1. Ya know . . . I'm sure this is wonderful, damning stuff . . .
But I can't make heads or tails of it. And neither can anyone else except statisticians and the like. Which doesn't characterize either 1) most Americans or 2) the people who need be influenced by strong proof that the election was stolen (again).
I think a little summary of the implications in narrative form wouldn't be out of place. In fact, without such a narrative summary, I'm afraid your efforts are a tad on the pointless side.
That ALL of this is dependent on the exit polls being right. For the exit polls to be right the pollsters had to know what they were doing in setting them up.
In proving the rBr theory implausible, you bring into question the competence of those that developed that theory. The problem is these are the SAME people that set up the polling methodology and weighting to begin with, therefore it casts doubt on their ability to do that properly either.
But they had to do that properly for any of your analysis to be good... round and round we go.
in trying to discredit someone using data that is as only as valuable as the same person's credibility? Seems like a type of circular logic... they must be wrong because they were right.
No, I don't really believe the rBr theory... but I also don't believe their original polling methodology has any more credibility than the rBr.
Was the election stolen? I don't know and I don't think analysing polls from now to eternity will answer that question definitively. Right now I believe what Kerry and others have said... there was fraud (or irregularities or whatever other nice word they choose to use), but it was not enough to change the outcome of the election.
Do YOU really think so many of the Democratic leaders are just plain ignorant of what really happened? Don't you have more faith than that in them? (serious questions, not trying to question your "Democraticness")
how the "cencus" (you were corrected a few dozen times, will you learn how to spell this word please) weightings in any way contradict the final exit polls. You're still welcome to offer that information if you have it.
There's no reason to go back over the census material.
As shown in the final I.D. weightings, 43% of the exit poll respondents were Bush voters from the year 2000. That was statistically impossible because at least 1.5 million bush voters died, and the gender weighting sample reversed by reducing the percentage. The final weighting is bogus, and you are going by nothing but rhetoric disproved by TruthIsAll and everyone else.
It was completely layed out in bold detail. Just because some "right wing" talking points didn't awcknowledge it, won't change the fact it was already completely refuted. Please check "weighting by gender" catergory and assorted appendix.
You say: In proving the rBr theory implausible, you bring into question the competence of those that developed that theory. The problem is these are the SAME people that set up the polling methodology and weighting to begin with, therefore it casts doubt on their ability to do that properly either.
I say: That is totally false logic which reeks of naivete. I do not question their competence. I question their integrity.
Even Mitofsky says the methodology was correct. But he cannot just come out and say the polls indicate Kerry won. He is caught in a contradiction. So he takes the safe way out.
"There must have been polling bias" "Bush voters were shy".
What do you expect him to say? He works for the networks which continue to protect Bush. Do you expect him to say anything else?
and is using rBr to cover that. He couldn't very well say he screwed the pooch either. Seems an equally plausible explanation to me.
Incompetent OR dishonest... why should I believe him? And if I choose to believe him, which contradictory analysis should I believe?
What of the competence of Kerry and most other Democratic politician? Hardly any politician has even hinted publicly that this election was stolen. Do you think they are that ignorant of what happened or do you have another explanation for their silence?
I don't except your perception of reality? I assure you I am neither.
No, I'm not a Democrat... that should be obvious by my screen name (kinda screwed that up though... should be little "i"). I generally vote for individuals, not parties. I'm pretty much middle of the road but can lean right or left depending on the issue.
As to naive... am I naive to not blindly accept the validity of polling and WEIGHTING methodolgy which the pollsters won't release?
I've never claimed there was not fraud... I'm just not convinced it rose to a level that changed the election or that it was a carefully orchestrated plan at the national level. I won't deny it COULD have happened... just not convinced it did.
And if Kerry really believed the election was stolen, he would find a way to use it... legally if there was proof... politically if there was no proof that met the legal standard.
30. More RW talking points. You admit there was fraud, but not enough...
to turn the election.
"I've never claimed there was not fraud... I'm just not convinced it rose to a level that changed the election or that it was a carefully orchestrated plan at the national level. I won't deny it COULD have happened... just not convinced it did".
Ok, a few questions for you.
Why was there ANY fraud, if not to turn the election? Why bother stealing ANY votes, if not to turn the election? Why not just it alone, if Bush was going to win any way? Why steal votes when you don't need them? Why bother strealing even one lousy vote?
