We know that 43% of 2004 Voters claimed to be Bush 2000 voters and just 37% claimed to be Gore voters. Since 43% is an impossible figure (it would mean Bush got 52.57 mm votes in 2000, when he only got 50.456mm), we are asked to believe this:
Gore 2000 voters forgot who they voted for or lied when they said they voted for Bush.
Since the ratio is 43% Bush/37% Gore =1.162, then for every 100 Gore voters, there were 16 who lied or forgot that they voted for Gore.
2) Reluctant Bush Responder (rBr):
There were 57.75 Kerry voters for every 50 Bush voters who spoke to the exit pollsters.
The ratio is 57.75/50= 1.155
To put it another way, 16 Bush voters out of every 116 decided to avoid the exit pollsters, compared to 116 Kerry voters who spoke to them.
What are we to conclude from these two theories?
Simply this: That Kerry voters were more anxious to talk to exit pollsters then were Bush voters and when they did, they lied or forgot that they voted for Gore in 2000.
Some will say that's a rash statement. But if you'd said nobody believes the Warren Commission Report just before the did the polling on that issue and found out that 70% percent of Americans didn't you'd have been mocked.
14. Let's take another look at those forgetful Gore voters...
Edited on Mon Jun-27-05 05:55 PM by TruthIsAll
Let's restate the 43/37 problem slightly.
Assume that 40 Bush/40 Gore was the actual response, and 3 out of 40 Gore voters forgot they voted for Gore. That is how 40/40 became 43/37.
But consider this: If Gore voters forgot who they voted for, couldn't they just as well have said that they voted for Gore as for Bush? By the law of averages (or the Law of Large Numbers) 50% of forgetful Gore voters would say they voted for Gore and 50% would say they voted for Bush. Flip a coin.
Therefore, 6 out of the 40 Gore voters would have forgotten, of which 3 said they voted for Bush and 3 for Gore. Now 6/40 = 15%.
Thay means that 15% (7.65 MILLION) of 51 million Gore voters forgot who they voted for. Let's assume for the purpose of this discussion, that there were no liars among them, just those who forgot.
Are we really expected to believe that not only did 7.65 MILLION Gore voters suffer from Alzheimer's or Amnesia, but ALSO BELIEVE AT THE SAME TIME THAT NOT A SINGLE BUSH VOTER SUFFERED FROM EITHER MALADY?
Those of us who protested in streets, block walked, registered voters and voted against Shrub TWICE would forget many things before we forgot voting against the squatter in the illegal Crawford white house.
You also have to believe that in Ohio where * had a 200,000 vote win in 2000 over Gore he won again despite: Leading the nation in job loss 450,000 first time anti bush voters registered a very significant defection in bush's republican base example Morrow County 2000 = 67% bush vote Morrow County 2004 = 60% bush vote (Morrow is a very republican county .... they might have not bothered to get the fix in there) The repug Gov. has a 19% approval rating .....
Damn the DNC and their document ..... "no fraud found" look @ the #s!
8. Actually all you'd have to believe is that Bush won the Electoral College!
Why don't we concentrate on that for a change, TIA?
Mandate, schmandate, there's no Constitutional right to vote for President, so who cares about the popular vote?
Now if you can prove Kerry won Ohio or FL, or NM, IA and NV, you'd really have something!
How about applying some of your methodologies to these states? Do we have enough data? There are only 5 of them.
BTW, at the state level, Exit Poll Completion Rate was inversely correlated to the Kerry vote. In other words, Bush voters were MORE likely to respond (r= -0.28, p=.05) than Kerry voters. But I'm not happy with this analysis because when you weight it by state populations (Electoral Votes) it's no longer significant.
And thanks to you, Bill, for your clear-headedness and persistent focus on the questions that matter most.
My particular worry about the emphasis on the popular vote is that it reinforces the general impression that Bush won the election by 3 million votes. In fact, he officially won Ohio, and thus the election, by little more than 100,000 votes.
