Reply #18: Analysis and assumptions

[keithjx]

TIA -

I agree that your analysis reflects what others' have shown and that we KNOW, i.e. that statisically, something ain't stirring the kool-aid. I was curious what the underlying assumptions, the "givens" are for this analysis - assuming that the exit polls correctly show the voters' intent. I think, based on the history of exit polling, this is probably the case, but I just want to play devil's advocate and explore the strengths and weaknesses of these types of analyses. I'm no math whiz, but I'm trying to understand these things - this is too important not to bend some mind-power to it.

Thanks for your work - keep it up!!
KJ

on edit: Furthermore, in light of the post preceding mine (by skids), it occurs to me that comparing the pre-adjusted and adjusted numbers is meritorious in itself because some bright individual could come across some evidence of an algorithm used to shift the numbers uniformly to *. (Some wicked kind of reverse-engineering.) If some kind of formulaic shift was found to be shared across the states from pre- to -post adjustment, that would, de facto, show fraud in my mind.