Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OK, MAYBE THERE WAS THIS BUSH "BANDWAGON" EFFECT...

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
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 08:21 PM
Original message
OK, MAYBE THERE WAS THIS BUSH "BANDWAGON" EFFECT...
Edited on Fri Apr-08-05 08:49 PM by TruthIsAll
OK, LET'S ASSUME THERE WAS THIS BUSH BANDWAGON EFFECT...

We know that that the "Voted in 2000" Bush/Gore mix
of 43/37% was impossible, so maybe the respondents
exaggerated.

CNN Final Exit Poll 
2:05pm Nov.3 13660 Respondents

NEP/WP Preliminary Exit Poll
12:22am Nov.3, 13047 Respondents

CNN Preliminary Exit Poll 
7:38pm Nov.3, 11027 Respondents

Exhibit I:	Final Exit poll -13660 respondents				

VOTED 2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	Total
No		17%	45%	54%	1%	100.0%
Gore		37%	10%	90%	0%	100.0%
Bush		43%	91%	9%	0%	100.0%
Other		3%	21%	71%	8%	100.0%
		100%	51.11%	48.48%	0.41%	100.0%
						
How many Bush voters jumped on the bandwagon:			
Was it really 41%?, not 43%?				

VOTED 2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	
No		17%	45%	54%	1%	100.0%
Gore		39%	10%	90%	0%	100.0%
Bush		41%	91%	9%	0%	100.0%
Other		3%	21%	71%	8%	100.0%
		100%	49.49%	50.10%	0.41%	100.0%
						
How many Gore 2000 voters lied about voting for Bush:	
Was it really 8%, not 10%?				

VOTED 2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	
No		17%	45%	54%	1%	100.0%
Gore		39%	8%	92%	0%	100.0%
Bush		41%	91%	9%	0%	100.0%
Other		3%	21%	71%	8%	100.0%
		100%	48.71%	50.88%	0.41%	100.0%
						
How many New Voters lied about voting for Bush:
Was it really 41%, not 45%?				

VOTED 2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	
No		17%	41%	57%	2%	100.0%
Gore		39%	8%	92%	0%	100.0%
Bush		41%	91%	9%	0%	100.0%
Other		3%	21%	71%	8%	100.0%
		100%	48.03%	51.39%	0.58%	100.0%
						
Then maybe the preliminary exit poll of 13047 was right.
Kerry really did win, after all.					
						


EXHIBIT II:	Final Exit poll -13660 respondents				
						
PARTY ID	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	
Dem		37%	11%	89%	0	100.0%
Repub		37%	93%	6%	1%	100.0%
Indep		26%	48%	49%	3%	100.0%
		100%	50.96%	47.89%	1.15%	100.0%
						
How many Dems lied about voting for Bush?
Was it really 9%?, not 11%?				
						
PARTY ID	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	
Dem		37%	9%	90%	1%	100.0%
Repub		37%	93%	6%	1%	100.0%
Indep		26%	48%	49%	3%	100.0%
		100%	50.22%	48.26%	1.52%	100.0%
						
						
How many Indies lied about voting for Bush?
Was it really 45%?, not 48%?				
						
PARTY ID	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	
Dem		37%	9%	90%	1%	100.0%
Repub		37%	93%	6%	1%	100.0%
Indep		26%	45%	52%	3%	100.0%
		100%	49.44%	49.04%	1.52%	100.0%

						
How many Repubs lied about voting for Bush?
Was it really 92%?, not 93%?				

PARTY ID	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	
Dem		37%	9%	90%	1%	100.0%
Repub		37%	92%	7%	1%	100.0%
Indep		26%	45%	52%	3%	100.0%
		100%	49.07%	49.41%	1.52%	100.0%


How many Repubs lied about Party ID?
Was it really 35%?, not 37%?				

PARTY ID	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	
Dem		38%	9%	90%	1%	100.0%
Repub		35%	92%	7%	1%	100.0%
Indep		27%	45%	52%	3%	100.0%
		100%	47.77%	50.69%	1.54%	100.0%

Then maybe the preliminary exit poll of 13047 was right.
Kerry really did win, after all.					
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 03:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Would you like to set your watch....
by the inevitable appearance of the almighty "Q"?

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Will he arrive in his beat-up bandwagon?
Edited on Sat Apr-09-05 03:59 AM by TruthIsAll
He is getting clobbered every which way from Sunday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. What alarms me the most -
Is the repeated postings of the same exact cut and pasted RW excerpts. There's definitely an agenda there. I've seen no activity on this board from said individual except frenzied attempts to try to sway everyone to dismiss the possibility of election fraud. There have also been a number of personal jabs. I'd think if he really was just a genuine DUer that thought we were all just a bunch of conspiracy theorists gone bonkers, he'd just avoid this forum, and these threads. His rabid interest suggests something otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I'm glad to hear
you say that,I thought it was just me. Rock on TIA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. It's not just you...
Believe me! We all know. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. The numbers sure are telling.
kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. maybe the 'Q' from Star Trek... Do you think the one from
Star Trek Votes? I always thought he was one of the more obnoxious villians..I wondered why they kept using him in the scripts...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Only thing from star trek , which I have to say really sucks....
Gary Seven. He's a liar through and through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. Q is a musical term right?
Sounds interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 04:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Good to see your still fighting the good fight, TruthIsAll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidgmills Donating Member (651 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. About two months ago on Mystery Pollster
A social scientist made a very valid point I thought. He basically said that the statisticians, the mathmaticians and the political scientists have no business making judgments about purported polling "bias" due to human behavior.

