Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush approval ratings: Further confirmation of a Kerry landslide (TIA)

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
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 03:04 AM
Original message
Bush approval ratings: Further confirmation of a Kerry landslide (TIA)
Edited on Thu Dec-13-07 03:13 AM by tiptoe
Bush approval ratings: Further confirmation of a Kerry landslide

TruthIsAll      http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/BushApprovalvsPo...


The Final 2004 National Exit Poll 'Voted 2000' category weightings have already been proven to be mathematically impossible. Similarly, the increase from 2000 in Bush's urban/suburban vote (the Urban Legend myth) has been shown to be totally implausible.

The 2004 trend in Bush monthly approval ratings and pre-election polls (Image) provides further proof that the final exit polls were forced to match a fraudulent vote count. Analysis of the data indicates that Kerry won 53% of the vote, a full 5% over his recorded share.

   1. There was a very strong 0.87 correlation between the 2004 pre-election polls and Bush approval ratings.
   2. The NEP and Florida exit poll approval weights did not match the actual Bush ratings on Election Day.

Bush's 11-poll average approval rating was 48.5% on Election Day. The preliminary National Exit Poll, updated at 7:33pm Nov.2, indicated 51% approval. But the Final National Exit Poll, posted at 1:25pm on Nov.3, indicated a 53% rating. The corresponding Bush vote shares were also increased. The Final exit poll adjustments were necessary in order to force a match the to the recorded Bush national vote share. The Florida Exit Poll also had Bush approval at 53%. Historically, Florida has closely matched the national rating.

Using the 48.5% average Bush approval instead of the published exit poll weights sharply increased Kerry's vote share:

      1) Florida Exit Poll:       from 49.4% to 53.3%
      2) 7:33pm NEP Update:       from 51.2% to 53.2%
      3) Final NEP:               from 48.5% to 52.3%

          Florida Exit Poll (n=2,409 respondents)
         Bush approval: 53%
            Approval Weight KERRY BUSH Other

            Strong Appr 35 4 96 0
            Approve 18 17 82 1
            Disapprove 12 84 13 3
            Strong Disa 35 98 1 1
            Total 100 48.8 50.3 0.9


            Approve 53 9 91 0
            Disapprove 47 95 4 1
            Total 100 49.4 50.1 0.5


         Bush approval: 48.5%
            Approval Weight KERRY BUSH Other

            Strong Appr 30.5 4 96 0
            Approve 18 17 82 1
            Disapprove 14 84 13 3
            Strong Disa 37.5 98 1 1
            Total 100 52.8 46.2 1.0


            Approve 48.5 9 91 0
            Disapprove 51.5 95 4 1
            Total 100 53.3 46.2 0.5

          7:33pm National Exit Poll (n=5,666)
         Bush approval: 51%
            Approval Weight KERRY BUSH Other

            Strong Appr 32 7 93 0
            Approve 19 17 80 3
            Disapprove 12 81 16 3
            Strong Disa 37 97 2 1
            Total 100 51.1 47.6 1.3


            Approve 51 11 88 1
            Disapprove 49 93 5 2
            Total 100 51.2 47.3 1.5


         Bush approval: 48.5%
            Approval Weight KERRY BUSH Other

            Strong Appr 30.5 7 93 0
            Approve 18 17 80 3
            Disapprove 14 81 16 3
            Strong Disa 37.5 97 2 1
            Total 100 52.9 45.8 1.3


            Approve 48.5 11 88 1
            Disapprove 51.5 93 5 2
            Total 100 53.2 45.3 1.5

          Final National Exit Poll (n=6,961)
         Bush approval: 53%
            Approval Weight KERRY BUSH Other

            Strong Appr 33 5 94 1
            Approve 20 15 83 2
            Disapprove 12 80 18 2
            Strong Disa 35 97 2 1
            Total 100 48.2 50.5 1.3


            Approve 53 9 90 1
            Disapprove 47 93 6 1
            Total 100 48.5 50.5 1.0


         Bush approval: 48.5%
            Approval Weight KERRY BUSH Other

            Strong Appr 30.5 5 94 1
            Approve 18 15 83 2
            Disapprove 14 80 18 2
            Strong Disa 37.5 97 2 1
            Total 100 51.8 46.9 1.3