Why cheat at poker if not to win? Why cheat on your taxes if not to win? Why go for a knockout in the final round if you have already won the fight on points?
Do you see how that silly talking point of yours falls apart when you ask yourself a few simple questions?
doesn't mean you wouldn't have won the hand anyway.
"Why was there ANY fraud, if not to turn the election? Why bother stealing ANY votes, if not to turn the election? Why cheat at poker if not to win?" Of course it was the intent, but was it neccessary?
"Why not just it alone, if Bush was going to win any way? Why steal votes when you don't need them? Why bother strealing even one lousy vote? Why go for a knockout in the final round if you have already won the fight on points?" Poor arguments... all would have required the cheaters knew the outcome without their intervention. I guess they weren't comfortable with "too close to call".
"Why cheat on your taxes if not to win?" Not sure how this one relates...
Do you believe that Kerry had NO fradulent votes? All your questions would apply equally to people cheating FOR Kerry as well.
Yes the infamous troll Bev Harris/bailey77 has proved that the exit polls were right in Florida. You were simply wrong, Florida had fraud which switched the election. Democrats in name only were involved.
34. Oh, so now you say "They all do it". Another RW talking point.
Edited on Fri Jun-10-05 04:00 AM by TruthIsAll
Your argument is specious, in tatters.
The massive documented evidence is that fraud (vote-switching, etc) was a Kerry vote to Bush phenomenon, not vice-versa.
The exit poll deviations to the vote favored Bush in 42 of 50 states. All 22 states in the eastern time zone deviated to Bush.
16 states deviated BEYOND the margin of error to Bush. None to Kerry.
Bush votes were inflated by 4 milion when you analyze the maximum number of Bush and Gore 2000 voters still alive who could have voted in 2004 and apply the equivalent National Exit Poll voting percentages to THESE TRUE weightings.
Of 88 documented touchscreen incident, 86 switched Kerry votes to Bush. The odds: 1/ 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
35. It would explain why many Democrats aren't anxious...
to launch a full-scale investigation. Some lip service to it... but for the most part, no action. Do you have a more plausible explanation?
Search for Milwaukee voter fraud for an example that likely went Kerry's way. This appears to be voter fraud (carried out by individual voters) as opposed to election fraud (carried out by workers at some level), but the end result is the same (although likely not as successful).
All your evidence to support the exit polls are based on the exit polls themselves... My main disagreement with you is whether or not the exit polls prove anything at this point. IF the polling and WEIGHTING methodology is ever released and can be verified... it's a whole new ballgame.
I believe there has been some degree of fraud and honest mistakes in EVERY Presidential election. At this point I don't accept exit polls as proof that it rose to an election swinging level in 2004.
when the thread was revived. No, I didn't mean TIA or other believers are insane. It's just an expression, not a accusation. I use it in reference to my own ideas that seem to make sense but fall apart when looked at from another angle.
I agree with MrModerate and have, in the past, said something similar.
I wholly respect your tenacity and intellect, as you're way over my head with respect to statistical analysis. Put to good, industrious use I'm sure the data could prove foundational in a larger movement.
But if you're not directing its use to "normal" people (i.e. those like me and MrModerate) who is using it or what are you doing with it? That's not meant to sound confrontational - I'm genuinely curious as to how the findings are being dissemintated to those who *can* understand, and more importantly, use it.
Not to put words in MrModerate's mouth, but I think both of us have the same problem and related query: We'd like to understand this, even at a basic level, but there's no context in which the data is described, or summarized for us statistically-retarded citizens. Will it be at some point? Could it be, or is it just too complicated and intertwined with "specialized knowledge"?
14. There is no reason to disbelieve the exit polls, given so much OTHER...
...evidence of fraud (for instance 86 out of 88 reported incidents of touchscreens changing Kerry votes to Bush votes--how COULD that happen without fraudulent programming? --it couldn't!)(--and there is so much more!), and given exit polls' constant improvement over the years, and good record in recent years, in the US and elsewhere. They are standard election practice specifically used to detect fraud in other democratic countries. And, you think corporations don't want accurate polls on consumer habits? (They do!). Exit polls are like all polls, only much better--they poll actual voters as they leave the polling place.
