Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

PREDICTION: THIS WILL BECOME AN HISTORIC DOCUMENT

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
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:50 PM
Original message
PREDICTION: THIS WILL BECOME AN HISTORIC DOCUMENT
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 05:15 PM by TruthIsAll
NOVEMBER 3, 2004
12:23 AM

LONG AFTER THE POLLS CLOSED.

THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN.
EASY TO UNDERSTAND.
CLEAR.
UNAMBIGUOUS.

THIS WILL BECOME THE MOST FAMOUS EXIT POLL IN HISTORY.
IT WILL EDUCATE MILLIONS WHO NEVER KNEW ABOUT EXIT POLLS.
IT WILL ASTOUND MILLIONS WHO KNEW ALL ABOUT THEM.

IT IS THE TRUTH.

13,047 RANDOMLY-SELECTED VOTERS
1.0% MARGIN OF ERROR

KERRY WON THE FEMALE VOTE BY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN BUSH WON THE MALE VOTE.

******* AND MORE WOMEN (54%) VOTED THAN MEN (46%) *********

Kerry = .54*.54+ .47*.46 = 50.78%
Bush = .45*.54+ .52*.46 = 48.22%

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A ROCKET SCIENTIST.
IT'S SIMPLE ARITHMETIC.

IT'S 1 IN 547 MILLION ODDS THAT BUSH WOULD GET 51.23% OF THE VOTE.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. am shocked by senior vote
after being sold out to pharmaceutical companies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. They don't know that they've been sold out
This was one of the reasons I started looking for information. I worked for Doctors and was so frustrated and even humiliated by having to tell seniors that their deductibles and copays had gone up, behind their backs, without warning! We always tried to notify them in advance of this but inevitably we had a few that would come in find out what they now had to pay and get really upset. I had some crying and others yelling and calling their insurance companies because they thought we were trying to rip them off. Unfortunately some of these people have just stopped getting the medical care they need and apparently they don't talk much amongst themselves. I am disgusted at what this administration has done to seniors, but what do they care they are far more likely to die off before the next election cycle than complain. AARP has sold them out too, they just haven't figured it out yet. Most doctors won't take that AARP discount card. I won't EVER work in the medical industry again unless it is reformed to help ALL people, not just the wealthy. some of these people's copays went from 10 or 20 dollars to 50 dollars!! On a fixed income and no chance of supplementing that income with outside work that is simply not right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alexisfree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. so...they have complains for higher copays
and they went and vote for antigay and abortion issues?....but yet again we need too look how this administration has fill them up with fear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #25
41. Yes, fear, but also a different view of war than younger people
I think they also have a sense that in war time you don't mess with your President. Many of them were alive and even serving or had a family member serving in WWII. Also don't forget the large number of American Jews that came to this country during that time. They often worship American Presidents because they relate everything to that time in their lives. The older generation in this country sacrificed a great deal. some of them lived through the Depression and think we should all sacrifice everything right now for the war effort. Again, it is an age thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #18
52. 18 NATIONAL POLLSTERS HAD IT RIGHT- KERRY GOT 51%
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 10:56 AM by TruthIsAll
Taking an average of the final national polls (Registered
voters) and assuming that Kerry would get 67-75% of the
undecided vote, he was projected to win 51.15% (for 67%) or
51.63% (for 75%) of the TWO-PARTY VOTE.

The third party vote was 1.0%
So we must subtract 0.50% from Kerry's and Bush's percentages.

If Kerry won 67% of the undecided: 50.65% = 51.15 - 0.50
If Kerry won 75% of the undecided: 51.13% = 51.63 - 0.50

That exactly confirms the National Exit Poll of 50.78%. 
											
