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
Google

Reply #84: Thanks Giving Offering. A full table of learning. Channeling TIA [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
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-24-05 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #23
84. Thanks Giving Offering. A full table of learning. Channeling TIA
"...unlikely to be due to chance.

The question is: what was it due to? Something was biased. It was either the count or the poll."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right.
Either the count or the poll was biased.
Must have been the poll.
There is no way the count was biased.
There is no evidence to suspect foul play in the count.

Not in Ohio.
Not in Florida.
Not in Pennsylvania.
Not in New Mexico.
Not in Nevada.
Not in Missouri.
Not in North Carolina.
Not in Minnesota.
Not in New Hampshire.
Not in Texas.
Not in Washington.

No vote count bias whatsoever.
Right.
Must be the poll.
All 130 of them:
11 Pre-election Bush approvals
50 Pre-election states
18 Pre-election nationals
50 Post-election state exits
12:22am Post-election national exit (13047 respondents)

Even Mitofky's exit polls.
Except for the ONLY one which was matched to the vote:
The FINAL.
1:25pm Nov. 3 National Exit (13660).
In this case, BOTH poll and count had to be unbiased.
Even if the 43%Bush/37% Gore demographic weighting is IMPOSSIBLE.

But it can't be.
BushCo would never cheat.
They may lie about WMD, but never about the vote.
So let's just disregard the FACT that 43/37 is IMPOSSIBLE.


Thanks.
This make a lot of sense.
The pollsters were not wrong.
"It's the BIAS, stupid."

You convinced us:
Exit poll respondents lied.
Gore voters forgot.
Bush voters were reluctant.
Even if the Final Exit Poll (43/37) says otherwise.

But, but....
You agree that 43/37 is impossible.
And that 43/37 implies

1) Bush 2000 voters were oversampled; in fact, they were anxious.

but, but...

2) Bush 2000 voters could not have comprised 43% of the 2004 vote.
That would mean Bush got 52.57mm votes.
We know he only got 50.45.
But 1.75mm of them died.
So at most 48.7mm Bush 2000 voters (39.8%) could have turned out in 2004.

Sorry, but...
There goes your rBr (reluctant Bush responder).
There goes your Gore Voter False Recall.

You realize that equal turnout makes Kerry a landslide winner
of the Final Exit Poll, don't you?
Hell, Kerry won by 51-48 (4mm votes) when it was 41Bush/39 Gore at 12:22am.
And that means Kerry won EVERY time line.

Bias?
Or just BS?

Naysayers, come out of the dark.
And into the light.

It's time to view the forest.

As Deep Throat told Woodward (he was a journalist then):
"You are missing the overall".
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

To quote Febble (my responses in UPPER case):
"If you read both pieces you will see that there are a number of ways in which the plot could be compatible with fraud, even with widespread fraud..."
THANK YOU

it is, however, very difficult to reconcile the plot with a fraud mechanism that could have contributed substantially to the exit poll discrepancy.
DEFINE SUBSTANTIALLY.
BUT WAS IT ENOUGH TO STEAL THE ELECTION?

It would therefore seem more likely than not that the exit poll discrepancy was caused largely by polling bias rather than fraud.
WHAT ABOUT THE PRE-ELECTION POLLING DISCREPANCIES?

However BECAUSE the analysis is perfectly compatible with the kinds of electoral injustice that we KNOW happened in 2004, just as they did in 2000, then the analysis does nothing to rule out fraud.
THANK YOU

The analysis simply says that the magnitude is not indexed by the exit poll discrepancy. It could (probably) be less. It could (conceivably, I suppose) be greater.
COULD BE MORE, COULD BE LESS.
FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, FEBBLE, TELL US SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW.

And the take-home message is: stop regarding the exit polls as prima facie evidence of a stolen election. There is plenty of other work to be done, and frankly, the exit polls are getting in the way.
NO, FEBBLE, THE EXIT POLLS WERE THE FIRST MECHANISM TO RAISE SERIOUS FLAGS.
SINCE THEN, WITH THE ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL TIME LINE
(THE ONLY ONE MATCHED TO THE PURLOINED VOTE)
AND WITH PROOF OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE FINAL'S
BUSH/GORE 2000 WEIGHTS, THE EXIT POLLS HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED AS
THE GIFTS THAT ALWAYS KEEP ON GIVING.

OF COURSE, YOU WOULD LIKE ALL EXIT POLL DISCUSSION TO CEASE.
YOU WANT US TO "MOVE ON".
SO WOULD MITOFSKY, I BET.
DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PRE-ELECTION POLLS?
THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

And while I'm attuned to the other world, let me channel another of the dead:
YUP, THAT'S ME.
RUMORS OF MY DEATH HAVE BEEN GREATLY EXAGGERATED.
THOUGH BANNED FROM DU, I'M STILL KICKING, THANK YOU.
KICKING ENOUGH TO MAKE ALL YOU NAYSAYS COME OUT IN FORCE.



I believe the citation is from this document:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/ES ...

In which the hypothesis I referred to is incorrectly stated.

See the second of the links above for clarification.

However, the channeled spirit correctly spots one of the fraud mechanisms that could account for the exit poll discrepancy and not produce a swing-shift correlation:
THANK YOU

If fraud in 2004 was precisely calibrated to the fraud that occurred in 2000 (and I mean precisely), then yes, that might do it.
NO THANKS
2004 FRAUD MUST BE BE PRECISELY CALIBRATED TO 2000 FRAUD?
SURELY YOU JEST.
THERE ARE INFINITE SCENARIO COMBINATIONS WHICH WILL YIELD
RESULTS SIMILAR TO THE MODEL WHICH YOU JUST REFEREED TO.

