OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-29-06 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #47

49. TIA, you are full of shit on this
Edited on Wed Nov-29-06 10:12 AM by OnTheOtherHand
You know damn well that the fraud factor has been discussed in 2006, and in 2004. (EDIT TO ADD: and also in 2002 and 2000, although you may not know that.)
_____________________________

I guess you found nothing wrong with that comment. He's still posting. When are you guys going to tombstone that SOB? As soon as Febble and OTOH feel some heat, they go crying to you. Everyone knows it. And you actually listen to them. For shame. How do you sleep at night, knowing that you coddle these two obscurantists?

You found it necessary to thrash my Generic poll model in a very abusive way.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa...

Even if Charlie Cook and Larry Sabato and other marquee polling analysts are incapable of developing a Monte Carlo Simulation model like I did to forecast the number of seats the GOP would steal, at least they utilized the pre-election Generic poll trend in their forecast analyses.

But when you were rebutted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa...

You replied:
"TIA may not care, but in the real world credibility matters. You can't keep making very basic rookie mistakes without people eventually dismissing the entire effort as a fabrication."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa...

Rookie mistakes? Who did you take lessons from, OTOH? That was pure smear. I don't care? All I've done is care. For FIVE years. Do you care about the truth? What are you afraid of? Do you regret that post? Well, it's already out there. You can't take it back. Sure, you could always admit that you were wrong. But like Bush, Febble and OTOH, you probably never will. Ergo, it's all ego, isn't it?

You did not do your homework. Three professors (don't call them rookies!) developed a projection model based on - guess what? Multiple regression of 16 Historic Mid-terms/Generic polls. Want more of this? Their 2006 projection was very close to that of my 120 Generic poll-based model which forecast a 57% Democratic vote share. I spend hours creating analytical posts and am very thorough. You could learn something from that. I back up all of my analyses by showing the full data, assumptions and calculations. And the math has never been disputed. I usually include a sensitivity analysis for a range of assumptions in order to analyze all PLAUSIBLE SCENARIOS. You are obviously unaware of the power of sensitivity analysis. IT IS APPARENT THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST RULE OF THE MODELING PROCESS: ANALYZE THE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTIONS ON THE MODEL'S RESULTS. IN OTHER WORDS, TO ASK WHAT-IF.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zjC6OVUBA2kJ:...

And this Pew study proved that over the past 50 years, the Generics matched the actual vote to within 1.5% - until BushCo was Selected in 2000 and wrote the book on how to steal elections.
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?An...

Want some more of this? According to Wikipedia, the vote count on Nov.7 (before the fraud kicked in) matched my Generic projections to within 1%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_e...

And you have the gall to call me a "rookie"? Well, since 2002, this "rookie" has done as much as anyone to promote transparent elections by a) warning about vote machine hacking and 2) analyzing discrepancies between pre-election and exit polls from the vote count. My proof that the FINAL National Exit Poll was bogus totally flummoxed all attempts by OTOH/Febble to debunk it. The full analysis (data, assumptions, calculations) has been presented on DU and other forums.

You should know that this "rookie" has developed hundreds of analytical models (WHICH HAVE ALL WORKED) for major aerospace, defense and Wall Street firms. I developed quite a few while you were probably just learning how to walk. Now, what is your background in analytical model building?

Skinner, you owe me an apology. Your uncalled-for comments demean the 15,000+ postings I did on DU and other forums since 2001. I never expected that you would use a DU forum to PERSONALLY ATTACK my credibility, but you did. It was YOU who broke DU rules with YOUR ad-hominems; therefore, it's only fair that you should consider BANNING YOURSELF from DU. I know, it's your playground, so you can say whatever you want - but that's no excuse. You remind me of Bush: "I'm the Decider, see?"

You didn't reply to my e-mails in which I virtually begged to be re-instated. But now I can say that YOU should be begging ME to come back, for two basic reasons: 1) I was the one who was constantly attacked by naysayers/trolls and 2) a significant number of DUers joined after reading my posts. I don't expect you to reply to this e-mail, either.

I'll close by thanking you once again for giving me an opportunity over the past five years to help shine the statistical light of truth on four stolen elections. I take great satisfaction in knowing that the 2006 Democratic Tsunami was to some degree due to the "spreadsheet-wielding" bloggers who provided the statistical evidence which confirmed thousands of reported incidents of fraud.

The fraud debate is now over (even the media agrees), yet at least TWO prominent naysayers on DU continue to attack ANY AND ALL statistical analyses which point to the THEFT OF ANY AND ALL elections since 2000, not only from me but also Steve Freeman, Ron Baiman, RFK Jr., Kathy Dopp, Greg Palast, Jonathan Simon, Michael Keefer, Bob Fitrakis, Paul Lehto, etc. Yet they endorse the fully discredited writings of Salon's Farhad Manjoo.

On the other hand (pun intended), the TWO naysayers still serve their masters with obfuscations, misdirections, omissions and outright lies. They've lost ALL the debates and whatever credibility they once had; that's why they cry wolf whenever they're exposed. THEY CAN DISH IT OUT, BUT THEY CAN'T TAKE IT.

Why don't you thrash THEIR vote projection models? Oh, I forgot, they haven't created any; they're too busy nitpicking the work of others. And when they become flummoxed, they can only resort to personal attacks: "TIA, you are full of shit".

Hey, you know, I like this. I think I'll post it somewhere.

TIA

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.