Part IV. To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe …

[TruthIsAll]

Part IV. To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe...

1. That the Final National Exit Poll (FEP) of 13660 respondents, which was matched to the recorded vote and had Bush the winner by 51-48%, had to be accurate. And you must also believe that the Preliminary Exit Poll (PEP) of 13047 which had Kerry the winner by 51-48% had to be inaccurate.

2. That if the FEP re-weighted the PEP percentage of Bush 2000 voters who voted in 2004 (from 41% to 43%) and also adjusted the corresponding Gore voters (from 38% to 37%), then the re-weighting accurately reflects the final vote count - which Bush won by 51-48%.

And it would, if Bush 2000 voters did in fact comprise 43% of all 2004 voters (122.26 million). But they didn’t, because the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM percentage of Bush 2000 voters who could have voted in 2004 was 41.3% (50.45/122.26). This is the same 41% (rounded?) as given in the PEP, which Kerry won by 51-48%. And so even 41.3% is too high, for it assumes that NOT ONE Bush 2000 voter died prior to 2004, and that EVERY Bush 2000 voter also voted in 2004. Knowing this is impossible, why would you believe the FEP that said Bush won by 51-48%, since this very result assumes an impossibility?

3. That the 43% (52.57 million) of Bush 2000 voters who voted in 2004 must be LESS than the total Bush vote in 2000, since it is obvious that a certain percentage of Bush 2000 voters have passed on. And we can also assume that other former Bush voters either could not or would not vote in 2004. But it wasn't LESS, it was MORE, so why would you believe it?

4. That the 43% statistic is accurate since Bush won by 51-48% and this weighted result assumes 43%. But for this result to be true, then you must also believe that Bush had at least two million more votes in 2000 than the 50.45 million he was credited with. But we know this is not true, so why would you believe it?

5. That the published U.S. annual death rate of 0.87% is incorrect, because if it were true, then it follows that about 3.5% of the population dies during each four year period. Therefore, Bush must have received at least 54.3 million votes in 2000 (52.57+1.75), if we assume that 1.75 million (or 3.5%) of Bush voters in 2000 passed on. This is a necessary condition in order to believe the 43% statistic. But Bush only received 50.45 million votes, so why would you believe it?

6. That Kerry won only 51% of the female vote, although the PEP had him winning by 54-45%. Gore won 54% of females in 2000. So why would you believe the FEP?

7. That the FEP Party ID weights were 37% Democrat/37% Republican/ 26% Independents, while the PEP had it 38/35/27 - virtually the same as the final exit poll Party_ID demographic in the prior three elections.

8. That even though Kerry won at least 4 million more votes than Bush among the 17% (21 million) voters who did NOT vote in 2000 (Kerry led 57-41% in the PEP, 54-45% in the FEP), he would still lose the election. Why would you believe it?

9. That even though Kerry won the new voters and those who did not vote in 2000 by at least 4 million (12-8 million), and that the Bush 2004 vote based on the 43% Bush 2000 voter stat was at least 3 million too high, Bush still gained 12 million votes from 2000 (from 50 to 62 million). Why would you believe it?

10. That the Reluctant Bush Responder (RBR) theory is true. Otherwise, how else could one explain the PEP exit poll discrepancies which had Kerry winning? But if you believe RBR, how can you also believe that 43% of Bush 2000 voters came to the polls in 2004, but only 37% did for Gore? Both statements CANNOT be true, because they are contradictory, yet they MUST BOTH both be true if one is to believe that Bush really did win the election. But why would you believe it?

[democracyindanger]

1. 11. Monkeys have, and will, fly out of my ass.

[grannylib]

2. And they will run the country. Damn. It just pisses me off more than

anything that the Democrats were so fucking spineless about TWO ELECTIONS STOLEN IN A ROW...WTF????
WTF????
WTF????
WTF????
WTF????
WTF????WTF????WTF????WTF????WTF????
I will never ever understand it. Never.

[msongs]

3. too bad the democratic party of america does not care............

about this.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[kiwi_expat]

4. We are fools to call the winner of the popular vote, "the Election winner"

We made that mistake in 2000, and I always worried it might bite us in ... 2004.

Gore won 2000 because he won Florida - as was demonstrated when all of the overvotes were counted by the newspaper consortium in 2001.

Kerry won in 2004, as we will demonstrate with manual recounts in Ohio.

It doesn't matter who won the popular vote. Since we are unlikely to PROVE that Bush lost the popular vote, we are only helping the Republicans by implying that the popular vote determines the true winner of the Election.

[TruthIsAll]

5. Kerry won the popular vote by at least 4 million..

When you win the popular vote by 4 million, you also win the electoral.

There has NEVER been a case where the winner of the electoral vote IN A CLEAN ELECTION did not also win the popular vote.

If Kerry won over 311 EV, you can bet your last dollar he won the popular vote as well.

Manual recounts in Ohio?

We are only helping Republicans by NOT proving that Kerry also won the popular vote - and that the exit polls were rigged to match the vote.

[kiwi_expat]

6. Kerry's strategy was to win the EC, not the popular vote.

He would have campaigned very differently if the popular vote was the goal: concentrating on big cities and saying to hell with the South. And he would have won by an even bigger margin than his 4 million popular win.

There will be recounts in Ohio! We hope that the Cobb etc. lawsuit will prevail and there will be proper manual recounts of all the Ohio counties. But there will also be citizen recounts of selected precincts - probably those that Mitofsky re-weighted the most for his final data. Want to come to Ohio?

It would be fantastic if we could actually PROVE that Kerry won the popular vote. But, as you have admitted, statistical analysis is not proof.

If we could demonstrate that the tabulators were, in fact, pre-programmed to give the popular vote to Bush, or that someone hacked the states' tabulators, that would be proof. Maybe the Ohio recounts will uncover the tip of the national tabulator-fraud iceberg.

In the meantime, we should not call the winner of the popular vote, "the Election winner". It is only helping Bush.

[TruthIsAll]

7. To believe the Final Exit Poll, Bush must have had 4.5 mm more 2000 votes.

Asssume the FEP is correct: 43% of Bush 2000 voters voted in 2004.
That's 43% of 122.26 million or 52.57 million.

Doing the math, we have:
1) 52.57 million Bush 2000 voters returned to vote in 2004.
2) But about 1.84 million (3.5%) of Bush 2000 voters died.
3) And assume 0.50 million (1%) of Bush 2000 voters did not vote in 2004 for any number of reasons.

Then summing up:
54.91 million must have voted for Bush in 2000.
But his actual 2000 vote was only 50.45 million, 4.46 million fewer (8.84%).

The Exit Poll Margin of Error is 1.0%

I won't bother to calculate the odds.

[bleever]

8. Let's see: what are the odds that * got 4.5 million more votes in 2000

than he actually did:

Zero.

Z. Ro.


What part of "zero" do people not understand?


:shrug: