http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2344618

A New Years challenge to all who still believe Bush won:
Find ONE plausible Bush win scenario using the National Exit Poll (NEP)
 "How Voted in 2000" demographic. 

1-Download the Interactive Election Model
2-Select the "NatExit" sheet. 

Play "what-if" using the NEP "How Voted in 2000"
demographic. 
Try various 2004 vote shares for Kerry, Bush, Other for those who 
a) did not vote in 2000 (DNV)
b) voted for Gore
c) voted for Bush 
d) voted for Nader

The only restriction is the WEIGHTING constraint: The MAXIMUM Bush 2000 voter
percentage (weight) of the 2004 total vote was 39.8% (48.7/122.3 mm). 
See why below.

You can save a ton of work if you view the "Voted2000" sheet.
It's a comprehensive SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS of Kerry's vote share and margin. 
It was originally presented in the DU "Clincher" thread. 

Kerry vote share and margin vary based on the following parameters:
1) Gore voter turnout. 
2) Kerry DNV vote share. 
3) Bush 2000 voter turnout is assumed to be a constant 100%.

According to the NEP, Kerry's DNV share was:
59% at 7:33pm (11027 respondents) 
57% at 12:22am (13047) 
54% at 1:25pm (13660 Final)

Here's proof that the MAXIMUM Bush 2000 voter percentage (weight)
of the 2004 total vote was 39.8% (48.7/122.3 mm).

1- Bush got 50.456 million votes in 2000. 
2- About 1.75 mm of them died prior to the 2004 election. 
3- Therefore, a MAXIMUM of 48.7 mm could have voted in 2004.
4- The 1:25pm Final NEP 43% means there were 52.6 mm Bush 2000 voters, 
 or 2mm more than Bush's total 2000 vote.

Therefore the 43% weighting is IMPOSSIBLE.

If you find a feasible Bush winning scenario, post it at: 
progressiveindependent.com or democraticundergound.com

_______________________________________________________________

autorank  (1000+ posts)      Tue Jan-03-06 01:12 PM
Response to Original message 
32. Based on 2000, Kerry needed just 85% of Gore voters: HE WON--TIA 
 
From TruthIsAll:
												
		THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL 
           HOW VOTED IN 2000 DEMOGRAPHIC								
												
The National Exit Poll Bush/Gore 2000 weights are mathematically IMPOSSIBLE in
both 12:22am and final 1:25pm timelines.

Time Respondents Bush/Gore Winner
12:22am 13047  (41%/39%): Kerry 51-48%
 1:25pm 13660  (43%/37%): Bush  51-48%

In 2000:								
Bush had 50.456 mm votes, 41.30% of the 2004 total (122.17).
Gore had 51.0 mm votes (41.75%).
Nader had 2.883 mm votes (2.36%).																			
The annual U.S. death rate is 0.87%, or 3.5% over four years.
Let's calculate revised MAXIMUM weightings, subtracting the
approximate number of voters who died:									
							Max weight				
		       Votes Pct 2004	Died	Alive	Pct 2004				
		Gore 	51.00	41.75%	1.79	49.22	40.28%				
		Bush 	50.46	41.30%	1.77	48.69	39.85%				
		Nader	2.88	2.36%	 0.10	2.78	2.28%				
												
Using the maximum weights and assuming that ALL 2000 voters turned out in 2004,
Kerry is the clear winner in BOTH timelines.														
	 
VOTED IN 2000

                          12:22am		 1:25pm
Voted   Weight Votes	Kerry	Bush	Nader	 Kerry	Bush	Nader

No	17.58%	21.48	57%	41%	2%	54.%	45%	1%	
Gore	40.28%	49.22	91%	8%	1%	90%	10%	0%	
Bush	39.85%	48.69	10%	90%	0%	9%	91%	0%	
Other	2.28%	2.79	71%	21%	8%	71%	21%	8%	
			
Total 	100%		52.28%	46.78%	0.94%	50.96%	48.69%	0.36%	
	Vote 	122.17	63.88	57.15	1.14	62.25	59.48	0.44	
		Kerry margin: 6.73mm	Kerry margin: 2.77mm		
												
For the sensitivity analysis, we assume 
a)12:22am NEP timeline
b)100% Bush 2000 voter turnout 
c)Declining Gore voter turnout from 100% to 71%. 

The analysis shows that even with a clear Bush turnout
advantage, there is not one plausible scenario of a Bush victory.

At the 12:22am timeline:
Kerry won 57% of those who DID NOT VOTE in 2000.

For Kerry to TIE Bush, he needed 80% Gore voter turnout.
Very plausible.

For Bush to WIN by 3 mm votes, Gore turnout had to be UNDER 71%.
Not plausible.

At the 1:25pm Final timeline:
Kerry won 54% of those who DID NOT VOTE IN 2000.

For Kerry to TIE Bush, he 85% Gore turnout. 
Very plausible.

For Bush to WIN by 3 mm votes, Gore turnout had to be UNDER 77%.
Not plausible.

												
		National Exit Poll Sensitivity Analysis 				
                
                New Voter Share and Gore 2000 Voter Turnout
                Impact on Kerry Vote Percentage and Margin
	         (assume 100% Bush 2000 voter turnout) 								
													
		       Timeline        7:33pm		12:22am			1:25pm								

	Gore	Revised	Did Not				Kerry Percentage of New Voters						
	Turnout	Weight	Vote	60%	59%	58%	57%	56%	55%	54%	53%	52%	51%
													
							Kerry National Vote 						
													
	100%	40.28%	17.58%	52.81%	52.64%	52.46%	52.28%	52.11%	51.93%	51.76%	51.58%	51.41%	51.23%
	99%	39.88%	17.98%	52.69%	52.51%	52.33%	52.15%	51.97%	51.79%	51.61%	51.43%	51.25%	51.07%
	98%	39.48%	18.39%	52.56%	52.38%	52.19%	52.01%	51.83%	51.64%	51.46%	51.27%	51.09%	50.91%
	97%	39.08%	18.79%	52.44%	52.25%	52.06%	51.87%	51.69%	51.50%	51.31%	51.12%	50.93%	50.75%
	96%	38.67%	19.19%	52.31%	52.12%	51.93%	51.74%	51.54%	51.35%	51.16%	50.97%	50.78%	50.58%
													
	95%	38.27%	19.60%	52.19%	51.99%	51.80%	51.60%	51.40%	51.21%	51.01%	50.82%	50.62%	50.42%
	94%	37.87%	20.00%	52.06%	51.86%	51.66%	51.46%	51.26%	51.06%	50.86%	50.66%	50.46%	50.26%
	93%	37.46%	20.40%	51.94%	51.73%	51.53%	51.33%	51.12%	50.92%	50.71%	50.51%	50.31%	50.10%
	92%	37.06%	20.80%	51.81%	51.60%	51.40%	51.19%	50.98%	50.77%	50.56%	50.36%	50.15%	49.94%
	91%	36.66%	21.21%	51.69%	51.48%	51.26%	51.05%	50.84%	50.63%	50.42%	50.20%	49.99%	49.78%
													
	90%	36.26%	21.61%	51.56%	51.35%	51.13%	50.91%	50.70%	50.48%	50.27%	50.05%	49.83%	49.62%
	89%	35.85%	22.01%	51.44%	51.22%	51.00%	50.78%	50.56%	50.34%	50.12%	49.90%	49.68%	49.46%
	88%	35.45%	22.42%	51.31%	51.09%	50.86%	50.64%	50.42%	50.19%	49.97%	49.74%	49.52%	49.30%
	87%	35.05%	22.82%	51.19%	50.96%	50.73%	50.50%	50.28%	50.05%	49.82%	49.59%	49.36%	49.13%
	86%	34.64%	23.22%	51.06%	50.83%	50.60%	50.37%	50.13%	49.90%	49.67%	49.44%	49.21%	48.97%
													