            Approve 48.5 9 90 1
            Disapprove 51.5 93 6 1
            Total 100 52.3 46.7 1
________________________________________________________

2004 Bush Approval Rating Trend (11 pollsters)
      Date   Nwk    Fox    CNN    Pew    Harris CBS    ABC    Time   NBC    AP     Zogby  Mean

      Jan 50 58 60 56 na 50 58 54 54 56 49 54.5
      Feb 48 48 51 48 51 50 50 54 na 47 na 49.7
      Mar 48 48 49 46 na 51 50 na 50 48 na 48.8
      Apr 49 50 52 48 48 46 51 49 na 48 47 48.8
      May 42 48 47 44 na 41 47 46 47 48 42 45.2

      Jun na 48 49 48 50 42 47 na 45 48 46 47.0
      Jul 48 47 47 46 na 45 50 50 48 50 49 48.0
      Aug 45 51 51 46 48 46 50 51 47 49 44 48.0
      Sep 48 50 52 46 45 48 50 53 47 54 47 49.1
      Oct 46 49 46 44 na 49 53 53 49 47 49 48.5

National Pre-election Polls
      2004   Jan    Feb    Mar    April  May    June   July   Aug    Sept   Oct
      Kerry 40.8 47.8 47.6 46.3 46.9 46.6 47.5 47.4 44.3 47.2
      Bush 51.6 46.1 44.8 45.6 44.7 45.7 45.2 45.4 48.3 46.9

Bush average approval rating trend: 11 national polls
      Bush   54.5   49.7   48.8   48.8   45.2   47.0   48.0   48.0   49.1   48.5

Correlation trend (current month to October):
      Corr   0.87   0.52   0.54   0.71   0.78   0.81   0.996  0.997   1.0       -

National Pre-election Projections
      Undecided voters: 75% to Kerry
      Kerry   45.8   51.6   52.5   51.6   52.4   51.6   52.2   52.1   49.1   50.9
      Bush 53.2 47.4 46.5 47.4 46.6 47.4 46.8 46.9 49.9 48.1

Polling detail and Kerry projections:
      TIPP                                                                
      Kerry na 44 45 40 43 43 46 44 46 44
      Bush na 41 43 44 42 44 43 44 45 45
      Proj na 54.5 53.3 51.3 53.5 52.0 53.5 52.3 52.0 51.5
      
      ABC

      Kerry na 52 53 48 49 53 47 49 45 48
      Bush na 43 44 49 47 45 49 48 51 47
      Proj na 55.0 54.5 49.5 51.3 53.8 49.3 50.5 47.3 51.0
      
      AP

      Kerry 37 na 45 44 43 43 45 48 42 49
      Bush 54 na 46 45 46 46 49 45 51 46
      Proj 43.0 na 51.0 51.5 50.5 50.5 48.8 52.5 46.5 52.0
      
      NWK

      Kerry 41 50 48 50 46 46 51 52 45 45
      Bush 52 45 45 43 45 45 45 44 50 48
      Proj 45.5 53.0 52.5 54.5 52.0 52.0 53.3 54.3 48.5 49.5
      
      ARG

      Kerry 47 48 50 50 47 48 49 49 46 49
      Bush 46 46 43 44 44 46 45 46 47 48
      Proj 51.5 51.8 54.5 53.8 53.0 51.8 52.8 52.0 50.5 50.5
      
      NBC

      Kerry 35 na 43 43 42 44 45 45 46 47
      Bush 54 na 46 46 46 45 47 47 49 48
      Proj 42.5 na 50.5 50.5 50.3 51.5 50.3 50.3 48.5 50.0
      
      FOX

      Kerry 32 43 44 42 42 42 42 45 43 48
      Bush 54 47 44 43 42 48 43 44 45 45
      Proj 41.8 49.8 52.3 52.5 53.3 48.8 52.5 52.5 51.3 52.5
      
      CBS

      Kerry 48 47 48 48 49 45 49 45 41 46
      Bush 43 46 43 43 41 44 44 44 49 47
      Proj 54.0 51.5 54.0 54.0 55.8 52.5 53.5 52.5 47.8 50.5
      
