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.
_______________________________________________________________________


Here is my detailed response to Febble's line by line response, which is
repeated in full.
Once again, I copied from another post to put it all together in this one..

I precede the response with a general rant....

MY COMMENTS ARE IN UPPER-CASE AND REFER TO FEBBLE'S REPLY (lower case) WHICH
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW.

FIRST, A RANT. THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT A SINGLE POLL; THERE WERE HUNDREDS
OF POLLS, ALL IN CONFIRMATION. WHY NOT ACCEPT THE RESULTS? WHY CAN'T WE
AGREE THAT THE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN SILENTLY SCREAMING FOR US TO MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT PHASE: LET'S GET THE GAO REPORT TO THE MEDIA AND USE IT TO FORCE
DEMOCRATS (AND REPUBLICANS) OTHER THAN CONYERS OR BOXER OR HOLT TO GET OUT
IN FRONT OF THE ISSUE ONCE AND FOR ALL. THE HELL WITH IRAQ - DEMOCRACY
BEGINS AT HOME. 

LET'S GET RID OF THOSE PARTISAN VOTING MACHINES WHICH HELPED BUSH STEAL THE
ELECTION AND REVERT TO PAPER BALLOTS, HAND-COUNTED BY THREE OBSERVERS.
 
WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS? WHERE IS THE MEDIA? 
TO QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF THE POLLS IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL THE OTHER
CONFIRMING EVIDENCE AT THIS LATE DATE IS A MAJOR DIVERSIONARY TACTIC. 
WE HAVE SEEN THE EVIDENCE. THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS IS STILL IN EFFECT. 

NOW IT'S TIME FOR SOME ACTION.

END OF RANT...

FEBBLE PROVIDES A DETAILED REBUTTAL TO THE ORIGINAL POST, BUT THESE CONSIST
OF UNSUPPORTABLE HYPOTHESES WHICH ARE AT VARIANCE WITH EVIDENCE THAT: 
A) MITOFSKY'S OWN DATA SHOWS A PRO-BUSH EXIT POLL BIAS. 
B) FIRST-TIME AND PRIOR VOTERS WHO STAYED HOME IN 2000 BROKE 3-2 FOR KERRY.
C) FORMER NADERITES WENT FOR KERRY BY 3-1.
D) UNDECIDED VOTERS BROKE 3-2 FOR KERRY, AT MINIMUM.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GORE VOTERS DESERTED KERRY; ON THE CONTRARY,
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ABOUNDS: REPUBLICANS DESERTED BUSH FOR KERRY AND NOT
VICE-VERSA. THIS IS JUST BASIC HUMAN BEHAVIOR. WHY WOULD DEMOCRATIC GORE
VOTERS ABANDON KERRY FOR BUSH AFTER HE STOLE THE 2000 ELECTION? WELL, THEY
WOULDN'T. BUSH IS NOT JFK OR FDR. ASK HELEN THOMAS. LET'S GET REAL HERE.
EVEN FEBBLE CONCEDES THAT GORE WON. 

FEBBLE DISMISSES PRE-ELECTION AND EXIT POLL EVIDENCE THAT KERRY WON, YET AT
THE SAME TIME COUCHES HER "BELIEF" THAT HE LOST. SHE AGREES THAT
FRAUD OCCURRED IN 2004, BUT NOT ENOUGH FOR BUSH TO STEAL THE ELECTION.
FEBBLE, WHY COMMIT FRAUD IF YOU DON'T NEED IT IN ORDER TO WIN THE ELECTION?


ODDLY, SHE CLAIMS THE EXIT POLLS SHOW THAT BUSH WON, EVEN THOUGH BUSH ONLY
LED IN THE NOV.3 FINAL NATIONAL EXIT POLL (13660 RESPONDENTS) RELEASED AT
1:25PM. COINCIDENTALLY, THIS WAS THE ONLY TIME THE EXIT POLL WAS MATCHED TO
THE RECORDED VOTE - A FULL TWELVE HOURS AFTER THE POLLS CLOSED. KERRY LED
51-48% AT EACH OF THE PRIOR TIME LINES: 12:22AM (13047 RESPONDENTS), 7:33PM
(11027) AND 4PM (8349). 

FEBBLE ARGUES THAT ALL POLLS ARE BIASED AND THEREFORE NO INFERENCES SHOULD
BE DRAWN FROM THEM AS THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE 100% "PROOF". THIS
IS JUST A RED-HERRING. THE POLLS PROVIDE HIGHLY PERSUASIVE CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE AND A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN. ISN'T THAT
ENOUGH? WHY FIGHT THE NUMBERS? WHY CREATE DIVERSIONS? WHO NEEDS 100% PROOF?
ISN'T 99.9% ENOUGH TO GET STARTED?

FEBBLE HYPOTHESIZES "FALSE RECALL" AS BEING A GORE VOTER
AFFLICTION. THAT’S HER EXPLANATION FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE 43%/37% BUSH/GORE
2000 WEIGHTS. ALONG WITH THE RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER (rBr), THEY
CONSTITUTE THE NAYSAYERS BEST EVIDENCE IN EXPLAINING THE EXIT POLL
DISCREPANCIES. 

WHAT A DUO. LIKE MARTIN & LEWIS. LIKE LAUREL & HARDY. WHAT A PAIR.
THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT, I GUESS.

She repeats the mantra – that polls are not random samples (WTF?):
“1. Random sampling”
”2. Random sampling”
”3. Random sampling”

_______________________________________________________________________
  
Febble  (1000+ posts)     
Sat Dec-03-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message

75. OK, these are my words:
....................................................................
"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.
FEBBLE DOES NOT AGREE, THOUGH..
FEBBLE:
Not in my view

So let's summarize some important FACTS ...
Al Gore was ELECTED in 2000.
It was not just stolen from him.
It was stolen from US.
But at least Al fought.

YES, SHE AGREES ABOUT GORE WINNING IN 2000
FEBBLE:
Certainly Gore had more intended votes in Florida than Bush, and won the
popular vote.

