Our Evidence vs. Their Evidence

[TruthIsAll]

OUR EVIDENCE

We know Kerry led the pre-election state polls.
We know Kerry led the pre-election national polls.

We know Kerry led the post-election state exit polls, 51-48%.
We know Kerry led the post-election national exit poll, 51-48%

We know documented voting machine “glitches” favored Bush 99% of the time.

We know the media and E-M will not release detailed raw precinct data.
We know Blackwell refused to testify before Conyers.
We know Mitofsky refused to testify before Conyers.

We know that there were over 21 million new voters.
We know Kerry won the vast majority (57-62%) of new voters.

We know there were 3 million former Nader voters.
We kknow Kerry won Nader voters by 71%-21% over Bush.

We know Party ID averaged 39% Dem/35% Rep/26% Independent in the prior three elections.
We know Party ID was 38/35/27 for the first 13047 National Exit Poll respondents.
We know it was changed to 37/37/24 for the final 613 in the 13660 Final.

We know Kerry, like Gore, won the female vote 54/46% up until the final 660 respondents.
We know it was changed to 51% in the 13660 Final.

We know Bush 2000 voters represented an IMPOSSIBLE 43% of the 2004 electorate in the final 13660 Exit poll.
We know it was changed from 41% in the first 13047
We know that Bush had 50.456 mm votes in 2000.
We know that about 3.5% of them have since died.
We know, therefore, that the Bush percentage could not have been higher than 39.8% (48.69/122.26).
We know that with the 39.8/40.2% weighting, Kerry won by 52.4-46.7%, or SEVEN million votes.


We know the 2000 election was stolen - by Bush in Florida where 175,000 punch cards (70% of them Gore votes) were spoiled.
We know SCOTUS stopped the recount and voted 5-4 for Bush.

We know the 2002 election was stolen (ask Max Cleland).

We know that the National Exit Poll MoE is under 1%.
We know because we checked the NEP margin of error table.
We know because we did the simple MoE calculation.
We know that Kerry won the Natioanl Poll by over 3%, 51-48%.
We know the odds are astronomical that the deviation was triple the MoE.

We know that 42 of 50 states deviated from the exit polls to Bush. We know that includes ALL 22 states in the Eastern Time Zone.

We know that 16 states deviated beyond the exit poll MoE for Bush, and none did for Kerry.

We know that touch screen voting machines became widely used in 2004.

We know that Republicans fought against paper ballots for Diebold and ESS touch screens.

We know that ALL Diebold ATMs provide a paper receipt.

We know that the deviation trend from the exit polls to the vote was approaching ZERO until 2000, when there was a dramatic reversal.

We know that scores of newspapers which supported Bush in 2000 supported Kerry in 2004.

We know that Kerry won the Ohio Exit Poll, by at least 51-48%.

We know the media will not report in any of the above.


THEIR EVIDENCE:
Something we don't know.
The rBr hypothesis: Bush voters were reluctant to speak to exit pollsters.

But..
We know that many Republican voters deserted Bush for Kerry.
We know there were hardly any Gore Democrats who voted for Bush.

Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:
Have you reached a verdict?

[Paul Dlugokencky]

1. Painfully shy Bush voters

Reticent wall flowers, shy and retiring types who don't' like to discuss politics or religion ; )



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[earth mom]

15. Are these the same shy * voters with * stickers plastered on their SUVs?

Not to mention their homes? Who gush 24/7 about him everywhere they go? Who hero worship him?

Wow, you could've fooled me with their "shyness". :eyes:

[Paul Dlugokencky]

16. sarcasm!

[earth mom]

17. Sorry-probably shoulda used the sarcasm smilie instead! nt

[FunkyLeprechaun]

21. One thing I noticed

Was that in Ohio (I'm not sure where I read this, I'm sure someone here has it) that they had predicted a Kerry win by 3% and it turned out to be a Bush win by exactly the same percentage.

