftarenotinvolved.freeforums.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #253
256. thanks for identifying yourself
I appreciate your candor. We disagree about many things, certainly including how to behave on a topic-based discussion forum. But at least I guess it is honest disagreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DoNotLie Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #256
257. Thank You
I am honest. Unfortunately, eventhough I have plenty to offer in general, beyond what it may seem from our exchanges the last months, I am being shut out for no good reason. If the ptb's here would treat me with even a modicum of respect, I might even stop trying to be here.

Bozos and Friedman know my real name. I did a lot of dirty work clearing Brad's reputation, only to then find out that I had picked the wrong person to defend. It appears that no one wants to get to truths that could allow all of us some closure.

Life can be very existential. I no longer care if my true identity is revealed. When one has nothing, they have nothing to lose.

Through Bozos, I was led to believe that you are a paid troll. He told me that you admitted to being a Republican or having voted republican during an interview with Leo Lincourt. There is always a reason for everything. Just because someone appears to be bad news, that is not necessarily the case. That is why we have something called due process.

But obviously I am not going to get that here. I am not surprised, since all across the internet in such places rules are not being applied evenly across the board.

So now you know why I have been asking you your political affiliation.

My own take is that you are misguided and not in on some kind of nefarious plot. That's called having the right to an opinion. I believe you now understand where I am coming from, which is the academic left. Unfortunately, those of us on this side of the political spectrum are not wanted at DU.

So instead of people being able to get to the bottom of some of these rabbit holes we are all intrigued by, from internet disinfo, to strange battles between Mace and Harris, to trying to figure out who exactly Kimberlin and by extension Friedman are about, people like me get the squeeze.

That is not your fault.

By the way, I have told my internet story on a thread in the 9/11 section. It shows my progression from being a nobody posting on Huffington in 2005 to how I met Bozos and much more.

I have gone through a lot of the archives here. I admit I am no good as concerning the specific details of the exit poll debate. But that doesn't mean I am not a full citizen of the US who deserves as much freedom of association as anyone else. It is unfortunate that the Steven Hertzberg story is being buried. It is unfortunate that something like the disinfo isn't allowed to be sensibly researched and discussed.

By being excluded from the forum for no good reason doesn't mean that I am a lying troll with nothing to offer. I am a good kid and simply want to figure out truths no matter what they are.

Unfortunately, there is really no word Democratic in the phrase DU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #257
258. Leo has told me that Bozos gets confused
Presumably he's referring to the interview here. If you can figure out where he thinks I admitted to being or voting Republican, I'd be interested to know it. I do 'admit' to having worked with Rick Brady. In my line of work, it would be embarrassing to refuse to work with someone based on his or her political affiliation alone. I believe in a fact/value distinction.

Oh, in my one(?) dealing with Bozos, he said that someone under a particular screen name had only posted on one subject. I noticed that that wasn't true, and I said so. He interpreted that as a conspiracy between me and the other person, but actually I had -- and have -- no idea who the other person is. There's just a limit to my ability to care about pseudonymous Internet posters. Life is too short. As I mentioned one or two incarnations ago, I don't think Hertzberg is very important, either.

You're entitled to your opinions, but having been banned from DU, you are subject to being banned again. If you know or can figure out why you were banned the first time, and you're willing to play by DU rules, you might petition the admins for reinstatement. I don't think you really get it. Lots of people with lots of opinions manage to avoid being banned.

Be careful out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DoNotLie Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #258
259. Thanks for the dialogue and bit of closure
He told me he the interview got lost or it was missing or something. Perhaps he can sneak back in here, too, and explain himself. Didn't he also misrepresent you as being Pelletier of Diebold?

This may all be a rabbit hole, but there seems to be a need to figure it out. Of all those millions of attack threads on Bev Harris, where is the proof other than of a seemingly coordinated smear attack. You see, now that I realise you are at least a middle of the road Dem or Libertarian- voting Kerry, Nader, that you say you have never been a registered Republican, it makes me feel that Bozos was yanking my chain. It makes me want to know more about Bozos and what exactly he has been up to on the internet. I want to know more about Mace, Bev, etc..