Latest Poll Results				Projected Kerry % of Vote			
	                         Other/undecided % to Kerry					
Date	Poll	Kerry	Bush	MoE	2-party	60%	67%	75%	80%	87%	
1020	AP	49	46	 3.50 	0.516	0.520	0.524	0.528	0.530	0.534	
1021	Time	46	51	 3.00 	0.474	0.478	0.480	0.483	0.484	0.486	
1024	LAT	48	47	 4.00 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1025	Harris	48	47	 2.50 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1026	ICR	44	46	 3.10 	0.489	0.500	0.507	0.515	0.520	0.527	
1027	Econ	49	45	 2.00 	0.521	0.526	0.530	0.535	0.538	0.542	
1029	Nwk	45	48	 4.00 	0.484	0.492	0.497	0.503	0.506	0.511	
1030	Pew	46	45	 3.50 	0.505	0.514	0.520	0.528	0.532	0.538	
1030	Zogby	47	48	 3.10 	0.495	0.500	0.504	0.508	0.510	0.514	
1030	ARG	49	48	 3.50 	0.505	0.508	0.510	0.513	0.514	0.516	
1030	ABC	48	47	 3.00 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1031	Marist	49	48	 2.50 	0.505	0.508	0.510	0.513	0.514	0.516	
1031	TIPP	44	45	 3.50 	0.494	0.506	0.514	0.523	0.528	0.536	
1031	CBS	46	47	 3.00 	0.495	0.502	0.507	0.513	0.516	0.521	
1031	FOX	48	45	 3.40 	0.516	0.522	0.527	0.533	0.536	0.541	
1031	DemC	48	47	 3.10 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1031	Gallup	48	46	 4.00 	0.511	0.516	0.520	0.525	0.528	0.532	
1031	NBC	47	48	 3.00 	0.495	0.500	0.504	0.508	0.510	0.514	
										
	Mean	47.17%	46.89%	3.21%	50.15%	50.73%	51.15%	51.63%	51.92%	52.34%	
	Median	48.00%	47.00%	3.10%	50.52%	50.90%	51.35%	51.75%	52.00%	52.35%	
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. I leave you to your angry mob
As we joke in the biz, "The light bulb has to want to change."

This isn't merely a waste of my time, it's a waste of yours. But we all have our vices. For some it's religion, for others Astrology or picking ponies, and others still choose the bottle. For this reason I can't judge your hobby, although it speaks volumes (literally at times) about the importance of a well-rounded education.

The numbers do speak for themselves, as any Kabbalist will tell you, but without any accompanying research or citations or falsifiable hypotheses, it's circular onanism.

Having Truth in one's nomme de plume makes one an arbiter of truth the way the Clear Skies Initiatives made our skies clear, or the Patriot Act was a patriotic act. You have a good head for crunching numerals, so your talents won't go unnoticed in the service of fact without histrionics and innuendo.

Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. You have a beautiful way with words which are devoid of the facts.
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 09:32 PM by TruthIsAll
What should they believe - your magnificent prose or their lyin' eyes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lostnote03 Donating Member (850 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. LMAO>>>>Whew!!!!!...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #54
64. Perhaps an intervention might help ???
Grasping at straws here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #52
63. Now you've decided it's a....
...good idea to compound your error. Good luck with those degrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
62. They were all HYP. NO. TIZED. by Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. I remember reading some of the letters the RNC sent to seniors prior to
the election: They were scaring the pants off the elderly, telling them lies about what would come of them if Kerry was elected.

Some of the letters were posted on DU, but I didn't bookmark them. Some DUers' parents/grandparents got them.

:kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #26
44. Yes, our elderly are very susceptible to that type of thing.
I remember seeing a few myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. TIA, your work will be part of history books (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
59. HOW COME THE WP/NEP GRAPHIC IS NOT ON POLLINGREPORT.COM?
Instead they have the bogus LA Times Exit Poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick; and is Wikipedia been updating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Could you edit to state date of article in Wash. Post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. I love how they skew the youth vote to make it look smaller.
18-29 = 11 years
30-44 = 14 years
45-59 = 14 years
60+ = around 20 years

Granted, the bloc would still be a little small, but not nearly as small as one might have you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. Great posting, TIA, as usual.
I have a question for you, though. It states that this shows "preliminary exit poll" numbers. Is that the same as "raw exit poll data"? Or is this showing up after the data was manipulated? It seems like it makes a stronger case if these percentages represent the manipulated data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. That's why we LoveYA TIA! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. Could it be that exit polls are really a scam?
Meaning, they aren't really exit polls but essentially educated guesses.


