Reply #25: You are pretending to use hard numbers to make a mathematically...

[Brotherjohn]

... proven case, yet you are saying things like:

"But we all know who won the majority of NEW voters, don't we?"

Well, THERE's a mathematical proof for you!

You question completely the breakdown of Bush 2000 voters, and rightfully so, based on the possibilities; yet you refuse to question for a millisecond the breakdown of voter preference within each group.

Besides, again, if their sampling was NOT random (although you religiously believe they somehow used perfectly representative sampling), they could have had any number in the world for Bush 2000 voters. It wouldn't be possible for the whole sample set of 122M, but it certainly would be possible for a poll. Perhaps improbable, but less and less so if their sampling was less representative.

Look, we're just butting heads here to no effect. I too think Kerry won a majority of new voters, and I too think the preliminary Edison-Mitofsky results were probably much nearer to the truth than the finals. I also think the numbers were changed to match the "official" tally, whether that tally was accurate or not. I think it poses dire questions about the election as a whole, given that exit-polling has traditionally been reliable.

But I will maintain until my grave that nothing you have shown here PROVES Kerry won the election. And YOU were the one who put several posts out there pretending to MATHEMATICALLY PROVE that Bush lost. Sorry, you just haven't done that. I wish you had.

If you had, don't you think you'd be getting a LOT more replies? We're a smart bunch here at DU. We can all crunch numbers.