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

BUT SHE DISAGREES WITH THE "FACT" THAT KERRY WON.
WELL, TO ME THAT'S JARGON.
THAT HE WON IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
BECAUSE OF THE OVERWHELMING STATISTICAL EVIDENCE
AND CONFIRMATION THAT HE WON ALL THE STATE AND 
NATIONAL PRE-ELECTION AND POST-ELECTION EXIT POLLS ...
EVIDENCE OF FRAUD AT POLLING LINES AND BOOTHS ..
REPUBLICAN OWNED VOTING MACHINES WITH NO PAPER-TRAIL AND...
THE FACT THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IN 2000 AND

THE PERPETRATORS HAD THE
MEANS...CONTROL OF CORRUPT REPUBLICAN VOTING MACHINES, CORRUPT REPUBLICAN
GOVERNORS, CORRUPT ELECTION OFFICIALS, AND A MORIBUND MEDIA...

MOTIVE.. STAY IN POWER, PAY OFF CORPORATE BENEFACTORS AND...

OPPORTUNITY... MSM WOULD NEVER TALK ABOUT THE FRAUD, 
HAVA PUT THE MACHINES IN PLACE WITHOUT CERTIFICATION BY 
ELECTION OFFICIALS TOO STUPID OR TOO CORRUPT TO DO THEIR JOB..

THAT'S FACTUAL ENOUGH FOR ME.
IT'S BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT...
I UNDERSTAND, IT'S NOT A FACT TO EVERYONE ELSE.
JUST AS IT'S NOT A "FACT" TO EVERYONE THAT GORE WON, EITHER.
WE CAN THANK THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA FOR THAT...
IS SHE QUIBBLING WITH SEMANTICS?
WHAT CONSTITUTES PROOF? 
FEBBLE:
Not facts.
 
_______________________________________________________________________
The naysayers continue their relentless attempts to mask the overwhelming
evidence provided by confirmation of hundreds of pre-election and exit
polls:
SHE AVOIDS MENTIONING HER VESTED INTEREST IN WORKING FOR MITOFSKY.
FEBBLE: 
Not a fact.

HER MANTRA: “ALL THE POLLS CITED... CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO CONSIST OF  RANDOM
SAMPLES, BUT SHE “HOPES” THEY DID (WTF?)
FEBBLE:
These are facts in the sense that these polls were published. However the
numbers are inferences from samples, and their margins of error assume
random sampling. All the polls cited had high non-response rates, and
cannot be assumed to consist of random samples, although one hopes they
did.
This is a qualitative statement, not quantitative. "Massive"
needs to be supported by quantitative data before I will accept it as a
"fact". But yes, I agree there is good evidence of
"irregularities", and probably in all these states. More than
vote miscounts, however - some of the best documented evidence includes
incidents where the voter was unable to vote at all.

_______________________________________________________________________
Were ALL these pre and post-election polls BIASED?
SHE NOW AGREES, ALL POLLS ARE PROBABLY NOT BIASED
BUT FALSELY CLAIMS THAT BUSH LED PRE-ELECTION POLLS
FEBBLE:
Probably not.  A pre election poll cannot "confirm" what happened
in an election. And I was following the pre-election polls closely, and they
certainly weren't telling me that "Bush lost". And yes, they may
have been biased, some more than others, some in on direction some in
another.
FEBBLE AVOIDS THE ISSUE. NOW SHE CLAIMS IT WAS “TOO CLOSE TO CALL”
NOT TRUE;  PROFESSOR SAM WANG AND I GAVE KERRY A 99% WIN PROBABILITY.
FEBBLE:
I dunno - what is it about "too close to call" 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?
SHE CLAIMS THAT IT'S PLAUSIBLE THAT "SLIGHTLY" MORE BUSH VOTERS 
WERE RELUCTANT TO BE EXIT POLLED THAN GORE VOTERS
AND THAT "SOME" GORE VOTERS MISTAKENLY RECALLED VOTING FOR BUSH. 
REALLY? SORRY FEBBLE, THAT DOG WON'T EVER HUNT.
IF THAT'S THE BASIS OF YOUR CASE...THEN YOU HAVE NO CASE. 
I'LL STICK WITH REAL EIRS EVIDENCE: 
86 OF 88 MACHINES SWITCHED KERRY VOTES TO BUSH. 
WHY DON'T YOU ANALYZE THAT?
FEBBLE:
I have no idea why TIA thinks the recalled vote data "debunks"
non-response bias as an explanation for the discrepancy between poll and
count. I certainly wouldn't describe the hypothesis as "shy Bush
voters", but I find it perfectly plausible to postulate that slightly
more of the "reluctant" voters (and we know there were a lot)
were Bush voters than Kerry voters. Of the "non-reluctant"
voters, I also find it perfectly plausible that some Gore voters mistakenly
recalled voting for Bush; OTOH cited an actual longitudinal study in which
voters who voted for Gore later recalled voting for Bush. If similar
proportions did so in the exit poll, it would account for the exit poll
data Bush/Gore proportions. 

_______________________________________________________________________
Was it early Kerry voters?
Was it early women voters?
SHE AVOIDS THE FACTS – CALLS THE EXIT POLL TIMELINE IRRELEVANT
FEBBLE:
Neither of these, as we both know. The timeline is irrelevant. The timeline
simply reflects dynamic re-weighting processes. We know, in any case, from
the E-M report that the problem was at the level of the precincts - a
greater proportion of Kerry voters were sampled on the poll than were
represented in the vote.

_______________________________________________________________________
Was it False Gore voter recall?
SHE SAYS YES, IT WAS (WTF!) 
FEBBLE:
I have to believe this assertion (not a fact) is willful denial of
perfectly good evidence. Check back to the Game thread for OTOH's source.
Inaccurate vote recall is a well-attested phenomenon, and often favours the
incumbent.

_______________________________________________________________________
Was it Bad weather early in the day keeping Bush voters home?
SHE SAYS MAYBE (WTF!)
FEBBLE:
Well, they didn't have to queue as long in Ohio, so maybe. But the evidence
suggests not.

_______________________________________________________________________
Was it inexperienced pollsters?
SHE SAYS THAT'S HER BEST GUESS (WTF!)
FEBBLE:
This is my best guess. They had, I understand, a brief telephone training.
Not enough for what is actually a remarkably difficult job.