See this article:

http://onlinejournal.com/evoting/010705Landes/010705lan...

It's VERY interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunnystarr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. It's not only very interesting but extremely plausible as well.
WE really do need to tear down that wall and find out what's really going on. The question is how and who.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
55. If it's a scam, why does the Media always pay for it and Rove use it?
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 12:39 PM by TruthIsAll
And why have they been used for 30 years.

And why did we cite the exit polls in the Ukraine?
But call them bogus here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #55
66. All these question have really basic answers. The fact that...
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 10:52 PM by euler
...you ask these questions says a lot about you knowledge about exit polling. An exit polling novice would know the answer to these questions. That makes you something below a exit poll novice (in my opinion).

Stop posting for a week and start reading what other statisticians are saying. Your prayers will all be answered. In fact, you can read about how your notions have been soundly debunked by taking the time to visit just 3 liberal blogs. I say liberal, only because you have indicated you know more about exit polling than moderate and conservation exit poll experts.

start here:

http://www.mysterypollster.com

Note: The mystery pollster is up for the Koufax award for "Best Expert Blogger of 2004." This award is given to the best Progressive blog run by a subject matter expert (in this case, statistics.)

In addition, you might want to read the 12/29/2004 version of Freemans paper. While his conclusions are still suspect, he does indicate that he at least knows the answer to your questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. Well, Mitofsky's MOE is still 1%. No mention of cluster.
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 12:00 AM by TruthIsAll
Does MP know that Mitofksky claims the national exit poll is a RANDOMLY_SELECTED sample?

And by so doing, confirms the simple MOE calculation that I have been posting for months:
MOE = 1/sqrt(n).

Here n= 13,047.
So the MOE is 0.88%.
I won't quibble.

And that this also would apply to state polls, except that the MOE would be higher (1.8% - 4.0%) based on the sample size.

Face it. The key arguments of MP (non-randomness and MOE "cluster" effect) are effectively demolished by Mitofsky in the notes accompanying the National Exit Poll.

That MOE sure is a tight noose, isn't it?

Koufax award?
Sandy was perfection.

MP is far from perfect.







Sorry, no 5% MOE.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. Where ?
"Does MP know that Mitofksky claims the national exit poll is a RANDOMLY_SELECTED sample?"

Need a link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Salomonity Donating Member (106 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. He claims no such thing
That formula you keep quoting ad nauseum for margin of error applies ONLY if each sampled voter is independent of every other, which is NOT the case here--if a voter in precint A is polled, then the chance of another voter in precint A being polled is much higher than for a voter in some other precinct B, because Mitofsky doesn't poll every precinct.

The voters polled, in other word, are clustered, and the traditional error formula DOES NOT APPLY. Full stop. Any attempt to assume otherwise is the mark of a mathematical illiterate, using formulas in contexts where they are invalid.

Further, we've had reports posted here that in at least one precinct, Democratic voters were volunteering to be polled, and were indeed being given questionnaires. If true, that's another nail in the coffin of the random sample.

If there was even a slight disposition of republicans to answer less often, again, the poll is no good.

If too many urban voters were polled--which is likely, because there's no way to compare urban vs rural turnout until the votes are counted--the poll is no good.

Why should we believe you, rather than Mitofsky, since he knows a lot more about the poll's internals, and unlike you, seems to understand statistics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #72
81. You think this is the final NEP exit poll release ?
Edited on Mon Jan-10-05 11:01 PM by euler
The final NEP poll will not say "Preliminary" at the top and "these percentages may change" at the bottom.

By the way, we have dualing Mitofsky's, but with one difference. I give the links to my sources, you don't

What I am pointing out is that, there is a 1% chance of getting a result that is inaccurate by more than the "margin of error" - IF the population distribution is truely random AND the sampling is truely random - neither of which is the case. The logistics of achieving anything approaching a random sample in an exit poll are daunting, and we know that the distribution within the population is not random

**************************************************

Much of the belief that the election was stolen was based on "screen shots" of raw numbers provided by CNN. In exit polling, raw numbers mean almost nothing since the essence of a successful exit poll is to interview a sampling of voters, and then apply a variety of methods in order to adjust to the most probable accurate assessment. "To say you want the raw data is ludicrous," ... "You can't use it until you do something with it. You're talking about a bunch of nave people that had the first course in statistics."

