In a recent Land Shark thread,
SHOULDA COULDA WOULDA; Why Election Fraud Naysayers R W-r-o-n-g---------
a PROMINENT naysayer came VERY CLOSE TO CONCEDING.

.....................................................................
"So I would argue that the Totality of the Evidence at present adds up to this:
1. The election was corrupt.
2. Democrats were the net losers from the corruption.
3. Voter (and vote) suppression remains a key problem, and may have cost Kerry Ohio.
4. Kerry probably lost the popular vote.
5. But we do not know for sure who actually won either the popular or the electoral vote, and this insupportable (sic.)"
.....................................................................

The naysayser confirms the corruption in points 1,2,3.
But still keeps from going all the way in points 4 and 5.

Even though all available evidence says otherwise.
Bush did NOT win the popular vote.
Kerry did. Easily.
Both the electoral AND popular vote.

Well, the naysayer is in Good Company.
Even Kerry won't admit that he won.

So let's summarize some important FACTS in this post in the hope that some of these holdout naysayers and democratic polticians get back to reality. Deep inside, they know that's where they should be (Ms. Kerry and Ms. Edwards must be very frustrated). But individual considerations keep them in public denial, while their heads are exploding as more and more information on the fraud surfaces every day.

Why don't they just read the GAO report?
Or scan the EIRS database?
Are they too busy trying to bring democracy to Iraq?
What about bringing democracy back here at home?
Don't we count?

Al Gore was ELECTED in 2000.
It was not just stolen from him.
It was stolen from US.
But at least Al fought.

John Kerry was ELECTED in 2004.
It was not just stolen from him.
It was stolen from US.
John, we hardly knew 'ye.

I want Al back where he belongs.
In OUR House.

TIME FOR SOME FACTS:

The naysayers continue their relentless attempts to mask the overwhelming evidence provided by confirmation of hundreds of pre=election and exit polls:
1) Pre-election state. Total sample: 50 polls* 600 = 30,000
2) Pre-election national. Total Sample: 18 polls *1500 = 27,000
3) Pre-election 48.5% Bush approval. Total: 11 polls*1000 = 11,000
4) 12:22am state exit polls: 73,600 respondents
5) 12:22am national exit poll: 13,047 respondents

And to this we must add have all the massive documented evidence of vote miscounts:
OH, FL, PA, NV, NM, VA, NC, MN, IA, WI, MO, NY...


Were ALL these pre and post-election polls BIASED?
They ALL confirm that Bush lost.
What is it about these polls that is so difficult to understand?


Where is the evidence that the exit polls were biased?
Was it shy Bush voters (rBr)?
Debunked in NEP by Mitofksky 43%Bush/37% Gore?

Was it early Kerry voters?
Debunked. View the time line Kerry led at 4pm, 7:33pm, 12:22am

Was it early women voters?
Debunked.
Female vote share
4pm: 58%, 7:33pm: 54%, 12:22am: 54%, 1:25pm 54%

Was it False Gore voter recall?
Ridiculous on its face.
Bush voters recall who they voted for...
Gore voters suffer from Alzheimer's?

Was it Bad weather early in the day keeping Bush voters home?
Right.
Breaking News! Republicans buy umbrellas at Walmart.

Was it inexperienced pollsters?
Mitofsky trained them. Who is better qualified?

Was it the exit poll "cluster effect"?
Do I hear 20%? 30%? 50%?
Ok, enter your "design effect" into the Interactive Election Model.
Let's see how many states will deviate beyond the MoE for Bush.
The model will calculate the probabilities.
Maybe not 1 in 19 trillion (16 exceeding MoE), but still astronomical.

And how does one explain 30% poll deviations in the Ohio 2005 election?
How much evidence is necessary to prove the DRE fix?
Were the pre-election polls biased, as well?
Naysayers can't blame it on "cluster effect".
Or bad weather.
Or shy Bush voters.
Or Gore voter Faulty Recall.
Or untrained pollsters.
These were PRE-ELECTION POLLS.

For naysayers to say that they wanted a Kerry win is a canard.
Thet claim to be Democrats or Indies searching for the truth.
To prevent fraud in the NEXT election.
As if THAT gives them credibility.