      Gallup

      Kerry 43 48 52 46 49 48 51 48 44 48
      Bush 55 49 44 51 47 49 44 47 52 46
      Proj 43.8 49.5 54.3 47.5 51.3 49.5 54.0 51.0 46.3 51.8
      
      Pew

      Kerry 41 47 48 47 50 46 46 47 40 46
      Bush 52 47 44 46 45 48 44 45 48 45
      Proj 45.5 50.8 53.3 51.5 53.0 49.8 52.8 52.3 48.3 52.0
      
      LAT

      Kerry na na na 49 49 51 48 46 43 48
      Bush na na na 46 46 44 46 49 47 47
      Proj na na na 52.0 52.0 54.0 51.8 48.5 49.8 51.0
      
      Zogby

      Kerry na na 48 47 47 44 48 50 44 47
      Bush na na 46 44 42 42 43 43 47 48
      Proj na na 51.8 53.0 54.5 53.8 54.0 54.5 50.0 50.0
      
      TIME

      Kerry 43 48 na na 51 51 50 46 44 46
      Bush 54 50 na na 46 46 45 46 48 51
      Proj 44.5 48.8 na na 52.5 52.5 53.0 51.3 49.3 47.5
      
      Dem Corp

      Kerry na 51 47 48 49 49 50 52 49 48
      Bush na 47 50 49 47 48 47 45 49 47
      Proj na 51.8 48.5 49.5 51.3 50.5 51.5 53.5 49.8 51.0
      
      Marist

      Kerry na na na na na na 45 45 45 49
      Bush na na na na na na 44 44 47 48
      Proj na na na na na na 52.5 52.5 50.3 50.5
      
      Harris

      Kerry na na na na na na na na 46 48
      Bush na na na na na na na na 48 47
      Proj na na na na na na na na 49.8 51.0
      
      Economist

      Kerry na na na na na na na na 46 49
      Bush na na na na na na na na 46 45
      Proj na na na na na na na na 51.3 52.8
      
      ICR

      Kerry na na na na na na na na 43 44
      Bush na na na na na na na na 50 46
      Proj na na na na na na na na 47.5 50.8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. K*R What a pleasure!

The Truth can never be defeated, just deferred now and then.

The significant portion of the public questioning the 2004 election is probably over 60% of voting age population (as opposed to registered voters). In a Zogby Survey, 2006, less than half of registered voters thought that the 2004 election was fair and square. Add in those not registered, many of whom think the election system is rigged, and you probably approach 60% who lack confidence in 2004.

Considering the fact that any nation claiming to be a democracy needs near universal belief that the system is fair, this is a huge crisis.

TIA was one of the first to hammer the 2004 results. Along with Alastair Thompson of Scoop (althecat), Steve Freeman, and Simon, TIA helped spread the word all over the internet.

Now we're at a point where questioning the 2004 results is not even controversial, it's a logical conclusion based on further accumulated evidence and the general pattern of lies and misdeeds of the Bush administration.

Thanks so much for this post. It's a breath of fresh air.

:hi: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Article that broke the story - 2004 ELECTION FRAUD - Kerry Won, get over it.
Link to Nov. 17, 2004 Scoop Article


Story by Alastair Thompson, Scoop (althecat), red shift graphic
by TruthIsAll, extended comment by Jonathan Simon


Click for larger version of graph



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 03:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. Really proud to send this to the greatest page!
TIA :yourock:

Is it too late for a recount? :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. What should have been.....
I'll never believe Bush won that election fairly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whirlygigspin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I still wish they would have fought it
I was so dissapointed with Kerry & Edwards for not fighting it

even though the Bush years will always have the taint of illegitimacy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. The saddest words ever uttered., What could have been"
* did not. Just 'reality'. :cry:

Stinks so badly, doesn't it?

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wake.up.america Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Depressing to the max. We have to find out what happened in order to help prevent a repeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
31. Many smart people working to figure it out, even right here at DU.
I believe they've changed the tactic so it will be tougher to detect in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 04:24 AM
Response to Original message
7. Haz anyone seen a margin of error on this:
Analysis of the data indicates that Kerry won 53% of the vote, a full 5% over his recorded share.

