Reply #54: two things

[OnTheOtherHand]

First of all, I have not seen the "hidden data," as Febble and I have explained repeatedly. So of course I find it offensive that you continue to assert it.

Second of all, the same data used by Freeman indicate that John Kerry won New York by 29.7 points (IM WPE) or 31.3 points (Best Geo estimator).
http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf p. 22
appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/2004ElectionOutcomeExitPolls.pdf

The four pre-election polls in the final week put him ahead by 15 to 18 points.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/2004/info/allpolls.csv

And the official returns, per Leip, put him up by 18.3 points.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

So, you can "trust" whoever the heck you want, but an actual glance at publicly available information might point in a different direction.

The Charles Stewart analysis didn't depend on access to "hidden data," either.
http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/Addendum_Voting_Machines_Bush_Vote.pdf

Is it possible that you call for more data as an excuse to ignore the data already available?