Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Freeper Logic: aBr, the Alzheimer Bush Responder Hypothesis

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 May-13-05 09:36 PM
Original message
Freeper Logic: aBr, the Alzheimer Bush Responder Hypothesis
Edited on Fri May-13-05 09:38 PM by TruthIsAll
First they said that Kerry was leading the early exit polls because women came out in force.

Well, at the 8349 respondent timeline (at 4pm), the split was 58% female-42% male.

And Kerry had 53% of the female vote.
Kerry was leading 51-48%.

At the 11027 timeline (7:33pm), the split was 54% female-46% male.
And Kerry had 54% of the female vote.
Kerry was leading 51-48%.

At the 13047 timeline, the split was 54% female-46% male.
And Kerry had 54% of the female vote.
Kerry won 51-48%.

At the 13660 timeline(1:25pm) the split was 54% female-46% male.
But Kerry had just 51% of the female vote.
Since they had to match the vote, Bush won 51-48%.
So much for the female vote canard.
They never used that one again.

Then they said it rained in Ohio.
But Democrats get wet also.
And it didnt rain EVERYWHERE in the country.
So they did away with that one, also.

Then came the famous Reluctant Bush Responder Hypothesis (rBr).
USCV debunked it. And so did DU. At the 13047 timeline, the How Voted in 2000 split was Bush 41%/ Kerry 39%. Not quite an rBr ratio.
And Kerry won what should have been the Final National Exit poll by 51-48%.

So 660 respondents were found overnight, added to the pristine 13047 (which should have been the final).

Then we showed them the impossible 43% / 37% split at the 13660 final exit poll. How could the weights change from 41 / 39%?
So they said it was the Bush Bandwagon effect, giving up on the rBr theory.

But this could not fly, because E-M hypothesized rBr and they had to stick to it.

Then we showed that the 43% Bush 2000 voter weight was impossible; that it could be no higher than 39.8% since only 48.7mm Bush voters from 2000 were still alive to vote in 2004. That meant that Bushs vote was inflated by at least 3mm and Kerrys too low by the same amount.

We showed that even if 100% of Bush 2000 voters (48.7mm) turned out and only 85% of Gore voters (43.3mm), that Kerry would have won anyway. The reason: Kerry won 55-60% of new voters.

Eight million fewer Gore voters meant that there had to be an equal number of New voters, since the total number of 2004 voters was a constant 122 million. And we have already shown that the maximum Bush 2000 voter turnout was 48.7mm.

They could not, or would not, accept this mathematical fact.
So they said that of the 43% who said they voted for Bush, some actually voted for Gore - but FORGOT THEY DID SO AND SAID THEY VOTED FOR BUSH.

In other words, aBr - the Alzeimer Bush Responder.

Now, that finally explains it.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoBotherMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, that's the ticket --
temporary amnesia. I guess that explanation is as logical as any of the other ludicrous rationale from the Corporatacracy. You rock TIA!D ; )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On Par Donating Member (912 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks! Here's the Short Version....
Edited on Fri May-13-05 09:59 PM by On Par
STOLEN !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. LOL!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
4. And there was me thinking you'd finally got it.....
This is junk logic.

None of these numbers proves anything, as you now know, if you didn't before.

Correction: it proves that either the polls were crap or the count was crap.

It does nothing to show which was which.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Junk Logic? Febble, you are getting very nervous, aren't you?
Do you sense that rBr is a House of Cards?
Your desperation is apparent by your choice of words.
How long will you stay hitched to that rBr wagon?

"Junk Logic"?

Febble, I'm calling you out right here and now.
Go ahead, I challenge you to refute anything I wrote.
And don't forget. Be specific.

"Junk Logic" just won't cut it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Every time I get specific
you jump on to another thread.

Every time I ask you a question, you avoid it.

All I am saying, TIA, is that proving the magnitude of the discrepancy, and the improbability that it occurred by chance doesn't prove fraud. It just proves it wasn't chance.

I've shown you the proportions of Bush and Kerry non-responders you'd have to postulate to account for it - you've tried it yourself and got a different answer, because you didn't pro-rate for the numbers of each kind of voter in the precinct sample.

But the point is that the calculation would be exactly the same if you were to work out how much fraud had occurred. The difference in "non-response" could be due to the fact that Bush voters didn't exist (their votes were fabricated) or that Kerry voters were phantoms (their votes were switched to Bush.

You can't disprove rBr with math any more than I can prove it. And I haven't. All I am saying is that you haven't disproven it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I'll leave that to UCSV. They are doing a good job-taking your
model (to your credit) to refute your misinterpretation of the data..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
8. KICK.NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
9. KICK,
kster, we have to stop meeting like this... :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yes, I hope the DU
reconsider's. I would like the RIP thread reinstated,Or a new one in its place.TIA has done a lot of work keeping the NAYSAYERS in line.And he/she gets one dead to right, and it gets locked???
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 Tue Aug 22nd 2017, 05:42 PM
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