37. Mandy Patinkin came to perform in my little town (college circuit)...
I fell asleep until near the end when he did his 'Inigo Montoya' act, jousting and all --
"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!" "HELLO, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to DIE!" "HELLO, MY NAME IS INIGO MONTOYA, YOU KILLED MY FATHER, PREPARE TO DIE!"
275. ok, but here are a couple of things to factor
in: you have a .95% margin of error--almost 1%
91% of Gore voters, voted for Kerry; 90% of Bush voters, 2000, voted for Bush;
that's approximately 1% difference.
easily eaten up by the .95% margin for error.
Here's the other thing:
16% of those who didn't vote for either Bush or Gore last time, voted for Nader this time.
Nader got the lion's share, his biggest percentages and numbers, in the northeast.
So, it fits that Nader "contributed" most to Kerry, in the Northeast, the areas like Ohio and New Hampshire, and also in New Mexico and Nevada, two other states where Nader made among his largest showings. (Minnesota and Wisconsin were the two others.)
At the same time, because his percentages were smaller in other areas of the nation and in other states, it would fit that this 1% difference is best and most likely expressed and found in the northeast.
Again, what is the exit polling telling us when we break it down, state by state? About the same the the pre-election polling was telling us in those very last few days:
Unclear who won the overall National Popular vote.
But relatively clear who won Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa... with a bit of play in Iowa: Kerry.
Enough to put him over in the Electoral College. Enough to give him healthier margins in PA, and NH, as well, than what he is credited with now.
In other words, Kerry was probably the first Democrat to win in the Electoral College only.
And we've seen pre-election polling indicating Kerry/Edwards was also getting it pretty close in FL and AR, as well as CO. Did he carry the latter three this time? Perhaps FL, since it was pretty clearly for Gore last time, once they were finally able to trace everything out. If we take all these states, and all the number suggested by the various exit polls and pre-election polls, we find Kerry beating Bush in the Electoral College. There's more of a gray area as to whether he actually beat him in the overall Popular vote. After all, Bush had the flag-waving, the bin Laden video, the incombency, and also less of a challenge from Kerry in the South than he'd had from Gore--who himself had had the advantage of the incumbency. Kerry also was painted as ultra-liberal and pro-gay marriage, etc. ("I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" Bush said repeatedly during the debates, when discussions were about the Iraq war, Enron, etc.) Bush peaked in the Red states he'd carried before, and he probably got it really closer in a couple of the blue states. Maybe he got Florida, and maybe he got Iowa (pre-election polling WAS suggesting the either Iowa or Wisconsin was going to be a red state--remember those poll titles? AT the same time, those same polls were strongly suggesting that Ohio was "too close to call." Well, isn't that exactly what happened? We are still looking at numbers in Ohio, and finding more, but it's coming in slowly. It's hard to get the media interested in looking at this, because no Democrat has ever won in the Electoral only before. The failure to lead in the Popular vote, has put them off the scent. Historians have said this so often, how unlikely that a Dem. would win in the Electoral College only. And it IS unlikely. But over 200 years, it had to happen, sooner or later...
125. Well, looking at it, I think it most certainly was on CNN.com.
If you try to go to, for example, the Maine state exit polls, the address is /ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/ME, which, if it were uploaded on the CNN site, would point to the Maine exit polls page. All links still go to the CNN site, etc. It would be a whole lot to code, and pretty worthless, to make it look like a CNN production when it wasn't.
266. The problem is that this file on CNN was being overwritten as the
the new voters broke for Kerry by a big margin and the people who vote for 3rd parties in 2000 voted for Kerry this time, and we already know the undecideds went for Kerry. Plus, Kerry got a slightly larger percent of Al Gores Voters, than Bush got of his own 2000 voters.
how'd bush win? security moms? is there any reason to believe the security moms bit?
15. Security Moms and all of the others - Nascar Dads...
had to fit in one of TIA's categories: did not vote in 2000, voted for 3rd party in 2000; voted for Gore in 2000; voted for Bush in 2000...
By the way, a favorite bit of info I ran into reading the Berkeley, California Student Newspaper a few weeks back: According to a study by Berkeley profs the Iraq war cost * millions of votes -- states with the highest casualties gave Bush less votes. Also, the gay marriage amendments did not help *. People who voted for them would have voted for Bush anyway.
The spin on this election was instant and so, so powerful and so very wrong!
