Reply #52: raw sample is not after stratification model rules application?

[papau]

As in we have enough females for this 60 minute time interval so I can not ask any more females at this precinct to respond for the next few minutes,or alternatively and more likely I take a random sample of the females that have responded where the sample size obtained fits the stratification requirement.

In the latter case it is obvious that simply adding those sample results "raw numbers" does indeed work to get an MOE calculation input number, and indeed it works for the former case.I really do not believe that the 13000 response count is pre being put through the strat model.

And I am just not seeing dependent variables.

And "Since the poll consisted of "raw" data (even though the sample was randomly selected - see the notes) it needed to be "weighted" to match the recorded vote - along with adding 613 new voters to the original sample, bringing the final total to 13,660 respondents. And thus we now have the official National Exit Poll." is truth.

Indeed we would all agree that the standard procedure of changing the strat model at the end of the day to fit the "recorded actual vote" is a ART and not a science, where the goal is just number matching before we try to find out sub-group trends from the prior election.That matching does indeed come up with a best fit at 37/37/26 D/R/I BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN 37/37/26 is truth. Indeed that is the point - Either fraud - or a very bad initial strat model - can explain the numbers.

And the strat model Hispanics numbers pre national final fit does indeed match other Hispanic org strat model results. The final fit strat model does not match other org exit poll results.

Perhaps party ID has indeed changed from 39/35/26 - and perhaps Hispanics really love Bush in battle ground states but not in other states - As in 2000 where we had to believe 20000 holocaust survivors voted against the Jewish VP, and that black turn out was low, while absentee ballots went big for Bush, and 10% of black vote could not be read by optical readers vs 2% of white vote. -in 2004 we need to believe there were major shifts - because Bush is a wartime president.The evidence I am seeing makes me believe fraud is the more likely answer.

Indeed the courts do allow stat evidence - as the idiots in Ohio will find in their stupid harassment suit of the BBV protestors/recount requestors.

But You are correct in that one cannot "prove" anything that can be explained in 2 different ways. But why are we not getting access to the computer programs - why are there election day mods being done - and post election removed - all with no record other than "I saw the tech with the machines"?

I think TIA has a solid case - and I see no math error that destroys the case.