Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

3 POWERFUL NAT. EXIT POLL GRAPHS: TIMELINE, KERRY MARGINS, VOTER TURNOUT

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 Thu May-12-05 07:50 PM
Original message
3 POWERFUL NAT. EXIT POLL GRAPHS: TIMELINE, KERRY MARGINS, VOTER TURNOUT
Edited on Thu May-12-05 08:18 PM by TruthIsAll
1) The National Exit Poll Timeline:
Notice the final timeline reversal in Kerry numbers (13660 respondents).

Kerry's percentages were fairly constant up to and including the 13047 respondent timeline. Hey maintained a steady 51-48% lead in the timeline from 8349 to 11027 to 13047 respondents.

What happened with the 13660 Final, which was matched to the votes to give Bush a 51-48% exit poll win?

Image


2) Kerry's winning margins I:
For 96%,98%,100% Gore 2000 voter turnout and 100% Bush voter turnout assumptions, along with Kerry deviations from the 13047 exit poll (0%is the actual base case) of -1%, -2%, -3%).

Image


3) Kerry's winning margins II:
Sensitivity analysis of various combinations of Gore/Bush 2000 voter turnout. Kerry wins even if one assumes an impossible 85% Gore turnout vs. 100% for Bush.

After viewing this graph, how can anyone still believe the Reluctant Bush Responder hypothesis. We are assuming that 15% of Gore voters were so reluctant they didn't even VOTE, much less respond to an exit pollster.

And Kerry still wins by two million votes.

Febble, are you listening?


Image

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. My son in law worked for Kerry
and he just shakes his head when I bring this up to him. It is so sad. I want him to agree at least that there is something there. But he seems to be stopped by the MSM results that get offered up. I can't understand it. I'll try again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You also need TIA's lists of "things you must believe to agree * won."
Do you have those links handy, TIA?

Everyone should have a printed copy to carry around.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Not sure if this is the list you're referring to....
but I found this on a local board a few months ago and saved it.

20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA

Did you know....
1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.
2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.
3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.
4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.
5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.
6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.
7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bushs vice-presidential candidates.
8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.
9. Diebolds new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.
10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.
11. Diebold is based in Ohio.
12. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.
13. Jeff Dean, Diebolds Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebolds central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree.
14. Diebold Senior Vice-President Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a high degree of sophistication to evade detection over a period of 2 years.
15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.
16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebolds claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it.
17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.
18. All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.
19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the Presidents brother.
20. Serious voting anomalies in Florida - again always favoring Bush - have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.

Are you old enough to remember when the United States was the world standard-bearer for open, fair elections? Dont you wonder what all the Veterans of REAL wars like World War II, not politically manufactured wars like the current fiasco in Iraq, fought for? Arent you tired of our system of government being hijacked by criminals and thugs like the Bush Family? Did you know that the Bush family is the most corrupt family in American Political History? If you dont believe it, just research the family history and their ties to everything from Adolph Hitler, to Savings and Loan scandals, to the Iran-Contra scandal, to the Saudi Royal Family, to the Bin-Laden Family, to world-wide drug trafficking, to illegal CIA covert operations, to assassinations, to theft, to corruption, and last but not least, to stealing elections. This family should be deported, not revered! But if you still think the 2004 election was legitimate, then here are some other things you must also believe if you really believe that George W. Bush won the election:

1. That the exit polls were WRONG.
2. That Zogbys 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH and FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
3. That Harris last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
4. That the Incumbent Rule (that undecideds break for the challenger) was WRONG.
5. That the 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesnt do better than his final polling)
6. That the Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)
7. That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disenfranchised in 2000.
8. That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.
9. That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.
10. That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.
11. That Kerry did WORSE than Gore against an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.
12. That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.
13. That voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election.
14. That people who voted for Bush were not anxious to speak to exit pollsters in the states that Bush had to win (like Florida and Ohio) where the exit polls were off, but wanted to be polled in states that he had sewn up (like Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas) where the exit polls were exactly correct.
15. That Democrats who voted for Kerry were very anxious to be exit-polled, especially in Florida and Ohio (and that this is what accounts for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual votes in these two critical states).
16. That women were much more likely to be polled early in the day in Florida and Ohio. That is another reason why the exit polls were wrong in those states. In those states in which the exit polls were correct to within one percent, women did not come out early.
17. That network newscasters who claim that those who consider the possibility of fraud are just wild conspiracy theorists do not have an agenda.
18. That it is just a coincidence that only since the 2000 presidential election have exit polls failed to agree with the actual vote - and that Bush won both disputed elections.
19. That exit polls are not to be trusted in the United States, even though they are used throughout the world to monitor elections for fraud.
20. That even though more votes were cast than there were eligible voters in many precincts of critical states, it is not an issue that needs to be covered in the media.
21. That the absence of a paper ballot trail for touch screen computers does not encourage fraud, even though they have been proven by hundreds of computer experts to be highly vulnerable to fraudulent attack.
22. That statistical tests which indicate a high probability of fraud are just conspiratorial junk science.
23. That Bushs vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in FL by 4%. Based on 2846 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 1.84%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 1667.
24. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in OH by 3%. Based on 1963 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 2.21%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 333.
25. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentages in 41 out of 51 states. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 135,000.
26. That his vote tallies could exceed the margin of error in 16 states. Not one state vote tally exceeded the MOE for Kerry. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 13.5 Trillion.
27. That his vote tallies could exceed a 2% exit poll margin of error in 23 states. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
28. That of 88 documented touch screen incidents, 86 voters would see their vote for Kerry come up Bush - and only TWO from Bush to Kerry. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
29. That Mitofsky (who ran the exit polls), with 25 years of experience, has lost his exit polling touch.
30. That by disputing the Ukrainian elections, the Bush administration would base its case on the accuracy of U.S. sponsored exit polling, while at the same time ignoring exit polls in the U.S. presidential election, which the media reported Kerry was winning handily.
31. That Bush could overcome Kerrys 50.8% - 48.2% lead in the National Exit Poll Sub-sample (13,047 polled) and win the popular vote: 51.2% - 48.4%, a 3.0% increase from the exit poll to the vote tally, far beyond the 0.86% margin of error. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 282 Billion.
32. According to a London-based insurance actuary, the odds of all of these things happening in ONE election, let alone two elections in a row, are too astronomical to be calculated!