They want to have it both ways.
Deny that Kerry won and that the polls were right.
Yet at the same time claim that they wanted him to win.
Naysayer allegiance to Mitofsky is obvious.

They say the math is correct.
No argument there.
But they don't agree with the assumptions.
What assumptions?

That pre-election polls favored Kerry?
I can prove it. Go to pollingreport.com

That undecided voters went for Kerry by almost 2-1?
That new voters went to Kerry by 3-2?
That Nader voters went to Kerry by 4-1?
See the National Exit Poll time lines.

That the 43/37% Bush/Gore voter share of the 2004 vote was impossible?
It took a long time for the naysayers to agree.
After all, even they would not claim Bush voter immortality.

That the Final Exit Poll must be wrong?
Well, to match the vote, it applied fictitious weightings.
That's a no-brainer.

That all other Final demographics/vote shares must be wrong, as well?
Well, that's just simple logic.
If A = FALSE
and A = B
then B = FALSE
Do I hear heads exploding?
Or is it just another terror alert?

That Kerry's Gender share was manipulated?
It went from 54% at 12:22am to 51% at 1:25pm.
Was it a massive sex change in 12 hours?
Christine Jorgensen never owned a computer back in 1952.

That the Party ID split was manipulated?
From 38 Dem/35 Rep to 37/37.
Was it Massive Fundie conversions in those 12 hours.

That the Census 2004 Vote Survey was probably correct?
According to the Census, 125.7 million voted in 2004.
That's 3.4mm more than the recorded 122.3 million.
The Census Gender demographic MoE is 0.30%.
Should we believe the 122.3mm recorded vote?
The Final Exit Poll has a 1.0% MoE, according to Mitofsky.

That millions of votes are spoiled in every election?
Intentional or innocent spoilage?
Does it matter?

That the trend in Kerry/Bush response (alpha) disproves rBr?
The ratio declines from 1.50 in High Bush precincts to 1.0 in High Kerry.
USCV proved rBr was a myth using simulation.
I confirmed the USCV using the Exit Poll Response Optimizer.

That Bush job approval on election day 2004 was 48.5%?
That's an 11-poll average.
I can prove it.
You can look it up at pollingreport.com.
The combined MoE (11000 sample) is approx. 1.0%.

That there is no way Bush could overcome 48.5% approval?
Oh, well there is one.
He could steal it.

That the Ohio exit poll showed Kerry to be a 52-48% winner?
Of the 49 exit poll precincts:
36 deviated from Kerry to Bush,
10 from Bush to Kerry,
3 were unchanged.

That if Kerry won Ohio, he must have done better nationally?
Check the record books.
Ohio always LAGS the national Democratic vote.
Naysayers agree there was fraud in Ohio

That 50 state exit polls mirror 49 Ohio exit poll precincts?
Just a coincidence?
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Take a trip to Brazile, Donna.

That the 12:22am state and national exit polls each
confirming a Kerry victory is not believeable?
Well, forty-two of 50 states deviated to Bush.
The probability is 1 in 2 million.

That the 9% disparity in the Florida optiscan and DRE vote is virtually impossible?
Dem/Rep registration were essentially equal in Optiscan and DRE counties.

That sixteen of 50 states deviated beyond the MoE for Bush, none for Kerry?
The probability of that is 1 in 19 trillion.

That ALL 22 Eastern Time Zone states deviated from Kerry to Bush?
1 in 4 million.

That eighty-six of 88 touchscreens switched Kerry votes to Bush?
See the EIRS database. It's documented there.
The odds that it was a random event are 1 in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Do the math.

THOSE ARE FACTS, NOT ASSUMPTIONS.

Take a look at the graph below.
It's a time line of pre-election and post election polls.

Naysayers claim the "evidence" shows that Bush won the popular vote.
I ask, what evidence?

If Kerry won the popular vote, doesn't aren't the 12:22am exit polls
(state and national) which said he did, close to the truth?

Except, that is, for the 1:25pm Final National Poll.
We know this one is pure, unadulterated BS. Why?
Look at the How Voted in 2000 demographic.
Focus on the 43%/37% Bush/Gore weights.
They are mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

Here's the PROOF:
Bush got 50.45 million votes in 2000.
That's 41.25% of the 122.3mm who voted in 2004.
But 3.5% of them died, according to annual U.S. mortality rates (0.87%).
Therefore, AT MOST, 48.7mm of Bush 2000 voters came to the polls in 2004.
That's 39.8% of the 122.3mm total.