[mhr]

2. Nice Summary - This Is The Top Level View That Needs Wider

Exposure

[TheFarseer]

3. I think more and more people are reaching that conclusion

I was reluctant to believe it at first but now I'm convinced that something is funny around here. Now what are we going to do about it?

[DrDebug]

8. Keep it reported and keep telling people

Until finally it'll start to have effect.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Our Evidence versus their Beliefs

Truth vs fiction. Patriotism vs zealotry and hate. Loving our country vs loving a book. And on and on and on

AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC

[MissWaverly]

5. you forgot those felon voters

The republicans haven't stopped beating that drum

[TruthIsAll]

6. I'm sure I have forgotten a lot more..

/

[MissWaverly]

7. Not you, TIA, you are the man

but I wish you would do a very simple exit poll analysis
of Nov 04 exit poll info vs the Brits, something basic enough for
no math whiz

[Land Shark]

9. We should have a semi-formal "summit" meeting to review

TIA's evidence summary above, add more, make any modifications needed so that there are no cheaply superficial critiques, and then get the above mountaintop view (as modified, if need be) out to everyone.

It may not need modification, but a strong peer review or vetting process that can be noted at the bottom would be a great addition. Nobody need wonder if they should take one person's word for it.

TIA, don't underestimate the power of eyewitness aspects, which are only implicit in the above summary: Voters SAW their votes change, and ballots come up pre-voted. THus, every class of evidence one can have is present: circumstantial, eyewitness, statistical, direct, etc. Some people are still under the impression that it's all statistical evidence (even though a proportional statistical analysis was just approved in WA state for the purpose of attacking election results in the gubernatorial election contest here).

[Kip Humphrey]

20. Something like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=364243&mesg_id=366716

[Peace Patriot]

10. You forgot...

"THEIR EVIDENCE:
Something we don't know, the rBr hypothesis:
Bush voters were reluctant to speak to exit pollsters." --TIA

You forgot their "invisible" voter registration campaign--that Rove was talking about recently. (--the one that produced a 60/40 edge to the Democrats.)

(One brain cell! That's all I want to see in news monopoly reporters. One human brain cell at work! That's all it would take to figure this out. Then they can go back to gnawing on raw flesh for dinner.) (--ahem, invention of tools, discovery of fire...) (...didn't mean Michael Jackson, Scott Petersen, et al, but maybe that, too...).

[TruthIsAll]

11. Oh, yes, those phantom new registrants. How quickly we forget.

So much evidence..and no media to report it.

[glitch]

49. "So much evidence..and no media to report it."

In a nutshell.

[emulatorloo]

12. kicking and nominating for greatest

:kick:

[bleever]

13. Fantastic summary, TIA. Very readable, very straightforward.

Nominated.

Big, big thanks.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[MissWaverly]

14. TIA, I nominated your report for the Greatest page but

I think that it is very convincing but maybe we should look at the
Republican so-called investigations on election fraud (they call it voter fraud) and slant the information to refute their spin. I think that you have worked incredibly hard and I look forward to the day that your information will help investigate the fraudulent analysis on exit polls but I think we need to cut through the Republican blame game on democratic voters, (criminals, kooks, illegals). I have heard that in Washington state, the dems are doing statistical analysis to show that the felon voters tend to vote republican. If we could look at the Republican talking points on election fraud and base our analysis on that, I think it would be stronger. (No matter how idiotic their talking points may seem.)

[ooglymoogly]

18. nice to see it so starkly put

OUR EVIDENCE V. THEIR PROPAGANDA

[MissWaverly]

19. thank you

TIA has worked so hard but I keep thinking of "Blackwell's testimony"
on election fraud, we have to be mythbreakers.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

22. Great summary, as always...

A couple of questions:

"We know the media and E-M will not release detailed raw precinct data."

Why not? What in the world can they be using as their rationale at this late date? Is this data in and of itself potentially incriminating? Is there a "smoking gun" hidden in the precinct data?

What tools do we have at our disposal to force them to release this or any other relevant information? What kind of banana republic are we living in where citizens are not allowed to see ALL of the exit poll data?

What are they hiding??