Now ask yourself..Do you really believe George W. Bush won the last 2 elections fairly? If your answer is yes.Congratulations!!!!!! Youre the typical misinformed voter who is gullible enough to put all your faith in what Fox News tells you instead of investigating what the truth really is and facing the reality that George W. Bush and his right-wing followers have hijacked this country and rendered our system of elections.the same system put in place by our founding fathers 229 years ago.useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yes; the second list, with 32 items, is TIA's work.
Thanks, Riddler.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Riddler, YOU ARE SOOOO WELCOME TO DU!!!!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. :kick: Recommend -- The terms of the debate are clear
Edited on Thu May-12-05 08:59 PM by autorank
"15% of Gore voters were so reluctant they didn't even VOTE, much less respond to an exit pollster."

Don't think we'll be hearing much back about this one. Maybe the new question by the "debunkers" on these threads needs to be "...that depends on what the definition of is is."

To the "debunkers," lead, follow, or get out of the way!

:kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. It certainly depends on what the definition
of a Margin of Error is.

This is a mathematical debate, not a grammatical one.

TIA needs to define his terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. You're not responding to my message. What are you talking about?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. The 85% Gore /100% Bush Turnout Scenario Detail
Edited on Sat May-14-05 01:28 AM by TruthIsAll
National Exit Poll: 
For this scenario to occur, there had to be 28.5mm voters
(23.34% of 122.26) who did not vote in 2000, rather than the
21.15mm (17%) in the final exit poll. 

This is clearly impossible, but the point is to show that
Kerry would have won even if 15% of Gore voters stayed home
and 100% of Bush voters turned out.  

The scenario assumes an 11-6.3 split between first time voters
and those who did not vote in 2000 but did prior. The ratio is
identical to the 11%-6.3% split of those who did not vote in
the exit poll.
 
13047 respondents @ 12:22am					
Kerry margin:0.96 million votes			

Gore turnout:85%
Bush turnout:100%

Voted 2000	
               Mix	Kerry	Bush	Nader
28.532	No	23.34%	57.00%	41.00%	2.00%
Consisting of:				
18.142	New   14.84%	56.00%	43.00%	1.00%
10.390	Prior 8.50%	58.75%	37.51%	3.75%
					
41.832	Gore	34.22%	91.00%	8.00%	1.00%
48.690	Bush	39.82%	9.00%	91.00%	0.00%
3.206	Nader	2.62%	71.00%	21.00%	8.00%
					
122.26	Total	100.0%	49.88%	49.10%	1.02%
		122.26	60.99	60.03	1.25


*******************************************************
National Exit Poll: 
13047 respondents @ 12:22am

Actual Base Case	

Kerry margin:5.91million votes			

Gore turnout:100.0%
Bush turnout:100.0%
Voted 2000	
                  Mix	Kerry	Bush	Nader
21.150	No	17.30%	57.00%	41.00%	2.00%
Consisting of:				
13.448	New	11.00%	56.00%	43.00%	1.00%
7.702	Prior	6.30%	58.75%	37.51%	3.75%
					
49.214	Gore	40.25%	91.00%	8.00%	1.00%
48.690	Bush	39.82%	9.00%	91.00%	0.00%
3.206	Nader	2.62%	71.00%	21.00%	8.00%
					
122.26	Total	100.0%	51.94%	47.10%	0.96%
		122.26	63.50	57.59	1.17
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. The numbers
Kerry Margin of Victory Turnout Matrix		

       Bush Turnout	
	100%	99%	98%
Gore
100	5.91	6.39	6.86
99	5.58	6.06	6.53
98	5.25	5.73	6.2
95	4.26	4.74	5.21
90	2.61	3.09	3.57
85	0.96	1.44	1.92
80	-0.69	-0.21	0.27
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes, I'm listening
but I'm still not hearing you tell me what you think a margin of error means.