By my count the simple cardinality of error sources is greater than five, let alone their magnitudes and amplification. This still lookz like statistical noise. I think Kerry won, but ultimately don't find this type of analysis compelling. Tharze jus not enuf thare thare to start with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. and yet there's too much
Edited on Thu Dec-13-07 08:37 AM by OnTheOtherHand
Kerry's 15-point lead in the New Hampshire exit poll is a pretty good indication to neutral observers that the polls weren't reliable. Insisting that the polls were reliable is sort of a non-starter. Insisting that the polls were reliable and Kerry got 53% of the vote begins to verge on psychosis. I don't like to see it on the Greatest list, no I do not.

Meanwhile, yesterday there was a thread that talked about problems with the registration system and then said that the solution was hand counted paper ballots. Think how much nicer it will be to not-cast a hand counted ballot!

Does it matter whether our arguments make any sense at all? Hey, it's a value judgment. I'm a lot happier when most of them make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Well here is one factor that always brings me back to the notion that it was stolen
Edited on Thu Dec-13-07 12:49 PM by truedelphi
Within three months of his re-inauguration, Bush had approval numbers of 43%.

How does anyone win an election in January and yet not have 50% approval ninety days later?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #21
35. well...
In no particular order:

(1) 43% was on the low end. Here is Charles Franklin's trend analysis
http://www.pollster.com/presbushapproval.php
The average was a bit above 50% around New Years, then fell to about 47% by the beginning of April, and continued to fall. Unfortunately this graph starts after the November election.

(2) In the Gallup survey, Bush's approval was a bit below 50% right before the November election, "bounced" a bit right after the election, then went back to around 50%. With margins of error, all that is subject to interpretation.
http://pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm (scroll down)

(3) For what it's worth, I would guess that the decline mentioned in (1), in the first quarter of 2005, had to do with Bush pushing a Social Security "reform" that was heavily (and rightly) criticized. But that doesn't really bear on the election in 2004. Your argument seems a bit like asking why Bush couldn't get more bills through Congress in mid-2001 when his approval rating was 90% by mid-September.

(4) Carter and the first Bush had Gallup approval ratings in the 30s before their reelection bids, yet Carter got almost 45% of the two-party vote, and Bush got over 46%. I don't know why people are shocked that someone with an approval rating in the high 40s could possibly garner 51%. I don't think it's possible to tell from approval ratings whether Bush "should" have won, but he doesn't look like a long shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Oh Hogwash
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:53 PM by truedelphi
We have plenty of proof that the people simply did not vote this man in. Video of people lining up to vote because only two machines were delivered to heavily African American or college voting precincts, while white voters inthe suburbs ahd many machines.

See Dorothy Faddiman's Stealing America Vote by Vote.

There is no way to prove it and for the average person like myself, the statistical expert's analysis is so far out of the realm of understanding that it basically tells us that we cannot trust our instincts.

For what it is worth, when it comes to statistical experts, I will go with Zogby.

That and the fact that the exit polls showed that Bush was losing. Until Secretary of State Blackwell and Card exchanged signals and called the election for Bush. If the media had been a true investigative and truth seeking news source and not simply run with such a collusionary spin on who won the election, maybe Kerry would have had the cajones to extend the period in which to consider whether he had won or not.

Why the media would not be willing to delve into this collusion does not surprise me.

It makes me sick to my stomach but it does not surprise me. If it had been a Democrat in the WH with collusion from the Secretary of state/Chairman of the Democratic party in Ohio announcing that the election was the Dem incumbent, I am positive that the Repugs would not have rolled over and taken it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. anything in particular?
I numbered my points, so if there is anything you thought was inaccurate, you could state which and why.