Bill Leonard, a former CBS News VP who was a polling pioneer, has called exit polls "blunt instruments." The widely circulated notion that they are always right is dead wrong.

The notion that a single definitive number showing Kerry winning ever existed is also wrong. "We never had unadjusted unofficial totals," said the source. "As we get more data, we're always adjusting."


http://www.alternet.org/story/20934




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Nice discovery! If you do it by the regions.. Kerry - 50.03% Bush - 47.46%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. The male/female split is the most important characterstic by far.
They both add to 100%.
No ambiguity.
You are a man or you are a woman.

As Edison/Mitofsky say: for a 50% characteristic, the MOE is 1%0.

Got to believe them.
They're the experts.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. You're right...it's simply mathematically impossible!
Even I can understand that. Now if only I could get that Washington Post page to print out! I've tried several times with your earlier notes along these lines but haven't been able to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. The most 'telling' division is the split...
between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'
The flip happens right at the 50k mark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ivorysteve Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. Speaking of raw exit polls...
Has Mitofsky et. al announced a date when the raw precinct-level numbers will be released (the chart above is analysis)? You know, how long after Shrub is ensconced on his throne and it's safe to bring out the unadulterated truth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alizaryn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #12
38. March, I think I hear somewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. How many times have you posted this same thing
20 times? 30 times? Exactly how many times have you posted that screen shot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. And what would be the problem? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Newly enlightened come to this site every day. This is the beginning. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #15
74. That is why we must kick these facts until they become mainstream. n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. And I hope TIA keeps posting it, day after day, if necessary, until it
is no longer swept under the rug.

Thanks, TIA! :hi:

The spin vortex is on high speed. We need to keep renewing the truth!


:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Don't you love it? n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northamericancitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Keep on going, kicking and talking about it. If we don't who will?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyPriest Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #19
42. Yes, I do! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #13
46. It's not a screen shot.
It is still coming off of the Washington Post server.
It hasn't been modified since election night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philly Buster Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
75. I'm new here
For many it may be old but for alot of us we're just getting into the discussion even if we've been reading the site for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
21. Do you really think this is the smoking gun.
They have all been ignoring this kind of stuff from what I can tell. I would like to see someone gain access to the damn machines and find the ghost program. I have a couple of relatives that are very good programmers and have been doing it since the computer industry took off. Both of them think it is VERY possible to hide something like what has been discussed here. The thugs are counting on Americans being stupid enough not to realize this. They all got together and tried to debunk the possibility by calling us and our Senators and Representatives conspiracy theorists. Every one of them said the same damn thing. I did notice however that lots of them didn't show for that little debate. I think they were too scared to have their names connected to either side of the argument. They know we are on to something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beth in VT Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Why won't they release the data,
and why won't they answer questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #21
35. They are not ignoring, they are covering


It is hard work to hide the TRUTH.

Our conscious is clear, they are trembling in their boots.

Remember, they are really wimps and bullies.
They talk a good game but when the going gets tough ,the bullies run home crying to their mamas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #35
43. Covering IS a better choice of words and I agree I think they
were a little shaken up by our "little" movement. I actually think they know there is some substantial evidence. Their reaction to Senator Boxer and Rep. Tubbs-Jones and all the rest was well orchestrated and it was a definite attempt to deflect the accusations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not a Sheep Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
22. Smoking Gun- indisputable evidence (especially of a crime)........
That poll is not a smoking gun. No matter how many times it's posted, no matter how many times someone says it is. I wish it was but it is not.