121. NH recount not done properly. They did PRECINCTS. They need to do
entire counties to get an accurate count when dealing with e-voting. It has to do with the tabulators...I have talked to Kip at 51 Capital March about this a lot; he's one of the guys who has been working for months on crunching numbers. He is adamant you have to count counties and not precincts and feels they completely messed up NH. If they'd done counties it would have been a different picture.
122. That's what Jesse Jackson wants to do. Would a hand recount do
it since so many ballots have possibly been destroyed or eliminated? All those ballots left unsecured? Don't you think by now they have eliminated even more of the evidence? And there are areas with no paper backup... Sure wouldn't fix all those who didn't get to vote due to suppression. Revote!
118. I don't know who these security moms could be. I am a security mom, I live
Edited on Fri Dec-31-04 12:50 AM by bunny planet
10 miles from ground zero and I voted for Kerry. Every mom I know in Jersey, especially moms that were actually in the Towers that day working voted for Kerry. None of the real security moms, whose security was affected big time, voted for *. I think it's hype, or the same bullshit as the values voters that they demographed with the same exit polls they said were flawed. I don't know where the so-called 'security moms' for * are hiding, but they aren't in any of the states that were directly affected by 9/11, not in any significant numbers that I've seen or heard of.
I have serious doubts about these numbers. They do not sound right. 3) and 4) maybe, but not 1) and 2). Plus from what I know and observe, there is unfortunately a large number of people who probably couldn't tell you who they voted for 4 yrs. ago if their life depended on it. Sorry to have such a crummy impression of my fellow voter, but I do. I live in a Blue state where the registration (unlike rest of state) is predominately Democrat, but the actual voting is split almost 50/50. I know lots of people who voted Kerry and lots of people who voted Bush and these numbers do not sound correct to me.
226. I can tell you who I voted for since Johnson in 1964, but ...
I know people who could not tell you who the candidates were in 2000 even though they voted. Now, if you asked them, "Did you vote Democrat or Republican in 2000?" They could answer you correctly because they ONLY vote "D." I come from a part of the country where the old people would never notice on a voting machine if the Republican lever were missing because the've been voting straight Democratic since Roosevelt. Sorry to say they are not "thinkers" but they are good solid honest hard-working Democrats for life. A huge number of Democrats still run unopposed around here because the election is the primary. Those last two numbers (3 & 4) are suspect with me.
10. "4) 90% of those who voted for Bush in 2000, voted for Bush in 2004. "
That is fucking disturbing.
Everywhere I've been researching, he's been up at 96% or so.
Oh, and TIA, can you please give me a synopsis of your credentials? I'm quoting a lot of your figures in something I'm working on, and I just want people to know that someone smart came up with the numbers :)
64. georgia10 - Is it possible that the data TIA has just found has
been 'adjusted' since the date(s) of the polls you have been looking at that showed * had gotten 96% or so?
The reason I ask is that the only announced change to the exit poll results was by MSNBC in regards to the Latino vote -- they admitted that the results they gave on Nov 3, 4, 5... were wrong because they had weighted rural Latinos (who are more likely to vote for *) too heavily. They wound up reporting that * had less support than they had initially reported.
By the way, a few days ago Chorti wrote in a post that he was writing a paper that would show that the pre-election polls were very skewed toward * -- the possible implication being that even the early/uncontaminated election night poll results may have been skewed * for reasons relating to similar methodology.
17. TIA Great to have you back! But I need your help
I'm math challenged and flunked Algebra 1 Twice (regular school year and summer school too) After that, I just gave up. But I'm pretty "with it" on everything except numbers. I realize by now what an incredible math whiz you are. And I stand in utter awe. But, when you tell me you have the "Smoking Gun" and post the numbers, it makes perfect sense to you, totally self-explanitory. But I'm lost. Could you try to give just a little bit of commentary in plain english, so I can understand what the fuck you mean? Just a little will do. Just point me at what the numbers mean and I can follow.
The time on that web page is just shortly before 8 p.m. Nov 2nd. Hasn't the MSM been reporting that those "early" exit polls were off and that the later exit polls changed quite a bit? They'll just claim the same damn thing if this is brought to their attention, won't they? Or do the later exit polls show similar numbers (in answer to the same question)?
42. The issue about "early" and "late" polls is why Conyers is trying
to get the media and/or Edison-Mitofsky and/or NEP to release all of the data now.