I totally accept your Rick Brady explanation. Some of my best conversations have been with polite conservative academics who respected myself as coming from the historic left. Have you heard of C. Wright Mills? or the Frankfurt School of Critical Thought? That is where I am coming from.

I think you are referring to the Rob pelletier character, the NC Beach person. There is an extensive pdf which seems to back up Bozos and Bev Harris on that one. He had 154 posts or so here and was fully wrapped into the Bashing of Bev brigade.

In the Dungeon, it came out yesterday that he had accused a longtime poster here named SeemsLikeADream of being one of the fake progressives who blame everything on "The Joos." If you ever want a diversion, take a look into Willis Carto, Michael Rivero, and many others spreading right woos left propaganda. A lot of the crazy stuff circulating on the internet can be traced back to insidious elements.

I'm not saying the Hertzberg thing is a most vital story to figure out, but seeing that only myself and perhaps ModMom ever wondered about him, there's no way to take it any further. I will just say that there appears to be something beyond how you are viewing him.

As for disinfo and all these rabbit holes, I can understand how it is not your cup of tea. That doesn't mean there isn't anything to what "tinfoilers" like me are suggesting about a rigged internet. I think there is just so much going on in the world, the information overload, that there are limits to how any two or more people can have tight discussions. Thus, I understand how you got frustrated with what seemed like I was going off on tangents.


I got banned as SocraticTruths in early 2007. I have tried to get feedback. I have tried to go the proper channels. I feel this is an injustice. I just want them to have the decency to treat me like a human being and if we can reach some kind of understanding, then so be it, I'll go away and that'll be that.

But based on how others in the dungeon keep breaking rules and never get tombstoned, this feels like an injustice.

They really need to stop deleting. They should keep up the proof for the banning. Otherwise, their credibility becomes jeopardized. How are some of us not to think there could be some plants for moderators? Either shut down that "conspiracy theory" section, or start applying clear rules across the board.

Think what you want about "chemical trails," but it doesn't look right when the most level-headed poster researching them is banned, while the obvious cranks are allowed. It then looks like a controlled script between closed-minded debunkers and crazy believers.

There is some major trolling going on in that section. I can prove that I have been attacked all over the internet. Maybe someone can ask an admin to email with me a bit. I'll stop posting. I just want a chance to obe reinstated with my original name. If I'm gonna be banned, I want it to be for a transparent reason. This feels very unjust.

If they can't show why I was banned and how it was so different from things others post all the time without getting banned, that is unjust.

You should check out the new "weather mitigation" bills put out by Hutchison and Udall. The ptb's are calling climate change a matter of national security. Two network affiliates have put out reports on this topic, KNBC Los Angeles and KSLA Louisiana. I'm sure there are folks on this very thread who would come out and support me, but they don't want to be perceived as kooky.

Take care. Good luck. Thanks for the kind thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DoNotLie Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #259
260. oops
Edited on Thu Oct-23-08 08:26 PM by DoNotLie
It's the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory.

Sorry for any typos and disjointed ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #252
254. You know this post is really revealing....
"If certain of the self-appointed leaders of the election integrity movement would just Get Off that subject, I would be delighted to drop it. "

So are you saying you are in charge of what we can and can't discuss? You really are absurd.

"In my view, people should muster the simple courage to read the arguments and judge the extent to which they make sense."

I have read far more of your posts than is necessary to come to a judgment on this question. Your arguments do not make sense. But thanks for asking. So if you would now just Get Off that subject I would also be delighted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #254
255. no, I didn't say that at all
What I said was that I wouldn't raise the subject if others didn't.

As it stands, I can ignore the disinformation, or I can at least sometimes try to correct it. But I'm not "in charge of" anything. That's obvious. What were you thinking?