Or sampling error, or sampling bias.

These are three crucial terms we need to understand to continue the debate.

And as you know, the final number was re-weighted in line with the results.

(sigh)
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. And as you should know, the weightings are IMPOSSIBLE.
Edited on Fri May-13-05 12:57 PM by TruthIsAll
Therefore, so are the results.

Thanks for reminding us, Febble.

E-M had to force an impossible, fictitious weighting to match the impossible, fictitious votes by trying to feed us the crap that the Bush 2000 voter percentage of the total 2004 vote was:

43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43%43% 43%

and

Gore's was:
37% 37% 37% 37%37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37%

IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE

But you are too caught up with your Febble function to admit the obvious.

Do you DARE consider a PLAUSIBLE, REALISTIC WEIGHTING?

Gore:
40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%

Bush:
39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39%

But plausibility is NOT your strong suit, is it?

If you did, then you would calculate that Kerry wins by 6 million votes. And we could move on to discuss the real issues: like 86 of 88 touchscreens turning Kerry votes to Bush votes?

Do you know the probability of that occurrence, Febble?

Sorry, Febble.

The game is almost over.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Well, you might like to define weighting as well
but as I have already said, there is simply no argument about the numbers you cite.

We both agree that it had nothing to do with a few extra respondents.

Now, when are you going to answer my questions? The are not difficult. Instead of shouting, just define Margin of Error.

That will do to start with.

What I'm really interested in is how you think it relates to sampling bias, but that can wait.

Why don't you answer my question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. What about the probability of 86/88 touchscreens turning Kerry to Bush?
Do you agree with this calculation?
Do you agree that there is no bias?
That there is no MoE?

It's the probability P that at least 86 votes would switch to Bush.
Or P = Prob(86)+ Prob (87)+ Prob(88).

And it's documented in the Election 2004 Incident Database:

Prob(86)= 1.23689E-23 =BINOMDIST(86,88,0.5,FALSE)
+Prob(87)= 2.84343E-25 =BINOMDIST(87,88,0.5,FALSE)
+Prob(88)= 3.23117E-27 =BINOMDIST(88,88,0.5,FALSE)

P =Prob (86,87,88)= 0.00000000000000000000001266
or 1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000

OR ONE IN SEVENTY-NINE BILLION TRILLION

How will you deal with that one?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sawyer Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Curious - why do you keep evading Febble's question?
Edited on Fri May-13-05 01:11 PM by Sawyer
If you don't want to answer it - can you explain why you don't want to answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Sorry, Sawyer (is that your new name?) , you will have to look
elsewhere if you want to continue your non-stop disruptions.

I won't waste any more time with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I have no idea whether I agree with your calculation
because I have no idea whether we have any shared understanding of what you are doing.

If you can define what you mean by an MoE, then I will address your question.

You are clearly becoming very angry, but I am simply trying to establish the terms of the debate.

The mathematical debate.

What do you mean/understand by the terms:

Margin of Error
Sampling error (or standard error)
Sampling bias.

When we agree on a shared understanding of those terms, then we can debate. Accusing me of all manner of stuff is not advancing the debate in the slightest. I cannot say what I think is plausible or not unless you define your terms.

Not in formulae - I know the formula for the standard error of a percentage. I don't know how old you are, but I'm 53 and I've been calculating standard errors for quite a while now.

I want to know what you think it means. Not more abuse

Please answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Replied to the wrong thread
Yes it is impossible. I did a similar calculation myself.

I agree.

I can deal with it.

Now, please, define what you mean by a Margin of Error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Is that all you can say? You can "deal with it" ?
Edited on Fri May-13-05 11:16 PM by TruthIsAll
On top of the exit poll discrepancies, don't you think the corroborating evidence is overwhelming?

You agree: "Yes, its impossible. I did a similar calculation myself"
So how about a little discussion, then?

You say exit polls are not proof of fraud. But 16 state exit polls deviating to Bush beyond the MoE has a one in 13.5 trillion probability. Compare that to the one-sided machine results favoring Bush with a probability of one in the billions of trillions.

Is that not worth of discussion? You dismiss it with: "define what you mean by margin of error"? Well, I already responded to your little demand in that other post.

Now lets talk about the real probabilities that 99% of thousands of election incidents would favor Bush. Or is that too factual for your taste? Would you rather talk about faith-based hypotheticals - like rBr? I know Sawyer would.

Come on, Febble, change the subject.
Let's get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Because you are just using your little "test" to avoid the facts.
Why won't you respond to the MP question?

Is this your retort to my exposing your ignorance regarding the 1.0% MoE as stipulated by Mitofsky in that screen shot? In which he defines the 13047 respondents as a randomly-selected sample?

You sure vanished quickly after I showed you that one, didn't you?

Now, about the 86 out of 88 touchscreens turning Kerry votes to Bush votes....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. No, it's not a test
But I don't know why you are not replying.

Give me the link to your question and I'll have a shot. But it sounds like it's MP you should be addressing. You can comment on his blog without registration, why don't you ask him?

Lizzie
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 23rd 2017, 06:03 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