Reply #10: You still believe that Bush won, "the greatest miracle of all"

[WillE]

Thanks for affirming my point: You still believe Bush won.
At least you are consistent.
But AFAIK, only YOU still believe that Bush won.

So why must you keep trying to drill your "belief" that Bush won into the heads of Democrats on this Democratic Forum who believe otherwise. They have seen ZERO evidence that Bush won.

Professor Steven Freeman holds a Ph.D. from the MIT Sloan School of Management.
He is on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics.
He teaches research methods and survey design, a domain that includes polling. He has received national awards for his research.

I quote from Freeman's wonderful book "Was the 2004 Presidential election stolen":

"By these calculations, the 2004 electorate comprised 45.2 million Gore 2000 voters and a remarkable 52.6 million Bush 2000 voters - remarkable because in 2000 Bush received only 50.5 million votes. If we are to believe the NEP figures, this is indeed the greatest miracle of all in the 2004 election: ONE in NINE Gore voters, through death, disability or divine intervention, disappeared from the electorate, but no such fate befell a SINGLE Bush 2000 voter. Indeed, another TWO million miraculously appeared."

Mitofsky initially said the massive discrepancy was due to more Kerry voters responding than Bush voters (rBr). But he was refuted by his own data set. Duh, maybe that's because there WERE more Kerry voters. He never considered THAT possibility. And neither, in 2009, do you.

He also said that there was absolutely nothing wrong with his exit poll design.

So once again, I will ask the simple question: Who still agrees with you?
Where is the book that proves Bush won? Hell, forget the book.
Where is YOUR EVIDENCE?

Your "belief" that the exit polls were wrong just doesn't cut it.

Are we to believe that ALL the mathematically-trained election researchers are wrong?
And that YOU are right?
How do YOU explain THAT?
What makes YOU so ALL-KNOWING?

Is YOUR "evidence" more convincing than THEIR evidence?
Your "evidence" is simply a "belief" that returning Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry.

You say:
I don't claim that the official vote count was strictly correct, but I do believe that the exit polls were wrong (i.e., that the error exceeded the statistical "margin of error"). As a separate issue, I also believe that a full recount (if possible) would confirm that Bush received more votes. None of this amounts to claiming a fair election. It's hard to believe that you're incapable of making these distinctions.

As usual, you have complicated a very straightforward analysis:
Late vote shares = exit poll shares
Late vote shares <> recorded vote shares