I've seen your attempts to explain why my arguments "do not make sense," and I think you were probably wise to switch to personal attacks instead. But if you're interested in the 2004 election, we could always talk about that. Would you like me to direct you to some of the simple questions up-thread that you never managed to answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uwilllosedu Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-08 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #255
261. Who Is really in charge? Is it Burch, Kimberlin, and Rivero?
Hey Mark, maybe a solution is for you to stay off of their threads. You could start a new thread of your own linking to their points. I think these folks wish to be able to have a conversation, do research together without your input. Maybe that can be the solution?

Picture yourself having a political science get together after a seminar, in the student union. But then some people at the next table, they are actually true activists who keep butting into your conversation. Of course, they have the right to speak in any public place. So perhaps you could always move across the room. But what if they keep following you? Do you have the right to have them removed from the public building? Of course not.

Don't you see? These people don't want your input. just like you wouldn't want those on the right side of history telling your students that they should get their heads out of the status quo and get to protesting. That is what is going on in this forum.

Now I want to clarify what I said about perhaps Hertzberg not being a big deal. I meant that in the big scheme of things, he has been merely one disinformation astroturfer on the internet. He is merely a part of the puzzle.

Now why would Brad cover this story up, especially when it was Fintan Dunne who was throwing him under the bus? Fintan also called Bev Harris a 9/11 CIA rat. Steven Hertzberg was a full member of a forum calling Bev Harris a 9/11 CIA rat.

Then there is Brett Kimberlin. He apparently bankrolls RawStory and BradBlog. Where did he get his money? How does a convicted bomber get characterized as being a political prisoner by Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story?

Then there is Ben Burch. Did he really do something wrong and had to leave? Did you ever google his name? Did you know he was all over wikipedia, or that he in fact has had as strange an internet presence as anyone?

And what about his close friend Andy Stephenson with the ties to Mike Vreeland?

And how does David Benjamin Burch being a member of the jref randi debunking forum not have something major to do with the structure of the 9/11 forum here?

We can keep going.

Why does an alleged left of center website run by a former member here have close ties to disinformation agent Michael Rivero AND the Velvet Revolution?

You want more?

That person is also tied in with a Jeff Wells who runs his own disinformation pit. He voted yes in a racist poll here a while back. You want more?

You say I don't know what the word progressive means. Who's more of a progressive sir, Howard Zinn or Howard Dean? Ann Richards or Nancy Pelosi?


Have you ever heard of cointelpro? Have you ever heard of right woos left? Have you ever heard of a man named Willis Carto? Did you know that Markos Zuniga was a big fan of Ronald Reagan and that he very well might be a full member of the CIA?

Do you think Harry Reid is a progressive?


All indications are that Ben Burch is a kingpin in promoting disinformation all over the internet. True progressives have been getting the squeeze.

One thought I am having. What if a large amount of anonymous people decided that the student unions were being unduly monopolized by the historically conservative, political science departments? Could they not as students or in this case, if they had access to computers, could they not overtake any forum that decided to give the squeeze to true progressives?

I was reading an article on the anonymous guy from Boston. It was quite interesting. People asked him why he would keep going after the Church of Scientology, what with their huge bankroll to fund lawsuits and whatnot. He said, to paraphrase, that he didn't care, that the more they pushed their cult on victims, that the more they pushed him and the other anonymous folks, that he felt even more determined to fight back and win.

That's the same feeling I have. The more the Hertzbergs, Burches, Riveros and Tinoires of the world have attacked me, the more I have been determined to expose them. Same thing with the Brad Kimberlin Larisa cover up. Now, did you notice how once you showed me a bit of love, I returned the offer?

This is my declaration that the fight is on for the hearts and minds of the blogosphere. I will not quit until the true nature of astroturfing has been 100% exposed. It is the least that can be done for the newbies and fence-sitters.


the people united will never be defeated


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-08 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
262. locking
the thread seems to have veered off course.

thanks,

Wickerman
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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