	85%	34.24%	23.62%	50.94%	50.70%	50.47%	50.23%	49.99%	49.76%	49.52%	49.28%	49.05%	48.81%
	84%	33.84%	24.03%	50.81%	50.57%	50.33%	50.09%	49.85%	49.61%	49.37%	49.13%	48.89%	48.65%
	83%	33.44%	24.43%	50.69%	50.44%	50.20%	49.96%	49.71%	49.47%	49.22%	48.98%	48.73%	48.49%
	82%	33.03%	24.83%	50.56%	50.32%	50.07%	49.82%	49.57%	49.32%	49.07%	48.83%	48.58%	48.33%
	81%	32.63%	25.24%	50.44%	50.19%	49.93%	49.68%	49.43%	49.18%	48.92%	48.67%	48.42%	48.17%
													
	80%	32.23%	25.64%	50.31%	50.06%	49.80%	49.54%	49.29%	49.03%	48.78%	48.52%	48.26%	48.01%
	79%	31.82%	26.04%	50.19%	49.93%	49.67%	49.41%	49.15%	48.89%	48.63%	48.37%	48.11%	47.85%
	78%	31.42%	26.44%	50.06%	49.80%	49.54%	49.27%	49.01%	48.74%	48.48%	48.21%	47.95%	47.68%
	77%	31.02%	26.85%	49.94%	49.67%	49.40%	49.13%	48.87%	48.60%	48.33%	48.06%	47.79%	47.52%
	76%	30.62%	27.25%	49.81%	49.54%	49.27%	49.00%	48.72%	48.45%	48.18%	47.91%	47.63%	47.36%
													
	75%	30.21%	27.65%	49.69%	49.41%	49.14%	48.86%	48.58%	48.31%	48.03%	47.75%	47.48%	47.20%
	74%	29.81%	28.06%	49.56%	49.28%	49.00%	48.72%	48.44%	48.16%	47.88%	47.60%	47.32%	47.04%
	73%	29.41%	28.46%	49.44%	49.16%	48.87%	48.59%	48.30%	48.02%	47.73%	47.45%	47.16%	46.88%
	72%	29.00%	28.86%	49.32%	49.03%	48.74%	48.45%	48.16%	47.87%	47.58%	47.29%	47.01%	46.72%
	71%	28.60%	29.26%	49.19%	48.90%	48.60%	48.31%	48.02%	47.73%	47.43%	47.14%	46.85%	46.56%
													
													
													
													
													
	Gore	Revised	Did Not		Kerry Percentage of New Voters						
	Turnout	Weight	Vote	60%	59%	58%	57%	56%	55%	54%	53%	52%	51%
													
							Kerry Margin (millions)						
	100%	40.28%	17.58%	8.01	7.59	7.16	6.73	6.30	5.87	5.44	5.01	4.58	4.15
	99%	39.88%	17.98%	7.71	7.27	6.83	6.39	5.95	5.51	5.07	4.63	4.19	3.75
	98%	39.48%	18.39%	7.40	6.96	6.51	6.06	5.61	5.16	4.71	4.26	3.81	3.36
	97%	39.08%	18.79%	7.10	6.64	6.18	5.72	5.26	4.80	4.34	3.89	3.43	2.97
	96%	38.67%	19.19%	6.79	6.33	5.86	5.39	4.92	4.45	3.98	3.51	3.04	2.57
													
	95%	38.27%	19.60%	6.49	6.01	5.53	5.05	4.57	4.09	3.62	3.14	2.66	2.18
	94%	37.87%	20.00%	6.18	5.70	5.21	4.72	4.23	3.74	3.25	2.76	2.27	1.79
	93%	37.46%	20.40%	5.88	5.38	4.88	4.38	3.88	3.39	2.89	2.39	1.89	1.39
	92%	37.06%	20.80%	5.57	5.07	4.56	4.05	3.54	3.03	2.52	2.02	1.51	1.00
	91%	36.66%	21.21%	5.27	4.75	4.23	3.71	3.20	2.68	2.16	1.64	1.12	0.60
													
	90%	36.26%	21.61%	4.96	4.44	3.91	3.38	2.85	2.32	1.80	1.27	0.74	0.21
	89%	35.85%	22.01%	4.66	4.12	3.58	3.04	2.51	1.97	1.43	0.89	0.36	-0.18
	88%	35.45%	22.42%	4.35	3.81	3.26	2.71	2.16	1.61	1.07	0.52	-0.03	-0.58
	87%	35.05%	22.82%	4.05	3.49	2.93	2.38	1.82	1.26	0.70	0.15	-0.41	-0.97
	86%	34.64%	23.22%	3.74	3.18	2.61	2.04	1.47	0.91	0.34	-0.23	-0.80	-1.36
													
	85%	34.24%	23.62%	3.44	2.86	2.28	1.71	1.13	0.55	-0.03	-0.60	-1.18	-1.76
	84%	33.84%	24.03%	3.13	2.55	1.96	1.37	0.78	0.20	-0.39	-0.98	-1.56	-2.15
	83%	33.44%	24.43%	2.83	2.23	1.63	1.04	0.44	-0.16	-0.75	-1.35	-1.95	-2.54
	82%	33.03%	24.83%	2.52	1.92	1.31	0.70	0.10	-0.51	-1.12	-1.73	-2.33	-2.94
	81%	32.63%	25.24%	2.22	1.60	0.98	0.37	-0.25	-0.87	-1.48	-2.10	-2.72	-3.33
													
	80%	32.23%	25.64%	1.91	1.29	0.66	0.03	-0.59	-1.22	-1.85	-2.47	-3.10	-3.73
	79%	31.82%	26.04%	1.61	0.97	0.33	-0.30	-0.94	-1.57	-2.21	-2.85	-3.48	-4.12
	78%	31.42%	26.44%	1.30	0.66	0.01	-0.64	-1.28	-1.93	-2.58	-3.22	-3.87	-4.51
	77%	31.02%	26.85%	1.00	0.34	-0.32	-0.97	-1.63	-2.28	-2.94	-3.60	-4.25	-4.91
	76%	30.62%	27.25%	0.69	0.03	-0.64	-1.31	-1.97	-2.64	-3.30	-3.97	-4.64	-5.30
													
	75%	30.21%	27.65%	0.39	-0.29	-0.97	-1.64	-2.32	-2.99	-3.67	-4.34	-5.02	-5.69
	74%	29.81%	28.06%	0.08	-0.60	-1.29	-1.98	-2.66	-3.35	-4.03	-4.72	-5.40	-6.09
	73%	29.41%	28.46%	-0.22	-0.92	-1.61	-2.31	-3.01	-3.70	-4.40	-5.09	-5.79	-6.48
	72%	29.00%	28.86%	-0.53	-1.23	-1.94	-2.64	-3.35	-4.06	-4.76	-5.47	-6.17	-6.88
	71%	28.60%	29.26%	-0.83	-1.55	-2.26	-2.98	-3.69	-4.41	-5.12	-5.84	-6.55	-7.27
 


_____________________________________________________________

autorank  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jan-04-06 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #34 

38. Channeling TIA: 
 Post 32 needs to be read carefully, which is important to understanding the
arguments below.

1. Statement - The TIA argument is based on using the results of the NEP to
show that the election was stolen.

TIA: You fail to grasp the mathematical logic.

The FINAL NEP HAD to use MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE weightings for it to MATCH
TO THE VOTE and so Bush won the Final NEP, 51-48.

Kerry won the earlier timelines, in which the weights were closer to reality.
Look at the numbers. Do the calculations. Can you derive the national vote
shares based on the demographic category weightings and percentages? You will
understand the logic only if you confirm the calculations displayed in post #
32

2. Assumption - For that argument to make sense, one must believe in the
validity of the NEP. Otherwise one is basing an argument on bogus data.

TIA: On the contrary, the fact that the FINAL NEP is bogus means that Kerry won
the election. Just plug in the appropriate weightings. It’s all there in post #
32.