THE BOTTOM LINE:
Assume REALISTIC, PLAUSIBLE, EQUAL weightings for Bush and Gore voters.
KERRY EASILY WINS THE FINAL EXIT POLL.
EVEN WITH IT'S VOTE SHARES BIASED FOR BUSH.
PERIOD.
CASE CLOSED.
FINITO.
THE SMOKING GUN.
QUERE MAS?

Once again, I challenge the naysayers to a real-time debate using the Interactive Election model.

Let's begin where the DU "Game" thread abruptly ended:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa...

The "Game" naysayers had to make ridiculous assumptions to
show how Bush won his 3 million vote "mandate".

They had to contort themselves in knots by stipulating that
a) Bush must have won 15% of Gore 2000 voters, and
b) Kerry won just 52% of those who did not vote in 2000.

Can they come up with just one plausible scenario?
I doubt it.

Note to Land Shark:
The TOTALITY of pre-election and exit polling data provide SOLID CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the election was stolen.
The NUMBERS have been silently screaming for a year.

The fact that ONE YEAR after the election, there's still doubt about the result, should be sufficient to convince the public that something must be done ASAP to restore our democracy.

_____________________________________________________________________

FEBBLE RESPONDED TO THE ABOVE, AND SO I RETURNED THE FAVOR:

TIA
Febble, here is my response to your latest post.

Before I begin, I have three questions:
Of the 50 state pre-election polls, and
of the 18 national pre-election polls, and
of the 11 Bush approval polls, and
of the 50 state exit polls, and
of the first 3 national exit poll timelines...

1) Which were not random sample polls?
2) Which were not done by well-known pollsters?
3) In your experience, has there ever been a poll that you believed?

Just asking.

FEBBLE:
I confess I had not looked at this "final poll" before, but if
"the math" gives a 99.9% (or even a 99.8%) probability of a Kerry
win, then something about the math is wrong. I was optimistically putting it
the odds at about 50:50 myself, and hoping that even if the popular vote was
pretty evenly split, the EV would benefit Kerry. Which is sort of what
happened (in the official vote anyway), in that a few thousand more
(official) votes for Kerry in Ohio would have given him the presidency, but
not the (official) popular vote.

TIA:
I thought that you would have some familiarity with the logic behind my
election model by this late date. It is quite disappointing to see you
criticize the analysis without having done your homework. It's obvious that
you are not too familiar with U.S. elections; you fail to take the undecided
vote into account. The undecideds invariably break for the challenger -
especially when the incumbent has a 48.5% job approval.

It just makes logical, intuitive sense when you think about it. An
undecided voter must be unhappy with an incumbent, otherwise why would
he/she consider voting for the challenger? Makes sense, yes? You fail to
consider this in your election analysis- and the omission makes anything
you say highly suspect from the get-go. Without considering undecides, your
analysis is faith-based and unrealistic.

The fact is, Kerry won the late undecided vote, according to all the polls.
And the undecided allocation was a key driver in my state and national
projections. Yet you never even consider this, other than to vaguely refer
to faulty model "assumptions". You are never specific about them.
Did you mean undecided vote assumptions? Read on.

FEBBLE:
(And more generally, when I say I agree with TIA's math, I certainly trust
him to perform the computations he does correctly - the issue is usually
whether we can legitimately infer from them what he infers from them. But
his probability calcs are frequently invalidated by the assumptions that
underlie them, and a probability calc based on erroneous assumptions is not
a correct calculation).

TIA:
What you call “inferences” are in fact the result of valid assumptions. You
may disagree with the assumptions, but they are based on historical
precedent. You fail to recognize or appreciate the significance of the
undecided vote factor in U.S. elections. The base case model assumption
was that Kerry would win 75% of the undecided. But this was just a
most-likely base case estimate. That's why I ran the analysis for a range
of five undecided vote shares, from 60% to an admittedly high 87%. Kerry
wins all the scenarios.

If Kerry won just 60% of the undecided vote (and the exit polls say he did
better than that) then based on the Monte Carlo simulation, the probability
was 98.02% that he would win the electoral vote with a median 322 EV.