As you apparently realize, video of people lining up to vote doesn't provide much evidence (never mind "proof") that Kerry would have won the election, because what matters is how many got out of line. There have been attempts to figure out how many votes were lost that way, and the estimates for Ohio are in the low five figures. (Yes, I know, that's just one of many things. I've tried to make them add up to 118,000, and I can't get there.) Some people think I'm trying to trivialize disenfranchisement by questioning unsupported claims that Kerry should have won, but I think that making unsupported claims trivializes the indisputable fact that people were disenfranchised. I don't know why more people don't rage, as I do, when TIA tries to make it about crap exit poll arguments. The indisputable facts are appalling. Why do we need to make stuff up? It astounds me.

If you're going with Zogby, then do you agree with him when he said, "I'm not blaming everything on the exit polls, but the exit polls were terrible"? Somehow TIA never seems to quote that.

From what I remember, Bush led in the Ohio vote count all night long. Even if you think the Ohio vote count was rigged (and then you would have to explain that -- pointing to long lines doesn't really help), there's no reason to think that Blackwell and Card would have to exchange signals. If you want to ascribe importance to the exit polls, then you need to justify that. But I can tell you that the argument has lost because most knowledgeable observers think it is a loser -- and TIA sure isn't making it any better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to convert someone who is clearly
In the other camp.

I spent far too much of my life as it was on the election of 2004.

But why hasn't your side ever even attempted to assign a numeric value to those who were:

A) scared away from the polls through literature or phone calls regarding their parole status, etc.
B) told that the election was on a different day through literature
C) stood in line and then gaveup due to the hours and hours of waiting required
I mean - do you even have, amongst all your statistics, the number of precincts where this happened?
D) people who saw their vote "flip" to Bush when they had chosen Kerry

Etc.

Those numbers are part of the discussion. But the election thiefs were so brilliant that they have managed to keep supposedly decent statisticians from even attempting to arrive at those numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. what an odd way to put it
Edited on Sat Dec-15-07 04:26 PM by OnTheOtherHand
What am I to think when I present verifiable facts and you conclude that I am in "the other camp"? What camp are you in, then? I have to concede that you won't "convert" me from valuing facts and derogating TIA's disinformation. I think disinformation tends to promote disenfranchisement, regardless of the subjective intentions of the people who purvey it.

"I spent far too much of my life as it was on the election of 2004."

But if that is true, then why take time out to kick an OP whose claims you aren't willing to check? Isn't that sort of risky?

"But the election thiefs were so brilliant that they have managed to keep supposedly decent statisticians from even attempting to arrive at those numbers."

First of all, actually, that isn't true, as I've already mentioned in this thread. However, TIA certainly has done everything in his power to trash the credibility of anyone who takes this issue seriously. I'm sure that isn't his intention, but the cascading repetition of bunkum is a massive distraction.

ETA: Here is a link to a journal article that estimates that turnout in Franklin County was depressed by about 22,000 votes, with a net loss to Kerry of close to 6,000 votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. Golly. This thread is gonna look like old-home week by mid-afternoon.
More "chatter" than a Dem/Repub family at Thanksgiving.

Wheee.

K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. Add this post to the hundreds of thousands already posted.
Before long, we'll need storage units the size of small cities to hold all the evidence of Kerry's win in 04.

I find it incredible to believe that anybody seeing the evidence, all the evidence, has the slightest doubt that Kerry won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. many people find it incredible that anyone believes in evolution
What matters is not the quantity of the supposed evidence, but the quality. I have found it really hard to get DUers, including you, to assess the quality.

Maybe someone believes these arguments, but rarely does anyone defend them. It's a strange spectacle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. It's a strange spectacle.
Edited on Thu Dec-13-07 10:32 AM by seemslikeadream
I see one but it's not TruthIsAll












DEAD BECAUSE OF A LIE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
12. by the way, why this is wrong
First of all, TIA has claimed all along that the national exit poll had a margin of error of less than 1%. Now he says the data indicate that Kerry had a 53% share, although the national exit poll put it at 51%. Apparently TIA's belief in exit poll accuracy is damn selective.

Well, then, why is Bush's approval rating higher in the exit poll than in many pre-election polls? Many reasons are possible, but one obvious one is that the exit poll offered different answers. Most surveys ask something like "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" and record responses of "approve," "disapprove," or volunteered responses of "unsure." The exit poll asked the same question, but offered "Strongly approve," "Somewhat approve," "Somewhat disapprove," and "Strongly disapprove" (no "unsure").

