View the Mathematical FACTS for the TRUTH...

[TruthIsAll]

These are the FACTS:

V2004 122.26 million voted in 2004

V2000 104.77 voted in 2000
G2000 50.999 voted for Gore
B2000 50.456 voted for Bush
O2000 3.315 voted for Other
D 3.667 died (8.7 per thousand annual death rate)

So there were
NetN 17.490 New voters, net of deaths

Since
GD 1.785 Gore voters died
BD 1.766 Bush voters died
OD 0.116 Other voters died

then there were
TN 21.157 New voters

And we must have
MG 49.214 Maximum no. Gore 2000 voters
MB 48.690 Max no. Bush 2000 voters
MO 3.199 Max no. Other 2000 voters
MT 101.103 Max Total no. returning voters

MinNew 21.157 Min number of New voters

Assume the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM OF 21.157 million New Voters:

The total 2004 vote was comprised of:
V2004 = 122.26 = MB + MG+ MO + MinNew

KV= Kerry Vote = MG + Kerry % of New Voters
BV= Bush Vote = MB + Bush % of New Voters

and
KV = 49.214+ .54* 21.157 =60.639
BV = 48.690+ .45* 21.157 =58.211

So, according to the Bush-favored Final Exit poll, in which Kerry won 54% of New Voters, Kerry won the election by 2.428 million votes.

This is a MINIMUM MARGIN, because the earlier, believable exit polls gave him 57%-59% of New Voters.

This analysis assumes all Bush 2000 voters voted for Bush and all Gore 2000 voters voted for Kerry. It is a very conservative assumption, since much of the evidence had former Bush 2000 voters going for Kerry this time, not the other way around...

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Hi TIA....

About a month ago, I suggested you compare the "new voter/exit poll" numbers with "new voter registrations by party", preferably by state (do all states have the notion of registering party affiliation?).

Would that not be "illustrative of something"? In the last election, it would be a safe to assume that a person registered to vote specifically in the presidential race (so the numbers should be within a few percent of each other). And, if they declared their party affiliation, that should be a good indicator of which way they intended to vote.

I have neither the data, skills, nor inclination.

[megatherium]

2. Didn't some statistics professors conclude

that bush got more votes than he should have but he would have won anyway without the chicanery? Right-wingers claim the real problem was Democratic manipulation of exit polls; these were somehow rigged to make it sound like Kerry was winning, supposedly to depress the bush vote.

Anyway, Kerry decided to let it go.


on edit: typo

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Has this information been given to John Conyers?

:shrug:

[HamdenRice]

4. There is a big problem in your analysis ...

First, let me say I personally do believe that the 2004 election was stolen -- mainly along the lines of the Conyers commission conclusions re suppressing the urban vote in Ohio.

But your analysis depends on a patently false assumption -- namely that everyone who voted for Gore would vote for Kerry. I live in NYC and have met many, many people who voted for Gore, but because of the war (need to support the president) or 9/11 (revenge against Sadam (sic) for the WTC attack) voted for Bush.

It's hard to believe that people switched sides but out of ignorance or fear many did. If my small sample of friends and acquaintances from ultra liberal NYC is any indication, your premise simply has no predictive value.

[TruthIsAll]

5. 90% of Gore voters voted for Kerry; 91% of Bush Voters voted for Bush.

So that was almost an even split.

If you believe the Final Poll of 13660, which had Bush winning 51-48%, Kerry won New voters by 54-45%

And Kerry won the vast majority (71%) of former Nader voters.
And Kerry won a majority of the Independents.

And don't forget the BIG LIE from the Final Exit Poll...
Bush 2000 voters comprised 43% of ALL 2004 voters, or 52.57 million.

This is IMPOSSIBLE, since in 2000, Bush got 50.456 million votes.

The evidence is overwhelming.
Read the other threads.

[abbiehoff]

6. It works the other way too.

I know a number of people who voted for Bush in 2000 that voted Kerry in 2004.