We already irrefutably mathematically proved that everything Liddle says in her latest Daily Kos article is wrong and our proofs are all summarized or referred to here:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Incorrec...

I had hoped that Liddle was turning over a new leaf but she found a new way to present her hopelessly illogical cr--.

Wrong stuff in Liddle's DailyKos article includes:


"Again, if the incoming vote returns indicate a systematic divergence from the exit poll response, the pollsters have reason to suspect bias in their sample."


Liddle's arguments re. the influence of polling factors do not take into account the "base rate" of Kerry over-estimation by polls even in the absence of these factors.

Ron Baiman and I mathematically proved her other statements wrong in our academic papers on exit polls available on http://electionarchive.org (in the exit poll section on the home page.)

Liddle also proved (to me at least) that she is an outright liar in this Daily Kos article because she made a statement in it that she had, in many emails to me and to colleagues I worked with, asked me to remove from one of my papers, claiming that she never made the statement. Yet she makes the exact same statement again in Daily Kos.

i.e.
"There is absolutely no correlation between the magnitude of the precinct-level discrepancies in 2004 and change in Bush's vote share relative to 2000 (what UK commentators call "swing"). If a single factor, e.g. fraud, was responsible both for both the discrepancy, and for inflating Bush's vote, then you would expect the two to be positively correlated."

The statement that she repeatedly tried to get me to remove from my paper which I quoted her as saying was;

"If there is vote fraud, then there will be a positive correlation between Bush vote increase from 2000 to 2004 and the exit poll discrepancy."

Or is she claiming that sometimes vote fraud favoring Bush does not inflate Bush's vote from what the voters cast it?!! Really? In the Lindeman docs she links to support her statement, the definition of "inflating Bush's vote" is an increase in the Bush vote in 2004 as compared to the 2000 election.

Liddle KNOWS that this hypothesis has been proven mathematically incorrect many months ago, so why revive it NOW? Why right before the election? Why simultaneously with the NY Post announcement? Why on the Daily KOS where anyone who can present convincing facts to refute her has been banned?

Liddle also makes the case for not revealing any exit poll data until after the polls close and the New York Post today informs us that the exit polls will be kept secret until after polls close!

Is anyone buying the argument that the reason for keeping the exit polls secret until after the election polls close is that Americans are too stupid to know that polls change during the day?

Coincidence. Me thinks not!

Here is the Post article:


http://www.nypost.com/seven/11042006/news/national...

I think we know who Liddle is working for, and why this post was made just three days prior to our election.

Kathy Dopp
US Count Votes, President
http://electionarchive.org