What there IS reason to disbelieve is Edison-Mitofsky's lame and non-fact based "theory"--invented after the fact--that the reason Kerry won the exit polls is the Bush Republicans are shy creatures and didn't respond to being asked who they voted for.
Such hogwash! People who voted for Kerry in Republican districts--like those folks in Waynesville who were recently thrown out of their church for refusing to renounce their Kerry votes--are much more likely to have shunned a pollster in their neighborhood polling place than loudmouth, fascist Bushites who don't think anyone else is entitled to an opinion, let alone entitled to vote.
THAT's what we don't trust--after the fact excuses, with no basis in reality or the data.
E/M were the jerks who permitted the news monopolies to LIE to the American people about who won the exit polls. They put FALSE DATA on everybody's TV screens on election night!
And now they're lying to cover their asses. It's very simple: They did their exit polls in good faith, with time-tested methods. It showed a fraudulent election--or was/is strong evidence pointing in that direction. Somebody put the heat on (late night call to the networks by Karl Rove?). Now they're trying to cover it up--fuzz it over, muddle the issue.
And it stinks to high heaven.
As for TIA--their plea is legit, TIA. I, too, want to better understand WHAT you are saying, and as much of your method as I am able to. Don't slough it off. We are (or at least I am) committed activists who are trying to get the truth out, and we need help in translating your insights into the data, into terms that others can understand.
It's a bit snotty to say: go read a book! You don't have to write a treatise. Just a bit of context, and some terms, and the import of your findings.
For instance, what an optimizer is, why you are doing a "plausible" scenario that the exit polls are right, the significance of the "key results," and...
I had trouble with this: "under his 51.80% assumed vote." (Where did the assumed vote come from?)
You are doing these optimizer studies in a certain context. Just briefly give the context. (And explain your "Hmmm...". Does the result surprise you? Conflict with other data? Confirm something?)
It's up to you, of course. I'm just urging you to explain more--for my own sake, and that of others. I've been riveted by your posts, and have taken a lot of time and trouble to understand them, and convey your findings to others. You are good at explaining--when you take the trouble to do so (your posts were excellent in the Febble controversy, for instance--and have been in other cases). (Your "To believe Bush won, you have to believe..." series is superb!) We activists are constantly engaged with others who know less than we do--and it's vital, it's the heart of our democracy, really, that we communicate what is going on here, with the exit poll analyses, with the other 2004 election evidence, with the news monopolies, and with election reform. So, if you can, help us out.
(Or, if you're just thinking out loud here--just working something out--if it has no great significance to YOU, as yet--then just say so.)
18. Peace, you are the one of the most gifted writers on DU.
Edited on Wed Jun-08-05 09:04 PM by TruthIsAll
You must understand.
I am not trying to convince, nor educate the masses. I am just trying to provoke thought and discussion among those who are technically at a certain level. I am only adding my analysis to the debate between USCV, DUers and the naysayers.
As you know, I do many types of analysis. I have done my best to explain but cannot be expected to educate all lurkers. If they have a specific question, I will try to answer it, but I cannot try to explain the details. The naysayers and trolls would like to bog me down in minutia - and wear me out. That is their MO.
As for those who are sincere, I am just being very practical in telling them to get up to speed on the subject. I hope that is not taken as arrogance. But I do not have time to educate.
There is no question that some of this stuff is complicated; I had to struggle with the USCV paper the first time I read it, as well as with Febble's work. By the way, she is much better than I will ever be in her explanatory skills. I guess I just don't have as much patience or writing ability. That also applies to Ron Baiman - he is an excellent writer. I do my best, but I know my limits.
Let's face it. The crux of the matter is that the exit polls say that Kerry won. I have shown this in a myriad of ways by slicing and dicing the numbers. And we have shown that the probabilties that he did are very high
Dealing with rBr is more involved. Let's see if I can explain the Exit Poll Response Optimizer in a nutshell.
It takes the following exit poll data (the "constraints"): 1) percentage of responders to the poll (53%)
2) ratio of Kerry to Bush responders (56/50 or 1.12)
3) the five group weighting of partisanship precincts (High Bush, moderate Bush, Nonpartisan, moderate Kerry, High Kerry).
4) The Bush win percentage (51.23% of the 2-party vote).