A few points to clarify:
None of the exit polls shown on CNN or reported elsewhere on the media are 'raw'. Raw data would not be released to the media. The polls results, even early ones, have already been adjusted as needed or are shown broken down into key voter categories.
The 'later' polls were contaminated with vote tabulation data -- never before in the history of US exit polls have exit poll results been 'integrated' with incoming tabulated vote results to get an 'accurate' prediction of election results. This action is pure sh*t -- it means that the late exit polls are not independent of incoming election results and so cannot be used to assess whether the tabulated votes were or were not accurate. I can't believe that respectable pollsters are not screaming bloody murder about this idiocy.
I ran CNN's own numbers. It's impossible. Between the two screen shots below, exactly 57 more persons were polled. If every single one of them were female, and every single one of them voted for Bush, that would account for a 2.3% increase in the exit polling results for female voters. However, CNN shows a 6% increase for Female voters supporting Bush.
CNN has altered other exit polling data since I began tracking it and compiling evidence against the EVoting machines.
Thanks to DU member EarlG for grabbing these screen shots!
Late CNN Poll Data 2020 Respondents Percentages converted to actual numbers Voters Bush Kerry Female 949 (47%) 494 (52%) 446 (47%) Male 1071(53%) 535.5 (50%) 535.5 (50%)
Sum 2020 (100%) 1029.5 981.5
IMPORTANT Question; From the early poll to the late poll, 57 additional people were added. Therefore, the most any candidate could gain is 57 votes , if all 57 people voted for him, or a max of 998 for Bush if every person polled late voted for him; yet the numbers show 1029.5, 31.5 more votes than it was possible to him to gain!
Conversely, the number of people who voted for Kerry decreased by 41.5 votes, which is impossible, unless the second set of data is independent (not inclusive of) the first poll.
54. Sorry I can't give you a link, but I would just about swear that I read
at the NEP election website (or maybe in a Jonathon Simon piece) that the NEP had direct feed from 1,000 precincts around the country. Their final 'exit poll' data reflected both exit poll data and tabulated votes. Rove and Co. only need to manipulate the tabulated votes around the country and the exit polls would be automatically 'pulled' to match the fraudulent election results.
36. Perhaps all this peripheral analysis is why corporate media refuses
to release the raw exit poll numbers. Simply check out the Male/Female percentages for Bush vs. Kerry. Kerry's got better than 3 points on Bush. If everyone got exit polled, 3.6MM people would have lied and said they voted for Kerry when they voted for Bush?
TIA-YOU ROCK!!! If I'm following this correctly, that lyin', cheatin' bandit LOST by more than 8.5-9 million votes? If true, Zogby's electoral showing a JK LANDSLIDE was right on the money! Stop me if I'm getting ahead of myself!
91. And the essence of these assumptions you link to
Republicans are less likely to do exit polling. Republicans are less likely to trust media. Right. They'd have less interest in seeing Bush elected than Kerry. I heard the Republican actor-who-plays-a-Democrat, Ron Silver, make the same "analysis" on MSBBC the night after the election. Total conjecture.
Exit polls have historically been a proven technique to accurately predict vote results...they've only become unreliable as Republican voting machines and Republican SOS's have started to game the actual voter intent.
BTW, you still haven't explained how 13/13 polls skewed outside the MOE, all for Bush. Give us another picnic analogy...please!
But, hey, the Mickey Kaus's and Instapundit's likes the Mystery Pollster.....enjoy your stay here dude. Maybe you'll learn something while you're here.
..."I have spent most of the last 18 years as an apprentice analyst, senior analyst and ultimately a partner in firms that conduct surveys for Democratic candidates, working with some of the most brilliant pollsters and political strategists in America. "
I think he is a little more qualified to speak about the polls than the self-styled "analysts" here. Don't you agree?
145. All I can say is Prove it. Release the damn exit poll raw data rather than
keep it a mystery!! Ditto for the actual ballots, where they still exist/was a paper trail!!
SicTransit, if all of us are so wrong about the polls and our assumptions, why are you and those who agree with your point of view hiding the data? One more question: do you agree with the 1964 Warren Report that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting indendently, killed President Kennedy?
DUers: don't get spun by this spin. Remember, WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
Do you think he is a "freeper", like the poster below apparently thinks?
He is quite a bit more qualified to talk about/analyze exit polls than the self-styled savants with no polling background whatsoever, and what he says carries a bit more authority than what someone who refuses to disclose his/her credentials says.