[alittlelark]

23. sigh............

:-( :-( :puke: :cry:


It's all so wrong... what happened to US!?

[kster]

24. I think I'm

going to take this,and all the other evidence and walk into my local police station and file a theft report ...... Good work TIA.


:yourock:

[vince3]

25. Great Post...

...As always, TIA.

[kimpossible]

26. Great summary

In 50 years, kids reading about the 2004 election in their history books will laugh and laugh, and think that it must be a colossal joke. Because, of course, it's just too preposterous to believe that an entire country could be so easily fooled.

Either that, or we're really trapped inside a bad Twilight Zone episode....

[MissWaverly]

28. I can just see kids in class saying what a bunch of morons

and some little kid will say from the back of the room, not my grandpa, he was on the internet, calls himself a Doer, whatever
that means

[autorank]

27. Nominate for: BEST POST EVER ON DU. Takes my breath away.

TIA:yourock:


Election Fraud Debunkers
((((((((:nuke:)))))))))

[kster]

29. kick...nt

[FogerRox]

30. TIA: one of your better posts--very simple to understand--SMokin hot

Smoke this George

[nmoliver]

31. This is great. But ...

Pardon me for questioning such a great post, but I have a few points to ask about.

1. Is it really true that Gore Democrats never voted for Bush? It sounds logical, but I do know people who believed that Bush would protect us better from "terrorism". If they were soft Gore voters before, they may well have voted for Bush. This included Jews who voted for Gore because of Lieberman, but who voted for Bush because of their fantasies about his being better for Israel. Many, many Jews think that Bush is better for Israel and against terrorism.

2. I think the only evidence that "their" side has is the machine tallies. That is the basis on which they claim victory. The "reluctant voter" hypothesis isn't really evidence, it's just an excuse they use when questioned. Their evidence is the machine tallies. The point is that this evidence has no further substantiation.

[TruthIsAll]

32. Well, I'm sure that a few did. Very few. Look at the exit polls.

Kerry won the Jewish vote easily.
I don't believe Bush gained anything there.

And there are many Bush voters who deserted him this time.
The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming.

[Sawyer]

33. Here are some stats from

heavily Jewish voting districts:

Beachwood, Ohio — suburban Cleveland
2000 Bush 910 Gore 4,565
2004 Bush 1,526 Kerry 3,766

45th Assembly District (Flatbush & South Brooklyn, New York)
2000 Bush 8,615 Gore 21,925
2004 Bush 15,935 Kerry 12,031

48th Assembly District (Boro Park, New York)
2000 Bush 10,001 Gore 15,616
2004 Bush 17,424 Kerry 7,381


Also, the numbers I have seen from exit polls show that the % of Jews who vote Republican has steadily increased in the last 4 elections (afted dropping from 1980-1988 highs):

1992 - 11% of Jews voted for Papa Bush
1996 - 16% of Jews voted for Dole
2000 - 19% of Jews voted for Baby Bush
2004 - 24% of Jews voted for Baby Bush

(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html)

[TruthIsAll]

34. Kerry: 78% of Jewish vote, National Exit Poll, 12:22am, 13047 respondents

You got your numbers from the FINAL 13660, which is bogus.
Kerry got 78% of the Jewish vote.

11/3/04, 12:22am 13047 respondents:
Kerry 51-Bush 48

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=265121


RELIGION

Mix Bush Kerry Nader
Protes 53.0% 56% 43% 1%
Cathol 27.0% 49% 50% 1%
Jewish 3.0% 22% 78% 0
Other 7.0% 20% 75% 5%
None 10.0% 29% 70% 1%

Total 100% 47.87% 50.88% 1.25%
Votes 122.26 58.53 62.21 1.53

[Sawyer]

35. You want it 23% - fine, have it at 23%,

instead of 24% that I posted. It is still higher than 2000 by 4%.

[TruthIsAll]

36. You sure are fast, aren't you? And I was wrong, it was 78%.

I changed the title accordingly.
I know, that's a no-no, but I did it anyway.