Furthermore, based on 18 national polls, the probability was 97.55% that he
would win the popular vote with an expected 50.73% of the two-party vote,
again assuming that he won 60% of the undecideds.

You really ought to take a trip to Monte Carlo sometime.

Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
Based on State Pre-election Polling
5000 Simulated Elections

Kerry Undecided Allocation
Pct 60% 67% 75% 80% 87%
Wins 4901 4972 4993 4997 4999

Projected Vote share%
Kerry 51.02 51.38 51.80 52.07 52.43
Bush 48.98 48.62 48.20 47.93 47.57

EV Win Probability%
Kerry 98.02 99.44 99.86 99.94 99.98
Bush 1.98 0.56 0.14 0.06 0.02

Electoral Vote
Average 320 328 338 343 352
Median 322 329 338 345 353
Maximum 379 388 396 405 412
Minimum 211 237 242 243 254

95% Conf. Interval
Upper 361 368 377 382 389
Lower 278 288 299 305 315


National 18-Polls
Vote% 50.73 51.15 51.63 51.92 52.34

Probability of Kerry popular vote majority
Prob% 97.55 99.90 99.99 100.00 100.00





FEBBLE:
So what is wrong with this particular probability calc? Well for a start,
as OTOH says, a good meta-analysis is a complex thing to do, and one thing
it involves is using ALL data you can find (including unpublished data, if
you can find that) and weighting it appropriately.
"Appropriately" is the hard part of course, and it is difficult
to avoid the charge of "cherry-picking". There are, however,
systematic ways of weighting studies according to statistical power and
cleanliness of methodology. But the fact remains that meta-analyses in
general (and meta-analyses of these pre-election polls in particular) are
acutely sensitive to the studies you pick and the assumptions you make. In
the case of the pre-election polls, some analysts called it for Bush (but
with nothing like 99.9% confidence; others sat on the fence; and a few
brave souls like Sam Wang (I think) called the EV for Kerry (with a wing
and a prayer).

Yet TIA called it for Kerry with 99.9% confidence? From a eighteen polls in
which (unweighted) the mean difference between Kerry and Bush was not (on my
calcs) significantly different from zero?

TIA:
Once again, you forget the basics: UNDECIDED VOTER ALLOCATION

Let’s consider the 18 national polls. As a researcher, you must not forget
the bedrock of applied statistics: The Law of Large Numbers. I analyzed
eighteen independent national pre-election polls. If we assume that each
poll sampled approximately 1000, than the total sample is mathematically
equivalent to a single poll of 18,000. In fact, I was being conservative
back in Nov. 2004. The total 18-poll sample was over 27,000 (1500 per
poll). The individual polling margin of error ranged from 2.5- 3%. Using
the 18,000 total figure, the MoE for the aggregate mean is reduced to just
0.73%. That’s just basic statistics. That’s just common sense.

Febble, your lack of modeling experience is obvious to me. All of a sudden,
you and OTOH have a new talking-point: META-ANALYSIS. Professor Sam Wang of
Princeton did a Meta-analysis. I am well aware of it; I looked at his
published code and we communicated. His code was very complex, based on
combinatorics. The Professor would be the first to admit that he's not a
quantitative software developer; he's a biologist.

I used Monte Carlo simulation analysis, which I dare say was both more
comprehensive and at the same time less complicated than Dr. Wang's
Meta-analysis. In fact Professor Wang and I traded e-mails on the subject.
We both used the same state polling data from electoral_vote.com. In any
case, his analysis agreed with mine; he also calculated a near 100% Kerry
EV win probability.

FEBBLE:
Look, I don't think that election was on the up and up, and I think the
exit poll stuff was worth investigating. And apart from anything else, it
also energised a lot of people (including me) into investigating stuff that
brought the election result into serious doubt. But claiming that Kerry's
probability of victory, in both the electoral college and popular vote, was
99.9% - well, as we say on our side of the pond, pull the other one, it's
got bells on.

Were any bookies offering 100:1 odds on a Bush win?

TIA:
For that you can thank people like Dr. Wang and myself. We created the
models; we made certain assumptions; we posted them every day. And lo and
behold, each of our independent analyses gave Kerry a 99% probability of
winning. For the probability calculation, I refer you to the normal
distribution function.