What he says is that exit polls were flawed. Not only that, exit polls have been flawed in previous elections - before any electronic machines etc. Polling inherently is an art, not a science, and people get it wrong quite often, even experienced people.
Oh, and I have not researched the 1964 Warren report or Kennedy assassination possible theories at all - so, no comment.
I have posted on his board many times and asked many questions about design effect and his answers just get weirder and weirder. I've concluded he's nothing but a freeper plant.
The latest weird excuse he came up with for my argument that the networks wouldn't spend all that money to get 3.5% MOE's or more was that the networks really needed "news" to report for those states that were not swing states. Please! In other words they needed someone like Mykofsky to call those states so it would be "news." Jesus what crap!
There's no proof by anyone that the design effect should be applied to polling. It is just theory. Sure the design effect applies when you talk about marbles in a jar but extrapolating that to precinct polling is a real stretch.
One social scientist said that statisticians were some of the worst people you could have to make this link and said they had no business doing so.
168. He just didn't stand up to the cross examination
Edited on Fri Dec-31-04 04:17 AM by davidgmills
Your expert didn't know what the design effect number was and sent Freeman off on a goose chase. He thought the number was 30% and told Freeman that. Freeman does his analysis based on 30. Then he discovers that he didn't know what he was talking about and has to get help and is told that the number is now between 50-80%. He is questioned why the number has increased so drastically since 1996 and he doesn't have a clue.
He's asked many questions by commentators and answers few.
He comes up with his own analysis using the 50 to 80% numbers and decides everything is within the MOE. Macdonald on DU, does his own analysis using the 50 - 80% numbers and he concludes something is amiss. I point it to Mystery Pollster and he does nothing.
One other major thing I pointed out to him is that TIA did an analysis that showed that the very last pre-election polls and the "uncorrupted" late exit polls were nearly identical. If there was a "design effect", there should have beeen a difference between the two numbers, which the design effect would have to correct. He had no answer for this either.
Another guy on this board proved that the late exit polls matched papper ballots very closely but not electronic ones. Did he have an answer for this? No.
So like I said, he just didn't stand up to cross exam.
When one is considering pre-election polls with a MOE of plus or minus 3% and exit-polls with a +or- 4%, being right on is more of an accident than precision. Many of those pre-election polls varied considerably depending on the pollster. Zogby may have been rather close to the exit polls, but others weren't. I don't think there is conclusive proof in these MOE analyzes, even though they may raise some eyebrows. The proof lies in randomly done manual recounts
241. You are wrong. The uncorrected exit polls and pre-election polls were...
actually different. TIA tends to select pre-election polls that are somewhat flattering to John Kerry (no offense, TIA). Most of the pre-election polls showed a dead heat in Ohio. The exit polls showed a clear victory for John Kerry. Most of the pre-election polls showed a clear victory for Bush in Virginia. The exit polls showed a very tight race there. I could go on and on, but it's extremely clear that the exit polls were very, very different from the pre-election polls.
277. there's also a questionable sample size in PA and OH
relatively speaking in Prof. Freeman's exit poll list. The OH and PA sample sizes are smaller than much more lightly-populated states. But this isn't off enough, to throw them completely off. But the polls I saved--the pre-election polls toward the end--were showing Kerry leading in OH more often than Bush. Several pre-election polls were showing NH neck and neck. And several were showing Bush carrying either IA or WI, sometimes both. They were going to be close. Same with Nevada, some pre-election polls showed Bush carrying Nevada, and if you look at the graphic for SurveyUSA's poll on 11/1 in NV, the Kerry graph is going rapidly downward, the Bush upward. That's the opposite, for example, of in AR, where Clinton had started campaigning for Kerry at the 11th hour. Also, CO was showing Kerry with a surge. But I doubt Kerry carried CO. A lot of polls were showing Florida a real horse race, as with OH.
So, the question is, did Kerry win Ohio and Florida? We keep finding things in both places. Can we find enough in Ohio? They've found a lot, but it often seems that there's a way to go. They found 1100 votes in a couple of rural counties, 20,000 votes in Cuyahoga County, hundreds more in Columbus, Toledo, and into the hundreds in some southern Ohio counties--and that's all since the official corrections and the recount. There seems to be enough to knock Bush's lead in Ohio down to way less than 40,000 votes. If we can just keep finding things.
