Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Conversation about the 2008 Election (TIA)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 08:42 PM
Original message
A Conversation about the 2008 Election (TIA)
Edited on Wed Dec-03-08 08:52 PM by tiptoe


A Conversation about the 2008 Election

TruthIsAll      source: http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/Conversation2008...

Dec. 2, 2008


Whats the 2008 recorded vote count?

Obama leads by exactly 9.0 million votes: 68.33 59.33m  (52.76 45.81%)  with 129.520m recorded votes counted to date.

Who voted?

Two groups: Those who ...
1)  Voted in 2004
 
(Returning Kerry, Bush and other, third-party 2004 voters)

2)  Did Not Vote in 2004
 
(Newly-registered-for-2008 voters and others who voted prior to 2004)


Can we estimate the number of 'New' and Returning-Election-2004 voters in 2008?

There were 122.3 million official recorded votes in 2004. Bush won by 62 59m  ( 50.73 48.27% ).
Assuming a 4-year voter mortality rate of 5 percent, 6 million died.
Therefore, about 116m who voted in 2004 were alive to vote in 2008.

  • About 95% -- or 110 million -- turned-out to vote in 2008. Assuming the official 2004 recorded vote shares,
    50.73% (56m) are returning-Bush-voters and 48.27% (53m) are returning-Kerry-voters.

  • New voters in 2008, then, would presently total 129.52m 110m, or approximately 19.5 million.

Youre assuming the 2004 Recorded vote was equal to the True Vote. Researchers have concluded that Kerry won by 8-10m. What about that?

Lets not get bogged down by a discussion of election fraud. Lets just accept that the 2004 Recorded vote was the True Vote. Ok?


OK. Do we know how the two groups voted in 2008?

According to the Final 2008 National Exit Poll (find 2004):

 
Obama won
and
McCain won

Of the
53m
 
(40.9%)
 
returning-Kerry-voters
 
89%
=
47.2m
 
9%
=
4.8m

Of the
56m
 
(43.2%)
 
returning-Bush-voters
 
17%
=
9.5m
 
82%
=
46.0m

Of the
1m
 
( 0.8%)
 
returning-Other-voters
 
66%
=
0.6m
 
24%
=
0.2m

Of the
19.5m
 
(15.1%)
 
'new' (DNV in 2004)
 
71%
=
13.8m
 
27%
=
5.3m

129.5m
 
(100.0%)

 

OK, then, using the 2004 official Recorded vote count and shares, the 2008 official Recorded vote total and the 2008 Final National Exit Poll vote shares, you are saying that Obama must have won by:

71.1m 56.3m     ( 54.9 43.5% )


But that does not include Uncounted votes, which are 70-80% Democratic.
Lets assume the following Final 2008 NEP Scenarios for returning voters and a 3% uncounted vote rate:

  • Bush 50.748.3% official 2004 recorded vote margin:
    Obamas True vote share was 55.5%   (a 16.9m vote margin).

  • Kerrys 5247% unadjusted state exit poll (Edison-Mitofskys WPE') margin:
    Obamas True vote share was 57.7%   (a 22.8m vote margin).

I thought we agreed that this discussion was to be based on the official Recorded vote.
The Final NEP was matched to the recorded vote: Obamas vote share was 52.76% (9.0m vote margin).


But we just calculated a different result based on official Recorded Votes and Final NEP. How could that be?

The 2008 Final National Exit Poll used a different returning-2004-voter MIX in order to force a match to the recorded vote. It indicated that returning-Kerry-voters comprised 37% of the recorded vote; Bush-voters 46%; Other 4%; Did Not Vote 13%.


But how could 46% of 129.52m (59.6m) have been returning Bush voters?
Only 59m of the 62m Bush-voters were alive in 2008 (approximately 3million died), and about 56 million (95%) voted in 2008.

And just 37% (47.9m) were returning Kerry voters?
How could Bush-voters outnumber Kerry-voters by 11.7million, when Bushs official 2004 vote margin was only 3.0 million?

And 4% of the 2008 electorate (5.2m) consisted of third- party 2004 voters?
The official recorded vote count shows there were only 1.2m third-party voters in 2004.