If we can put in into simple enough terms that most people can understand---they will.
I do not know if most people will really "get it" until it hits home about just who they put into the whitehouse, but I do believe the backdrop of just how this election was rigged will tip the scale in the end.
I look forward to your posts TIA. And I think your numbers are very good.
There are two ways the 43/37 split can occur if one accepts the data that suggests the band wagon effect--either gore voters state that they voted for bush, or that bush supporters that did not vote, say that they voted for bush. If you assume that it is primarily from the second population, then you have no argument. Argument 2 dissappears like morning fog.
The other problem is that a poll is an estimate--you have 3,000 respondants, there is no reason not to suspect that elsewhere in the 121,997,000 odd voters, that you may have missed a few who did not vote in the previous election, and went for Bush, and who are not first time voters (e.g. new voters).
There are two ways you can see the numbers. Either through bush colored glasses, or as real numbers created by a ten million dollar system designed by people who are damn near rocket scientists and who plan and strategize how to collect the numbers in such a way so that a few numbers can be correctly extrapolated into a sound conclusion.
The bush colored glasses are worn by far too many folks who twist away the reasonable conclusions presented by TIA, and others. Those folks are off in a la la fairy land and continue to be deceived and deluded. So be it.
The rest of us live in a numerically created, scientifically sound, whole world where things make sense and dancing with alternate creations is tossed out like the garbage it is.
The final poll is garbage and is stinking to high heaven. There's no amount of air-freshener that will make the stench go away.
nothing in the poll is of value, and there are no reliable numbers. The 'final' poll as you call it, is weighted to the actual vote results. To question it, is to question the 2000 exit poll as well, where these numbers originate. If one presumes the equally unsubstantiated position that Bush votes were suppressed in 2000, then the 2004 numbers make sense.
What you have is an unwarranted assumption--that Gore 2000 voters mis-state that they voted for Bush in 2000. Does not this play to the same criticism that there are too many Bush voters, except now its acceptable to argue for inordinately large numbers of Gore 2000 voters. The argument must cut both ways to be valid.
If you accept that, you must also accept the fact that the official 2004 census results are wrong: Which they can not be, by government standards.
You must also accept the fact that 4% of the female republicans were subtracted from Kerry's total exit poll, because the gender line goes down, showing them subtract from one side and add to the other side.
Either way, it falls flat. And fails to make any sense. :yourock:
The CPS is a poll just as the exit poll is a poll; how is it that because it was performed by the government make it better? Given how the Bush administration wants the census to go to estimatation rather than a full enumeration, makes your assertion ironic (after all it is the census that determines the pattern of proportional representation within the electoral college). As a civil servant, it strikes me as risible.
As to your second assertion, where is this subtraction indicated? What it suggests is that the reweighing changed the proportions of women going to Kerry downwards. It is not a subtraction problem, but multiplication--a minor point, but one not lost on accountants.
Are you stating that Kerry made inroads with republican women? What independent source do you have for that (other than the CPS)?
18. Believe This Where does it begin and where does it end
Same thing 2000 2004 , what about the secound Regan landslide. Was that for real? How is it sliding numbers are a mystery? Look at one Dinno Rossi Washington state He slipped and and shoved his way for the close up being the under dog, 267, than auto recount 42, fallowed by a paid hand recount down by 129. He tries to sue for a revote. Washington DC sends a republician lawer advisor , His advice adds up to nothing ,What we got is the republician conspiracy,They don,t think we know that. However where does it begin and where does it end. Those lies know no bounds, When it turns only one way ,the one way it turns,turns over on them. The truth is in deed out there ,and shall be seen and fully exposed. The flim flam flipp flopped!