I've got this feeling, about Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada- I think Kerry carried Nevada, but it was very, very close, maybe 10, 20 votes. New Mexico, I get the impression Kerry carried NM, but a close investigation could hurt the Dems there, too. Kerry's margin in NM was also very close, but not as close as NV. Maybe less than 500 votes. (How solid is Kerry's lead in PA, MI and WI?) Insofar as Ohio--God, it got close there. I don't know how much of it had to do with the people who had to get out of line and not vote. I'd like to think they can find enough actual ballots, to get a lead for Kerry. But I'm not sure they can actually find that. Even if all the ideal things were to happen--the state cooperate, the Senator(s) cooperate. It's going to be very, very close in Ohio. But I'm a little bit optimistic that Kerry carried it, but there was a slightly larger number of pre-election polls indicating he was carrying OH than not carrying it. FL and CO, they have a lot of military people. In NV, they have that "none of the above" thing.
Zogby does not say there was fraud. He says there is "a problem, but I don't know where it is ... something's wrong here". Of course something is wrong - there is the discrepancy. I don't see anywhere that he suggests that the exit polls were correct and the election results were not.
Edit: and I am sorry, but it is hard to take seriously a "news" article that misspells "role" as "roll" twice in a row.
There is an underlying assumption that the vote count is the actual data while the forecast is an indicator. This is, in fact, a built-in bias of pollsters. But, in this case, it is precisely the vote count which is in question.
A better analogy would be yours except that you go on your picnic, you go to sleep, you wake up, and sitting next to you is Katherine Harris. She says, "Sadly, while you were asleep, it rained. But luckily, I was here and I dried you off. You owe me 50 bucks for services rendered." You look around and everything is dry. Do you pay up?
All of a sudden, the forecast is not "obviously wrong", it is significant.
74. The 'official' explanation (one of) is that the early polls
were 'raw' -- not adjusted for the fact that the polls were stratified (poll locations were chosen randomly, but voters who vote at that poll are a non-random sample) -- and the later polls were correctly adjusted.
The reasons the 'official' explanation blows chunks is that (1) the polls were reported for critical categories (male/female; white/non-white) separately and (2) the data reported in the media was not 'raw' -- it had already been adjusted and was ready for public consumption.
The 'massaging' was mixing in the fraudulent tabulated votes with the exit poll data.
My father has been a Republican for his entire life. Imagine my surprise when I casually ask him who he was going to vote for and he said Kerry! I personally don't know of a single person who voted for Gore in 2000 that voted for Bush in 2004 but know lots that went the other direction.
133. Isn't there a request out there somewhere for the networks to turn over
the raw exit data. Isn't it illegal for them to withhold it if fraud is suspected. Or have they destroyed it somehow already. Surely, there must be people in the Kerry camp that already have these screen shots too.
265. It does make sense because the over $100K people did vote for
their tax cut. And because of the tax cuts there were more of them. I definitely read this analysis somewhere. It was also suggested that these people were not so crass as to mention this as their motivation for voting Bush and instead moral values became the flawed mantra.
82. Go TIA... tis surprising this hasn't been noticed before.
As you say.
1. It confirms the exit poll results which are allegedly wrong. 2. It makes sense in terms of all the anecdotal and other evidence. 3. It is internally inconsistent with the final result... as you say it cannot make any sense alongside the result and raises a HUGE RED LIGHT.
88. That is irrelevant to the projection of valid votes that the exit...
...poll should predict. If someone did vote in 2000 but did not vote in this year's election, that statistic would not apply. This is a good predictor as long as the numbers are accuracy from the exit poll. I have looked for statistics which describe what these say. The numbers are now projective, but because they are based on a sample, the margin of error has to be factored in.
188. Nader was on the ballot here - it's just that if you voted for him your
vote DIDN'T COUNT!!! Imagine that!!! Most counties refused to re-print the ballots after Nader was disqualified. Here in my county we fought to have the ballots reprinted, whch they did (but of course they bitched because it cost $13,000 to do). That was their fault. They shouldn't have printed the ballots in the first place until all candidates were finalized. Another problem with that is that the absentee ballots had already been sent out with Nader's name on it. At that point, how many people actually knew that Nader was disqualified? I'd say not many because the "little slip of paper" with the note that Nader doesn't count was not in with those absentees. ALL the ballots in EVERY county should have been reprinted - but, Blackwell didn't order it done. Wonder why????
221. Yeah I caught that as well. It proves convincingly that...
there is simply no way in hell that these 2004 exit polls were "biased" towards Kerry. They clearly took on more Bush voters than Gore voters. So maybe Kerry won by a much bigger landslide than we originally thought.