If every extra 1 percent in Bush's vote share due to fraud in 2000 was mirrored by X times 1% fraud in 2004, yup, maybe you could pull it off.
UMM, THANK YOU...
I GUESS.

An alternative would be uniform fraud in all precincts.
POSSIBLE.
NOT LIKELY.
WHY LEAVE A TRAIL?
BETTER TO TARGET INDIVIDUALLY.

Another alternative is fraud confined to precincts in which Bush was anticipated to do badly relative to 2000 (although you would have to be careful to cover a substantial majority of precincts and be sure to avoid any where he was doing well).
AGAIN, POSSIBLE,
BUT NOT LIKELY

THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO SKIN A CAT.
TOUCH SCREENS.
OPTI-SCANS.
PUNCH CARDS.
CENTRAL TABULATORS.
AND THE VOTERS WOULD NEVER KNOW IT.

BUT YOU NEED COOPERATION AT THE STATE AND/OR LOCAL LEVEL.
LIKE IN FLORIDA AND OHIO.

If anyone can suggest an practical algorithm that could achieve this, bearing in mind that it in all NEP precincts where the vote counts for are collected at the precinct, that the fraud must be perpetrated at precinct level, not at tabulator level (about 60% of precincts) while the remainder has to be done at tabulator level, then I will concede, yes, perhaps the exit poll discrepancy was due to fraud.

NOW WE MUST COME UP WITH THE THEFT ALGORITHM FOR YOU?
YOU ASSUME THERE WAS JUST ONE.
THE SMOKING ALOGORITHM...
SURELY, FEBBLE, YOU JEST.
FRAUD CAME IN MANY SHAPES AND SIZES.
IT HAD TO BE FLUID.
1. OHIO AND FLORIDA -ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
2. PICK UP ENOUGH VOTES ELSEWHERE TO WIN BY AT LEAST 3MM VOTES
IN ORDER TO AVOID ANOTHER 2000 AND GET THAT "MANDATE"
3. SET THE TONE EARLY: THE EAST WAS THE BEAST.
MAKE SURE THE EARLY TOTALS SHOW BUSH AHEAD.
4. AND, MOST IMPORTANT, MAKE SURE THE INITIAL EXIT POLL TIMELINESS
ARE NOT RELEASED. ONLY SHOW THE FINAL AFTER MATCHING TO THE VOTE...

But remember - there is very little room for any deviation from the fraud perpetrated in 2000. It has to be directly proportional.
MUST BE DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL?
SURELY, FEBBLE, YOU JEST.
WHY DO YOU EXPECT THE PERPS WOULD USE A SIMPLE FRAUD FORMULA?

Any variance and it will show up in a swing-shift correlation. I challenge my channeled spirit to produce a model of 1250 precincts (not 10) with a realistic distribution of WPEs, vote shares, counting methods and swing values in which the WPE (or any other measure of bias) is not correlated with a measure of swing, and yet fraud is responsible for both (I'm happy with 70% shared variance, or even less). Oh, and you can't end up with a large mean WPE in 2000 because there wasn't one.

LET'S BACK UP HERE.
I CHALLENGED THE NAYSAYERS TO COME UP WITH A SINGLE
PLAUSIBLE BUSH WIN SCENARIO.

THE ORIGINAL SCENARIO YOU CAME UP WITH IN THE DU "GAME" THREAD
IN WHICH I WAS BANNED (HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?) WAS ESSENTIALLY THIS:
1- 15% OF GORE VOTERS (3 MILLION) VOTED FOR BUSH
2- KERRY WINS JUST 52% OF NEW VOTERS.

NOT VERY PLAUSIBLE.

THE FINAL EXIT POLL HAD KERRY WINNING 54% OF NEW VOTERS (TOO LOW).
AND 10% OF GORE VOTERS VOTING FOR BUSH (TOO HIGH).
IN THE 1:25PM FINAL, THE WEIGHTS/PERCENTAGES WERE CHANGED
TO MATCH THE VOTE.

SO, OF COURSE, BUSH WON THE FINAL EXIT POLL. HE HAD TO.
BECAUSE THEY FORCED THE NUMBERS TO MAKE IT SO...

43/37, 43/37, 43/37, 43/37...
IMPOSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE

AND THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME LINE THAT HE WON.

AT THE 12:22AM TIME LINE, KERRY WON 91% OF GORE VOTERS.
AND 57% OF NEW VOTERS.

AND THE FINAL'S 200O VOTER TURNOUT
43% OF 2004 VOTERS FOR BUSH AND 37% FOR GORE?
- CLEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.
OOPS, I REPEAT MY SELF.

SO I ASKED THE NAYSAYERS TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER SCENARIO.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO DOWNLOAD MY EXCEL INTERACTIVE ELECTION MODEL.
IT'S FREE.

BUT NO ONE TOOK ME UP ON THE OFFER.
AND NOW YOU CHALLENGE ME TO DEVELOP A RIDICULOUS, IMPOSSIBLE ALGORITHM?
I THINK I'LL STICK WITH 43/37.
SINCE YOU ARE ALREADY STUCK WITH IT.

FROM HERE TO ETERNITY.

SINATRA AND LANCASTER.
TWO OF MY ALL-TIME FAVORITES, BTW.
NO BS FROM EITHER OF THEM.
HONEST. HARD WORKING. TALENTED. PROFESSIONAL.


THOSE WERE THE DAYS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | 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