In Deed, President Bush stated the point and well. No Time Line. Mixed signals or they will think to wait us out,and on the other hand we will not be trusted. (Abandonment) Also a thing called mass killing as a result of abandonment. He summed it up there. But should we be there,I think Not, no. But we are there so we must do the right thing. To understand terrorism reguards to the middle east as a whole,We must understand the middle eastern countries. The United Arab Republic. Take a look at it on the map. Psychological war fare and terrorism spread across the middle east. (Nomads) one religion. Born at point a. and residing at some point b. One thing in common,one religion,same belief. A belief that America if some kind of evil empire. A religion that teachs from the begining of understanding that it is not of this life that matters,but the next only. Now how many nations are there in the middle east?And how much of that in space does Iraq take up? Compare Rhoad Island with america and north america . So you see it,s a very very big world. Have you ever spotted mile markers on the interstate highway? Would you compare one of those to a large imprint if you know what I mean?Spreading freedom democarcy ,it is a very very very big world. The thing of it is we are at war and we must support the president. His mile marker ,history will explain. So ah, Let me sum up Bush,s speech, Let me make this perfectly clear, The president said in a point of his speech, We must put 911 behind us, get on with it place it to the past, we are not a nation of people hiding under our beds over it. And threw out his speech he repeatedly reminds us of it,right to his closing words. So let me reiterate further to completly sum up all George Bush said , ( Do a little tap dance ,shuffel over to the right, Got ya covered, Nine Ten no problum, Sha do da do. Just say no to that.) ! Those republicians really have a serious problum there. For instance In Washington state here VANCE the right wing big cheese, spoksman for the rising star Rossi-isum Says he or they will continue to look for felon voters, though at the same time he projects into the next election to side step the intire problum, Sha do da do! Just say no to that too. James West really should admit the truth in all the terrible deeds that have gone down within the republician party over the past twenty years or so (to the press) than step down and fade away. Real time is not timeless.
Once you take into account the millions of people deprived of a vote (who don't show up on exit polls, unless they lied.)
But people lie about their past intentions routinely:
After the first wave of scholarly discussion, Hadaway et al. returned to Ashtabula County to measure Catholic attendance. They counted heads at all of the regularly scheduled masses in the county-38 in 13 parishes-over a several-month period. Based on the count, they projected an average weekly attendance of 24 percent of the Catholic population (a figure not far out of line with numbers reported by many Midwestern Catholic dioceses based on their own head counts). They then polled a scientifically valid sample of Ashtabula County residents by telephone. Fifty-one percent of Roman Catholic respondents said they had attended church during the past week.
Thus the "overstatement gap" snapped into focus. In the United States, the difference between attendance levels of 20 and 40 percent is immense-a swing of at least 50 million people. Institutional religion, far from being stable and vital in the United States, might well be weakening under the cover of misleading poll data. Any way one looks at it, there was a substantial religion news story to cover.
As you know I am not troubled by the band wagon effect with the exit poll measurements, but I am interested in the phenomena.
What the sum of the reports suggest is that people will overstate ethical or morally acceptable behaviors--so it is less likely one will state that they voted for Gore in 2000, when opting for Bush in 2004 when they did nothing of the sort; than it is for someone who did not vote at all, to state that they voted for Bush in 2000.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Once you take into account the millions of people deprived of a vote (who don't show up on exit polls, unless they lied.)" I read into it vote suppression but you may be talking about spoiled ballots.
I don't think anyone suggests that people overreport their voting by as large a proportion as those Midwestern Catholics overreport their mass attendance. (I doubt it is even mathematically possible.)
But I betcha a bunch of people reported having voted in 2000 when they didn't vote at all. And, weird as this may seem in a crowd of partisan Democrats, I betcha some people who did vote think they voted for the incumbent when they actually didn't. We could look at one of the NES panel surveys to estimate people's propensity to "change their minds" about who they voted for (and whether they voted at all). We've already looked at the 2002 and 2004 NES surveys and seen that, for whatever reason, remembered Bush voters outnumber remembered Gore voters even though actual Gore voters outnumbered actual Bush voters.
It's all subject to debate. I just think DUers have a right to know why TIA's argument frankly isn't as compelling as he seems to think it is.