3. Statement - As part of TIA's argument to demonstrate a stolen election, TIA
proves that the results for the "who did you vote for in 2000?"
question cannot possibly be correct.

TIA: That is only partially correct; you need to be more precise. You agree
that FINAL 13660 at 1:25pm is impossible and cannot possibly be correct. Do you
also agree that since it matched the vote count (51-48(, then the vote count
also must have been incorrect? The earlier NEP timelines (4pm, 7:30pm and
12:22am) all won by Kerry 51-48, were therefore close to the truth. Once again,
I draw your attention to post # 32.

4. Assumption - Proving that part of the NEP results cannot possibly be correct
tends to undermine the validity of other parts.

TIA: That is not true. It ENHANCES them. With plausible weights, Kerry wins all
scenarios. To repeat, the FINAL NEP weights had to be adjusted to 43/37
(mathematically impossible) in order to match the recorded Bush vote, 51-48.
You can see that Kerry wins all PLAUSIBLE scenarios in post # 32.

5. Assumption - When conducting serious research one should not cherry pick
those parts of a flawed survey that tend to support ones' position while
discarding those parts which do not - especially when one has already
demonstrated that the survey is questionable at best.

TIA: Cherry-picking what? You are grasping at straws here. Name one “part”
which has been discarded, other than the IMPOSSIBLE 43/37 weights. Judge for
yourself. Take a look at post # 32.

6. Assumption - Since TIA has demonstrated conclusively that part of the NEP
survey results are flawed, then the entire survey is suspect.

TIA: No, only the FINAL Exit Poll at1:25pm which matched to the Bush vote, is
suspect. See why in post # 32.

7. Conclusion - Therefore; any conclusions that rely on the NEP are similarly
suspect. In other words, garbage in - garbage out.

TIA: The “garbage” was the 43/37 weights. So I took them out, and replaced them
with mathematically feasible weights. Check out the sensitivity analysis of
Bush/Gore voter turnout and New voters on the popular vote in post # 32

You: I'm not trying to be difficult here. It's just that I think it would be a
more productive use of everyone's time to focus on the future rather than a
futile attempt to "prove" something based on bogus data.

TIA: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Carefully study the
evidence in post #32.
____________________________________________________________________ 

  tn-guy (32 posts)      Wed Jan-04-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #38 

39. My bad...... 
 Apparently, I'm missing something obvious here and I'm also growing weary of
this so this will probably be my final posting on this thread. I'm not going to
address this point by point but I will try to show how confused I am.

From post #38

Post 32 needs to be read carefully, which is important to understanding the
arguments below.

1. Statement - The TIA argument is based on using the results of the NEP to
show that the election was stolen.

TIA: You fail to grasp the mathematical logic.

The FINAL NEP HAD to use MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE weightings for it to MATCH
TO THE VOTE and so Bush won the Final NEP, 51-48.

Kerry won the earlier timelines, in which the weights were closer to reality.
Look at the numbers. Do the calculations. Can you derive the national vote
shares based on the demographic category weightings and percentages? You will
understand the logic only if you confirm the calculations displayed in post #32

From post #32
"We will show that National Exit Poll Bush 2000 weights are
mathematically IMPOSSIBLE in both the preliminary and final timelines."

I guess my misunderstand comes from thinking that when one says the weights are
mathematically impossible in both the preliminary and final timelines one means
both "preliminary" and "final". It seems that when one says
"both preliminary and final" one actually means only "final"
were mathematically impossible and "preliminary" weights were
"closer to reality." A further source of confusion is that it seems
to me if "preliminary and final" results are mathematically
impossible then one should not use either "preliminary and final"
results for any further analysis. To put it another way, once we have
determined that the NEP "cooked the books" I am unwilling to trust
ANY numbers in the NEP. I think deciding to trust some numbers and not trust
others is the definition of cherry-picking data. 

Of course, I'm not a professional statistician so I'm hardly an expert.
However; I am by education and profession and engineer so I am used to numbers
and math and sampling and quality control and stuff like that. Were someone to
give me a data collection as internally inconsistent as the NEP results when I
was trying to diagnose a production problem I'd toss the whole set out. When a
set of data points are internally inconsistent one only knows that they are
questionable, to start assuming which data are good and which are bad will put
you on dangerous ground quickly.

________________________________________________________________

OnTheOtherHand  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jan-05-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #39 

43. well, I hope you stop by to pick up your fan mail 
 TIA's argument isn't as bad as you might think -- his objection, that the raw
data cannot be reconciled with the official returns unless one stipulates many
more Bush 2000 than Gore 2000 voters, has some force. Incidentally, political
scientists quickly get used to taking garbage data, spitting on it and wiping,
then proceeding to analyze it. (Seriously, we don't have much choice. We can't,
for instance, reengineer our respondents to give straight and accurate answers;
we just do what we can to minimize, to compensate for, and to be wary of bias.)

Unfortunately, what TIA "misses" is survey after survey after survey
that documents false reporting of past vote. For instance, I recently examined
the data from the Pew Research Center's last pre-election survey. Among
registered voters who recalled a vote choice, Bush beat Gore by 14 points.
That's extreme, but you can head over to the General Social Survey -- umm,
actually the site seems to be down right now, but usually this works:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/GSS/homepage.htm -- and run crosstabs that show
incumbents running up the score in later years. I think Dukakis loses by at
least 30 points before they stop asking about him. Poor guy. Yes, he looked
silly in the tank, but his campaign wasn't that bad. (Nixon is the exception,
sort of: he only more or less breaks even against McGovern.) Same thing in the
National Election Studies. I can do it with past exit polls, too.

TIA has been told this, but he doesn't deal well with discrepant information
IMHO. And he can't even find a stake to burn me at. So we're pretty much stuck
at the epicycle stage.
 
______________________________________________________________

autorank  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jan-05-06 03:59 PM

Response to Original message 

44. The Good News! False recall/polls cleared up; not relevant. 
 Edited on Thu Jan-05-06 04:04 PM by autorank

The issue of Gore voter “false recall” is a STRAW MAN argument meant to divert
us from the FACTS. It’s not even the issue here. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE
MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT PRESENTED. Let’s put it to rest once and for all.

Gore/Bush voter weights in the 2004 NEP are CONSTRAINED by the number of ACTUAL
2000 voters still alive to vote in 2004. Why would anyone insert the issue of
"FALSE RECALL" when we're talking about actual votes?

Of those who voted and whose votes were reported in 2000, how many survived
until 2004 and how does that impact on the assumptions in the National Exit
Poll?

FALSE RECALL IS NOT AN ISSUE. ELECTION RESULTS EXTRAPOLATED AND CARRIED FORWARD
IS THE FOCUS OF THIS ANALYSIS.

THE NUMBER OF GORE VOTERS AND BUSH VOTERS STILL ALIVE TO VOTE IN 2004 IS THE
ONLY ISSUE.

________________________________________________________________
autorank Channeling TIA:

TIA:
Once again, you fail to acknowledge the basic facts.
So here we go again.

What were the MAXIMUM number of Bush 2000 voters who COULD HAVE VOTED IN 2004?
The number is 48.7 million. PERIOD.
Do you accept that as FACT?

There is NO other stipulation.

So the NEXT QUESTION is simply this:
WHERE DID BUSH GET 13 MILLION VOTES TO GET TO 62 MM FROM 48.7 MM?

You better look at post # 32 again.

HERE IS THE "CLINCHER" CHALLENGE :
USING THE FACTUAL NEP DATA IN POST #32, CAN YOU COME UP WITH
ONE SOLITARY, FEASIBLE, PLAUSIBLE, REALISTIC BUSH WIN SCENARIO?

IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ONE, THE GAME IS OVER.

_______________________________________________________________
 
OnTheOtherHand  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jan-05-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #44 

45. oh brother, here we go again 

Obviously the number of surviving Bush and Gore voters is not the only issue.
Although if we can stipulate that, it will save me the trouble of actually
reading #32. I would like that very much.