"...At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night)."

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/07/rasmussen_u...

Ah, but probably someone paid him to say that. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. So
If the exit-polls asked the question the way that Rasmussen reports described, and a similar result was recorded, then the exit-poll results were 3-4 points higher than what might nornmally be acquired?

That means we can subtract another 3-4 points from bushco's total?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. "similar" to what?
If you framed your question more carefully, you might not need to ask it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hooraydems06 Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
14. Not 100% sure about Florida...
... but I know on my grandmother's grave that Kerry won Ohio. And that's all he needed....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
15. I am not a statician...
so I don't know about the accuracy of TIA's data. I am an observer, so I do know how vehemently some attack that data at every opportunity, with religious fervor. Since I'm not a believer, or an attacker, just an observer..my deduction is that our election apparatus is broken. I point to the plethora of incidents when voting machines flipped votes, when voting machines lose thousands of votes one glitch at a time, when voting machines encounter inexplicable power outages...when a company is hired explicitly to purge countless names from the voter rolls, when registered voters are challenged..it goes on and on. Surely...if TIA's statistics are so questionable there must be another mathematical analysis that reflects the indisputable facts that voters intent, and votes counted are not the same. Where is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. that's an excellent question
I think it's important to distinguish "indisputable facts" from speculations from junk science. I have no way of knowing, but I think we might be farther along if more people shared that reality-based commitment.

People who were purged from the rolls generally didn't get to vote (except for those who cast invalid provisional ballots), so they aren't well represented in the exit polls. If people would think and talk straight about this, I think we would be better off -- for one thing, we'd pay a lot more attention to the registration rolls. The 2008 election starts right now.

As for vote-flipping, not so clear. We know lots of machines in Mahoning County (OH) were taken out of service because of vote-flipping, but the vote totals out of Mahoning aren't out of line. (That shouldn't be a shock, given that a lot of machines were taken out of service.) It would be wonderful for someone to put together a solid analysis linking vote-flip reports to anomalies in the count, and some folks have tried.

There's solid work on vote denial in Franklin County, OH; caterpillar crawl in Cuyahoga County, OH (I don't agree with all of it) ; and undervotes in New Mexico. Some other things I'm not thinking of right now. They don't prove that Kerry won, but they certainly demonstrate frustration of voter intent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Why would the vote totals..
be out of line? A vote switched is still a vote. I would think that the only 'evidence' would be exit polls. However, framing the fiasco that is our voting apparatus in terms of he won/he lost.. seems to lend itself to opinions to support a position, rather than actual reports occurring in the process. Anyone willing to peruse articles surrounding any of the recent past elections will find more than enough information to conclusively concur that our voting system is fucked, and there can be no confidence in the conclusion. And yet, here we are arguing analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. out of line with respect to vote share
For instance, if Mahoning County had a switch of 5% of votes from Kerry to Bush, and didn't have the same switch in a reference year (say 2000), then the odds are that it would end up having a suspiciously low Kerry vote share compared with 2000. (Many people undertook this sort of analysis with respect to Florida 2004.) It's not a make-or-break prediction, but it's something to look for.

We have a lot more election data than we have exit poll data, and that won't ever change. The national exit poll was fielded in about 50 Ohio precincts, but we have election returns from over 11,000 precincts and equivalents. If 5% or 10% of votes were switched in some precincts and not in others, we have more power to spot that among 11,000 data points than among 50.

However, framing the fiasco that is our voting apparatus in terms of he won/he lost.. seems to lend itself to opinions to support a position, rather than actual reports occurring in the process.

I agree. This is one reason that crap exit poll arguments frustrate me so much. It would be very easy to focus on the truly irrefutable facts. (And we can talk about speculative stuff, too, as long as we know the difference. It's when we're damn sure of nonsense that we lose a lot of people.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. My conclusion is that there are indeed NO vote totals
Edited on Thu Dec-13-07 12:46 PM by truedelphi
If a party is stealing an election, then how the F*CK can you ever tell anything?

It was a theft - in both 2000, with the judicial coup putting Bush in power through the decisions of the Supreme Court.