The bandwagon theory or the bush non responder theory all fall within this category and are being proposed by ... well, I doubt they are experts in behavioral science.

I find it laugable that people would argue a poll was biased based on what type of clothes a pollster might be wearing or the length of his/her hair or whether he/she was well trained or not. If this really is a problem, then maybe all pollsters from now on should be brownie scouts or cub scouts so as not to offend anyone or embarrass any one. Of course, then I am sure we would be hearing that the poll was biased because too many potential responders didn't like children or snotty noses.

I want to know why some people will try so hard to find bias as an excuse before they will consider the prospect of election fraud as being more likely for the descrepancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hey, in the other thread, I asked Q who he voted for.
Let's see if he tells the truth or if he's on the wagon!
(Has anybody ever asked him before?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I've tried to talk to him in a civil manner -
but he just puts words in my mouth, twists my statements to suit his agenda, and makes rude comments. He's all smoke and mirrors and red herrings.

I no longer try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
11. Yeah or maybe....
It just happened to change all of a sudden. Jesus knows the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. get on the bandwagon!
a kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. An incumbant gets his may/june approval rating in NOV
Bush was at 44%

That suggests a 11 point Kerry win. Throw out 1 % for 3rd party votes--------------
Bush....44%
Kerry...55%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kansasblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
17. bandwagon
I remember seeing the pictures from the Wisconsin rally near the end of the campaign. My God the crowd was big. The clues were there. The nation was comfortable with John Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. DAmn straight-- dude I was in FL they did 2-3 rallies HIllary Edwards Kerr
Kerry every week the turnout was 10K plus in every venue that could hold the peeps
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yup, that's the story from all over--from other rallies, and from get-out-
vote volunteers, and from the many Tom, Dick and Jane co-workers or family member who were voting for the first time specifically to oust the Bush Cartel, from every set of data that statisticians look at, and in addition from opinion polls, in which only 49% of Americans approved of Bush on his Inauguration Day (!), only 45% approve of him now, and disapproval of every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, is up in the 60% to 70% range--a huge "vote of no confidence" that has been consistent over time, polling methods and questions, and polling organizations.

And what is the evidence that Bush won? Electronic central tabulators run on secret, proprietary software, owned and controlled by major Bush partisans?

That's it. There is no other evidence. (--unless you get down to the precinct level, where there is already evidence of fraud, including inexplicable skews to Bush in electronic voting, with precinct checking not yet complete, and with Republican officials having blockaded it in Ohio).

There was no groundswell for Bush. His audiences were highly selected and vetted. And the Republicans lost, and lost big, in new voter registration in 2004.

Some of our evidence may be necessarily inferential (because the election was so non-transparent and unverifiable)--with astronomical odds against a Bush win, but still in the realm of statistics--but it stacks up very well, indeed, against the sole evidence of a Bush win: his buddies' secret vote count.

And the whole of our evidence comes from many sources: numerous Ph.D.s, several different expert statistical teams, several different statisticians here at DU, the Conyers hearings, the EIRs (including items like the touchscreens always changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, and all other machine malfunctions and vote suppression favoring Bush and not Kerry), two small but disinterested political parties, many different expert and citizen groups/reports on the perils of electronic voting, two different exit polls (national and state by state), numerous different opinion polls by different news organizations using different methods (on the disapproval of Bush), and an untold number of anecdotal reports of enthusiasm for Kerry and/or for ousting Bush.

I repeat my slogan to freepers and deniers: Prove Bush won.

If the election was valid, shouldn't that be quite simple and easy to do?

------

To those who fuss about "absolute proof" and "smoking guns" and say that the Bush Cartel is innocent until proven guilty, I say: Given a non-transparent election system, those in power ARE guilty until proven innocent. That's the nature of democracy. A non-transparent election is NOT VALID--not in Stalinist Russia, and not here. And those who try to fob off a non-transparent election for the real thing are evading and falsifying the most fundamental element of democracy: the very means by which the people hold their leaders accountable.

-----

And one more thing: IF the Bush Cartel had wanted an honest election, why did they block the paper trail provision of HAVA and not let it out of committee for a vote? That's a no-brainer, when it comes to honest, transparent elections. Unlike some others, I don't consider these fascists to be brainless. They quite deliberately blocked a paper trail because they DIDN'T WANT an honest election, and they very much DID WANT the rest of us to have to dig the true story out with inferential evidence.

I have often made this point about INTENT, and I'm making it again--because we so often lose site of it.

They COULD HAVE HAD a transparent election that was a model of democracy. They DELIBERATELY sabotaged all efforts to achieve that. Why?

I think the answer is obvious: Bush/Cheney could not win an honest election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Correct. (nt)
www.missionnotaccomplished.us (a day to reflect on the vast crimes committed by those who also stole the national elections of 2000 and 2004)
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 Sun Apr 30th 2017, 06:43 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