Bush got the remainder of his votes from people who didn't vote for him in 2000
-- same as in the pre-election polls.

If TIA thinks that false recall (or false reporting or whatever one wants to
call it) is a red herring, it must be because he never read or understood my
posts the last time. It affects all the other results.

Here is an approximation that is consistent with the facts known to me:

The 2004 presidential electorate consisted of some 122.3 million voters, of
whom
46.3 million had voted for Gore, and 6.8 million of these voted for Bush
45.8 million had voted for Bush, and 42.3 million voted for Bush again 
3.7 million had voted 'other', and 0.7 million of these voted for Bush
26.5 million did not vote, and 12.3 million of these voted for Bush

That's Bush's official vote within rounding error. Note that I came in well
under the 48.7 million Bush voters of which the preceding post states,
"There is NO other stipulation." Heh.

Obviously I cannot tell how close these numbers are to being accurate. But if
someone comes back and tells me, "But we know that a much smaller
percentage of Gore voters voted for Bush in 2004," I will point out again:
that assumes not only that the exit poll sample is approximately fair, but also
that people who say they voted for Gore in 2000 actually did, and people who
say they voted for Bush actually did. That's why false recall matters.

__________________________________________________________________ 


OTOH, thanks for providing us with your definitive Bush victory scenario.
Since you left out the demographic percentages, I've calculated them so that we
can investigate your analysis in relation to NEP polling data.

I’m happy that you agreed to the mathematical stipulation that the maximum Bush
2000 voter turnout was 48.7mm. In so doing, you have accepted that the Final
Exit Poll weightings of 43/37% Bush/Gore are impossible. So we have a
legitimate basis for further analysis. 

The question is: where do you go from there? How do you derive the Bush 3
million vote margin, while adhering to the weighting constraints? Well, the
first step is to assume feasible turnout weightings for Bush and Gore voters.
You have done so. Your weightings are reasonable, even somewhat conservative. 

Since the playing field has been leveled as far as the weightings are
concerned, we can now look at actual vote share scenarios. This is where we
part company.

To believe your Bush 3mm win scenario, we must believe the following:
1- One out of seven (14.6%) Gore 2000 voters switched to Bush.
2- One out of sixteen (6.6%) of Bush 2000 voters switched to Kerry.
3- Kerry won 52.6% of those who did not vote (DNV) in 2000, 
DNV are new voters plus those who voted prior to but not in 2000.

Your vote share assumptions are arbitrary and have no evidentiary basis.
They are far removed from the National Exit Poll at 12:22am (13047 respondents)
and the 1:25pm final (13660). 

These are the corresponding percentages:

..........................12:22am 1:25pm OTOH
1. Gore voters for Bush:      8;  9;   14.7
2. Bush 2k voters for Kerry: 10;  9;    6.6
3. DNV for Kerry:            57; 54;   52.6 

Considering that the exit poll MoE is 1% for the national vote and 2% for
sub-samples, the probabilities of your vote shares are remote. You had to
assume that Bush did significantly BETTER than he did in the final exit poll,
which he won 51-48% and was matched to the recorded vote. 

You based your original case on the “false recall” hypothetical: that Gore
voters, but not Bush voters, forgot who they voted for in 2000. This was your
rationale in order to explain the 43 Bush/37% Gore weightings. As I stated
earlier, the "false recall" argument is irrelevant and moot - now
that you have agreed that the 43/37% weightings were impossible to begin with.
You use feasible, plausible weightings in your Bush win scenario. 

Time for a reality check. 

How is one to believe your assumption that 1 out of 7 Gore voters who saw the
election stolen from them by Bush in 2000, would forgive or forget and vote for
Bush in 2004, especially when his job performance has been, shall we say, less
than satisfactory? 

He had a 48.5% approval rating on Election Day. 

Furthermore, Democratic 2004 voter registration far exceeded the Republicans in
spite of massive evidence of voter disenfranchisement, especially in the key
states of Florida and Ohio.

Finally, are we to believe your claim that Bush won by a 3 million vote margin?
Because that is EXACTLY WHAT YOUR IMPLAUSIBLE SCENARIO SUGGESTS. 

In other words, are you in fact telling us FRAUD WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THE
ELECTION? Because that is what your scenario shows. How is any sane person
expected to believe THAT?

OTOH, you took up the challenge, but you did not meet it.
Your Bush win scenario is IMPLAUSIBLE. 
It doesn't pass the smell test.

Here are calculations of national vote shares, assuming your weightings for: 
1) your Bush win scenario 
2) the 12:22am exit poll 
3) the final 1:25pm exit poll

Assuming your (reasonable) weights, Kerry handily wins both Exit Poll
timelines. 
________________________________________________________________

	OTOH 			Bush winning margin: 3.123mm
	Pct	Votes	BushV	BushP	Kerry	Kerry%	Other	Other%
DNV	21.67%	26.5	12.30	46.4%	13.9	52.6%	0.3	1%
Gore	37.86%	46.3	6.80	14.7%	39.0	84.3%	0.5	1%
Bush	37.45%	45.8	42.30	92.4%	3.0	6.6%	0.5	1%
Other	3.03%	3.7	0.70	18.9%	3.0	80.1%	0.0	1%
								
Total	100.0%	122.3	62.10	50.78%	59.0	48.22%	1.2	1.00%

___________________________________________________________________

12:22am NEP (13047)		Kerry winning margin: 7.879mm
	Pct	Votes	BushV	BushP	Kerry	Kerry%	Other	Other%
DNV	21.67%	26.5	10.87	41%	15.11	57%	0.27	1%
Gore	37.86%	46.3	3.70	8%	42.13	91%	0.00	0%
Bush	37.45%	45.8	41.22	90%	4.58	10%	0.00	0%
Other	3.03%	3.7	0.78	21%	2.63	71%	0.30	8%

Total	100.0%	122.3	56.57	46.25%	64.45	52.69%	0.56	0.46%

____________________________________________________________________

1:25pm Final NEP (13660)	Kerry winning margin: 3.719mm
	Pct	Votes	BushV	BushP	Kerry	Kerry%	Other	Other%
DNV	21.67%	26.5	11.93	45%	14.31	54%	0.27	1%
Gore	37.86%	46.3	4.63	10%	41.67	90%	0.00	0%
Bush	37.45%	45.8	41.68	91%	4.12	9%	0.00	0%
Other	3.03%	3.7	0.78	21%	2.63	71%	0.30	8%
								
Total	100.0%	122.3	59.01	48.25%	62.73	51.29%	0.56	0.46%


_______________________________________________________________

OnTheOtherHand  (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-06-06 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #46 

48. I hope "FIN" means that TIA is about to give this up 
 Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 07:31 AM by OnTheOtherHand

although I am not very optimistic. 

I think it's meaningless to say that "the Final Exit Poll weightings of
43/37% Bush/Gore are impossible" (I mean, what? the computers blow up or
something?), but I'm happy to stipulate that 43% of 2004 voters didn't vote for
Bush in 2000.

As I explained at length months ago, my vote share assumptions are grounded in
actual data from a 2000-2004 panel study. They reflect actual people's actual
reports in 2000 of whom they had just voted for, as well as their actual
reports in 2004 of whom they had voted for in 2000 as well as in 2004. Of
course I don't think that the people in this panel are representative of the
people in the exit poll. Given panel attrition, I would expect the people who
made it through the panel to be more politically aware overall than the exit
poll participants, and therefore somewhat less likely either to misreport their
past votes or to defect from their 2000 choice. But I could be wrong. (EDIT: Of
course another thing about the panel is that the respondents presumably
overreported having voted at all. I haven't sorted out yet how that might
affect my estimates -- e.g., whether maybe I should postulate less
Gore'00->Bush'04 and more DidNotVote'00->Bush'04 -- but it certainly
doesn't make the exit poll vote'00 question any more useful as proof of fraud.)
Regardless, very little in my scenario is just made up.