[pauldp]

37. Kick! The Truth shall set us free. n/t

[kster]

38. Just got to ask

you sell numbers with a small sampling of voters to predict the out come of an election (exit polls) they say you can't predict an outcome of an election based on that,But yet they try to sell their voting machines, and to make sure their machines are correct they will count 5% to insure accuracy.

SNIP.... In addition to requiring a voter-verifiable paper ballot, HB 2950 contains other important provisions, which do the following:

Require that elections conducted on electronic voting machines must be subject to random recounts in 5 percent of precincts.

http://sundaygazettemail.com/section/Columns/200505083

How come their 5% will predict that their machines are accurate at the end of the day , but your sampling can not predict anything ???? Get em.

[FogerRox]

39. A 5% audit is not an effective tool to find fraud or irregularities

If I commit fraud in 5 out of 100 precincts. And you Randomly pick 5 precincts to audit. What are chances your audit will find absolutely NOTHING?

[kster]

40. I'm with you, but

my point was they are saying math will insure accuracy when it concerns them,and then they turn around and say the math doesn't work, when it concerns us. Which is it? Does the math work or doesn't it. I know it does,and for the record I believe Kerry won.

[FogerRox]

41. i'm not sure who they are-- but

TIAs math says Kerry won.
ANd I think TIA could write up some #'s to show that an audit for VVPT wont work. IMO someplace around 10% to 25% the audit starts to get effective.

I think the math is entirely consistant.

The math says Kerry won--
The math says a VVPT audit wont find fraud.

[bleever]

42. Wake up, America!

You're a victim of identity theft!

It isn't really YOU that they're representing as they deregulate corporations, increase regulations on your personal life, and make war!

You didn't vote for them. They stole the election.

It's time to be mad.

The facts are waiting there for you to see them.

History will know these facts.

The sooner we face them, the better off our country will be.

The future, and the healing, starts here and now.

[kster]

43. Wake up, America !

for our Kids sake!

[bushcrab]

44. Bravo! Awesome summary.

Mind if I copy this a spread it around?

[bleever]

45. Kick...because Democracy's leg is twitching.

[Coexist]

46. kicked and nominated

should we be sending this to anyone apart from other Duers?

[kster]

47. Kick for the newbies and all the new lurkers "welcome".nt

[Pooka Fey]

48. Awesome Awesome Awesome Work, TIA !!! n/t KICK

[Peace Patriot]

50. Some suggestions for effectiveness with non-knowledgeable Kerry

voters. (Note: I don't believe in pitching ANYTHING to Bushites. They are a minority and they are nuts--or just very greedy.)

1. The 2004 election was "psyops" more than anything. And we do need to understand that and mention at least this one fact about it, because the psychological impact of it was a key component of their theft: The TV networks, acting as one, CHANGED the exit poll data on everybody's TV screens on election night--giving the American people FALSIFIED numbers, thus depriving them of major evidence of fraud. They "ADJUSTED" the exit poll data (Kerry won) TO FIT the official result (Bush won). Exit polls are used worldwide to verify elections and check for fraud. POLLUTING the date in this way makes them useless as a verification tool. And, given the 2000 election controversy, AND the controversy about 2004 electronic voting systems, this election CRIED OUT FOR proper verification. The TV networks, acting as one, deliberately denied the voters this verification tool. This is why everybody was so puzzled as the election unfolded that day. Kerry was winning! All day! And then, suddenly, late in the day, he WASN'T winning. Numerous people have remarked, "Yeah, that was weird, wasn't it? I was sure he was winning."

You'd be surprised how many people DON'T KNOW that the TV networks FALSIFIED the exit poll data.

-------


2. Acronyms. Spell out acronyms and refs, so newbies at least have the chance to understand the statement, thus:

a) "We know the media and E-M will not release detailed raw precinct data."

We know the media and their exit pollsters, Edison-Mitofsky, will not release detailed raw precinct data.

b) "We know Blackwell refused to testify before Conyers."

