You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #34: Nice try... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-11-05 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
34. Nice try...
1) What people predicted in "the summer of 2004" couldn't be more irrelevant. Rove's strategy was formulated in the summer of 2003. You only missed by 1 year. At that time, a rerun of 2000 was precisely what was predicted by nearly everyone and it was what the Republican Strategy was predicated on. If you can find a single reference to a record 60% turnout for 2004 dating back to 2003, please share it. In fact, the only voices talking about a huge turnout even in the summer of 2004 were Democrats... and they mostly talked about it AFTER the Presidential debates... AND, then, they were roundly criticized for letting their "enthusiasm run away with them". Pew Research predicted 57% and Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate predicted 117 to 121 million (58 to 60%) literally at the eleventh hour but both predictions were controversial. The actual vote was 122.3 million.

Here is just one of the literally dozens of press accounts that essentially report what I said about Rove, etc.:

"Now, two weeks before the election, the Bush-Cheney campaign would be happy to eke out the barest, skin-of-the-teeth majority, and aims to cobble it together by turning out every last evangelical Christian, gun owner, rancher and home schooler -- reliable Republicans all. It looks like the opposite of Rove's original dream." (Washington Post, Oct. 17, 2004)

2) You say, "Since the summer of 2004 anyone who was seriously following the race, especially pollsters tweaking their likely voter models knew there would be at least 60% turnout, and that translates to somewhere around 120 million votes."

Really? You say this with such confidence that I hate to contradict you. In fact, you regurgitate what Dr. Other (or was it his alter ego Mr. Hand?) says, word for word. Too bad that Dr. Other always has "false memory".

If this is true, then you wouldn't mind providing a single citation from the very long list of polling organizations which you have inadvertently provided that shows us that "pollsters tweaking their likely voter models knew there would be at least 60% turnout". One example shouldn't be hard, should it?

In fact, seven of the polling organizations used a variation of the Gallup "Likely Voter Model". This asks a series of questions, largely focused on past voting behavior, creates an index and uses an explicit "cutoff" at the expected level of turnout. These seven are ABC/Washington Post, Gallup, LA Times, Newsweek, Pew, Quinnipiac and Time.

Gallup used a cutoff of 55% and didn't tweak at all except for their very last poll. That translates into a turnout of less than 109 million voters. This was the main reason Mark Blumenthal (no friend of those who believe in fraud) reported that "At the national level, the surveys that attempt to calibrate the percentage of likely voters to expected turnout have given George Bush wider leads than other polls released since Labor Day."

...No kidding. By no less than 7 points. What does that do to your very impressive list?

But that isn't all. ALL of the Likely Voter Models implicitly take turnout into account in some way even if not with an explicit cutoff like Gallup. And because LV models are largely predicated on past voting behavior, they are not very good at capturing major surges in turnout. Was 2004 a major surge? It was nothing less than the fourth largest turnout in a century and within 2 points of the record.

That is precisely why 13 of the polling organizations you mention ALSO provide polls of "Registered Voters". Many analysts quote both. TruthIsAll used to use a mix of both for precisely that reason. I notice you didn't quote a single RV poll. We both know why, don't we. It would tell the opposite of your story...

I don't claim that what I wrote and what autorank quoted is the end-all of fraud analysis. But it is accurate and it is the starting point from which you must begin to make your case that Bush won. What you've said is just meant to depress...

(anaxarchos extends a giant crucifix in front of him) ...Back ...Get Back into Your Crypt ...I Command You.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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