_______________________________________________________________________
Was it the exit poll "cluster effect"?
Ok, enter your "design effect" into the Interactive Election
Model.
Let's see how many states will deviate beyond the MoE for Bush.
FEBBLE  KNOWS SHE CANNOT  COME UP WITH A  PLAUSIBLE  BUSH WIN SCENARIO. SHE
AVOIDS THIS LONG-DEBUNKED NAYSAYER TALKING POINT BECAUSE SHE KNOWS THAT
EVEN ASSUMING A PLAUSIBLE CLUSTER EFFECT, THIS WOULD HARDLY REDUCE
THE PROBABILITY OF THE VOTE EXCEEDING THE MOE FOR BUSH. IT MIGHT DROP FROM 1 IN
19 TRILLION (16 STATES) TO SOMETHING LESS OUTRAGEOUS, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE
ASTRONOMICAL, DEPENDING ON THE ASSUMED CLUSTER FACTOR. FEBBLE CAN TEST IT OUT 
HERSELF IF SHE WOULD DARE TO TRY USING THE ELECTION MODEL...
FEBBLE:
TIA should stop using these scare quotes, and find out what a DESR actually
is (I've attempted to explain, and even gave him a link).
No, because I do not share the assumption of the model that the only source
of error in the polls is sampling error (DESR is also an estimate of
sampling error).

_______________________________________________________________________
And how does one explain 30% poll deviations in the Ohio 2005 election?
SHE THINKS A 30% DEVIATION IS POSSIBLE, BASED ON THE DRE COUNTIES 
FEBBLE:
Well I think there are a number of possible explanations, but I thought we
were talking about 2004? Possible there was fraud, although the finding by
Klinkner that the discrepancy was not greater in DRE counties doesn't
suggest DRE fraud particularly. But as I keep saying, until Ohio gets
cleaned up, no-one will know the answer.

_______________________________________________________________________
How much evidence is necessary to prove the DRE fix?
SHE AVOIDS MENTIONING THAT THE GAO REPORT CONFIRMED THE ELECTION WAS
STOLEN. 
FEBBLE:
How much? Well, I'd like to see something more convincing that we've got.
But I agree they are a terrible idea, on many, many, counts, and quite
absurdly insecure, as the GAO report points out.

_______________________________________________________________________
Were the pre-election polls biased, as well?
SHE SAYS THEY PROBABLY WERE AND THAT I CHERRY-PICKED THE POLLS
(NOT TRUE, I USED THE SAME 18 RV/LV NATIONAL POLLS FOR 4 MONTHS)
FEBBLE:
Oh, I thought we'd done this bit. Probably they were, but clearly not all
in one direction. I think TIA eliminated the polls he thought were biased
for Bush. I am sure they had non-sampling error, and tracking polls
suggested some polls tended to track higher than others. This suggests that
bias was a problem, and that certain pollsters tended to have a particular
bias. This is highly likely, as bias is a function of methodology. One of
the reasons I dispute TIA's lumping of polls together is that it ignores
between-poll error (what is sometimes called "random effects"
variance. It seems fairly clear that each poll had a characteristic
"bias". It's the same in the UK. The one I like is ICM (for the
Guardian) as it allows for "shy Tories" - it therefore tends to
track Labour lower than the others - and generally gets closer to the
result.

_______________________________________________________________________
No, the 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.
SHE CALLS MY RECITATION OF  NAYSAYER MYTHS “RHETORIC” 
FEBBLE:
This is pure rhetoric, not argument. See above.

_______________________________________________________________________
For naysayers to say that they wanted a Kerry win is a canard.
They 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.
SHE CALLS MY EXPOSURE OF NAYSAYER ALLEGIANCE TO MITOFSKY “RHETORIC” 
FEBBLE:
Again, this is pure rhetoric. I will leave well alone.

_______________________________________________________________________
They say the math is correct.
But they don't agree with the assumptions.
What assumptions?
SHE KEEPS REPEATING THE MANTRA 
FEBBLE:
1. Random sampling
2. Random sampling
3. Random sampling


_______________________________________________________________________
That pre-election polls favored Kerry?
I can prove it. Go to pollingreport.com
SHE AVOIDS THE FACTS – I ALREADY LISTED ALL THE POLLS 
FEBBLE:
See mine (and others', including OTOH's, responses on this thread.

_______________________________________________________________________
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.
SHE AVOIDS THE FACT THAT NEW VOTERS (1ST TIME VOTERS AND THOSE WHO VOTED
PRIOR TO 2000) WENT STRONGLY FOR KERRY. 
SHE SHOULD CHECK THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL AT THE 7:33 TIMELINE..
SHE'LL FIND THAT PRIOR VOTERS VOTED FOR KERRY AT A HIGHER RATE THEN DID 1ST
TIME VOTERS..
FEBBLE:
Don't understand this. See my comment re time-line. We also can't
distinguish "new voters" from "rare voters". New voters
will tend to be young and might be expected to favour Kerry. Rare voters -
who knows? 

_______________________________________________________________________
That the 43/37% Bush/Gore voter share of the 2004 vote was impossible?
SHE CAN’T ESCAPE THIS ONE. OH DEAR, IT MUST KILL HER TO ADMIT IT.
FEBBLE:
Oh dear, round, and round, and round we go. No, I agree, that it is
unlikely that Bush voters are immortal. False recall seems much more likely
as an explanation - we actually know this is a phenomenon. The only immortal
I know personally is a Kerry voter (or I assume he is...)

_______________________________________________________________________
That the Final Exit Poll must be wrong?
Well, to match the vote, it applied fictitious weightings.
That all other Final demographics/vote shares must be wrong, as well?
Well, that's just simple logic.
Do I hear heads exploding?
Or is it just another terror alert?
That Kerry's Gender share was manipulated?
That the Party ID split was manipulated?
SHE AVOIDS ALL DISCUSSING THIS WITH A NON-DENIAL, 
REVERTING TO THE CONTINOUS RE-WEIGHTING CANARD.
FEBBLE:
This is getting silly. You seem to have forgotten that the projections were
continuously reweighted (and that they actually had some glitch with the
gender thing - it's in the E-M report, look it up).

_______________________________________________________________________
That the Census 2004 Vote Survey was wrong?
SHE AGREES BALLOT SPOILAGE WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCREPANCY
FEBBLE:
Well the Census people think that it overstates the # voted. 
But it seems clear that spoilage will contribute to the discrepancy.

_______________________________________________________________________
That millions of votes are spoiled in every election?
SHE IS RIGHT ABOUT THE WRONG MAN BEING INAUGURATED IN 2000, 
BUT DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT THE THIEF HAD TO STEAL IT IN 2004...
FEBBLE:
Dunno about millions, but yes it matters. It matters desperately, whether
it is intentional or structural discrimination. It is a serious Civil
Rights issue, and virtually certainly resulted in the Wrong Man being
inaugurated in January 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________
That the trend in Kerry/Bush response (alpha) disproves rBr?
SHE MISTATES THE FACTS: THE LINE IS NOT FLAT!
ALPHA WAS 1.5 IN HIGH BUSH PRECINCTS AND 1.0 IN  HIGH KERRY PRECINCTS 
FEBBLE: 
Well, as the coiner of "alpha" (actually it was my husband's
term, as he couldn't read my "x"s, but I suggested the measure,
and gave it that name) yes, I vigorously dispute this. Mitofsky tested
precisely this, and no, it does not decline. The line is statistically
flat.