31. I said I didn't think this was a good example...do you?
Heya OTOH To say people that had just voted against Bush, would misreport that they voted for him in the last election, makes no sense to me (bandwagon effect is about being with the winners, not being with the guy you just voted against). Top that off with no people who had just voted for Bush, would misreport voting Gore in the last election makes it harder to buy. Memory problems work both ways...at least in a non-Bizarro universe. 8)
How bout Bush voters who didn't vote 2000 claiming they did, but no Kerry voters who didn't vote in 2000 claimed they did. Again, it really doesn't make sense.
TIA's argument seems far more compelling than yours, IMHO. :popcorn:
If I am reading this problem properly, the issue is not with memory but the "looking good" element of one's self esteem. Rather than constructively confront one's indifference to exercising the right to vote, and affirm it, one may lie about it and it costs one nothing--what's the risk of being called out.
All that one does is jump on the winner's band wagon--so it may be unlikely that a non voter in 2000 would affirm voting for Gore, because he lost, but would do so for Bush, particularly if he did it in 2004. Kudos for voting, and kudos for voting for the winner--the ego gets a few strokes.
There is likely some inflation on the Kerry side as well, but the big difference is again neither Gore or Kerry is the previous winner. Here the bandwagon effect would be to proclaim yourself a new voter that was motivated to register and vote because of the candidate. In other words the categories allow for more honesty; if they changed the question to an initial question of if you would have voted in 2000, who would you have voted for; and then followed with the question, it might provide some interesting insight.
Again, I don't think you need to invoke band wagon effect if it is to address the fact that the measure of previous voting preference is not too out of line. I think the question serves a subjective function of comparison, not objective, in that there appears a movement of democratic support in 2000 away from Kerry to Bush, both in the Gore 2000 in Bush's column, and the inflated numbers of previous non voters. It may just reflect the incumbent effect.
I also see the matter as a question contingent only on the previous election, and not having any information potential, and possibly NEP did not see any justification to readjusting the weighting for this particular variable after all other weightings were performed.
Given the preponderance of the different articles addressing the phenomena posted here(including the infamous Q's that you should recall), band wagon effect should be considered as relevant to the problem. The only means to dispute it is to show that there was a lower percentage turnout of Bush support than Kerry support.
What's your point, that Bush won? If that's it, just be proud enough to say it.
I have never seen so many consistent apologists for such an illegitimate regime. They stole 2000, they did it on a grander scale in 2004. Look through the telescope.
These naysayer arguments are beginning to look like florid reductio ad absurdum!
Time is running short for Bush supporters. He's at 34% approval in California. Major political and cultural movements have a habit of popping up there. Since Califronia is a cross section of the new America, truly multi ethnic and multi cultural, this does not bode well for the Republicans.
It's all a rear guard action now, a quibble here, a negative remark there.
Face it, this IS the beginning of the end for Bush and Co. The truth is bursting at the seams. If you want to get on a bandwagon, how about the anti-Bush bandwagon sweeping the country?
As to where I stand--I'm talking about the exit poll, not what really happened with the election. I am specifically discussing a question in the exit poll that ~3,000 respondants answered. I point out that the question is meaningless in addressing the question of fraud. It forwards no one's agenda to treat it as reality.
As to your fragile grip on reality--Bush never had high approval ratings here in California since his first term. We have the Governator, an Austrian neo faschist admirier of Hitler, union breaker, and this is where the progressive groundswell will come from? We are the home of Prop 13, Nixon, and Reagan--our progressivism came with LaFollette and the Southern Pacific Railroad's Octopus, and probably died when Warren went Supreme. It was a progressivism of sterilizing the unfit, excluding the Chinese, and putting quotas on the Japanese. You are more likely to see the next yoga movement or another Grand Theft Auto San Andreas in the next three years, as you are a political groundswell. We have secured the rights of minority whites for at least twenty years. Check what Richard Pombo's been up to with the western governors in San Diego, that'll be the next groundswell.