So there it is.
It’s very logical.

Here are the steps:
1- Collect final state and national poll data
2- Assume a range of undecided voter allocation scenarios

3- Run the analysis based on:
a) projected aggregate Kerry mean vote share of 18 final National
pre-election polls;
b) projected individual state Kerry vote share based on final state
polling, using a Monte Carlo simulation of 5000 election trials, to
determine the number of Kerry EV trial wins.

4- Calculate a) Kerry's projected popular vote share (from the 18 poll
projection) and b) his expected national vote share and mean, median,
maximum and minimum electoral vote (from the simulation).

5- Derive probabilities of a Kerry victory using the results of the Monte
Carlo election trials and the Normal Distribution Function (margin of
error)

6- Analyze the results:
The probabilities obtained by the state Monte Carlo simulation are of
similar magnitude to those of the National popular vote (normal
distribution).
And they agree with those of Profesor Sam Wang.

Or should I dare say: his Meta agrees with my Monte.

Do you get it yet?
Do I still have your attention?

See ya

P.S.
I just read your most recent post.
Your head must be exploding.

You conveniently skip over the impossible Final Exit Poll weightings.
I'm referring to the 43/37% Bush/Gore share of the 2004 vote.
Of course you can't refute it.
So you just avoid it.
Like the plague.

All you can do is repeat your time-worn mantra:
"RANDOM SAMPLE. RANDOM SAMPLE, RANDOM SAMPLE"

So I will repeat Mitofsky's note from the Final Exit Poll timeline:
1.0% MOE. 13047 RANDOMLY SELECTED VOTERS.
1.0% MOE. 13047 RANDOMLY SELECTED VOTERS.
1.0% MOE. 13047 RANDOMLY SELECTED VOTERS.

Let's review the demographics and national results...

National Exit Poll
12:22am (13047 respondents)

CATEGORY Kerry Bush Other
Average 50.79% 47.84% 1.03%
Votes (mm) 62.05 58.45 1.26

Gender 50.78% 48.22% 1.00%
Party-ID 50.69% 47.50% 1.27%
Voted 2000 51.41% 47.62% 0.97%
Region 50.53% 47.95% 1.00%
Education 50.43% 48.18% 1.39%

Race 50.94% 47.86% 1.00%
Age 50.26% 47.69% 1.05%
Income 51.39% 47.39% 0.94%
Ideology 49.85% 48.15% 1.00%
Religion 50.78% 47.94% 1.21%

Military 51.20% 47.62% 1.00%
Decided 51.23% 47.95% 0.54%


Have it your way.

And then you close with:
"And of course, I am encouraged, from a purely mathematical point of
view, that you accept that there is DOUBT about who won (although I would
much prefer it if Kerry was in the White House right now). Yes, indeed,
there is doubt".

Not true.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I was referring to doubt on the part of those not as
versed in the numbers as you or I.

They smell the rotting fish.
They see the corruption.
They hear the lies.
But they are not mathematically sophisticated.
They need to be educated, not brainwashed.
They need to know the truth.
And the numbers do not lie.

No, Febble.
To me, it is BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The election was stolen.
Kerry won.
Deep down, you know it to be true.

The proof:

KERRY WON ALL THE CATEGORIES BY SOLID MARGINS:
UNDECIDED VOTERS (60-67%).
NEW VOTERS (57-50%)
NADER VOTERS (70-55%)
GORE VOTERS (91-93%)

THEY ADD UP TO...A BIG WINNER.

The totality of the evidence is overwhelming,
your protestations to the contrary not withstanding.

see ya

Oh, I forgot the summary:

CONFIRMATION:
Comparison of Nov. 1, 2004 Election Model projections
and the 12:22am State and National Exit Polls.

Two-party and total vote share:
Adjust 2-party projections to include 3rd party (1.0% vote).
Deduct 0.5% from Kerry and 0.5% from Bush projected shares.

ELECTION MODEL PROJECTIONS
Nov.1, 2004

All vote share projections and win probabilities are for Kerry.
Assumption: Kerry wins 67% of undecided voters.