_______________________________________________________________________
USCV proved rBr was a myth using simulation.
SHE COMPLETELY DISSEMBLES HERE. WHAT IS SHE SMOKING?  
ALPHA WAS 1.5 IN HIGH BUSH PRECINCTS AND 1.0 IN  HIGH KERRY PRECINCTS 
FEBBLE:
Correction: some members of USCV claimed their simulation indicated that
rBr was unlikely. Another member claimed his simulation indicated it was
perfectly possible. The first lot then accused the second lot of accusing
them of claiming that they'd proved rBr was a myth. Then there was a big
fight. I think the ones that claimed that alpha was higher in high Bush
precincts got it wrong. 

_______________________________________________________________________
I confirmed the USCV using the Exit Poll Response Optimizer.
SHE TRUSTS MITOFSKY’S CALCULATIONS OVER THOSE 
OF RON BAIMAN AT USCV OR THE TIA EXIT POLL OPTIMIZER.
WHEN WILL E-M OR THE MSM RELEASE THE DATA, FEBBLE?
WE ONLY WANT TO KNOW HOW THEY VOTED IN THE PRECINCTS. 
WE DON'T WANT THE RESPONDENT'S NAMES...
FEBBLE:
Well, I think "you" did too, for the same reasons as USCV did. I
wrote an entire geeky paper about it. But more to the point, Mitofsky
actually did the calculation, using the whole dataset, and it isn't.

_______________________________________________________________________
That Bush job approval on election day 2004 was not 48.5%?
SHE DISPUTES THE FACT THAT THE 11-POLL AVERAGE WAS 48.5%.
AND CONTINUES HER CHARADE THAT THE POLLS WERE NOT RANDOM SAMPLES.
SHE CAN PROVE IT TO HERSELF BY LOOKING AT THE ELECTION MODEL SITE.
FEBBLE: 
Well, prove it then. But remember that MoE assumes random sampling.

_______________________________________________________________________
That there is no way Bush could overcome 48.5% approval?
Oh, well there is one.
He could steal it.
SHE  COUCHES HER RESPONSE: BUSH “PROBABLY” DIDN’T STEAL IT. 
JUST IN CASE ELECTION FRAUD HITS THE MSM... 
FEBBLE:
Well, I seriously wondered if he could. My conclusion is probably didn't.

_______________________________________________________________________
That the Ohio exit poll showed Kerry the 52-48 winner?
SHE QUESTIONS THE EXIT POLL...
YET SHE AGREES THAT OHIO STANK TO HIGH HEAVEN.
FEBBLE IS A MAZE OF CONTRADICTIONS..
FEBBLE: 
Yup, something was biased. Was it the poll? Was it the count? That is the
question.

_______________________________________________________________________
That if Kerry won Ohio, he must have done better nationally?
SHE DOESN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE HISTORY OF U.S. ELECTIONS... 
UNAWARE THAT NO REPUBLICAN EVER WON THE PRESIDENCY WITHOUT WINNING OHIO.
WHAT DOES THAT TELL US ABOUT OHIO?
FEBBLE:
Cite please. And remember, as they say in the investment prospectuses, past
performance is no guide to future performance. Social science isn't physics.
Also there is an IF in there.

_______________________________________________________________________
That the 12:22am state and national exit polls each
confirming a Kerry victory is not believable?
Well, forty-two of 50 states deviated to Bush.
That's 1 in 2 million odds.
SHE THINKS IT WAS DUE TO BAD POLLING, BUT NOT CHANCE OR THEFT
FEBBLE:
Oh boy, round and round and round and round. Yes, the poll, or the count,
or both, seem to have been systematically. It certainly wasn't chance.

_______________________________________________________________________
That 50 state exit polls mirror 49 Ohio exit poll precincts?
Just a coincidence?
SHE THINKS IT WAS DUE TO BAD POLLING, BUT NOT TO CHANCE OR THEFT
FEBBLE: 
It certainly wasn't chance. It certainly wasn't chance. It certainly wasn't
chance. It certainly wazzzzzzzzzz.......

_______________________________________________________________________
That the 9% disparity between the voting shares of Florida optiscans and
DREs is virtually impossible?
Dem/Rep registrations were essentially equal in Optiscan and DRE counties.
SHE CONFOUNDS THE FACTS BY IGNORING THE EQUAL REGISTRATION RATIOS
FEBBLE:
Ah! Now I did some of this stuff.... What do you mean? Do you mean Hout's
finding that DRE's had greater discrepancies? Or Liddle/Dopp's/Mitteldorf's
finding that Optiscans did? Actually I think both analyses are invalid, as
there were huge demographic confounds - No DREs were used in very rural
counties, and no optiscans in the very large urban counties. Florida
smells, to me, but the machine thing is completely inconclusive.

_______________________________________________________________________
That sixteen of 50 states deviated beyond the MoE for Bush, none for Kerry?
The probability of that is 1 in 19 trillion.
SHE THINKS IT WAS ALL DUE TO BAD POLLING, BUT NOT CHANCE OR THEFT
FEBBLE:
....round and round and round and round......

_______________________________________________________________________
That ALL 22 Eastern Time Zone states deviated from Kerry to Bush?
1 in 4 million.
SHE THINKS IT WAS ALL DUE TO BAD POLLING, BUT NOT CHANCE OR THEFT
AND FORGETS THAT FL, OHIO, VA AND NC ARE IN THE EASTERN TIME ZONE
FEBBLE:
Hey! I thought it was the swing states? Oh no, it was the Republican
precincts - Oh no, it was the Democratic states....What is the point here
exactly?

_______________________________________________________________________
That eighty-six of 88 documented touch screens switched Kerry votes to
Bush?
See the EIRS database.
Do the math.
1 in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
SHE DOES NOT BELIEVE WE CAN INFER ANYTHING FROM 86 of 88 INCIDENTS (WTF?)
SHE CALLS THE CALCULATION IDIOTIC, BUT DOES NOT DO THE CALCULATION HERSELF.
FEBBLE, DO YOU NOW INFER THAT THE EIRS IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED EITHER?
FEBBLE:
The math here is truly bosh. Do we know how many machines these 88
incidents represent? Do we know whether the EIRS number was equally well
publicised in Dem as in Rep areas? If not, then we can't do that math. I'll
give you, it does look as though some machines may have defaulted to Bush.
It requires serious investigation (and abolition of those dratted machines.
It does not require idiotic probability calculations.