In 2004, it was a theft, without a judicial coup needed, as Hillary set Carville up to whisper into Kerry's ear that there were only 150,000 Ohio ballots available as uncounted - and he needed 138,000 to beat Bush. (Some voter activists say that there were as many as 400,000 votes to be counted in Ohio. Too bad that Kerry never paid attention to that old song "Smiling faces...l")

Hillary also slammed Edwards for his "grandstanding" when he let loose with his usual fervor to the effect that every ballot needed to be counted.

So Kerry makes his concession in far less than 24 hours since the last Ohioan voted.

I do think that statements that we saw a rise in voter participation to the tune of 11% to 14% seems born out by reports across the nation. But in any particular County, I am not sure how you would tell whether all votes were reported or not. Or whether the total meshed with the voter intention.

Even taking my old home COunty of Marin, a 11% to 14% increase in participation should mean that there would be more than 73% of the folks voting for Kerry - new voters usually are brought in by the Democrats in places like Marin. Instead, we saw a drop in percentage totals for Dems. And yet Sonoma COunty, one County North, went 82.5% for Kerry.

It would only cost me $ 161,000 to run and audit and find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riqster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
41. What is needed is evidence to examine
...and much has been destroyed. TIA's analyses (he's a bright guy, for those who have never spoken to him) are an important tool for election integrity advocates in the absence of physical evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
22. Personally - I think the malfeasance was in the exit polls not the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Heh..
So, you think that bushco, et al, and the machines which we know were corruptible, were not corrupted? That bushco won fair and square?

Gawd, spare me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. I didn't say they won fair and square. I think they messed with the exit
Edited on Thu Dec-13-07 06:01 PM by applegrove
polls that were then leaked...giving kerry a huge win by 2PM - keeping people (democrats) home because they though it was a done deal and lighting a fire under Repulicans to go to the polls at the end of the day. It is as good an explanation as any. I believe the Rove machine pulled out all sorts of stops to win that election. There are more than 50 ways to steal an election. And the GOP used most of them in one place or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. You can either push the recount button
on the DRE to get your Supposed recount, or if your lucky enough to have optiscan Paper Ballots, then you need to go beg a Judge to Hand Count the Paper Ballots that are coincidentally LOCKED UP in the Optiscanned "Election Fraud Cover up Machine".

Manipulate the vote count and simultaneously cover up the crime. Life is good FOR THE CROOKS.

THE GAME IS RIGGED!!!

What are we going to do about it?

Hats off to TIA............






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
23. Who can believe they WOULDN'T have done everything to steal it?
The last couple years have made it clearer than ever that they are the kind to stop at nothing to get what they want, democracy and the law be damned.

Crime of the century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. OK, so you don't need no stinking evidence
Some of us may want to know what happened and what didn't. It isn't mandatory.

But I don't think people should pretend to agree with TIA if they actually just don't care whether he is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. I didn't say that I don't care if he's right.
And I sure don't "pretend" to believe him.

That's why I'm here in the first place.

But I'm past the point of being undecided about the preponderance of TIA's methodologies, and his conclusions are shared by enough other credible people that his work can be debated, but it can't be dismissed so blithely.

In my opinion, people don't need to have graduate degrees in statistics to come to well-informed conclusions about this, but I'm still glad that I know people who do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. who is dismissing anything blithely?
Edited on Thu Dec-13-07 08:39 PM by OnTheOtherHand
OK, I don't know what you care about. All I know is that no one in this thread has defended the content of TIA's analysis, and yet 29 people have recommended it. It makes me wonder what they think they are recommending.

If you know anyone with a degree in statistics* who can defend TIA's work, maybe you would be so kind as to send them over here. Not that it takes a graduate degree in statistics to see that TIA is misrepresenting his sources. For that, one only has to read.

*ETA: or without -- I really don't care. I would like to know whether anyone is prepared to defend TIA's work. I don't see it very often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #30
42. The point is that I myself and maybe some others
Realize that statiticians can debate whatever they want to as much as they want to, and it pretty much takes at least a minor in statistics to understand what they are talking about.

Do the exit poll prove or disprove the legitimacy of the Bush victory??