We now that Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio--a state where there was massive, egregious vote suppression against Democratic voters--refused to testify before Congressman Conyers' investigative committee.

c) "We know that the National Exit Poll MoE is under 1%."

MoE - margin of error

-------


3. New voters/Nader voters. Independent voters ALSO voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. Need a third item, thus...(I don't have the numbers handy)...

We know that there were over __ million Independent voters.
We know Kerry won the vast majority (____%) of Independent voters.

-------


4. This whole section of sub-points needs just a little bit of a main point intro line, thus...

We know that the exit polls show a Kerry win, and that the "final" exit poll number was tweaked ("weighted"; "adjusted") to make it appear that Bush won the exit polls, and that this "final" number is bogus, as follows:

A) We know Party ID averaged 39% Dem/35% Rep/26% Independent in the prior three elections.
We know Party ID was 38/35/27 for the first 13047 National Exit Poll respondents.
We know it was changed to 37/37/24 for the final 613 in the 13660 Final.

B) We know Kerry, like Gore, won the female vote 54/46% up until the final 660 respondents.
We know it was changed to 51% in the 13660 Final.

C) We know Bush 2000 voters represented an IMPOSSIBLE 43% of the 2004 electorate in the final 13660 Exit poll.
We know it was changed from 41% in the first 13047
We know that Bush had 50.456 mm votes in 2000.
We know that about 3.5% of them have since died.
We know, therefore, that the Bush percentage could not have been higher than 39.8% (48.69/122.26).
We know that with the 39.8/40.2% weighting, Kerry won by 52.4-46.7%, or SEVEN million votes.

-------


5. I would add "(statistically impossible)" to:

"We know that includes ALL 22 states in the Eastern Time Zone (statistically impossible)."

-------


6. "We know that touch screen voting machines became widely used in 2004." I would add:

We know that PAPERLESS touch screen voting machines became widely used in 2004, that a third of the country voted with no paper trail, and that most of these electronic voting machines and central tabulators are controlled by major Bush supporters (at Diebold and ES&S) who use secret, proprietary programming code to record and count the votes.

-------


7. Re: point #1 (of mine), that the TV networks (and also print monopolies) FALSIFIED the exit poll data will help people understand WHY/HOW the news monopolies are NOT REPORTING these 2004 election facts. That is a strong reason to include their falsification of the exit polls in your list. (It is IMPLIED in your other points, but I think it needs to be stated more explicitly). The news monopolies COLLUDED on the psyops, and are covering it up. People DO need to know this, to understand just how unreliable the news monopolies are.

-------


8. The OTHER thing that always comes up--once you have explained all of the above to a voter whose vote was stolen, and who doesn't understand what is happening in this country--is: WHY HAVEN'T THE DEMOCRATS SAID ANYTHING? That is a very difficult and complex topic, involving, a) Democratic leaders who support for the war, and b) bi-partisan corruption in the electronic voting industry. It is, in truth, mind-boggling that many Democratic leaders don't seem to care that Bushites now control the vote count, and either don't care, or don't have a clue, HOW our votes are counted). So maybe you should include the following:

We know that the Republicans in Congress funded a $4+ billion so-called "election reform" bill--purported to be the answer to the fraud of 2000--which has enabled Bushite companies to take over the states' election systems, and to corrupt state/local election officials, on a bi-partisan basis, with lavish lobbying, "revolving door" employment, and with heady power over big business deals involving extremely shoddy, insecure, hackable, fraud-prone electronic voting systems. (Example: the hogfest at the Beverly Hilton this August, where Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia are putting on a week of "fun and sun" for local/state election officials.) And we know that this may go some way to explain the silence of many Democratic Party leaders on Bushite control over the counting of our votes.

-------

TIA, thank you for your awesome work on this subject, and for this awesome listing of the evidence!

[TruthIsAll]

51. Thanks, Peace..

You say:
I would add "(statistically impossible)" to:
"We know that includes ALL 22 states in the Eastern Time Zone (statistically impossible)."

Me:
The odds are 1 in 4 million.
Not impossible...