As to what is what--the DNC spells out what any sober clearing thinking progressive recognizes as the problem, it was not fraud, it was vote suppression. I've been saying it for a while, and I will say it again, the exit polls are no measure of voter suppression--it happened in Ohio, it was significant, it threw the election, it violated Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and it was probably illegal. Saying that may make me in your mind a Bushbot, but I seem to be mainstream within my party.
Why don't you do your own thread on election fraud, make your case, provide examples and not mention a single thing about the NEP' and SEP's. Seriously, I have no idea what your position is. Do this and I'll come on over and kick/recommend it if you position is pro-Democrat and absent the attacks on TIA.
Maybe I missed something but all I see you do here, since the first time I ran into you, is trash the NEP analysis and hector TIA. Do something productive and you won't look like a Republican enabler (didn't say you were a Republican, just that your position was consistent with support for them by deflecting legitimate challenges to the elections; something you do with passion on TIA threads).
57. My position has been there in front of you for quite a while
The problem is that many cannot follow my reasoning or accept my point of view. The fact that it accords with the DNC findings gives me some sense of vindication.
What is good work on this site, I have promoted; what is bad I critique and challenge. I don't chime in with 'kick'. The projects I am in or helping with have not come to fruition yet; and it is not my place to announce ahead of time what I am doing. With the necessary QA/QC it will come. There is a reason my icon is the mule--I do the heavy tedious work needed that no one else can or will do; and I do not need or want the credit.
My one failure so far is prodding any of you to a closer evaluation of what your assumptions are, and why they may not follow from reasoning but by emotions. I think Bush was unlawfully elected, but need to sift through all the arguments and evidence before I conclude that he was unlawfully elected. You have concluded that he was unlawfully elected, there are a lot of hidden assumptions and inconsistent positions in that leap of faith; and, it also leaves you vulnerable to any charletan's speculation, and hurts all of us when you take it as fact. Just because you believe you are right does not make you right--you really should read that William Carlos Williams poem--The Crowd At the Ballgame (http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem2310.html). and see if you can figure out why I think it relates to this overall discussion.
It's a conscious ego thing, there fore we can rule out anyone other than 2004 Bush voters (who, would falsely claim they voted for someone, that they just voted out of office), and you say it's possible as a new voter thing. So new voters accounted for 11% of those for Bush was 46% Which is.....(.11 * .46) That's 5.06%
So with this scenario...how many, out of a hundred new Bush voters would need to consciously lie about who they voted for, in order to attain the discrepancy noted? Still doesn't make sense to me.
Let's not forget the bandwagon effect isn't the only possible stimulus. I've heard alot of talk about these reluctant Bush voters. One of my few questions to Febble was, what could motivate rbr?...she said 'shame'. Wouldn't shame be a good reason to rewrite history and say you didn't vote for Bush, when you actually did? Wouldn't shame possibly motivate an independent, or moderate republican who voted for Bush in 2000 to consciously lie and say they voted for Gore?
So I still don't see why the discrepancy would be so lopsided. Maybe it's just me (shrug).
The question 'who did you vote for in 2000' is on a separate questionaire than 'are you a new voter'. So we need to be careful with our language.
Those who reliably state that they did not vote in 2000 are either new voters or casual voters. To my thinking, a new voter is unlikely to misrepresent themselves for the simple reason that there isn't any compelling reason to misrepresent the facts. The casual voter is likely, so can be represented in both classes.
The fact that we see high allegiance to voting once again by Gore and Bush voters suggest that they were motivated, and this same variable motivated these casual voters to vote as well. What is likely is that Florida's 2000 recount likely shamed voters that intended to vote, but did not (casual) for not performing their civic duty into voting in 2004. That shame could manifest itself in a white lie.
Rbr is not causally linked to this issue. Rbr suggests that a larger percentage of Bush supporters refused to respond to the exit poll than Kerry supporters. What is most likely to motivate them--apathy--they are performing their civic duty because they are supposed to, but that does not mean that they have done any meaningful analysis or evaluation of the issues. An apathetic voter is one that votes for the incumbent.