5) The WPE (precinct "error" rate by partisanship). In other words the difference between the poll and the vote within each partisanship grouping (the total error is around 6.7%).
6) We restrict the variables to a min-max range in each precinct. For example, the response rate may be limited to the 40-60% range in one or more precincts. Or it could be 30-70%, or 50-55%. The purpose of using ranhge limits is to provide feasibiltty to the results (we sure don't expect that any of the aggregate groupings would have a 5% response rate; most likely it will be between 48-58%)
Using this data, the model proceeds to calculate the required Kerry and Bush partisanship response rates for each of the 5 groups in order to satisfy the total weighted average input constraints.
In other words, it works backwards from the vote to calculate the the exit poll results, using the input error rates, applied to each of the precinct groupings. It determines what the responses have to be by precinct category to derive the Bush/ Kerry final vote (the "target").
We can also target Kerry as the winner, and assume that there is no reluctant response bias (K/B =1); that is, Kerry and Bush voters responded equally to the pollster. That is what I believe to be the more likely case; in fact, if there was anti-exit poll bias, it was more likely to have been reluctant republicans who voted for Kerry.
I hope that clears it up somewhat.
Try to read the output of the model. If there is anything you want clarified, let me know.
24. I can't tell you how much a statement like this helps me!
"In other words, it works backwards from the vote to calculate the exit poll results..."--TIA
I am almost 100% human language oriented (with a dash of talent in geometry). I am one of these people whose brain freezes when I am faced with a page of numbers and formulas. If I concentrate, and am able to get a good mental diagram of what the numbers/formulas may mean--for instance, "working backwards" (very helpful phrase), then I CAN comprehend the numerical--often quite well. But my initial response is to run for the hills!
I understand about lurkers and naysayers. I've followed your threads for a long time and I think I have some idea what you are up against. I am actually amazed at your patience, at times. But do keep in mind that any given "lurker" may be a potential freedom fighter (or a current one) who is trying to understand what's wrong with his/her country and looking for ammunition to fight back with. If they are in a nascent stage, your abruptness might turn off the revolutionary lightbulb that is trying to light up their minds. If they are already active, it might delay or stop their inquiry into the exit polls, thus depriving them of vital information. (Naysayers and mere troublemakers are another story--and I know it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.)
Also, I can grasp the analogy to my own work--creative writing (fiction, poetry) and public advocacy, often in written form, on sometimes quite complex issues. I tend to be comprehensive about facts and details, and I tend to see all their nuances, and I sometimes bristle at having to simplify (and over-simplify!) a complex matter, or explain it to people who are insensitive to facts, details and nuance, have other things on their minds, or are just intellectually lazy, or worse, have ulterior motives for not paying attention (such as corrupt government officials).
What I do with this need to simplify, to get over being irritated by it--and it is truly a need in some cases--is to regard it as an intellectual discipline (maybe akin to the way mathematicians reduce the elements of a problem to symbols in a formula). I think simplifying is also related to compassion--or, rather, to a desire to be compassionate. Intellectual types can go off the deep end, and plan bombing raids over the whole of the Vietnamese countryside (or today, the villages of Iraq), leaving their own humanity--and humanity in general--completely out of the picture. One of the smartest men in our country in the 1960s--Robert McNamara--did just that. So, anyway, simplification is a way of reigning in pure intellect, so that we (I) do not commit the sin of coldness and obliviousness. It is also a way of respecting other modes of being (other than the highly intellectual) and other ways of learning and wisdom.
That has been a big life lesson for me--learning that dancers and musicians and organic farmers and "Mother Earth" and "Father Earth" types have OTHER ways of knowing--and may indeed have tremendous intelligence, in its broadest meaning--that they cannot translate into words, and sometimes their mode of being, or mode of learning, makes it difficult for them to understand me!
Example: I find it very hard to respect any writer who makes frequent grammatical or spelling errors out of ignorance. Yet I've had to learn the meaning of the following: that William Shakespeare spelled his own name six different ways, because he didn't give a damn about spelling--it was IRRELEVANT to his genius! And the fact that there WERE no rigid rules of English in those days positively contributed to his genius.