TIA claims both that false recall doesn't matter, and that it contradicts the
final weightings for me to say that 14+% of Gore voters defected. This seems to
be invincible confusion on his part. If 14.6% (or whatever) of actual Gore 2000
voters voted for Bush, but many of them in 2004 report being Bush 2000 voters,
then obviously (isn't it obvious? why isn't it obvious?) they won't show up in
the exit poll as having been Gore 2000 voters, whether or not the exit poll is
weighted to 2004 results.

Since there is no likelihood that TIA will understand this, say, the twentieth
time I explain it as opposed to the nineteenth, I encourage anyone who has
questions about it to PM me. Otherwise, I will assume that it is just the sort
of thing that either one gets, one doesn't, or one doesn't care about either
way.

Historically, a 48.5% approval rating appears good enough to win by more or
less the margin that Bush won by. (This particular plot uses last available
Gallup approval ratings; I've tried alternative specifications, haven't seen
much difference.)

Since TIA presents no evidence about registration figures, there's nothing to
refute there.

Then comes what TIA apparently regards as his definitive smackdown:

Finally, are we to believe your claim that Bush won by a 3million vote margin?
Because that is EXACTLY WHAT YOUR IMPLAUSIBLE SCENARIO SUGGESTS. In other
words, are you in fact telling us that FRAUD WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THE ELECTION?
Because that is what your scenario shows.  Difficult to imagine.

The challenge has not been met.
The Bush win scenario is IMPLAUSIBLE. 
It doesn't pass the smell test.

Short TIA: "I JUST DON'T BELIEVE that Bush won by 3 million votes."
Umm, OK. That would have been a much shorter OP. Even shorter would have been,
"I'm not LISTening! You can't MAKE me!" 

________________________________________________________________

So that is the definitive OTOH response.
That's the best he can come up with.
The Final NEP 43/37 weighting is an albatross which he cannot ignore.

So he must resort to his old standby mantra:
False recall, false recall, false recall.
Pure double-talk.
Catapulting the propaganda.
Classic obfuscation.
Avoidance of the facts.

And, of course, the ad hominems: questioning my intellect, 
claiming I don't see how his "proof" of forgetful Gore voters 
factors into the 14.6%.

Well, I don't.
Not because I find the logic quite convoluted.
Which it is.
But because I don't accept the premise.

Quite a talent for obscuring the obvious.
It's really quite amazing.
And obstinate as a stone.
He'll claim Bush was the real winner twenty years from now.

In a bizzaro world, 14.6% of Gore voters switch to Bush. 
In the real world, Gore voters were out in force for Kerry -
to kick the thieves out of the WH.

In a bizzaro world, only 52.6% of DNV voted for Kerry.
In the real world,  massive Democratic registrations brought  
new voters out in droves (55-60%) for Kerry.

In a bizarro world, an 48.5% 11-poll average Bush approval 
rating (1% MoE)  morphs into a 3 million vote mandate.
In the real world, a rating that low means Bush is toast. 

Your linear regression chart of incumbent approval vs. vote 
count is misleading, meaningless and truly pathetic.
The graph superficially appears to be insightful.

Until we apply perspective to the historical facts:
SIX OF THE NINE ELECTIONS YOU CITE WERE LANDSLIDES!

REGARDLESS of how HIGH an incumbent's approval rating,
there is a 60% UPPER LIMIT on his final vote share.
This is a HISTORICAL FACT.

The CONVERSE is ALSO TRUE:
REGARDLESS of how LOW an incumbent's approval rating,
there is a 40% LOWER LIMIT on his final vote share.
This is a HISTORICAL FACT.

INCUMBENTS LOST IN FOUR OF THE NINE ELECTIONS. 
Ford, Carter, Bush 92...AND Bush 2004.
EACH HAD AN APPROVAL RATING UNDER 50%.

OF THE WINNERS, CLINTON HAD THE LOWEST APPROVAL RATING:55% 

Your graph is SKEWED as a result.
It is nothing more than SPURIOUS CLAP-TRAP.
Only a scatter-brain would believe your scatter chart.

Here is what the numbers are REALLY telling us.
 
			Votes (mm)	Incumbent				
Year	Pres.	Appr	Incumb	Opp.	2pty		Result	Ap>50?	Match result?
1956	Eisen.	70	35.6	25	58.7%		Won	Yes	yes
1964	Johnson	75	43.1	27.2	61.3%		Won	Yes	yes
1972	Nixon	59	47.2	29.2	61.8%		Won	Yes	yes
1976	Ford	46	39.1	40.8	48.9%		Lost	No	yes
1980	Carter	31	36.5	43.9	45.4%		Lost	No	yes
1984	Reagan	60	54.5	37.6	59.2%		Won	Yes	yes
1992	Bush	30	39.1	44.9	46.5%		Lost	No	yes
1996	Clinton	55	47.4	39.2	54.7%		Won	Yes	yes
									
2004	Bush	48	62	59	51.2%		Won	No	No

In the three elections prior to 2004 in which incumbents were 
defeated, the average incumbent 2-party vote share was 47%.
The 12:22am NEP gives a Bush 2-party vote of 48%.

Of the nine elections, 2004 is the only one in which the 50% approval 
rule did NOT hold up. It sticks out like a sore thumb, doesn't it?

Query mas?

In a bizarro world, one radically adjusts every NEP vote share 
statistic in order to conjure up an implausible Bush win scenario.
In the real world, a case is built based on the weight of all 
the evidence - without using tortured hypotheticals.

In coming up with his scenario, OTOH applied sleight of hand, 
which he knew would never be noticed by anyone unfamiliar with NEP 
demographics/calculations: 

OTOH assumes that 26.5mm 2004 voters were DNV 2000 (21.7%). 
The 12:22am NEP demographic was 21.5mm (17.6%), so the discrepancy is far 
in excess of the MoE. By increasing DNV by 5mm and lowering Kerry's vote 
share to 52.6%, Kerry's DNV margin was reduced from 4mm to 1.7mm. 

Kerry's DNV share was 59% at 7:33pm, 57% at 12:22am, 54% at 1:25pm.

This is the conundrum that OTOH had to deal with: 
He could not use the impossible 43/37 weights.
His only "wiggle" room was to inflate Bush's vote shares.
He had to inflate them way beyond all the exit poll timelines.

OTOH HAD TO ASSUME IMPLAUSIBLE BUSH VOTE SHARES TO MATCH THE VOTE COUNT.
THE FINAL 1:25PM NEP USED IMPOSSIBLE WEIGHTINGS TO MATCH THE COUNT.

WHAT DOES THIS TELL US ABOUT THE VOTE COUNT?

NO SURPRISE.

__________________________________________

OnTheOtherHand  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-09-06 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #59 
62. could we harness all that spin to power a small city? 
 Edited on Mon Jan-09-06 07:55 AM by OnTheOtherHand

As Febble pointed out, much of TIA's post basically says, "In a rational
universe, Kerry would have won, therefore Kerry won." That is the very
essence of a faith-based argument, even though it uses the word
"rational." Progressives should demand better.

I have no way of knowing what percentage of Gore voters (who voted in '04)
switched to Bush. But dismissing the NES panel data, which put this figure in
double-digits, because one Just Knows that the Gore->Bush defection rate
should be no higher than the Bush->Kerry defection rate is a triumph of
faith over reason. Progressives should demand better. False certainty is not
what we do best.

TIA is welcome to fit an S-curve to the data and see if he can obtain what he
firmly believes is the right answer. Given the firmness of his belief, I
suppose he will find a way.

He will have to assume that Truman pulled his approval rating up by 10 points
from the summer of 1948, but that is quite possible, so let's try what he does
and start in 1956.

OK, he has three incumbents running for reelection with approval ratings under
50 (1976, 1980, 1992), and they all lose. Do three cases provide strong
empirical support for a "rule"? Obviously not.