A casual voter may be apathetic, but not all apathetic voters are casual.
I thought you suggested a scenario in which non-voters in 2000, were the 'liars' on the 'who did you vote for in 2000' question. I was only using the 'new voter' replies to quantify that group.
"That shame could manifest itself in a white lie" My point exactly, when I suggested that 'bandwagon effect' isn't the only stimulus involved. In 2002 9/11 drew the vast majority closer to the President, by 2004 a much different attitude abounds (reflected in approval ratings), produced by the mess in Iraq.
If people are willing to 'white lie' to feel better of themselves, shouldn't it follow along with approval ratings. You don't feel better when you align yourself with an Idiot.
Yes, I understand Rbr, and I know it hasn't been linked to this issue. But isn't it likely that an emotion (shame in this case) which is strong enough to make voters refuse to fill out an exit poll, strong enough to make them 'white lie' on the 'voted for in 2K' question?
In short (too late) I don't think the situation in 2004 warranted a bandwagon effect toward Bush, I would think there would be an equal (if not greater) number of voters who would rather align themselves with Gore instead of fessing up that they voted for Shrub.
This is really not my position, but what I am trying to suggest is how it may be plausible. I don't know that the band wagon is a feasible explanation for the phenomena in question (it is tough measuring a null set), I actually think the numbers are true to the responses, but you need to subtract the MoE from the total to get the true value.
The distinction I made is between casual--voting is not important as other things; and apathetic--voting is important, but not important enough to make an informed choice.
I pretty much assumed that you were using new voter, as meaning new to voting in 2004. However, others may not be making that connection, particularly if you look to the original post.
I doubt that there was much of a bandwagon effect to such a degree that it could affect the relative percentages within the exit poll. I think that the support of 2000 voters for each was stable, that new voters (as in voting for the first time ever) went democratic, but were smaller than estimated, and the rest ran in the red direction. I think that Florida 2000 motivated a higher turnout, and those that it motivated may not lean democrat.
You and I may agree that Bush is an idiot, but that does not mean we are in the majority. Afterall, look at how many voted for him in 2000. You and I have heard arguments similar or alike to--"He is the president, the commander in chief, we are at war; and he needs our support", saying he's an idiot is beside the point, and it is not a good means of persuasion to someone who voted for him.
40. you are making it weirder than it has to be, I think
The weighted and unweighted results pretty much agree that Gore voters split 90/10 Kerry and Bush '00 voters split 90/10 Bush. The weighted results trim a bit at the margins, but we aren't talking huge numbers of people either way.
No one is saying that memory problems can't work both ways -- but we are saying that there is lots of evidence from other surveys that people tend systematically to misremember who they voted for. Again, Bush beats Gore in both the 2002 and the 2004 NES (among voters and among all respondents). I'm sure there are Bush voters who remember voting for Gore, Gore voters who remember voting for Bush, non-voters who remember voting for Bush, Gore voters who don't remember voting, every permutation -- but the observable net result is that Bush beats Gore. It makes no sense to ignore that and point to the exit poll result alone.
"but we are saying that there is lots of evidence from other surveys that people tend systematically to misremember who they voted for. Again, Bush beats Gore in both the 2002 and the 2004 NES (among voters and among all respondents)."
If you have a link, or a title, I will be happy to go back and read it (not sure when, but I will). I'm sure you don't want to go thru it again.
53. I should learn to save links to a few of my own posts
But I can go through the basics pretty efficiently.
The National Election Study series is AFAIK the oldest "continuous" academic survey series, dating back to 1948 (although at that point they presumably didn't know what they were starting). NES conducts interviews in homes (which allows longer interviews, but also presumably creates different social effects than phone interviews would), and works hard to maximize the response rate (lots of quickie phone polls these days are one-try-and-done). When political scientists want to check out something about U.S. public opinion and political behavior, they tend to reach for the NES and/or the General Social Survey (GSS), which asks a wider range of questions.