Well, the problem is, at least for me, is that I don't even think that is the important question.

Like I posted above, the following has a lot of relevance as to the funny business in Ohio

So why aren't any statiticians assigning a numeric value to these items:

A) number of Ohio voters scared away from the polls through literature or phone calls regarding their parole status, etc.
B) number of Ohio voters told that the election was on a different day through literature
C) number of Ohio voters who stood in line and then gave up due to the hours and hours of waiting required
I mean - do you even have, amongst all your statistics, the number of precincts where this happened?
D) people who saw their vote "flip" to Bush when they had chosen Kerry

Etc.

Those numbers are part of the discussion. Oh, except we don't have those numbers.

And then there is the looming question of the legitimacy of having Blackwell being both the Republican Chair for Ohio and the Secretary of State for Ohio. One conference call to Andy Card, and Team Bush declares themselves the winner.

Like I said before, if this had been the Democrats operating in such a fashion, the media would have pounced on this conflict of interest like kids on candy. But the media bought it without question.

So we human beings who don't have statistical degrees recommend this topic because it is one way to keep the discussion alive. I'm sorry for our humanity, On The Other Hand. I just don't have a switch where I can separate it out. I also don't understand why the esteemed Mitofsky never opened his data bank to people who probably had the right to examine the data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. for the record
"So why aren't any statiticians assigning a numeric value to these items:"

As I've already noted, actually that isn't true. But on a board where TIA passes as a statistician, I can understand your confusion. (It's true that we don't have the data that would allow us to give precise answers.)

The truth is, no one needs a degree in statistics -- or any knowledge of statistics whatsoever -- to see through a lot of TIA's claims. It does require the patience to filter out lots of the handwaving and focus on specific assertions that don't stand up.

A lot of good people have busted their butts trying to figure out how many people may have been affected by all the bad stuff in 2004. Many of them are doing their part not only to understand the past but to improve the future. There isn't much room for them here, because they subscribe to a professional norm of reality-testing that many on DU seem not to understand.

To me it seems grimly fatalistic to recommend an OP that you (is this fair?) find incomprehensible. (I would hazard that you find it incomprehensible not just because you aren't a statistician, but because TIA doesn't write well. Heck of a way to keep a discussion going, isn't it?) But I do understand that for many people here, what TIA's posts mean is no more or less than a validation of their beliefs and fears about 2004. Responding to his posts as if they were intended to convey specific meaning -- well, it seems bizarre. I suppose it is bizarre. But from time to time, I encounter people who assumed that TIA actually makes sense, and I think they have a right to know the truth.

(I can talk about Mitofsky if you want, but I'm guessing not so much. Let me know.)

If we were learning useful things from TIA, I would be fine with that -- but since we aren't, I would rather get and keep the discussion going around how to fix elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. You say, "I would rather get and keep the discussion
Going around on how to fix elections"

Well on that we CAN agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. excellent! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #23
34. Absolutely!!
Control the vote count and you WIN!! :)

Prevent people from viewing the vote count and you WIN!! :)

Prevent people from counting the ballots out in the open FOR ALL TO SEE and you WIN!! :)

Prevent people from getting AT the Optiscanned Paper Ballots THAT NO ONE CAN CLAIM OWNERSHIP TO and you WIN!! :)

The CROOKS got it going on FOR NOW!! :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-13-07 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
32. The Election Fraud Cover up Machines are still in place, we
can argue 2000, 2004 and 2006 till we are blue in the face, the fact remains these machines are in place and are still being put in place in some states. The machines Cover up Evidence of Election Fraud thats all these machines do (period)

This is why we sit here debating 2000, 2004 and the 2006 elections because these machines and their owners prevent us from getting at any tangible evidence of Election Fraud.

Question is what are we going to do about these machines?

K&R B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. Can I mention how much I admire one man who found a sledge hammer
Probably not the thing to do if you don't want to spend five years in jail for damaging
Government Property. <Kids, please don't try this at your Local Registrar of Voters>

But, it accomplished something all my articles at "The Coastal Post" and all my blathering didn't - it got a single machine out of commission.
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 Feb 23rd 2018, 05:51 AM
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