My prediction: It will not become "a historic document" that will "educate" and "astound millions". In my opinion, your rhetoric is highly inflated.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
23. See this thread and DO SOMETHING tomorrow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wabbajack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
27. According to
http://www.uselectionatlas.org /

*'s official % is 50.73 not 51.23
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. More Proof: Late votes are for Kerry; early votes were rigged for Bush.
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 11:27 PM by TruthIsAll
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wabbajack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #31
39. Yeah
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 01:47 AM by Wabbajack
It really narrowed in a lot of states. Take Colorado, I think Kerry won there, officially it was closer than Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
29. so 13,047 > 13660?
Mitofsky's own organization links to a very different set of data, purportedly with a sample of 13,660 (randomly self-)selected voters:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/U...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138 /

So we have the author of the poll on one side, versus a context-free chart captioned "preliminary exit poll results" with a smaller sample (preliminary: That which precedes the main discourse, work, design, or business; something introductory or preparatory). But we're to take the latter on faith from a person whose last all-caps prediction was that Clinton was "speaking code" when he said Bush won the election, and that all would be revealed on 1/6/05.

Now, what do you suppose "preliminary" means in this context? It means your source has more contemporary data, "LONG AFTER THE POLLS CLOSED":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections...

ALL Kery Bush Nadr
Are you:
Male 46 44 55 0
Female 54 51 48 0


So images don't lie, only Mitofsky and the WaPo lie. After they uncovered the smoking gun. This picture is so damaging to the conspiracy, they forgot to take it off their image server.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. So, of the final 613 votes...Bush gained 679, Kerry lost 9? Right.
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 11:28 PM by TruthIsAll
Total Kerry Votes Bush Votes
13047 50.78% 6625 48.43% 6319
13660 48.43% 6616 51.23% 6998

613 -2.35% -9 2.80% 679
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #30
49. nowhere does it mention 6625-6319 votes
that's an extrapolation based on a jpeg full of percentages labeled "preliminary" multiplied by 13047. The two-party share went from 99.21% to 99.66%, so Nader and Badnarik must have lost votes by that same sort of "reasoning":

Total Third-Party Votes %
13047 103 .79%
13660 57 .34%

OMG OMG! THEY TOOK 46 VOTES FROM THE GREENS ET AL.!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. That "JPEG" is from a WP site which still exists.
My reasoning is impeccable.

Simple multiplications.
Now you even question THAT.
Your new strawman: Nader and Bednarik.
Introduce more fog into a very simple calculation.
AND THE CALCULATION DOES NOT ADD UP.

KERRY HAD 9 OF HIS VOTES MYSTERIOUSLY VANISH.
WHERE DID THEY GO?
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

SPIN. SPIN.

A THIRD GRADER CAN SEE THE RIGHT THROUGH THE SCAM.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #57
68. Foorbar right TIA wrong. This is not the final exit poll.
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 11:07 PM by euler
Sorry, wasted thread, but it will still make a great T-Shirt. Send me one.

The final exit poll will come from Mitosfsky, not in a preliminary exit poll you found on WP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
32. Stolen
What more proof does anyone truly need?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. How about Freeman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. And Baiman and Simon...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. My probability calculations and analysis of roundoff error
National Exit Poll Nov 3, 12:23AM

Sample-size: 13,047 voters
Downloaded by: Jonathan Simon at 12:33 am.

As stated by Edison/Mitofsky (see notes in graphic below):
1-Margin of Error (MOE): 1.0%
2-Randomly-selected sample

This analysis is very similar to that of Ron Baiman.
Baiman calculated the odds of the Kerry shift (-2.56%).
For completeness, I calculate the odds of the Bush shift (+3.01%).

The voting split:
Female: 54%
Male: 46%

The split was consistent with earlier samples from 4pm and 7:33pm.

This is how they voted:
Women for Kerry: 54%-45%
Men for Bush: 52-47%

Since there were more women voting than men, Kerry had the advantage.

Calculation of the national percentages based on the gender split:
Kerry = .54*.54+.47*.46 = 50.78%
Bush = .45*.54+ .52*.46 = 48.22%

Kerry led the national exit poll by 2.56%.
But Bush won the vote by 2.80%.