In the 2002 NES (pre-election wave -- everyone is supposed to be interviewed twice, before and after the election), among folks who said they had voted in the 2000 election and whom they had voted for, 51.6% said Bush and 44.3% said Gore. That is the unweighted result. When the results are weighted to match the demographics of respondents to census figures (the pre-election post-stratified weight), the gap widens to 52.6%/43.5%. These figures include both (reported) 2002 voters and non-voters -- of course in the pre-election wave no one had voted yet.
In the 2004 NES, the pre-election gap is narrower: 50.1% to 46.5% favoring Bush if no weight is used, or 50.9% to 45.8% if the demographic weight is used. Crosstabulating with the post-election survey, we find that among people who claimed to have voted in the 2004 election and also in the 2000 election, 52.7% recalled having voted for Bush, and 44.0% for Gore.
I mentioned the GSS, so let's chuck that in too. In the 2002 GSS, among people who reported having voted in the 2000 election, 50.6% reported having voted for Bush and 44.7% for Gore.
So you see, a five-, or six-, or maybe even a nine-point gap between recalled Bush voters and Gore voters isn't out of line with what we find in other surveys. No political scientist is gonna look at the weighted 43/37 in the NEP and say, "Ohmigosh, that's bizarre."
Bear in mind that the unweighted gap between recalled Bush and Gore voters in the NEP is much smaller, about 1 point. That is actually "too small" in comparison with all these other surveys, and therefore tends to support -- not refute -- the hypothesis of some sort of participation bias.
I think foo_bar has posted a link to British panel studies that show some percentage(s) of people 'changing their minds' about who they voted for. We could try this with US data -- in fact there is a 2000-02-04 NES panel study -- but I haven't, and won't before I leave the country tomorrow. At any rate, the phenomenon is well known. I dunno where I buried foo_bar's link, but meanwhile, this may be useful:
(foo, if you happen to be reading this -- (1) could you post that other link once more? (2) the link above cites, although does not document, the factoid you PMed me once): "in the USA, for example, where John F Kennedy won the Presidency by a tiny margin, the margin on recalled vote steadily increased during his term, and, after he was killed, some two-thirds recalled that they had voted for him.")
Also well known is false reporting of having voted at all. NES validation studies have shown that 10 or 12 or 14 percent of NES respondents may report voting when a check of the records indicates that they haven't. (But we also know that people who participate in the pre-election NES are more likely to vote afterwards! and it also appears that non-voters are increasingly underrepresented in the survey.)
Tough sledding. Table 4 provides some figures on faulty memory. (In this article, ICM is actually defending their practice of weighting based on reported past vote, which conceding the existence of faulty memory. The gist of the argument seems to be that the other firms' samples are so faulty that any anchor is useful, and besides, that in Britain the net effect of faulty memory seems to be decreasing.)
Click on "Analyze," then select "Frequencies or crosstabulation (with charts)"
Enter Year as the column variable, pres88 pres92 pres96 pres00 (or your choices) as row variables.
Note that Clinton beats Dole by 19 points in 1998, but by 31 points in 2002. Bush beats Dukakis by 8 points in 1989 (close to the actual margin), but by 41 points (yes, 41) in 1993. Poor Mike Dukakis. All anyone seems to remember about him was that he looked stupid riding around in a tank.
32. OTOH: "It's all subject to debate." If your goal is to DO NOTHTHING...!
...about election fraud. Let's just debate forever, that's you positoin. Well people are making reasonable judgments on the available evidence and NOT waiting for "incontrovertible proof," which of course is rarely achieved even in courtroom settings. Debate all you want, people are taking action based on the evidence presented. This evidence and that provided over the past two weeks, in particular, by TIA makes the point. Even febble largely agreed] with TIA's statistics but said there were alternative 'behavioral' explanations. Well, I don't accept the alternatives; I accept the analysis as presented.
You say, "I just think DUers have a right to know why TIA's argument frankly isn't as compelling as he seems to think it is." Are you here to protect us against ourselves and our vulnerability? DUers have a variety of opinions without a self-appointed posse guiding the way.
