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 #25: P.S., one thing that I think newbies need to know is this most basic of... [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 » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. P.S., one thing that I think newbies need to know is this most basic of...
...assumptions of your work: it's not just that Kerry won the exit polls (that is acknowledged by the pollsters, and has been confirmed by USCV and others), but that the exit polls confirm a Kerry win in all other ways, when you look at the exit poll and official tally data from different angles. For instance, the east-west skew that you discovered. There is simply no innocent explanation for why the eastern states are more at variance with the exit polls than the rest of the country--and the most plausible explanation is that the Bush Cartel stole most of the votes there first, to get an early lock on the election in the earliest closing polls.

Another example is the sudden midnight switch from Kerry to Bush--the result flipping over, based on a mere 660 final exit poll respondents. As you have pointed out, to get that flip (from Kerry to Bush), they had to infuse impossible numbers of Bush voters into their exit poll/official tally mix.

Another basic item: That the pollsters PERMITTED the TV networks to MIX the two numbers (exit polls vs. official tally), thus denying the American people strong evidence of election fraud--Kerry's clear win of the exit polls (a great journalistic, as well as intellectual, crime); and that the pollsters have denied basic data to qualified researchers and to a senior Congressman, John Conyers, who is investigating the election--and have issued statements to try to explain Kerry's win of the exit polls (the "reluctant Bush responder" theory) that are unsupported by any data.

What your current model does is to try to create a realistic scenario, based on the known data and on reasonable inferences, to find out what the voter response rate was (to the exit pollsters) in this plausible scenario.



At the beginning, you say...

Key results:
1-Bush response was relatively heavy (K/B=.93) in the vote
rich non-partisan middle, but not in the partisan precincts.

This model seems to show that, yes, Bush voters responded (to exit pollsters) in relatively equal numbers to Kerry voters in the middle range of precincts (those that had about even numbers of Republicans and Democrats, and those with only a slight edge either way), but that when it comes to highly partisan precincts (presumably heavy Dem or Rep registration), voters become very reluctant to respond in the most Republican areas (60% refusal) and much more likely to respond in the Democratic areas (only 40% refusal).

So--if I'm reading the model correctly--I would re-state your key result this way: Bush response was relatively heavy (K/B=.93) in the vote rich non-partisan (equally divided) middle, as was Kerry voter response, but in the highly partisan precincts, voter response to the pollsters dips significantly (60%) in heavily Republican precincts and increases significantly in heavily Democratic areas (non-responders are only 40%).

In other words, the above response rates are what are shown in a realistic model of a Kerry win. (--i.e, no outsized or unexpected "reluctant Bush responder" phenomenon).

And if this is what really happened (more or less), it confirms intuitive and anecdotal information--that, a) some Republicans in heavy Republican areas don't trust outsiders (pollsters) but are much freer of that prejudice in the vote-rich middle precincts (mixing people more evenly produces more open-mindedness and less fear?); b) some voters in highly Republican precincts may have been afraid to state their vote publicly (to a pollster, at their neighborhood polling place)--and (my inference) those wouldn't likely be Bush voters, but rather Kerry voters surrounded by Bush voters (as with the folks recently thrown out of their church in Waynesville for refusing to renounce their votes for Kerry); and c) voters in mixed Dem/Repub areas, and high Dem areas, tend to be more open about how they voted (whoever they voted for), and represent the bulk or mainstream of the country (most of the precincts).

Am I reading these results of the Optimizer correctly?

I feel a little confusion and uncertainty with regard to the categories of "Bush voter" and "voter in a heavy Bush or Republican precinct." DOES this model say that Bush as well as Kerry voters in heavy Dem precincts were more open about saying who they voted for, while both Bush and Kerry voters in heavy Rep precincts were much less open--with the vote rich middle areas being a wash, as to response?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform 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