10. EXPLANATION OF THE WEIGHTINGS AND RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
Edited on Sun May-08-05 02:23 PM by TruthIsAll
EXPLANATION OF THE WEIGHTINGS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
As I have posted numerous times on DU, the absolute maximum possible weightings in the How Voted 2000 category are as follows:
Bush: 39.82%, Gore 40.25%, Other (Nader): 2.62%.
FORGET ABOUT THE POLLING WEIGHTS. THESE ARE THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE WEIGHTS BASED ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF 2000 VOTERS WHO WERE STILL ALIVE AND COULD COME TO VOTE IN 2004.
FOR THIS ANALYSIS, WE SHALL ASSUME THAT ALL OF THEM (GORE, BUSH AND NADER VOTERS) CAME TO VOTE. WE KNOW THAT SOME DID NOT VOTE IN 2004, THEREFORE THE ACTUAL WEIGHTS ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER FOR GORE, BUSH AND NADER.
TO THE EXTENT THAT GORE, BUSH AND NADER VOTERS STAYED HOME, THE CORRESPONDING PERCENTAGE WEIGHTINGS MUST DECLINE AND THE PERCENTAGE OF NEW VOTERS (WHO WENT STRONGLY FOR KERRY) MUST RISE.
I WELCOME ANYONE WHO CARES TO DISPUTE THESE FACTS TO STEP FORWARD AND DO SO.
Since the Final 13660 respondent timeline (which Bush won) is rejected due to the IMPOSSIBLE 43% Bush /37% Gore weighting, we will use the 13047 timeline as our base. We will assume the 13047 timeline voting percentages as a base case, along with the maximum weightings given above (100% turnout for Gore and Bush voters).
We will calculate vote totals using one percent increments applied to the base case vote percentages for each subgroup: New voters, Gore, Bush and Nader/Other.
In the base case (rBr factor =0%), Kerry wins 51.94% of the vote, a 5.91mm margin.
If we assume a 7% decrease in the Kerry vote in each subgroup and apply the difference to the Bush vote for each group, we find that Bush wins the election with 50.74%, a 2.98 million vote margin (very close to the actual recorded vote). But for Bush to win by a 3 million vote margin 14.37% of Gore voters must have voted for him, as well as 44.99% of New voters, 91.63% of Bush 2000 voters and 25.97% of Nader voters. These percentages are totally implausible and far beyond the 1.75% margin of error.
18. What happens if you hypothesize that Bush's lead came from the....
...group that "did not vote in 2000 but did before" and that those Evangelical Christian "reluctant VOTERS" did not participate in the exit poll (i.e., it was hard enough to get them to even vote)? Assume that other Bush voters responded at the same rate as Kerry voters.
Thanks very much for exploring this, TIA. I know you will not be able to resist starting a new "Reluctant Bush VOTERS" thread. Go for it. Just please do not say "now 'they' are saying...". Ta.
p.s. have you done or seen an analysis, anywhere, examining how much of the difference between the exit polls and the canvass is due to the under/over vote and the rejected provisional ballots? Uncounted votes would include a very high percentage of Kerry votes.
I believe that the Miami Herald used such an analysis to show a Gore win in Florida (before the newspaper consortium actually proved it when they counted the under/over votes). The Herald assumed that vote distribution of the uncounted votes was the same as that for the counted votes for each precinct. It would take a lot of computational grunt to do the analysis nation-wide. But Ohio might be doable.
23. Kerry was leading Bush in 1st-time voters & those who did not vote in 2000
Edited on Sun May-08-05 11:58 PM by TruthIsAll
At 11027 respondents:
Kerry won 59% of those who did not vote in 2000
and led Bush 12.49-8.25mm;
Kerry won 56% of first-time voters
and led Bush 7.53-5.78mm;
Kerry won 66.4% of those who voted prior to 2000
and led Bush 4.73-2.32mm
Assume maximum weightings for 2000 voter turnout:
VOTED IN 2000
Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 17.31% 39% 59% 1%
Gore 40.25% 8% 91% 0%
Bush 39.82% 90% 9% 0%
Other 2.62% 13% 65% 16%
100% 46.15% 52.13% 0.59%
120.88 56.42 63.73 0.72
Have you ever vote before
Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 11.0% 43% 56% 1%
yes 89.0% 48% 50% 2%
100% 47.45% 50.66% 1.89%
122.26 58.01 61.94 2.31
Did not vote in 2000 (votes in millions)
17.31% 8.25 12.49 0.21 20.95
11.31% 5.78 7.53 0.13 13.45
Voted before 2000
6% 2.47 4.96 0.08 7.50
Did not vote in 2000
39.39% 59.60% 1.01%
Voted before 2000
43.00% 56.00% 1.00%
32.93% 66.04% 1.03%
22. What about my "reluctant Bush VOTER" hypothesis (#18)?
I can not resist a "challenge"....