Prob =1-BINOMDIST(21,22,0.5,TRUE)
1 in 4,194,304

[johnmilton]

53. more input on pt 8 please

The question concerning democratic silence is one that
continues to haunt me.

What are we saying? Were the gloves off on both sides and
whoever stole it last won? Was it a case of my crooks are better than your crooks and therefore I deserve to protect the US
from the terrorists because I will be a better mafia president than you? Isn't this what Dick Chaney said to Edwards in the debate?
That you can't even stand up to Howard Dean how can you stand
up to Osama? Do you prove you got bigger balls by stealing
the election and making it stick and there is some code
of honor here about accepting that you got your lunch eaten??

[kster]

52. Kick.nt

[johnmilton]

54. who else will be teaching this next fall

I will be teaching the 04 election in one of my classes this fall;
my freshman comp class to be specific.

are there other teachers out there who will be doing the same or have done the same?

[liberalcommontater]

55. Does this make sense to you?

I have been looking at the discussion here since November 2004. You have certainly provided a wealth of sophisticated statistical analysis. One simple number crunch has bothered me for a long time so I finally sat down and did it. Assuming the 12:22 exit poll numbers were correct, it would be impossible for Bush to go from 48 to 51 percent or for Kerry to drop from 51 to 48 percent with only 613 additional respondents.

Scenario #1: To go to Kerry 48 and Bush 51, Kerry would have to lose 97 votes and Bush would have to gain 704.

Kerry Bush
12:22 13,047 6,654 6,263
(51%) (48%)

Final 13,660 6,557 6,967
(48%) (51%)
-97 +704

This is impossible because there were only 613 additional poll respondents, yet the numbers show Kerry losing 97 (how?) and Bush gaining 704 (more than there were respondents!) to get to the new percentages and stay within the additional 613.

Scenario #2: Lets assume that the 12:22 poll numbers are correct and also assume that Bush got all of the 613. The percentages still do not match up.

Kerry Bush
12:22 13,047 6,654 6,263
(51%) (48%)

Final 13,660 6,654 6,876
(48.7%) (50.34%)
+0 +613

Scenario #3: Put another way, if the 12:22 numbers are correct, then to change the percentages to K 48 and B 51, Kerry would have to gain ZERO and Bush would have needed an additional 807.

Kerry Bush
12:22 13,047 6,654 6,263
(51%) (48%)

Final 13,863 6,654 7,070
(48%) (51%)
+0 +807

Is this change accounted for in any way? With a total increase of 613 over the earlier poll numbers these changes are impossible. Were the final numbers adjusted in some way? Or, is this just another confirmation that the results were bogus?

I don’t know how useful this is, but I have been curious about these numbers.

[autorank]

56. liberalcommentator, You raise good questions. Welcome to DU!!!

Basically, the 600 or so additional responders were added and the original set of data was "re-weighted" with the final election results (the vote) as a variable in the reweighting. Thus the "final" poll wasn't really a poll; it was a ratification. By my understanding of the history of the timed polls PRIOR to the final 13.6K is that they were not intended for "on air" use or even to be seen by the public.

This link, which you may have already seen (sorry if that's the case) should explain a lot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=384064&mesg_id=384064

[tommcintyre]

57. kick - In tribute to his tremendous contributions - WHY??? :( n/t

[bleever]

58. Kicking for truth, justice, and TIA's invaluable work.

[bleever]

59. Kick.

[FogerRox]

60. I remember

one of the better ones very easy to digest no mumbers to look at--

This was my comment--
"TIA: one of your better posts--very simple to understand--SMokin hot"

In some ways this list is more impressive than numbers-- one of my favs--- best of the best

[tommcintyre]

61. Yes, it does clarify things, doesn't it? nt

[FogerRox]

62. tom: yup exactly--- clear & powerful

And of course if you want the numbers to back it up--thats no prob----

[tommcintyre]

63. Should read "Our Evidence vs. Their Obfuscation" ;) nt

[kster]

64. Kick.nt