Exit Actual Diff
Kerry 50.78% 48.43% -2.35%
Bush 48.22% 51.23% 3.01%
Diff 2.56% -2.80% -5.36%

As stated by Mitofsky/Edison, the MOE = 1%.
Therefore, the population standard deviation is:
StDev = MOE /1.96 = 0.00510

This means that 95% of the time we would expect that the Bush actual vote would fall between 47.22% and 49.22%, within 1.0% of his exit poll sample mean of 48.22%.

What is the probability that the Bush tally would exceed his exit poll sample mean by 3.01%, and rise from from 48.22% to 51.23%?

Probability = NORMDIST(0.4822,0.5123,0.0051,TRUE)
Probability = 0.00000000183

The odds are 1 out of 1/.00000000183 or

**************** 1 out of 547,044,797 ****************


ROUNDING
The exit poll percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.
It would be preferable to show at least 1 decimal place for
greater computational accuracy.

Therefore, I have also calculated the odds assuming
1) a Best Case scenario for Bush (numbers rounded UP 0.5%),
and
2) a Worst Case scenario (his numbers rounded DOWN 0.5%).

The 0.5% adjustments were made to the female/male split as
well as to Bush's percentage for each.


THIS IS THE BASE CASE CALCULATION FOR THE EXIT POLL DATA
SHOWN IN THE GRAPHIC WHICH WAS ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST 1%:

Kerry = .54*.54+.47*.46 = 50.78%
Bush = .45*.54+ .52*.46 = 48.22%

These parameters were entered into the normal distribution
function:

Probability = NORMDIST(0.4822,0.5123,0.0051,TRUE)
Probability = 0.00000000183

............................................................
HERE ARE THE CORRESPONDING CALCULATIONS FOR THE BEST AND
WORST CASE SCENARIOS FOR BUSH, AFTER INCREMENTING INPUT
PARAMETERS BY THE +/-0.5% ROUNDOFF ERRROR.
............................................................

WORST CASE: -0.5%

Split
Male 45.5%
Female 54.5%

Vote%
Male 51.5%
Female 44.5%

Weight 47.69%

Probability = NORMDIST(0.4769,0.5123,0.0051,TRUE)
WORST CASE PROBABILITY
Prob Odds: 1 out of
1.82532E-12 547,849,842,147
..............................................................

BEST CASE +0.5%

Split
Male 46.5%
Female 53.5%

Vote%
Male 52.5%
Female 45.5%

Weight 48.76%

48.76% = .465*.525 + .535*.455


Probability = NORMDIST(0.4876,0.5123,0.0051,TRUE)
Probability ODDS: 1 OUT OF
6.09049E-07 1,641,904

To summarize:
Best Case (+0.5%): 1 out of 1,641,904
Most likely(as reported): 1 out of 547,044,797
Worst Case(-0.5%): 1 out of 547,849,842,147




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #34
48. there's far more Creationists with Ph.Ds
But the academic types know better than to use words like "proof" around competing hypotheses based on inferences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #48
70. You have a lot on nonsensical posts but this one is up there.
Are you a creationist with a Ph.D?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
37. The most obvious takes the most time
to be taken for granted.

NGU.

And you won't even have to wait for "never".

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_vote_no_count Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
40. I find your posts worth reading,
and always take the time to look---thank-you for posting them.

But, why the all-caps in most of your subject headers, and why the all-caps in your posts? You don't need to shout here, heavens knows you have a friendly audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #40
51. Not shouting, amplifying "WE'RE MAD AS HELL, NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE"
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 10:14 AM by TruthIsAll
tia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
45. Do you have a link to that document?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RunningFromCongress Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:20 AM
Response to Original message
47. Umm The relig affil. #s add up to 122% of all voters
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 03:23 AM by RunningFromCongress
53+27+3+7+10+22 = 122

I'd like to say though that it's prolly b/c there are ~48% of the protestants who classify themselves as evangelical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. is Evangelicism always a subset of Protestantism?
I mean, is evangelical an abbreviation of evangelical protestant, or do they count evangelicals of other creeds? I guess a little grey line would've made sense, but it does say "preliminary".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. The total, less evangelicals, is exactly 100%. But I guess that
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 11:41 AM by TruthIsAll
is what you are going to grasp at when you have nothing else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cilla4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
56. Print poster?
I've trying futilely to copy into my word processor so I can hang on the wall everywhere I go. Anyone got any suggestions (it's either too wide or too long).