_______________________________________________________________________
SHE SAYS POLLSTERS CANNOT DESIGN VIRTUAL RANDOM SAMPLES
FEBBLE:
Ha! The bits that aren't pure rhetoric (including purely rhetorical
questions) are not facts at all! They are inferences based on assumptions -
every single one. You can't DO inferential statistics without making
assumptions, and the biggest one is RANDOM SAMPLING. In not a single case
cited can we assume anything like random sampling. What the probabilities
therefore tell us is that the "facts" inferred ARE NOT DUE TO
CHANCE. They do not tell us whether the non-chance cause was fraud or not.
For answers to that question we have to do further investigation. I've done
quite a bit of that myself, in terms of math, and many others have done
quite a bit of on the ground investigation. And having looked at the
accumulating evidence, some things are supported, some look shaky (like the
exit poll story, which I now believe does NOT support the case for
large-scale fraud).
But to assert that these are FACTS is quite misleading, and to imply that
the astromical (im) probability estimates are prima facie evidence of fraud
is to seriously misunderstand the nature of inferential statistics. And,
frankly, to mislead.

_______________________________________________________________________
Take a look at the graph below.
It shows a time line of pre-election and post election polls.
SHE KNOWS THE GRAPH. SHE SEES IT ALL THE TIME WHEN SHE LURKS ON PI.
FEBBLE:
I'll pass on this, as the graph doesn't seem to have channelled properly.

_______________________________________________________________________
Naysayers claim the "evidence" shows that Bush won the popular
vote.
I ask, what evidence?
SHE SAYS THE EXIT POLLS...PROVE BUSH WON (WTF?)
FEBBLE:
Well, I say that the only real evidence that Bush won the popular vote was
the exit poll discrepancy (I certainly don't count the pre-election polls),
and that if this was due to fraud, then fraud should have been correlated
with "swing" (change in Bush's vote since 2000). It wasn't, and I
think this makes the fraud explanation difficult to sustain. I certainly do
not claim that the "evidence" shohws that Bush won the popular
vote. I merely say that I do not believe that the exit poll provide any
evidence at all that he did not. And absent that evidence, I think it is
unlikely that Kerry did.


_______________________________________________________________________
If Kerry won the popular vote, doesn't that mean the exit polls (state and
national (12:22am) were therefore 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.
SHE CAN’T CONTRADICT ANY OF THIS SO...
SHE TAKES A RIDE ON HER MERRY-GO-ROUND 
FEBBLE:
....round and round and round and round....

_______________________________________________________________________
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Assuming REALISTIC, PLAUSIBLE, EQUAL weightings for Bush and Gore voters,
KERRY WINS EASILY, EVEN IF FINAL EXIT POLL PERCENTAGES,
WHICH WERE BIASED IN FAVOR OF BUSH, ARE USED.
PERIOD.
CASE CLOSED.
FINITO.
THE SMOKING GUN.
QUERE MAS?

FEBBLE:
As I said, if it makes you happy.

_______________________________________________________________________
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/duboard.ph ...

_______________________________________________________________________
In the "Game", the naysayers claimed that Bush won 15% of Gore
voters.
And that Kerry won only 52% of those who did not vote in 2000.
Can they ever come up with a plausible Bush win scenario?
I doubt it.
SHE REPONDS TO THE CHALLENGE BY CHANTING THE MANTRA..
FEBBLE:
....random sampling random sampling random sampling....

_______________________________________________________________________
Note to Land Shark:
The TOTALITY of pre-election and exit poll data provide SOLID
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the election was stolen.
The NUMBERS have been silently screaming for a year.
The fact that ONE YEAR LATER, there's strong DOUBT about who really won,
should be sufficient to convince the public that something must be done
ASAP to restore our democracy.

SHE MISTATES MY POSITION (MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CLEAR)THAT 
I’M CONVINCED THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN, BUT THE PUBLIC IS NOT...
FEBBLE:
And again, I whole-heartedly agree!  The fact that this conversation is
even happening is evidence of the degree to which your democracy has been
sabotaged!
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.

_______________________________________________________________________
FEBBLE, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING MORE TO SAY AT THIS POINT.
OUR POSTINGS ARE ENGRAVED IN STONES WHICH CRY OUT TO BE HEARD..
THANKS TO BOTH YOU AND OTOH FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE EVOLVING DEBATE... 
FEBBLE:
Beyond that, we will have to agree to differ.

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.

Thanks TIA. I don't have much to offer here, but I wanted you to know that I read everything you post avidly and very much appreciate it.

Why there aren't any academic papers published in peer-reviewed journals on this issue! Don't tell me it's because academics are pro-Chimpy! The opposite. A solid paper on these issues would be easily accepted for publication.

But there has been a lockdown in the media on the fraud from Day One.
The MSM have the raw data.
But they won't let us see it.
Wonder why.

They claim that they need to respect privacy of the respondents.
Well, we don't want to know anything about the respondent's.
We just want to know how they filled out the forms.

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.

to know on top of your head in what journal they were published so I can look it up? Much appreciated.

What is your take on this go-round with Febble?
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Be as general or as specific as you would like.

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.

The back and forth has been fascinating, and you have taken every fall. That is obvious to me, yet I wonder if it it to most people.

This reminds me of a situation years ago when I was debating with someone in my company aboiut the value of the inventory in our warehouse. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it went something like this: Pete had set up a computerized live inventory system and according to his figures we had a million point five in inventory. I told him that was impossible, to which he responded with long and detailed explanations of how products got into the virtual inventory (although he didn't make a distinction between the virtual inventory and the actual inventory, as he was convinced from the outset that they were one and the same) and smugly and impatiently "proved" to me that his inventory figure was accurate.