Reluctant Bush responder (rBr) is dead, the final Exit Poll is dead, the truth is emerging and no amount of ongoing debate by self-appointed skeptics will stop the growing recognition that election fraud DID take place and that we're ruled by an illegitimate government. If you want to know where those who you support through your "debating" will end up nationally, just look at the latest Field Poll for California, Bush approval 34% or so. That's where the nation is going. At that point, things will change, EVERYTHING will be on the table, and the truth will come out through investigations prompted by the good work done here.
36. I think so, you inspire us. But that wasn't debate, it was a quip.
Edited on Tue Jun-28-05 02:20 PM by autorank
OTOH, we don't need your "protection" to help us avoid disappointment.
We've reviewed TIA's work thoroughly and have concluded that it's compelling and a strong indication that the election stunk to high heaven.
You said your time here is nearing an end, why not go out gracefully?
Why not just admit that TIA's work and the work of USCountsVotes.Org and the work of others on the NEPs and SEPs is more than enough to seriously question the election? Why not come up with a productive way to pursue that?
It's about the fact that the 43/37 argument stinks. Call me crazy, but I think if you are pushing for an investigation, it is helpful to distinguish between your better arguments and your worse arguments.
If you had been handed the proportionally-spaced memo, would you have said, "Hmm, this looks fishy -- we had better practice addition by subtraction"? or would you have said, "Cool, let's pile it all on and see what sticks"? The truth is that the proportionally-spaced memo was used to distract attention from the fact that (AFAIK) basically everything in the Bush-AWOL story was true.
It is of course a waste of time to argue with people who just don't care whether their arguments make sense to folks who actually study polling. Maybe it doesn't even matter -- 43/37 is more subtly awful than a forged memo, maybe it will actually work.
How am I trying to block an investigation? how do I delay an investigation by pointing out that a bad argument is bad? that is such a weak excuse for an argument, and you use it over and over and over again. If you don't have an argument, why do you use that one? I am mystified.
39. Your debate serves the cause of Bush and the Republicans!
"It's about the fact that the 43/37 argument stinks" Febble didn't think so, at least that's what seemed clear from the last thread in which she participated. That's not "crazy."
Trashing USCountsVotes.Org, TIA, anyone who has strong evidence pointing to fraud, that is what I call a rear guard action to throw up enough flack to allow those in power or those fearful of challenging power to avoid a serious look at what was clearly a stolen election.
Congratulations, "mission accomplished" in your own mind, but not ours.
The substantive argument is that people are known not to report past voting accurately. I and others have documented it repeatedly, and no one has challenged the facts.
Folks can review the thread (or any of several others) and draw their own conclusions about who wants to stop debate -- or perhaps "quash dissent" would be more accurate.
As you know, Febble disagrees with TIA. You celebrate the fact that she approves of TIA's arithmetic, but the fact remains that she doesn't agree with his interpretation. Wouldn't it show more respect for Febble to admit that reasonable people can disagree? or is your view that while perhaps we can disagree, in this time of emergency we should keep our disagreements to ourselves? If the latter is your opinion, you could at least state it squarely.
48. don't people get the Mamma Mia guilt about skipping elections?
Further on in the article:
Follow-up studies have usually focused on who is overrepresenting their church attendance to pollsters. Perhaps counter-intuitively, scholars now suggest that it is the most committed believers who overstate their attendance, not those who seldom or never attend services.
Isn't this about political beliefs captured shortly after those are expressed. I don't know much about church for the past many years but I do know about voting and also the accuracy of the NEPs. What's with the religious stuff?
...the third day they rose again from the shock; they ascended into battle, and sitteth on the right hand of Truth, Justice & The American Way; from thence they shall come to judge the thick and the febble.
I believe in the Exit Polls; the Conyers case for fraud; the communion of USCountVotes.Org; the forgiveness of nothing; the resurrection of the electorate, and honest elections everlasting.
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.