I would be very aprehensive at trusting that statistic.
When polling - it is assumed that people who lie will lie an equal ammount with each reponse.
However, with this question I believe that more people will lie and say "yes" than will lie and say "no"
Also, was the question "have you voted before?" or was it "did you vote in the presidential election of 2000?" those are 2 totally different questions and will probably give 2 totally different answers.
Im just giving some alternative hypotheses... there are plenty more Im sure. Im just pointing out that this is not a "smoking gun".
Smoking gun = video tape, memo (that wasnt forged...), or audio tape, etc.
Those who voted for Bush and Gore in 2000 voted about the same for Bush and Kerry in 2004, but 6 out of 10 new voters in 2004 voted for Kerry. Since Gore won the popular vote in 2000, Kerry won the popular vote in 2004 by an even wider margin.
138. I have seen these data before, and you are right that they constitute a
smoking gun that can be added to the HUNDREDS/THOUSANDS of smoking guns we have found in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and more than a dozen other states where the machine count was hacked and voters were kept from the polls. I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel like I was in Dealey Plaza, saw the smoke rising from the Grassy Knoll, and not a single reporter will listen to me.
The evidence of electoral mischief and fraud is now OVERWHELMING, and like 1963-64, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and other Senate Democrats are mysteriously silent. In deference to those who think that Kerry is undercover rather than AWOL, I continue to hold out a sliver of hope that a few Senate Dems will be courageous enough to join John Conyer's Contest. The reality at this point is that the future of the US Democracy depends on it. For if they fail to challenge * and his cronies now, you can bet that the neo-con artists will "win" elections as far as the eye can see.
Oh, one more thing - next time we won't have TIA's outstanding exit poll analyses to go on. RoveCo is already making plans to eliminate the release of "non-sanitized" exit poll data in the United States of America.
Personally, I hate spending so much time on these damn exit polls when there is so much other evidence to consider, but TIA makes it interesting.
So tell me, why does CNN's final poll of 13,660 respondents say it was updated at 2:04 PM when the earlier one that showed Kerry ahead was updated at 7:38 PM? Is the 2:08 PM supposed to be the following day (Nov 3) and if so, isn't it supposed to be 2:08 AM instead of PM?
And why did the number of respondents only increase by 2633 after so many additional hours of polling?
Also, are the state polls a subset of the national poll? Do they add up to 13660? And if so, why are there no unemployment questions/answers in the state polls when there are in the national poll?
The whole thing stinks. There is no consistency in the reporting. I'm trying to find out if unemployed voters voted earlier (and for Kerry) in the swing states, and based on this crap they put out, it's impossible.
184. This is probably a "DUH" for everybody else, but...
...the moral values part of the exit polls has been disturbing me ever since it came out. My immediate reaction was that it was bullshit, and especially ironic given that we were supposed to believe the polls about this, but not about Kerry winning. (Right. I know this was everyone's reaction.)
But what was disturbing me was that if I threw out the moral values part of the poll because it was clearly bullshit...then how could I still stand by the Kerry winning part of the poll? I would be just as much of a hypocrite as the other side.
And I JUST NOW GOT IT. Voters DID vote on moral values....THAT IS WHY THEY ELECTED KERRY.
Okay, everyone scream DUH at me. Get it out of your systems. :)
Sure looks like a "smoking gun" to me. Whatever the label, what's becoming clear is that the snowballing effect of the mounting evidence means that we have a regime in Washington that has ZERO legitimacy to govern because we, the governed, did not legitimately give this cabal our consent.
We've known for some days now that they lost Ohio, the key to winning the Electoral College. Now, thanks to TIA's brilliant analysis, we have proof that they lost the national popular vote. What's next? Would anybody be surprised to learn that many of the Republican wins in the House and Senate are because of the same fraudulent tactics that have Bush planning an inauguration? Of course not!
Of the people polled in 2004, only 38% voted for Gore in 2000 yet 41% voted for Bush in 2000. If that number were even or 1% in favor of Gore, the margins would have been even more in Kerry's favor maybe by 3% or more.
It seems like they intentionally chose precincts that favored Bush in 2000.
It's in the source of the data. This isn't CNN at all, it is a hi-jack site that purports to be CNN. You guys want this data so badly that you will accept anything that supports what you want to be true.