I said that nevertheless his figure was impossible. "How can you possibly know that?" he asked. I explained to him that we could assign a value per cubic inch to each product, and that it was easy to figure out which product had the highest vale per cubic inch - the product with a combination of the smallest size and the highest price. That was easy since everyone was aware of that, as they were the products most vulnerable to pilferage. That told me that a particular 200 dollar tool we sold that was 6 inches by 2 inches by one inch was the most "value dense" product we had in inventory. The cubic feet in the warehouse was also easy to figure out. So, from there we can compute what the total value of the inventory would be if the entire warehouse were packed floor to ceiling, wall to wall (which it was not, as their are aisleways for one thing, and room for lights on the ceiling for another, and many partially empty shelves for yet another) with our most value dense product (of which we actually had 5 on hand). Since that total came to $600,000 - less than half of his figure - therefore we could with a great degree of certainty state that his figure was vastly inflated.

Still he fought and argued much like Febble has with you. Finally my boss said that we would settle it by closing down for three days and hand counting everything. No need for that, I said. How close does it need to be? Plus or minus 10% was the reply. I said I could do that in an hour by myself (and did succesfully, but that is another story.)

Pete never did agree, and spent the next year campaigning in the organization for his new theory that the "missing" inventory must have been stolen. Using that same maximum value density product, I computed how many man hours and how many trucks it would take to steal that much from the warehouse, and it was obvious that it would have had to have been a 'round the clock effort taking the entire staff and then some doing nothing but stealing the most value dense product, let alone transporting and fencing it. His theory was absurd, in other words.

I decided after that episode that a lot of people must have difficulty seeing the forest for the trees - that their obsession over the "trees" somehow defines for them what the "forest" must be and they can't shake that prejudice and are unaware that they even have a prejudice.

I have always been really terrible with the "trees" but very good with the "forest." I was notorious at the bank for having miscounted the bills when I made up a deposit, yet I could always come up with the day's sales figures (give or take a percent or so) off the top of my head. So I have never been very alert when something small was off, but when something big is off I can smell it somehow. This election was something big that was off - the "forest" was wrong, never mind the trees.

Febble seems stuck on the "trees" while you have a good grasp of both the "forest" and the "trees."

I admire your persistence and patience in pursuing the truth.

But as far as Febble and OTOH over there at DU:
I cannot believe that they believe their own propaganda.

Every day they catapult the bullshit.
They see the trees.
They see the forest.

But for some reason, they don't want others to see it.

I hope they enjoy the holidays.
With Frosty the strawman.

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.

"I hope they enjoy the holidays.
With Frosty the strawman."

Hell, I could even follow it.

I was laughing the whole time.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for...." The Elders, Hopi Nation.

Past liberal, past progressive, all the way to full blown dissident.... Me

Called "Parable of a Rigged Game." You might appreciate the diary.

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

"We are the ones we've been waiting for...." The Elders, Hopi Nation.

Past liberal, past progressive, all the way to full blown dissident.... Me

So in the last presidential election, after having watched various things over the last 40 years - exit polls, gender voting preferences, the AA community turnout, the pre-election polls, the GOTV by the Dems, the relative interest in the election, etc. a picture of the "forest" emerges and you can get a pretty good iodea as to where the possible unknown variables are and which key districts and variables to watch. When I used to work in campaigns in Detroit back in the 70's. As soon as the polls closed I had a list of what info I needed from which precincts (and I had cultivated friendships with the key poll workers) to make a prediction and drove around to get that info - turnout in certain districts, how the swing vote was trending in others - and within an hour or two I knew if my candidate had won or lost even though it would be hours before the final count was in. Unfortunately, it was often a thankless task, since I would return to campaign HQ all proud of myself that I had accurately figured out the result before anyone else, only to realize that I was bringing very bad news to the candidate and staff, and so I got no plaudits. But - I was really GOOD at bringing bad news LOL.

There are always surprises in elections, but there are ranges within which the surprises can logically occur, and until 2004 I never saw an election where so many surprises occured outside the range of logical possibility. As the results rolled in that night, and impossible surprise after impossible surprise turned up, I knew that there was something seriously off.

By the way, TIA, I have a theory as to how the theft was coordinated. When I was playing on the gospel circuit, back in the 90's, this phenomenon started happening of "prayer meetings" and I was invited to a few. Only they weren't prayer meetings, they were clandestine right wing political meetings, and there was always a "visiting preacher" bringing information and directives to the cell from who knows where. When I watched the Bush people travelling around the country to key districts before the election and holding "prayer meetings" with local Republican operatives, I knew something was afoot. Who would ever question "prayer meetings" and the "doing a sacred duty for the Lord" context is perfect for maintaining secrecy among true believers.

Those prayer meetings I was invited to were in Alabam and Mississippi, and I remember being struck by how "Klan-like" they were. People who donlt believe the election was stolen because "you can't keep a secret that big" or "you could never coordinate something so vast" need to look at the history of the Klan in Mississippi. Big secrets can be kept pretty well and for a long time. Huge operations can be coordinated that are invisible to prying eyes.

Damn.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for...." The Elders, Hopi Nation.

Past liberal, past progressive, all the way to full blown dissident.... Me

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.

cont.

see the full debate in the original post...

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.

you may be interested in this...

http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sampl...

Random Sampling Overview

If you are collecting data on a large group of people (called a "population"), you might want to minimize the impact that the survey will have on the group that you are surveying. It is often not necessary to survey the entire population. Instead, you can select a random sample of people from the population and survey just them. You can then draw conclusions about how the entire population would respond based on the responses from this randomly selected group of people. This is exactly what political pollsters do - they ask a group of people a list of questions and based on their results, they draw conclusions about the population as a whole with those often heard disclaimers of "plus or minus 5%."

If you are simply looking at one large group of people as a whole, the process of determining a random sample is pretty straightforward. You will need to know how many people are in the entire group and how "accurate" you want your results to be (see "Statistical Confidence" below). Anytime you survey a portion of a population, there will be some margin of error in the results, but when the margin of error is reduced to just a few percentage points, it often becomes of little concern.

....

Stratified Random Sampling
More often than not, you will want to not only examine the results from the overall population, but also understand the differences between key demographic subgroups within the population. For example, you might want to understand the differences between males and females or senior managers and regular employees. If you plan to look at distinct subgroups such as these, you should perform a stratified random sample.

......

Statistical Accuracy - Confidence and Error
In order to understand random sampling, you need to become familiar with a couple of basic statistical concepts.

1. Error - This is that "plus or minus X%" that you hear about. What it means is that you feel confident that your results have an error of no more than X%.

2. Confidence - This is how confident you feel about your error level. Expressed as a percentage, it is the same as saying if you were to conduct the survey multiple times, how often would you expect to get similar results.