RBV Hypothesis: Bush's lead came from the group that "did not vote in 2000 but did before" and those Evangelical Christian "reluctant VOTERS" did not participate in the exit poll (i.e., it was hard enough to get them to even vote). Assume that other Bush voters responded at the same rate as Kerry voters.
No, the TIA Challenge is a duel with opponents using his/her choice of spread sheets. The math just gets you in the door.
I'm not a statistician. However, I can read and think, write on occasion. My belief is that the 'debating society' days are over here. We have monsters running the country who stole TWO elections. The idea of the challenge, which TIA made in his explanatory post is to just end the quibbling once and for all.
I'm sure that if you do the math and respond to him somewhere, you can have some fun and find out why your wrong.
31. Well, you're doing God's work. Thank you from my heart.
I thought you were in NZ from your profile.
Yes, manual recounts are the only true test but with paper ballots. Maybe we'll get that someday soon. I have a feeling election fraud will gather the same force in public consciousness that the doubts about the Kennedy assassination did. I can't recall the source, but there was at least one poll after the election that showed a fairly high level of public doubt in the reliability of the election process, results, etc.
I want to make one point that I think is important for every election fraud resister. While tabulator fraud discovery would be mind blowing and a recount heavenly, the work done by TIA on the exit polls proves fraud. It's the difference between an eye witness (recount, fraud discovery) case and a circumstantial case in court. You can prove an event took place entirely with circumstantial evidence. The exit poll data is a combination of both really. There were actual events that took place, the exit polls, and then the analysis. The proofs are multiple and varied here by TIA but they're compelling. The critics of this never seem to answer his points.
Given the validity of the exit poll analysis and the support of that by TIA and the many academic statisticians, we have enough to scream recount! investigation! fraud!
Good luck in Ohio. I would not be surprised at all if you demonstrate tabulator fraud, the most elegant way to fix the whole thing.
32. It is liam_laddie (not I) who is doing God's work !!
You were correct, I am an American citizen living in NZ.
My number one priority is demonstrating that Kerry won Ohio and thus is our rightful President. I am hopeful that we will discover tabulator fraud, but it is not essential. All we really need to do is demonstrate that errors (intentional or not), combined with uncounted votes, were sufficient to bridge the 110,000 vote-gap in Ohio.
You are saying the Bush percentage of the vote was 44.99% which corresponds to approximately what he has now, (or at least what he had until he remain fixed on Bolton & SSN) so the only way that he could have reached the winning percentage that he did was a 14.37% rejection of Kerry by Gore voters? That would not happen, since they were basically po'd that Gore rec'd more popular votes than Bush and should have been elected president. There's is no way they would have done that.
8. Ask me how I know-Because the machines tell us so
Edited on Sun May-08-05 01:51 PM by MissWaverly
The voting machines show Bush votes in democratic precincts all over the us. So democrats were voting for Bush, if the democrats didn't reject Kerry then where did all those dem votes for Bush come from.
Maryland Kerry 1,334,493 there were 1,340,778 registered Dems who voted 11/2 Bush 1,024,703 there were 733,643 only 81% of Republicans voted Now where did all those votes for Bush come from, Greens or maybe Independents or MAYBE it was all those "dirty felons" the Republicans are always claiming sneak in to vote illegally.
This "adminstration" has hijacked our democracy. The gun at the head of the American voter is held by the MSM, those manipulators of "popular opinion." Questions about the political affiliation of media ownership? Are they right wing extremists? Are they eager to protect their profits at the expense of human values?
9. The logical explanation is that the evangelicals turned out in troves
And that they didn't in 2000. I'm mixed on this issue. First off, Kerry's supporters did SO much grassroots get out the vote work that it's so hard to believe that it's hard to believe that anything could match that. But the religious right is a strong organization that not only has a strong following, but also a huge amount of money. It is POSSIBLE that they were able to match our get out the vote efforts but it seems very unlikely.
Although voter turnout was up generally in 2004, there is no indication that white evangelicals boosted their level of participation more than other groups in the population...white evangelicals constituted the same percentage of the electorate in both years: 23%. My note: GWB did not receive all the religious vote, 86% of black Protestants preferred Kerry and 58% of Hispanic Catholics preferred Kerry according to the National Exit Poll & 74% of the Jewish vote went to Kerry.
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.