The Final NEP is always forced to match the recorded vote count.
There are two possibilities:
a) returning third-party voters misspoke; they did not want to admit that they voted for Bush in 2004 or
b) the Final NEP was forced to match the 2008 recorded vote; the returning-2004-voter mix and/or 2008 vote shares had to be adjusted.


What about the unadjusted 2008 state exit polls?

We dont have those numbers yet. Exit Pollsters Edison-Mitofsky should release their detailed report in a few months.

Didnt they report that Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 5247%, based on the average within precinct discrepancy (WPE)?

Yes, but theres a catch.

Are you referring to the exit pollsters claim that the discrepancy was due to Bush voter reluctance (rBr) to be interviewed? Wasnt that theory refuted by other statistics from the exit pollsters themselves, including the Final NEP 43/37 Bush/Gore returning voter mix?

Yes, it was. But the real reason was false recall on the part of Gore voters who were exit polled; they misspoke when they indicated they voted for Bush.

And why would they do that?

They wanted to identify with the winner of the 2000 election. False recall is still a viable hypothesis.

But Bush had a 48% approval rating in 2004, and Gore was the official winner of the popular vote. False recall wasnt a viable hypothesis then, and its not one now. Are you claiming that the 46/37 Bush/Kerry mix in the 2008 Final NEP is due to returning-Kerry-voters who indicated that they voted for Bush in 2004? Bush had a 22% approval rating in 2008. What would be the motivation of Kerry voters who voted for Obama to indicate that they voted for Bush in 2004?

Maybe this time they just really forgot that they voted for Kerry. Not that they wanted to identify with Bush, mind you. Just forgot.

Oh. How do you explain Obama winning the final 8.3 million votes (absentee, provisional) by 59-39%?

What does that prove? He won the first 121m by 52.7-46.0%, and 8.3 million is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions

But what if the recorded vote is once again fraudulent? The evidence indicates Obama won by 16-22m votes, not the 9m recorded.

There you go again. Back to your old conspiracy theories, just like 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Obama won. Get over it.






 
Refresh | +4 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. The good thing about TIA is that he is still raising a reasonable question...
It is true that TIA may have exaggerated probabilities associated with random binomial distributions and also that nonignorable nonresponse (Howard Wainer's name for "reluctant respondent) was overused by pollsters; but the fact that adjustments don't add up to intuitively logical results is a red flag that there is an unknown factor in the reported results. The anecdotal reports of DRE switching, tabulator hacking, caging, missing mailed ballots, manipulated ballots (butterfly, etc.), miscounts, weird undervotes, inconsistent results with local elections, registration difficulty, etc. seem to allow for the possibility of election manipulation on a planned scale.

IF the pollsters wanted to provide evidence at the precinct level or aimed at finding election manipulation; they could do that and they simply don't want to...and it is a waste of time to continue to talk about they way that pollsters sample again and again. Major NEP polls are NOT trying to examine why the results don't make sense. My theory is that some pollsters and some election supervisors and possibly Karl Rove already know why the results don't add up.

Here in Florida it happened again. There is no reasonable explanation that 250,000 new Democratic registered voters (many minority) and a record turn out of those same voters would go in a booth and vote for Obama and also vote for a GOP hack for senate or a GOP sponsored amendment?! Senile and stupid is one thing, but these discrepancies are practically impossible to accept in many cases. I'd bet that any reasonable exit polls at the precinct level, even with small samples, would suggest that SOME elections were very, very questionable results. There is no reason for exit polls to fail to follow up on that type of evidence after all the controversies.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You Say:
Here in Florida it happened again. There is no reasonable explanation that 250,000 new Democratic registered voters (many minority) and a record turn out of those same voters would go in a booth and vote for Obama and also vote for a GOP hack for senate or a GOP sponsored amendment?! Senile and stupid is one thing, but these discrepancies are practically impossible to accept in many cases. I'd bet that any reasonable exit polls at the precinct level, even with small samples, would suggest that SOME elections were very, very questionable results. There is no reason for exit polls to fail to follow up on that type of evidence after all the controversies.


####

Florida is going to be a real tough nut to crack in terms of all the Dems who are really Repugs handling the situation at polling places.

Can I ask this - when the votes were somewhat recounted in Florida in 2000, did the vote counters look at the ballots as a whole, or just at the Presidential entries??
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 Thu Sep 18th 2014, 05:22 AM
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