These two concepts work together to determine how accurate your survey results are. For example, if you have 90% confidence with an error of 4%, you are saying that if you were to conduct the same survey 100 times, the results would be within +/- 4% of the fist time you ran the survey 90 times out of 100.

If you are not sure what sort of error you can tolerate and what level of confidence you need, a good rule of thumb is to aim for 95% confidence with a 5% error level.

Error is also referred to as the "confidence interval" and Confidence is also known as "Confidence Level." In order to avoid confusion, these concepts will simply be referred to as "Error" and "Confidence" in this article.

....

Performing a Stratified Random Sample
If you are performing a stratified random sample, there are a couple of additional steps that you need to take.

1. Determine the size of the smallest subgroup in your population. For example, if you want to look at males vs. females and there are fewer females, then this is the group you want to look at.
2. Calculate the number of people required to achieve your desired error level and level of confidence for this subgroup.
3. Calculate what percentage of people that you will need to survey within this subgroup (number of people to survey divided by total subgroup size).
4. Finally, calculate the number of people in each of the other subgroups that are needed to achieve this same ratio (multiply the percentage from step 3 by the size of each of the other subgroups). This is how many people you will need to survey within each group.

.....

Adjusting for Estimated Response Rate
This last and very important step might require a bit of guesswork. At this point, you have figured out how many responses you need from your population or from each subgroup within your population. If every one of those people were to respond to your survey, then you would be all set; however, in reality, many of the people you have randomly selected will not complete your survey. You will need to estimate what percentage of people you expect to respond. Response rates can vary widely depending on the population and the nature of the survey. You can use past experience, your knowledge of the population, and the nature of the survey itself (longer surveys will have lower response rates) to come up with your best estimate. You will then need to figure out how many people you need to ask to complete the survey in order to get your desired number of responses.

Once you have come up with your best estimate of the response rate, just divide the number of people needed by the response rate percentage to figure out how many people you need to ask to complete the survey. For example, if you determined that you need 500 people to respond to your survey and you estimate that 75% of people will complete the survey, you will need to ask 667 people to complete the survey in order to get 500 responses (500 / 0.75 = 667).


more...

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.

MY COMMENTS ARE IN UPPER-CASE AND REFER TO FEBBLE'S REPLY (lower case) WHICH
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW.

FIRST, A RANT. THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT A SINGLE POLL; THERE WERE HUNDREDS OF
POLLS, ALL IN CONFIRMATION. WHY NOT ACCEPT THE RESULTS? WHY CAN'T WE AGREE THAT
THE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN SILENTLY SCREAMING FOR US TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PHASE:
LET'S GET THE GAO REPORT TO THE MEDIA AND USE IT TO FORCE DEMOCRATS (AND
REPUBLICANS) OTHER THAN CONYERS OR BOXER OR HOLT TO GET OUT IN FRONT OF THE
ISSUE ONCE AND FOR ALL. THE HELL WITH IRAQ - DEMOCRACY BEGINS AT HOME. 

LET'S GET RID OF THOSE PARTISAN VOTING MACHINES WHICH HELPED BUSH STEAL THE
ELECTION AND REVERT TO PAPER BALLOTS, HAND-COUNTED BY THREE OBSERVERS. WHERE
ARE THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS? WHERE IS THE MEDIA? TO QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF THE
POLLS WITH ALL THE OTHER CONFIRMING EVIDENCE AT THIS LATE DATE IS A MAJOR
DIVERSIONARY TACTIC. WE HAVE SEEN THE EVIDENCE. THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS IS
STILL IN EFFECT. NOW IT'S TIME FOR SOME ACTION.

END OF RANT...

FEBBLE PROVIDES A DETAILED REBUTTAL TO THE ORIGINAL POST:
MOSTLY UNSUPPORTABLE HYPOTHESES AT VARIANCE WITH EVIDENCE THAT: 
A) MITOFSKY'S OWN DATA SHOWS A PRO-BUSH EXIT POLL BIAS. 
B) FIRST-TIME AND PRIOR VOTERS WHO STAYED HOME IN 2000 BROKE 3-2 FOR KERRY.
C) FORMER NADERITES WENT FOR KERRY BY 3-1.
D) UNDECIDED VOTERS BROKE 3-2 FOR KERRY, AT MINIMUM.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GORE VOTERS DESERTED KERRY; ON THE CONTRARY,
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ABOUNDS: REPUBLICANS DESERTED BUSH FOR KERRY AND NOT
VICE-VERSA. THIS IS JUST BASIC HUMAN BEHAVIOR. WHY WOULD DEMOCRATIC GORE VOTERS
ABANDON KERRY FOR BUSH AFTER HE STOLE THE 2000 ELECTION? WELL, THEY WOULDN'T.
BUSH IS NOT JFK OR FDR. ASK HELEN THOMAS. LET'S GET REAL HERE. EVEN FEBBLE
CONCEDES THAT GORE WON. 

FEBBLE DISMISSES PRE-ELECTION AND EXIT POLL EVIDENCE THAT KERRY WON, YET AT THE
SAME TIME COUCHES HER "BELIEF" THAT HE LOST. SHE AGREES THAT FRAUD
OCCURRED IN 2004, BUT NOT ENOUGH FOR BUSH TO STEAL THE ELECTION. FEBBLE, WHY
COMMIT FRAUD IF YOU DON'T NEED IT IN ORDER TO WIN THE ELECTION? 

ODDLY, SHE CLAIMS THE EXIT POLLS SHOW THAT BUSH WON, EVEN THOUGH BUSH ONLY LED
IN THE NOV.3 FINAL NATIONAL EXIT POLL (13660 RESPONDENTS) RELEASED AT 1:25PM.
COINCIDENTALLY, THIS WAS THE ONLY TIME THE EXIT POLL WAS MATCHED TO THE
RECORDED VOTE - A FULL TWELVE HOURS AFTER THE POLLS CLOSED. KERRY LED 51-48% AT
EACH OF THE PRIOR TIME LINES: 12:22AM (13047 RESPONDENTS), 7:33PM (11027) AND
4PM (8349). 

FEBBLE ARGUES THAT ALL POLLS ARE BIASED AND THEREFORE NO INFERENCES SHOULD BE
DRAWN FROM THEM AS THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE 100% "PROOF". THIS IS JUST
A RED-HERRING. THE POLLS PROVIDE HIGHLY PERSUASIVE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND
A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH? WHY FIGHT
THE NUMBERS? WHY CREATE DIVERSIONS? WHO NEEDS 100% PROOF? ISN'T 99.9% ENOUGH TO
GET STARTED?