In 1976, the incumbent has a 46% approval rating and loses by 1.7 points; in
1996, the incumbent has a 55% approval rating and wins by 8.2 points. If we
look at those two points, do they support the inference that the approval
break-even to win reelection is 50%? No, they don't. (By linear interpolation,
it would be about 47.5%.) Sure, 1996 is anomalous -- but, if we're looking at
incumbents with approval ratings in the 50s, it is actually most favorable to
his case. In 1972, Nixon has a 59% approval rating and wins by 18 points. Do
1972 and 1976 support the inference that the approval break-even is 50%? No,
they don't. (By linear interpolation, it would be about 47.1%.)

Actually, are there any two data points in this plot that support the inference
that the approval break-even for incumbents seeking reelection is 50%? I don't
think so. An intellectually honest analyst might worry about that.

The only way (or the only way demonstrated so far) that TIA can get the result
he requires -- because he already Just Knew the answer before he began his
analysis -- is to throw out most of the information, reducing the data to
"yes" and "no" (approval rating greater than 50, yes or
no). Well, that is a crock. Prior to 2004, there are no
incumbent-seeking-reelection approval ratings between 46 and 55. So there is no
way to know whether the rule should be "incumbents with approval ratings
under 50 lose, those with approval ratings over 50 win," or whether the
rule should say "47," or "54."

A new rule! Incumbents with approval ratings over 47% always win! Sigh. 

By cooking the data, TIA creates the impression (at least for himself) that
2004 sticks out like a sore thumb. But if one actually has the guts to look at
the scatterplot -- with or without 1948, with or without all the elections
where the incumbent didn't run again -- one can see that 2004 doesn't stick
out.

(No wait, silly me, the graph is a diversion. It hides "meaning." Pay
no attention to the man behind the curtain!)

Of course, we could always resort to common sense. Approval ratings are not
exact; different firms get different approval ratings; incumbents actually run
against opponents. Could we determine the "true" value of X to plug
into an approval-rating rule? No. So, if I insisted that Bush's 48.5% approval
rating proved that he won, that would be untenable. As TIA's approval-rating
argument is, start to finish.

So, that clincher doesn't work either. Next?
________________________________________________________________________

Febble  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-09-06 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #59 
60. Ha! 
 
TIA: 

"Skeptics have a fondness for using scatter charts in
lieu of analyzing the numbers which make up the
scatter."

Right.  Here we have the problem.  

Scatter-plots show you the actual data.  The regression line
through the scatter shows you the fit of your model to the
data; the R squared tells you how good the fit is.  The MoE
of the regression line will also tell how good the fit is.
Regression lines are the way we draw inferences from data.
Whether our hypothesis is linear or non-linear, the fit of
the model (the regression line) to the data will tell us how
well the hypothesis describes the data.  It can, if we have a
random sample, allow us to generalize from our sample to a
population.  It is how we derive "rules" such as
the "incumbent rule".  In other words it is the
basis of inferential statistics.

And it is the basis of the General Linear Model, which can in
fact, also be used to test non-linear hypotheses. It allows is
to determine the pattern of covariance between the variables
we are interested in, for example the covariance between an
incumbent's approval rating and his vote-margin.

If TIA doesn't like scatter-plots, he is not a serious data
analyst. If he wants to demonstrate that he is, I suggest
that the next time he issues a plot (column or scatter) with
the equation for the best fit line that Excel so conveniently
provides for him, that he also gives the MoE for each of the
regression coefficients in his equation.  Or an F test of the
model fit.

Otherwise I will have to conclude that he does not understand
the basis of inferential statistics.

The rest of the post appears to be summarizable as: I don't
believe Bush could have won, and I don't believe Bush voters
would have forgotten they voted for Gore, therefore the exit
polls must have been correct.

This is not statistics: this a credo.  

Which I can respect as a credo but not as statistics.

____________________________________________________________

Since she cannot argue the facts, Febble now resorts to 
questioning my experience in using linear regression.

Febble, I have done more analysis using multiple regression than you
will ever know in scores of election, investment and financial models.

How many charts have you posted on the election?
How many charts have I?
Don't lecture me on regression charts.

This is just more proof that you HAVE NO SHAME.
You misrepresent EVERYTHING in order to defame, mischaracterize, 
divert and confuse. I have read what you have said about me on dKos.

In the post, I stated that "skeptics" have a fondness for scatter
charts 
without analyzing the actual data. That is a fact.

I never said or implied that scatter charts are not useful.
I merely stated that they are worthless without a detailed explanation.
Such as you and OTOH put together for Mitofsky.
Very pretty. But where's the beef? 

Here' the OTOH scatter chart: 
http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/approval.jpg

This is my latest rBr chart - bars, regressions, titl AND numbers:

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/ResponseSolver50STATES816_3893_image001.png


See the difference?
In posting his scatter chart on DU, OTOH
1) NEVER mentions the 50% Incumbent rule.

2) NEVER mentions the FACT that in ALL nine elections cited, 
Bush 2004 is the ONLY one which BREAKS the Rule

3) NEVER mentions the FACT that there's a close linear relationship between 
INCUMBENT Rating and Vote share.

4) NEVER mentions the FACT that the historical MAXIMUM 40-60% range
in recorded vote share is NEVER EXCEEDED, REGARDLESS OF APPROVAL.

5) NEVER mentions the FACT that Bush's 48.5% rating EXACTLY matched 
his TRUE vote. This FACT was stated in a recent post in which I showed 
a NEAR-EXACT match between pre-election polls, exit polls and approval.
Febble and OTOH immediately tried to rebut, but facts are facts. 

6) NEVER mentions the FACT that in the FOUR elections prior to 2004
in which incumbent approval ranged from 40-60%, the average 
approval/vote deviation was 1.15%(from -0.8% to 2.9%), evidence of a strong
relationship. 

It's catapulting the propaganda by OMISSION of the full set of FACTS
WHICH HELP EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE OF THE DATA.

It's what you leave out; it's not what you keep in.

Kinda reminds me of the media's silence regarding the FACTS about 
the STOLEN ELECTION which, like you, they seek to CONCEAL.

You made a big early splash last year with your Fancy Febble Function.
You had credibility then; after all, you had worked for USCV.
But you NEVER admitted the fact that you left USCV to work for Mitofsky
until it was exposed on DU by Kathy Dopp.

Your CREDO is ignoring the overwhelming factual evidence of a 
stolen election, by creating smoke-screens and red-herrings 
using your flawless prose to do so.

The great majority in the DU/PI forums believe you are no longer credible. 
Many intelligent people in the forums have read the threads.

Facts about the stolen election accumulate daily which you are 
apparently incapable of correlating to the pre and post-election
polls which all confirm Kerry won. 

This is ongoing proof of your failed agenda.
Thank goodness for the Net.

After reading your eloquent, albeit misleading posts for almost a year 
now, I'm totally convinced that everything Kathy has said about your 
stubborn refusal to correct errors in your analysis is true.

Here's hoping that Kathy's upcoming proof will put an end to 
the OTOH/Febble fiction-writing tag-team.


_____________________________________________________________________

anaxarchos (559 posts)      Mon Jan-09-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #53 
66. You apparently "stopped reading as well"... 
 
You are always free to argue with yourself, of course.
But you are not talking to me.

Let me repeat again, the exit polls themselves DO NOT support your theory of an
increased Kerry defection rate hidden by response error on the retrospective
question. They suggest the opposite. Thus the retrospective question in the
exit polls is rendered moot, regardless of this response error
"debate".

Just like TIA said...

____________________________________________________________________
 
  Febble  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-09-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #66 
71. Agreed that I was making a tangential point 
 and probably made it badly.

I don't recognise the theory you ascribe to me though, although I may simply
misunderstand your paraphrase. All I am hypothesising is that Kerry voters
either had a slightly higher response rate than Bush voters in a majority of
precincts, or were selected at a slightly higher rate (I think the evidence is
more in favour of the latter). And that once the responses were reweighted to
correct for this, the cross-tabs indicated that a minority of respondents had
voted for Gore. 