TIA you are better than this. Check your sources or your data extrapolation is worthless even if it is good.
196. This is a saved HTML document that is missing the style sheets that CNN
Edited on Fri Dec-31-04 09:35 AM by rosebud57
uses. This is why there are broken links and images that were relatively rather than absolutely pathed to the CNN server. View the HTML source. The link to the style sheets in the head of the document is the reason the top navigation looks so bad.
214. Disagreeing with you. It is a page that existed at a certain time on the
CNN server. This page was saved and then uploaded to a different server that does not have crucial things needed for it to display properly. CNN uses linked style sheets for the display of certain parts like the navigation. The server this page now resides on does not have the CNN style sheet, or the images that reside on the CNN server. That is why the images are broken and the top navigation looks like crap. The style sheet is needed for the page to display properly. Because the style sheet is missing this will never look like CNN's web site.
217. If one were faking they would aproximate the missing style sheet
and download the missing images so they could be uploaded to the appropriate directory on the new server. This is not someone trying to fake a CNN page, just someone who saved the CNN page at a particular point in time before the page was either overwritten, or before CNN linked to a subsequent updated page on Nov. 2.
Does anyone remember whether CNN overwrote their pages on Nov. 2, or whether they linked to new versions? My guess would be they overwrote because people would be hitting refresh.
223. Excuse me. Stop being a moron. This IS the original exit poll from CNN,
Edited on Fri Dec-31-04 01:28 PM by ClintCooper2003
After 1 a.m. on Nov. 3rd, they changed the exit poll on CNN.com to fit the "results." In fact, they weren't calling it "exit poll" at that point. They were calling it "survey." The exit poll on exitpollz.org is from the 8 p.m. sweep on election day. I know, because I remember reading it on election day.
234. I'm not being a MORON idiot. This isn't the raw data.
This is nothing new and it's being presented as if it is. The "expert" that took these numbers says they aren't right. So which is it? Is he an expert or an idiot? Either way you are barking up a dead tree.
God I'll be glad when this crap is over so we can get to something real.
247. The TRUTH and for some reason people are having a hard time with it.
When I warned that Bev was a Con, I got flamed.
When I warned that the first Arnebeck suit was premature, I got flamed.
When I warned that the second Arnebeck suit would be split and the Cheif Justice wasn't going to recuse, I got flamed.
When I warned that the third Arnebeck suit had faults in it, I got flammed.
All of those things have been right on target. They have been the truth, yet no one hear wants to hear the truth.
What we want is for someone to tell us what we want to hear, that we really didn't lose that the exit polls, which were disavowed by the man who took them, are more accurate by 1.5 million votes than the actual vote totals.
What am I doing here? Looking for Democrats to ditch the fantasy and face reality: We have work to do and it isn't turning out fraud, it's learning how to not call everyone idiots and morons like little kids and learning how to bring people together to win elections.
So far, there are few takers on the truth. When I say something that is true, I get venom. Carolab, what are you here for? The truth or to have your ears tickled with fancy stats that explain away the election?
I will stand up and be counted as another citizen who wants to ditch the fantasy in favor of fighting the GOPper trash with the truth instead of following these scraps. We have so much in the positive realm without having to resort to franticly grasping at straws.
This angle here on this thread in particular is just bad news if we are to follow it blindly. Jack the concrete technical truth up a notch, or ditch it altogether before we are branded forever with onus.... or worse. I have been hoping for a miracle, but Truman is spot on with this one.
By the original "adjusted" numbers, more people who "voted for Bush in 2000" showed up than actually voted for Bush in 2000 (impossible):
how many people voted for President this year?
What's 43% of that?
122188645 * 0.43 = 52541117
OK, then how many people voted for Bush in 2000? What's that, you say? 50456002? My, my, now. So, where did those extra 2 million people who voted for GW in 2000 come from? And that doesn't even count the millions that died in the last four years.
Now let's use the new numbers and see what we get:
What's 41% of 122188645?
...which is still a little high since only 48M or so Bush2000 voters should still be alive and kicking. But at least it is closer to reality, and is closer to the MOE.
I ran some numbers from the pictures of the polls on the screens on election night (given in messages above- one early with 1,963 voters and one later with 2,020 voters), converting % to number of votes. Although the number of voters went up between the time the two polls were posted (57 more voters) the actual number of people who voted for Kerry WENT DOWN and Bush's increased MORE THAN 57. Is this possible? Don't pollsters continue to add to the data they have as the evening goes on? Or would they poll an entirely new group and give that data?
other than the fact that there are too many threads about it of course. (See the one's by Althecat.)