FEBBLE HYPOTHESIZES "FALSE RECALL" AS BEING A GORE VOTER AFFLICTION.
THAT’S HER EXPLANATION FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE 43%/37% BUSH/GORE 2000 WEIGHTS. ALONG
WITH THE RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER (rBr), THEY CONSTITUTE THE NAYSAYERS BEST
EVIDENCE IN EXPLAINING THE EXIT POLL DISCREPANCIES. 

WHAT A DUO. LIKE MARTIN & LEWIS. LIKE LAUREL & HARDY. WHAT A PAIR.
THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT, I GUESS.

She repeats the mantra – that polls are not random samples (WTF?):
“1. Random sampling”
”2. Random sampling”
”3. Random sampling”

_______________________________________________________________________
  
Febble  (1000+ posts)     
Sat Dec-03-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message

75. OK, these are my words:
....................................................................
"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.)"
.....................................................................

more...

See the rest in the original post, in which the three posts are consolidated
for ease of reference...

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.

the place is not the same without you. (Insert sobbing smilie here) Not nearly
as much fun or as entertaining..I visit here once in a while but it is just not
the same. Conversations run too slow.. Just wanted to let you know you are
missed.
Hugs,
Melissa

Register ALL the People! Count ALL the Votes! Make the process Transparent and Verifiable! And do it NOW!

It is being channeled from infinite Space and Time.
Want proof?

Notice how the naysayers are quick to appear 
at the mere mention of the medium.

And Harry Houdini has had nothing to do with it.

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.

http://dvd-rw.by.ru/dvd/0-9/2001_space_odyssey/images/2001_space_odyssey_fg1b.jpg

Obrador for President Site

Or is it Madamme Tousseau?

"We are the ones we've been waiting for...." The Elders, Hopi Nation.

Past liberal, past progressive, all the way to full blown dissident.... Me

But I will show up from time to time as a channelled spirit.

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.

I don't think it's because it's too difficult for them. They manage to always keep their understanding a bridge too far. Cross that one and another apears that concerned them not the day before. Some form of dogma. Don't know how you perservere.

"Or was it that you knew that Bush was running for re-selection again? And that the "rules" don't apply to him."

You do have moments of clarity...

one if by land, two if by sea..

Febble is hopelessly illogical and inconsistent in her thinking; has never
contributed anything to the advancement of the science of exit poll analysis;
and reinvents the past whenever it is convenient to "win" her
argument.

EXAMPLE 1: INCONSISTENCY

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. 

SUNSHINEKATHY:
Febble says she does not "accept that what has happened before will
necessarily happen again".  Yet when it is convenient to her conclusions
she defends the hypothesis that "if there is vote fraud, then there would
be an increase in Bush vote share from 2000 to 2004 coupled with high WPD where
his increase was greatest".  This assumes that voters in the same precincts
vote the same way they did four years ago unless there were fraud.  This is
equivalent to claiming that US presidents always win second terms.

EXAMPLE 2: REINVENTING THE FACTS

FEBBLE SAYS:
Correction: some members of USCV claimed their simulation indicated that
rBr was unlikely. Another member claimed his simulation indicated it was
perfectly possible. The first lot then accused the second lot of accusing
them of claiming that they'd proved rBr was a myth. Then there was a big
fight. I think the ones that claimed that alpha was higher in high Bush
precincts got it wrong. 

SUNSHINEKATHY:
The above is invented fiction which has nothing to do with reality, which is
why she was removed from the USCV statisticians list - for lack of integrity
(or is it delusional fiction?)

EXAMPLE 3: COMPLETE LACK OF LOGICAL ABILITY

Read this brief compendium that includes all of Febble's arguments supporting
accurate vote counts in the November 2004 election which shows that Febble has
done no (I repeat zero, none, nada,..) logically valid or mathematically
correct exit polls analyses that she has publicly released. 

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/IncorrectElectionDataAnalysis-06.pdf

Febble's has a talent for inventing sophistry.   None of her work which was
presented by Mitofsky at any AAPOR or ASA conference was mathematically
correct.

LIDDLE'S TALENTS INCLUDE:

1. Using a minor inconsequential error to dismiss the correct (in all essential
ways) work of others.

2. Reinventing her own and others past actions

3. Inventing sophisms to mislead people (& herself?)

4. Being illogical and inconsistent

5. Mischaracterizing the work of others

6. Promoting herself at the expense of the group and our civilization

I don't see how you do it TIA.  IMO Febble would never honestly admit that she
were wrong about anything.  The best I've seen is that she begins to deny she
said something that was disproven after she said it.

This short 6-page compendium includes mathematical proofs that Febble's
attempts to dismiss the evidence of outcome-altering vote miscount in the 2006
election were mathematically invalid.

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/IncorrectElectionDataAnalysis-06.pdf


Febble pretends that she is an expert when it is I, not her, who derived ALL
the new algebra to analyze exit poll discrepancy data to judge whether its
patterns are more consistent with vote miscounts or with partisan response
bias.   

Febble's only contribution to the field of exit poll analysis was goading
myself and Ron Baiman into proving that her conclusions were wrong and her
sophistry was just that.  Febble goaded me into advancing the field of exit
poll analysis (see
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit-Poll-Analysis.pdf) and she
goaded Ron into applying time tested and true statistical methods (which
Mitofsky & Febble avoided like the plague) to analyze Ohio's exit poll
data.

However, without Febble's meddling in American democracy, we probably would
have had the funding by now that we desparately need to protect our upcoming
November election.

I do not think that Febble is even worth speaking with, unless you have lots of
time to waste.  Although she has entirely misled some pretty influential
Americans and thus the US press with her sophisms, I do not believe that anyone
of import believes anything she says anymore and I do not believe that Mitofsky
would ever present any of her sophisms at any conference again.

That said, I really appreciate your laying it all out here TIA.  And I am very
glad that you have recovered thanks to a wonderful wife.

I will alert a few people to your post here, including Farhad who may still be
blindly misled by OTOH and Febble into printing his wrongful attacks on honest
dedicated researchers.  Perhaps someone could also alert Mark Blumenthal to
this discussion thread.

TIA, I highly recommend reading this rebuttal of Febble and OTOH:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/IncorrectElectionDataAnalysis-06.pdf

I am very happy that your wife was so wonderful and that you are better. Your
explanations get better and better.

Please subscribe to our email list at http://electionarchive.org so that you
can get our news.

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