This would damage my hypothesis (for which, I would argue, there is
considerable evidence) if I couldn't propose a hypothesis to account for it.
But I can, which is that it may reflect the fact that of those who voted for
Bush this time, some were Gore voters who thought they'd voted for Bush last
time. 

There is clearly non-communication going on here, because I don't really
understand why this is not fairly obvious. I don't mean obvious that it did
happen, just obvious that it could. I certainly don't buy the assertion that no
Gore voter who voted for Bush would forget they'd voted for Gore. It seems to me
perfectly possible that they could, and indeed it seems evident, from OTOH's
data, that some did.
_________________________________________________________________________ 

Febble  (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-06-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #48 
49. My two pence 
 I notice that TIA is happier with the column graph function in Excel that with
the scatterplot function, although I do admire the splendid time-series
scatter-plot he does with Bush's approval rating, 4th degree polynomial fit and
all, so I know he knows how it works.

However, I do suggest he plots a few LINEAR regressions through some of his
data, which may help him understand some of the points OTOH has been making.

One of which is that the "incumbent rule" appears to mean that there
is a strong linear relationship between an incumbent's approval rating and his
margin in his re-election vote, as TIA correctly implies. However, OTOH's plot
indicates that the break-even point is not 50% as often alleged before the
election, but something nearer to 43% (eyeballing OTOH's plot with the side of
a piece of paper and a ballpoint). To be fair, we should replot this without
2004 in order to get a predictive value for 2004, but as the 2004 datapoint is
fairly close the regession line it won't make a lot of difference. 

It would also be possible to work out the MoE for that break-even point,
something that TIA might like to do, as MoEs are his MO it seems (nerdy pun).
But the MoE will certainly include Bush's margin in 2004, something I think all
we quanties can see by looking, presumably including TIA, but a number would be
nice.

And when he's done that, TIA might like to plot the correlations between the
DIFFERENCES between the pre-election polls and the vote-count on one axis, and
the DIFFERENCES between the exit polls and the vote-count on another axis, and
STARE at the results, preferably with the aid of a LINEAR best fit line plotted
through them (NO polynomials IF you please, thankyou), and decide what it means
for the BEAST in the EAST.

And as a 3rd pence, I will say that the fact that neither I nor OTOH are
convinced that the exit polls are evidence for fraud does NOT mean that either
of us think that no fraud occurred, or that the election was fair, or that the
voting machines can't be hacked, or that having machines in which no-one can be
sure their vote was counted is a good thing. Personally, I think voting on DREs
is mad (=crazy in English English). Also I think the level of voter
disenfranchisement, especially of ethnic minority voters, is a scandalous Civil
Rights violation. So before anyone starts on the "Naysayer!" schtick,
I'll say here and now: for the so-called leader of the free world, American
democracy sucks. It needs radical fixing, which means an independent media,
restrictions on campaign funding, universal franchise, transparent auditable
voting systems and a secret ballot. Probably some other stuff too.

To have the debate dominated by whether or not a survey was more than a few
percentage points off or not, when there is copious evidence to show they can
be and that this one probably was, seems to me to be nuts. But as long as
people keep insisting that the exit polls show that the 2004 election was
stolen, I'm going to keep saying they don't. Because they don't. It could have
been. But the exit polls don't show that it was. If anything, they tend to show
that if it was, it wasn't done by vote-switching. Personally I think it was done
by the simple expedient of making sure that those with most to gain from a Kerry
victory, and most to lose from a Bush one, didn't get to vote.

___________________________________________________________ 
  OnTheOtherHand  (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-06-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #49 

50. as usual, your post rewards close reading 
 and I am sure that your dissertation will as well. 

There does seem to be a tedious rhetorical waltz that goes
ONE-the-exit-polls-prove-fraud TWO-actually-they-don't
THREE-why-are-you-defending-war-criminals? Hard to dance to that. Probably
doesn't do much for the cause of election reform, either.

Now I'm afraid that someone is off saying that "In order for the official
totals to be accurate, Bush had to have won 14.6% of the Gore 2000 vote."
No, there are lots of smaller numbers that could work, too. It would be
possible to enter into a serious discussion of what numbers make the most sense
(not ruling out the possibility of vote miscount). But it's probably hard to do
that if one is convinced from the get-go that Kerry won by several million
votes, and is just trying to "prove" it.

Your post points to several other interesting conversations -- some of them
quite important -- that probably won't happen here either. Oh well.
__________________________________________________________________ 
  anaxarchos (563 posts)      Sun Jan-08-06 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #50 
51. Forgive me for interrupting…. 
 …your mutual admiration society.

I want to thank you for making a strong argument for the position that GW Bush
could not have won the popular vote in the 2004 presidential elections without
significant fraud. I understand that you would like us to come to the opposite
conclusion, but by proving the difficulty of coming to that conclusion, you
have done us a rare service. Your argument comes in two parts, both of which
underline the arithmetic of 2004:

Of the few potential scenarios for a “legitimate” Bush victory, you have chosen
the one which, while difficult to reconcile, is more "plausible" than
the others. The fabric of the 2004 presidential elections was not particularly
elastic. The alternatives were a swing of new voters to Bush instead of to
Kerry, Republicans turning out in record numbers while Democrats "sat out
the election", or the wholesale rush of Nader voters to the Republican
Party. Obviously, these alternatives contradict a good deal of existing
evidence to the contrary.

Instead, you have chosen the "Gore voters defected to Bush at two times
the rate that Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry". In support of this
premise, you have offered no evidence whatsoever. Instead, you have challenged
evidence to the contrary by arguing that the rate of defection indicated in the
exit polls (fairly similar for both candidates) is suspect because of
"false recall". In the main, you have made an argument similar to
rBr, i.e. that seemingly impossible splits in the exit polls can be explained
by response error.

You have also thrown a few "stinky fish" on the table which I take to
be red herring. I believe your usage of your panel studies, your tangential
discussion of incumbent approval rates and your generic brand of “false memory”
are all downright silly. But, I also have experience with how quickly such
objections take the debate down a rat hole. I will let them stand for the time
being. Instead of challenging these, I will try to stay “on point”.

So too with your “point shaving”. I won’t quibble with your numbers at the
moment despite the fact that you have made no argument as to why the Bush
defection rate should be reduced (without this, the Gore 2000 defection rate
approaches 18% according to you). On the contrary, should your premise prove
true, the corollary is that the Bush defection rate is understated by the exit
polls.

The same goes for evidence outside of the context of the exit polls themselves.
It doesn’t seem to trouble you that only you have detected this mass defection.
It seems to have been missed by pre-election pollsters. It seems to have been
dismissed by both major parties. It also seems to have been ignored by
post-election researchers despite the availability of more direct evidence than
polling data. If I am mistaken on this, please provide references. In the
meantime, I will defer my objections until you have actually made a case.

Instead of these possible distractions, let's explore "Gore voters
defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush 2000 voters defected to
Kerry" in the context of the exit polls alone. 

Of all of the survey questions, you want to eliminate the most directly
pertinent one on the basis of possible response error. Even if we accept that,
the retrospective question is by no means the only relevant question. There are
many others. 

There is, for example, the party ID question. I understand that this question
is controversial because it may be one of the splits that were altered when the
2004 exit polls were “reconciled” with the actual vote count. But that
controversy should not impact the internal “defection rate” reported by the
exit polls. According to the 2000 exit polls, 11% of respondents who identified
themselves as “Democrats” voted for GW Bush. According to the 2004 exit polls,
the defection rate was an identical 11%. There is no indication of increased
defections here.

To test this in another way, we can look at the internal defection rate of
respondents by self described “ideology”. In 2000, 80% of those who describe
themselves as “liberal” and 52% of those who describe themselves as “moderate”
report that they voted for Gore. Together, they make up 90% of the Gore vote.
In 2004, 85% of those who describe themselves as “liberal” and 54% of those who
describe themselves as “moderate” report that they voted for Kerry. Again, there
is no indication of increased defections.