So, what the hell am I doing being so "school marmish" about language? I've learned the value of language discipline--and it does have value--but I've also learned that there is value in tossing the rules right out the window, and allowing the FREE SPIRIT of language with all its joy and emotion and fundamental connectedness to the body and to the earth, to come forth. Balance between these two modes--intellect and body--is in fact the key to language genius, and perhaps to all happiness in this life--and we Westerners have a great deal of difficulty maintaining that balance.
And so, to take a long trail here back to my original request--that you explain these models more--it is simply a request, and it is absolutely not a demand, nor is it a criticism (except for the word "snotty"--which I think was fair re: "go read a book").
Please know that when you do explain, you explain well, and it is very helpful.
25. P.S., one thing that I think newbies need to know is this most basic of...
...assumptions of your work: it's not just that Kerry won the exit polls (that is acknowledged by the pollsters, and has been confirmed by USCV and others), but that the exit polls confirm a Kerry win in all other ways, when you look at the exit poll and official tally data from different angles. For instance, the east-west skew that you discovered. There is simply no innocent explanation for why the eastern states are more at variance with the exit polls than the rest of the country--and the most plausible explanation is that the Bush Cartel stole most of the votes there first, to get an early lock on the election in the earliest closing polls.
Another example is the sudden midnight switch from Kerry to Bush--the result flipping over, based on a mere 660 final exit poll respondents. As you have pointed out, to get that flip (from Kerry to Bush), they had to infuse impossible numbers of Bush voters into their exit poll/official tally mix.
Another basic item: That the pollsters PERMITTED the TV networks to MIX the two numbers (exit polls vs. official tally), thus denying the American people strong evidence of election fraud--Kerry's clear win of the exit polls (a great journalistic, as well as intellectual, crime); and that the pollsters have denied basic data to qualified researchers and to a senior Congressman, John Conyers, who is investigating the election--and have issued statements to try to explain Kerry's win of the exit polls (the "reluctant Bush responder" theory) that are unsupported by any data.
What your current model does is to try to create a realistic scenario, based on the known data and on reasonable inferences, to find out what the voter response rate was (to the exit pollsters) in this plausible scenario.
At the beginning, you say...
Key results: 1-Bush response was relatively heavy (K/B=.93) in the vote rich non-partisan middle, but not in the partisan precincts.
This model seems to show that, yes, Bush voters responded (to exit pollsters) in relatively equal numbers to Kerry voters in the middle range of precincts (those that had about even numbers of Republicans and Democrats, and those with only a slight edge either way), but that when it comes to highly partisan precincts (presumably heavy Dem or Rep registration), voters become very reluctant to respond in the most Republican areas (60% refusal) and much more likely to respond in the Democratic areas (only 40% refusal).
So--if I'm reading the model correctly--I would re-state your key result this way: Bush response was relatively heavy (K/B=.93) in the vote rich non-partisan (equally divided) middle, as was Kerry voter response, but in the highly partisan precincts, voter response to the pollsters dips significantly (60%) in heavily Republican precincts and increases significantly in heavily Democratic areas (non-responders are only 40%).
In other words, the above response rates are what are shown in a realistic model of a Kerry win. (--i.e, no outsized or unexpected "reluctant Bush responder" phenomenon).
And if this is what really happened (more or less), it confirms intuitive and anecdotal information--that, a) some Republicans in heavy Republican areas don't trust outsiders (pollsters) but are much freer of that prejudice in the vote-rich middle precincts (mixing people more evenly produces more open-mindedness and less fear?); b) some voters in highly Republican precincts may have been afraid to state their vote publicly (to a pollster, at their neighborhood polling place)--and (my inference) those wouldn't likely be Bush voters, but rather Kerry voters surrounded by Bush voters (as with the folks recently thrown out of their church in Waynesville for refusing to renounce their votes for Kerry); and c) voters in mixed Dem/Repub areas, and high Dem areas, tend to be more open about how they voted (whoever they voted for), and represent the bulk or mainstream of the country (most of the precincts).
Am I reading these results of the Optimizer correctly?
I feel a little confusion and uncertainty with regard to the categories of "Bush voter" and "voter in a heavy Bush or Republican precinct." DOES this model say that Bush as well as Kerry voters in heavy Dem precincts were more open about saying who they voted for, while both Bush and Kerry voters in heavy Rep precincts were much less open--with the vote rich middle areas being a wash, as to response?
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.