Thanks, as always, TIA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Sure would make for a nice tee-shirt, though.
tia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BamaBecky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
65. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/exitpoll110800.h
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #65
73. The Gore/Bush 2000 exit poll result was right on target.
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 12:48 AM by TruthIsAll
The Gore margin, based on the exit polls, was 0.9%, which was off by about 0.4%, since Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 out of a little more than 100 million, a 0.5% margin

We don't know what the actual percentages were before rounding to the nearest one percent.
Why do they do this?
They should round to the nearest 0.1%.

They could have been exactly right, or off by as much as 0.9%, yet still falling within the 1.0% MOE.

Gender Split Gore Bush
Male.... 48% 43% 52%
Female 52% 54% 42%

Total 100% 48.7% 46.8%

Comparing to Kerry/Bush

Kerry got 54% of the female vote, as did Gore
Bush got 52% of the male vote both times.
Kerry got 47% of the male vote, where Gore got 43%.
Bush got 45% of the female vote vs. Kerry, but only 42% vs. Gore.

This time, the Female/Male split was 54/46.
Last time, it was 52/48.

Kerry did better than Gore because
1) more women voted this time, percentage-wise
2) Kerry improved his share of the male vote by 4%
3) Bush improved his share of the female vote by 3%.
4) Kerry did exactly the same as Gore with the women.
5) Bush did exactly the same with the men.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I47271-20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharman Donating Member (143 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
67. So why doesn't someone do a post-electon canvas?
Pick a few suspicious precincts and canvas all the registered voters--even better if you can get the election day roster=the actual voters.

When I suggested this in a Will Pitt thread, it was pooh-poohed because "you couldn't be sure that voters would tell the truth." Well duh, the same holds true for exit polls. Obviously, exit polls have enough validity to be used worldwide as a means of verifying the honesty of an election. Post-election polls should have no less credibility. Furthermore, where you can canvass an entire precinct, there is no weighting or other guestimating to extrapolate to the total. You have polled 100% of that population. It matches the official tally, or you have a real basis for suspicion.

This would be an extremely telling piece of information. It shouldn't be that expensive to do. Why is no one taking this obvious step?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. They are afraid of what might be revealed. n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. It is time to get the Dems to put our money where our mouth is
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 11:33 PM by Melissa G
By creating a real Liberal media outlet and doing this type of precinct polling where we prove the voting anomalies.
We need a big mouthpiece and documented data to send out on it.
They are our airwaves. We need to take them back!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharman Donating Member (143 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #69
76. Seriously
Arnebeck, the Glibs, any of the legions we've had in Ohio after the election. We've got voter lists, we've got people, money's been donated. Why isn't someone doing this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
super simian Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
78. Just asking...
...what is truly the solution here? Gore was elected in 2000 and we got * and then Kerry was elected in 2004 and then we got * again.

What is truly the solution here? Waiting for a repug legislature that hates paper trails to enact election reform? What is TRULY the solution?

Just asking because I seriously need help figuring this out!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
79. Have you read this ?
At the top it says "Preliminary exit poll"

At the bottom it says "Final percentages may shift"

Let me assure you that the exit poll released by the NEP will NOT contain these phrases. Why don't you just wait for it instead of wasting everyones time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. We have already seen how they adjusted the numbers
Edited on Mon Jan-10-05 11:04 PM by TruthIsAll
in a "later" version: Kerry LOSES nine votes, Bush gains over 600.
Let them explain that one.

They have already said that they "adjusted" the numbers by mixing actual votes with the poll.
Sorry. It won't fly.

A vote is a vote.
It's not a poll response.

A poll response is a poll response.
It's not a vote.

IN THE REAL WORLD, VOTES ARE NOT MIXED WITH POLLS.

Only in bizarro world does that happen.
We live in the real world.

Black is still black.
White is still white.

Truth is still truth.
Fiction is still fiction.

Orwell is turning over right now.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 28th 2017, 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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