________________________________________________________

PRE-ELECTION STATE POLLS
MoE = 1.0%

Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
Kerry won 4972 (99.44%) of 5000 EV trials
5000 trials 2pty% Total% EV Win Prob
Wtd Average 51.38% 50.88% 99.44%

Probability of Kerry majority vote:
Normal Distribution
Prob = NORMDIST(0.5138,0.5,0.01/1.96,TRUE)
Prob = 0.9965827 = 99.66%
________________________________________________________

18 NATIONAL POLLS
MoE = 0.73%

Projections 2pty% Total% Win Prob
Average 51.15 50.75 99.90
Difference 0.23% 0.13% 0.46% (vs. Monte Carlo)

Probability of Kerry majority vote:
Normal Distribution
Prob = NORMDIST(0.5115,0.5,0.0073/1.96,TRUE)
Prob = 0.9989913 = 99.90%

________________________________________________________

STATE EXIT POLLS
12:22am Nov.3
73607 respondents
MoE = 0.37%

Projections 2pty% Total% Win Prob
Gender Vote 50.52% 50.02% 99.71%
Difference 0.86% 0.86% 0.27% (vs. Monte Carlo)

Probability of Kerry majority vote
(Gender demographic)
Normal Distribution
Prob = NORMDIST(0.5052,0.5,0.0037/1.96,TRUE)
Prob = 0.997061699 = 99.71%

________________________________________________________

NATIONAL EXIT POLL
12:22am Nov.3
13047 respondents
MoE = 1.0%

Projections 2pty% Total% WinProb
Gender Categ. 51.30% 50.78% 99.46%
Difference 0.15% 0.03% 0.44% (vs. 18 National Polls)

Probability of Kerry majority
(Gender demographic)
Normal Distribution
Prob = NORMDIST(0.513,0.5,0.01/1.96,TRUE)
Prob = 0.994582852 = 99.46%

________________________________________________________


And the dialogue continued with a Febble reply to the above....
(I copied this from a post below to put it all in one place)


FEBBLE:
I did, in fact, look carefully at your model - what I hadn't looked in
detail was your 1st November post. I knew you had a high probability for
Kerry winning the EV. I hadn't appreciated that you had extended it to the
popular vote.

TIA
Pleasant surprise, yes?
Febble, my quantitative engine just won't quit, will it?
Leaves no stones crying out.

FEBBLE
Your model does assume that the polls were random samples (Wang's did not,
although my understanding is that he assumed that overall there was no net
bias). This is the problem I have with it. I did understand your assumption
about undecideds - that was not the problem. Although I think that you
should also have put a probability value on your assumptions being correct,
as Wang did. But your model allows us to put in our own assumptions, which
is fair enough. But it still assumes that the only error in the polls was
sampling error. It does not allow the possiblity for bias in the polls. The
point of my "mantra" is simply that your probability estimates
depend on the assumption of random sampling, and we simply cannot make that
assumption when it comes to polls.

TIA
Just when you think I'm all done, you find another
analysis of mine that you must try to rebut.
Notice I said "try".

You imply that the polls were not random samples.
Yet the national and state professional pollsters claimed they were.
Who are you to question their methodologies?
They all quoted MoEs calculated using the standard formula:
MoE = .98/sqrt(n).

Only Mitofsky's Exit Poll MoEs were adjusted - "cluster effect".
But even he claims a 1.0% MoE for the National Exit Poll.
Of 13047 "randomly sampled" respondents.

Ok, that's your job.
To question time-tested sampling techniques.
To naysay the results.

You dare not argue the math.
But ALWAYS find fault with the "assumptions".

Now it's the breakout of the undecided vote (UV).
I understand.
We all must do what we 'gotta do.

In the state and national projection model, I used sensitivity analysis
(SA) to test a variety of UV allocation assumptions. I always do this. It's
a powerful tool. SA implicitly recognizes uncertainty in key model drivers.
In this case, the main "driver" is the UV; that's why I ran 5000
simulations for each of five Kerry UV allocation scenarios. Each scenario
assumed that Kerry would win the majority of UVs:
60%, 67%, 75%, 80%, 87%...

In fact, all National Exit poll timelines (as well as the Ohio Exit poll)
had Kerry winning UVs in the week prior to the election by over 60%.

FEBBLE:
That is one respect in which we differ. The other is that I do not accept
that what has happened before will necessarily happen again - or that
trends will continue as they are going. It's why I took issue with your 4th
degree polynomial, although I completely agree that the approval numbers
look terrible for Bush. But my experience with trends is that they often
change direction.