In the national poll only 23% of the sample actually answered this question. So you have 77%, or a bit less, of the 2000 voters sitting on the sidelines. They could have changed the percentages a lot, but they didn't answer the question.
I know we have to go with the data we get, but you can't say there are unaccounted for votes from Y2K if most of them are sitting right there and not bothering to answer the question.
274. When the other side puts Mitofsky on the stand to testify...
...about the 2004 exit poll and the early release raw numbers, Mitofsky will testify that the exit poll raw numbers are unsuited for any type of valid statistical analysis. Indeed, he and those who work for him are already on record saying this very thing several times since the election.
Many of you are now rolling your eyes at my post - "after all", you may reply to my post, "Mitofsky is just a partisan hack with an agenda" or "He is being deliberately untruthful so he can cover up the shortcomings his ability to conduct exit polls" or something similar to that. Amateurs on DU can get away with this vacant way of "defending" their analysis against other DU members, but if won't work in Congress or in a Court of law.
Warren Mitofsky is the preeminent exit poll expert on the planet, and everywhere except right here on DU, he is so recognized. Don't believe me ? Take a look at paragraphs 66-72 of Arnebeck case number 04-2088. Here's one quote. You can read the rest for yourself.
Credit for INVENTING the exit poll is generally given to Warren Mitofsky a world recognized expert in exit polling...Mitofsky has directed exit polls since 1967 for almost 3000 electoral contests. he has the distinction of conducting the first presidential exit polls in the United States, Russia, Mexico and the Philippines.
From here, Arnebeck goes on and on with praise after praise for Warren Mitofsky.
To sum up, Mitofsky is the INVENTOR exit polling and has been conducting exit polls for 38 years. If he says (and he already has) that exit poll raw numbers are useless for anything including fraud analysis, then that's what will be accepted by the Courts, Congress and MSM. We may be able to find experts willing to challenge Mitofsky, but only Mitofsky can say that he conducted the 2004 presidential exit poll. No one knows the numbers like he does.
Dozens of DU members have been fairly persistent in their criticism of any analysis here on DU that relies on the accuracy of exit polls. However, we are always shouted at when we do. Folks, the real world is not like DU. If this goes before Court or Congress, the other side will trot Mitofsky out and he will crush the exit-poll/actual-vote discrepancy fraud theory. If we don't drop the exit poll idiocy, then we will probably start to get that long sought after MSM coverage - but it will sound like mockery.
276. I wouldn't call it idiocy, but in general, I agree with you
I think we all want a nice simple way to prove that Shrub stole this election and this is one way, while ignoring a number of other facts, to do so.
Some of us see those smoking guns and others try to debunk them. There are hundreds of atta-boys for the smoking gun enthusiasts while the debunkers go mostly unanswered. Fortunately this isn't a popularity contest.
The fact is that the election _could_ have been stolen because the vote is unverifiable. That's a fact and that's bad enough.
We know that Florida is a failed state and Ohio is acting like one. There are 48 others that could go the same way if we don't start getting laws in place to make the vote verifiable again. That's the problem and no amount of exit polling is going to fix it.
That said, it begs the question of why no one DOES conduct exit polls here to detect fraud, as was done in Ukraine. If Mitofsky says his polls cannot be used for this purpose, then can his raw data be used to do so, and do we in fact have it yet? He wants $10,000 for all 50 states, but is that the raw data or what is it?
There may be enough in these polls to find some proof of fraud, but without knowing more of the facts about them, we should probably direct more of our efforts elsewhere.
And that said, I've got to go read Dr. Freeman's latest analysis because I just can't get enough of this stuff! :)
There's great info in the exit info about the African American vote . It says that for the 11,027 polled voters, 11% were African American and 90% voted for Kerry and 10% for Bush. So suppressing this group suppresses the Kerry vote 9 fold relative to Bush votes. It would be interesting to run the numbers for Ohio to see how many Kerry votes were lost in those precincts with too few voting machines. Are there any other calculations to be done with this data?
meaning that we all want a nice simple way to prove the theft, but there are so many bases that BFEE tried to cover that it's challenge to decide where to concentrate.
The nagging question about exit polls is that if they're so useless, why do they get used as a barometer for the fairness of elections in other countries? Why is it possible to rely on them in the Ukraine but not here?
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.