The most decisive of the survey questions, however, are the two GOTV questions.
These are the only ones in which respondents are not asked to report on
themselves but to report on how others characterize them. 

For the survey question, “Were you contacted by the Kerry campaign?”, 26%
answered yes, of whom 66% reported voting for Kerry. To the matching question,
“Were you contacted by the Bush campaign?”, 24% answered yes, of whom 62%
reported voting for Bush.

Let me assure you that neither political party suffers from “false memory”, at
least as far as GOTV efforts are concerned, and that both are quite proficient
at identifying their base. That is precisely who was “contacted”. In addition,
there is likely to be relatively little overlap between these populations which
will consist primarily of Gore and Bush voters from 2000. There is, once again,
not only no support for your defections premise but, on the contrary, an
indication that the Democratic GOTV did a slightly better job and achieved a
slightly better hit rate.

Locally, these same GOTV questions shed even more light. In the Florida 2004
exit polls, for example, 35% report being contacted by the Kerry campaign while
34% report being contacted by the Bush campaign. This increased GOTV effort is
clearly a byproduct of Florida’s battleground status, but, because of its
vastly increased voting population in 2004, the two Florida GOTV populations in
the aggregate represent virtually all of the voters from 2000. Yet again, there
is no indication of varying defection rates between the two parties. The Kerry
hit rate was 65% while the Bush hit rate was 63%.

Where did you come up with this theory of yours? It doesn’t “work” at all, let
alone with “much smaller numbers”. I’m beginning to wonder if you, like our
friend from Drexel, are merely giving a “scientific” voice to press accounts.
But few of those accounts deserve any standing. Consider the story that
“Suburban Soccer Moms”, presumably Gore voters in 2000, became “Security Moms”
in 2004 because of the last minute release of the Bin Laden tape. This story
was even given currency by Kerry himself. But, were those who made up Bush’s
“margin of victory” really transformed “Suburban Soccer Moms”?

Suburban?

According to the 2000 Exit Poll survey question, “Where do you live?”, 43% of
respondents reported that they lived in the suburbs and 47% of these voted for
Gore. In 2004, 45% reported that they lived in the suburbs and 47% of these
voted for Kerry. Nope, they weren’t “suburban”.

Moms?

According to the 2000 Exit Poll Survey Question, “Do you have children under
18?”, 39% answered “yes” and 45% of these voted for Gore. In 2004, 37% answered
“yes” and 45% of them voted for Kerry. And, of course, that includes both “moms”
and “dads”. Nope, they weren’t “moms”.

Worried about the Bin Laden Tape?

Asked to characterize the importance of the Bin Laden videotape, 32% of
respondents in the 2004 exit polls said they were “very important” but, of
these 53% reported that they voted for Kerry. Considering that nearly 90% of
all respondents also reported having made their decision before the tape was
released, there is no case here. Nope, it wasn’t the tape.

The press accounts of “suburban soccer moms” turning into “security moms” in
order to re-elect GW Bush were attempts to explain by anecdote what is very
difficult to reconcile on the facts. In the end, they were fables… much like
your story, I’m afraid.

____________________________________________________________

  OnTheOtherHand  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jan-08-06 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #51 
52. I stopped on the first egregious factual error 
 
Instead, you have chosen the "Gore voters defected to Bush at two times
the rate that Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry". In support of this
premise, you have offered no evidence whatsoever.


My evidence is that in the 2000-04 NES panel, Gore voters (as self-reported in
2000) did defect to Bush at two times the rate that Bush 2000 voters defected
to Kerry. I realize that the NES panel isn't directly comparable to an exit
poll, but if memory serves, you haven't even tried to offer an alternative
account.

I have no idea why you are apparently as clueless as TIA about (1) the evidence
that polls quite often exaggerate past voting for the incumbent and (2) why this
would affect the polls' (including but not limited to exit polls') estimates of
defection rates.

You seem to want to be taken seriously -- and if I find something in here that
can be taken seriously, I will get back to you.
______________________________________________________________ 

  anaxarchos (563 posts)      Mon Jan-09-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #52 
65. The NES provides you no help here at all... 
 
... for reasons we have already discussed many times. I have also cited in the
past, several NES technical reports which directly contradict your attempted
usage ("no you haven't!"... "YES, I have!", etc..).

1) Since you stopped reading, you might not be aware that my post focused (with
considerable self-discipline) on evidence intrinsic to the exit polls. I also do
not believe that you have presented any evidence extrinsic to the polls (unless
we want to debate whether anecdotal evidence is "evidence") but that
is not at issue here. One thing at a time.

2) This is a "factual error"? "Egregious", yet? Shit man,
you don't belong in politics...

3) I repeat, the exit polls DO NOT support your theory of an increased Kerry
defection rate hidden by response error on the retrospective question.

4) Is it your position that the party ID, political ideology, AND the GOTV
questions are also subject to an incumbency effect? If so, not only do you
contradict the literature but you have just declared all political polling
immaterial.

5) In the past you have claimed that TIA engaged in childish denial. Take a
look in the mirror: "I stopped on the first egregious factual error",
"you are apparently as clueless as TIA", "You seem to want to be
taken seriously", "if I find something in here that can be taken
seriously, I will get back to you".... How is this different from
"Nyah, Nyah... I'm not listening. I'm not listning... Look, I have my
fingers in my ear"?

6) Lest I forget, I claim the point by right of "truth and virtue".

Luv-40

____________________________________________________________

 
  Febble  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jan-08-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #51 
53. And here is Thing Two  come to join in.

You are arguing (as I argued myself many moons ago) that Bush couldn't have won
without fraud, because he couldn't have attracted the support required to win.
That's a fair enough argument.

So you turn to the exit poll evidence, which, if you believe the above, appears
to provide supporting evidence that there was fraud, because the exit poll
discrepancy cannot have been due to chance, and because the reweighted
cross-tabs on recalled vote cannot possibly indicate respondents' actual vote
in 2000.

But there is an alternative interpretation of the exit poll data, which is, as
both OTOH and I have said, that the discrepancy between the poll and count was
due to polling bias, and that the reweighted 2000 vote proportions reflect
people's tendency, as evidenced by the the panel study he cites, to report
having voted for Bush when in fact they voted for Gore.

You are, of course, welcome to choose to stick with the first interpretation.
We, presumably, are free to stick to the second, although I have no intention
of sticking with any interpretation if it is undermined by other evidence.
Because the only objective way to disambiguate a finding is to look at other
evidence. 

And (like wli on PI), the evidence I've been looking at is correlations between
redshift and various other stuff, and so far it's not convincing me that the
exit poll discrepancy had much to do with vote-switching fraud. Because, if
vote-switching fraud is the latent variable that underlies redshift in the exit
poll, redshift in the pre-election poll, and redshift relative to 2000 vote (aka
"swing") - in other words if the vote-count was redder than it should
have been because of fraud - all these redshift measures should be correlated
with each other. And they aren't. 

Therefore, it would seem, vote-switching fraud is unlikely to be the latent
variable that underlies those three sets of redshifts. This raises the
possibility that the cause of the poll discrepancies is something else, e.g.
polling bias, which you would expect to be independent of each other, as they
are conducted by different organisations. At which point, the Gore proportions
in the final exit poll cross-tabs are only a bar to the polling bias
explanation if you refuse to accept the panel study evidence that false recall,
in the direction required to explain the reweighted cross tabs, occurs (or, as
some would have it, that polls are ever biased )

To me, the most subtantial body of evidence regarding electoral injustice in
2004, is the evidence that as usual, a substantial swathe of voters,
disproportionately African American, and disproportionately Democrat, were yet
again systematically disenfranchised in all sorts ways.

And because this stuff has been going on for years, it would not surprise me if
it contributed to the exit poll discrepancy and to Bush's win, yet didn't show
up in a swing-shift correlation in the exit polls. It would also not surprise
me if it was actually greater in precincts with the kinds of voting technology
(punchcards, levers) that in the past have been associated with high residual
vote rates, not 

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.