TIA:
Who is talking about "trends" here?
Are you building a strawman for the holidays?
That UVs break for the challenger is a historic fact.
Don't let OTOH try to convince you otherwise.
He's just blowin' smoke on this one.

As for your comment that "my experience with trends is that they often
change direction". Just what are you trying to say here? What is the
point? Let's dispense with any new talking-point generalities. I don't know
which trends you are referring to, but the UV breakout is not a trend. Of
course trends eventually change direction; but it's a strawman argument,
because I never used or considered trends in my UV assumptions.

As Friday used to say: Just the facts, maam'.

FEBBLE:
So I did not put a lot of certainty in the incumbent rule, nor in the
undecideds-break-for-the-challenger rule. Although I desperately hoped they
would hold.

TIA
Careful, now. That's a contradiction. Why did you hope the
"rules" would hold unless you knew that they held in the past?
That's why they're called "rules".

What was it in this election which caused you to lack confidence in the
"rules"? Did human nature really change in this election? Or was
it that you knew that Bush was running for re-selection again? And that
the "rules" don't apply to him. Is that why? Anyway, that begs
the issue. Do you have evidence as to why the "rules" did not
hold in this election? If so, enlighten us.

No, Febble. The incumbency and approval rules held. Everyone agrees that
Kerry won the late undecideds and that Bush job approval was 48.5% on
election day. Everyone, that is, except you.

FEBBLE
As for the Gore-Bush thing - as I said in the post, and I've said many
times before, given what we KNOW about the way people report past vote, I
do not see this as a clincher. Yes, those proportions are impossible IF
people reported their 2000 vote correctly. But we know they do not, and
that they often misreport having voted for the incumbent.

TIA
Which voters misrepresented: Gore or Bush?
Don't answer. I already know what you are going to say.

FEBBLE
This has been shown in longitudinal studies where the pollsters KNOW how
their respondents said they in a given year, yet the SAME voters report
having voted for someone different when asked several years later, in both
the UK and the US. So we know we cannot rely on "reported vote"
data.

TIA
Latitude. Longitude.
Febble, you're way off the map.

So I guess we can't rely on any surveys of past behavior.
So much for the scientific method.
So much for experimental design.
So much for pollsters.
So much for Mitofsky.

FEBBLE
Anyway, happy holidays to you and to all! See you after I've submitted my
dissertation.

TIA
Happy holidays.
Good luck in your research.
But be careful not to rely on any survey data in your dissertation.
Can't trust 'em.

http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?a...



These FACTS are never discussed in the media.
- election fraud
- undecided voters break for the challenger, especially if the incumbent is unpopular. Bush was at 48%.
- Many newly registered voters are not included in LV (likely voter) polls.
- Since 1988, Democrats have won 60-70% of new voters. In 2008, Obama had 71%+.
- MILLIONS of mostly (70-80%) Democratic votes are uncounted in every election
- The 2004/2006/2008 Final National Exit Polls indicated there were millions of returning phantom Bush voters from the prior election (more than were alive).
- The Final National and State exit polls are always FORCED TO MATCH the recorded vote.
- By definition, the RECORDED VOTE never reflects the TRUE VOTE since millions of votes are UNCOUNTED in EVERY election.
- Uncounted votes alone provide overwhelming evidence that elections were stolen in 1968, 1988, 2000 and 2004.
- 1968: 6 million net uncounted votes.
Nixon won the recorded vote by 500,000.
- 1988: 10.6 million net uncounted votes. Bush won the recorded vote by 7m.
- 2000: 5.4 million net uncounted votes. Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000.
- 2004: Nearly 4 million uncounted votes.
Bush won the recorded vote by 3.0 million.
Kerry won the True Vote by 10m.
Approximately 5 million were switched from Kerry to Bush on UNVERIFIABLE voting machines.

- 2006 midterms: Democrats won by more than double the recorded 52-46%% margin.
10-20 House seats were stolen.

- 2008: Obama won by more than double his recorded 9.5m margin.

1988-2008: the average Democratic TRUE VOTE margin was reduced from 10% to a 4% RECORDED MARGIN by Election Fraud.

VOTER FRAUD was virtually non-existent.