FASTEN SEAT BELTS. THIS IS THE CLINCHER.

[TruthIsAll]

 
Assume 100% of ALL LIVING Bush 2000 voters (50.456 voted for
him, 48.68 million =39.82% of 122.26 are still alive) turned
out to vote. 

Next assume that 45.23 million (37% of 122.26 mm) former Gore
voters turned out. That's only a 92.2% voter turnout. So we
are giving Bush a head-start here. The 37% number is right out
of the Final exit poll.

In fact, we are going to assume that ALL the Final Exit Poll
stats are correct, except for the 43% Bush - 37% Gore mix. 
That's an impossible mix, since the total Bush 2000 vote
divided by the total 2004 vote = 50.456/122.26 = 41.26%. 

Even with the Bush head start, Kerry still wins by
50.22%-48.4%, a 2.23 million vote margin.

See Case # 14 and the Final Exit poll column (Kerry wins 54%
of new voters).

NOW FOR THE THE CLINCHER:

KERRY IS THE WINNER IN ALL 120 = 20*6 SCENARIOS OF LIVE VOTER
TURNOUT, ASSUMING THE FINAL EXIT POLL (13660) STATS.

KERRY EVEN WINS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO (CASE 20):

IN THIS SCENARIO, WE ASSUME A MISERABLE 88.6% Gore TURNOUT
(35.50% OF 122.26).
KERRY STILL WINS BY 49.66% - 48.94%.
THAT'S AN 870,000 VOTE MARGIN.				

120 OUT OF 120.
PRETTY GOOD AVERAGE.
NO PROBABILTIES.
JUST SIMPLE ARITHMETIC.

1+1 STILL =2, DESPITE WHAT THE MSM WOULD LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE.

					KERRY NATIONAL VOTE SCENARIOS					
					New Voter Share and Gore 2000 Voter Turnout					
					(Assume 100% Turnout of Bush 2000 voters)					

	Assumed		Prelim.	Prelim.				Final		
	Turnout	Turnout	7:38pm	12:22am				2:05pm	2000 Voter Mix	
	Bush	Gore	11027	13047				13660	Bush   Gore
			KERRY SHARE OF NEW VOTERS							
Case			59%	58%	57%	56%	55%	54%		
1	100.0%	100.0%	52.28%	52.11%	51.94%	51.77%	51.59%	51.42%	39.82%	40.25%
2	100.0%	99.4%	52.20%	52.03%	51.85%	51.68%	51.50%	51.33%	39.82%	40.00%
3	100.0%	98.8%	52.12%	51.95%	51.77%	51.59%	51.41%	51.23%	39.82%	39.75%
4	100.0%	98.2%	52.04%	51.86%	51.68%	51.50%	51.32%	51.14%	39.82%	39.50%
5	100.0%	97.6%	51.96%	51.78%	51.60%	51.42%	51.23%	51.05%	39.82%	39.25%
										
6	100.0%	97.0%	51.88%	51.70%	51.51%	51.33%	51.14%	50.96%	39.82%	39.00%
7	100.0%	96.4%	51.80%	51.62%	51.43%	51.24%	51.05%	50.86%	39.82%	38.75%
8	100.0%	95.8%	51.72%	51.53%	51.34%	51.15%	50.96%	50.77%	39.82%	38.50%
9	100.0%	95.2%	51.64%	51.45%	51.26%	51.07%	50.87%	50.68%	39.82%	38.25%
10	100.0%	94.6%	51.56%	51.37%	51.17%	50.98%	50.78%	50.59%	39.82%	38.00%

11	100.0%	94.0%	51.48%	51.29%	51.09%	50.89%	50.69%	50.49%	39.82%	37.75%
12	100.0%	93.4%	51.40%	51.20%	51.00%	50.80%	50.60%	50.40%	39.82%	37.50%
13	100.0%	92.8%	51.32%	51.12%	50.92%	50.72%	50.51%	50.31%	39.82%	37.25%
14	100.0%	92.2%	51.24%	51.04%	50.83%	50.63%	50.42%	50.22%	39.82%	37.00%
15	100.0%	91.6%	51.16%	50.96%	50.75%	50.54%	50.33%	50.12%	39.82%	36.75%

16	100.0%	91.0%	51.08%	50.87%	50.66%	50.45%	50.24%	50.03%	39.82%	36.50%
17	100.0%	90.4%	51.00%	50.79%	50.58%	50.37%	50.15%	49.94%	39.82%	36.25%
18	100.0%	89.8%	50.92%	50.71%	50.49%	50.28%	50.06%	49.85%	39.82%	36.00%
19	100.0%	89.2%	50.84%	50.63%	50.41%	50.19%	49.97%	49.75%	39.82%	35.75%
20	100.0%	88.6%	50.76%	50.54%	50.32%	50.10%	49.88%	49.66%	39.82%	35.50%
							
 
 

[Melissa G]

1. kick for TIA!

[TruthIsAll]

38. KERRY NATIONAL VOTE MARGIN OF VICTORY

		KERRY NATIONAL VOTE MARGIN OF VICTORY					
For 120 New Voter and Gore 2000 Voter Turnout Scenarios					
		(Assume 100% Turnout of Bush 2000 voters)					
							
Assumed		Prel.	    Prel.	               Final
Turnout	     	7:38pm	    12:22am			2:05pm
Bush	 	11027	    13047			13660
100%

        KERRY WINNING MARGIN IN MILLIONS OF VOTES

	Turnout   KERRY SHARE OF NEW VOTERS					
Case	GORE	59%	58%	57%	56%	55%	54%

1	100%	7.29	6.86	6.44	6.02	5.59	5.17
2	99.4%	7.09	6.66	6.23	5.80	5.37	4.94
3	98.8%	6.89	6.46	6.02	5.59	5.15	4.72
4	98.2%	6.70	6.26	5.82	5.37	4.93	4.49
5	97.6%	6.50	6.06	5.61	5.16	4.71	4.26
							
6	97.0%	6.31	5.85	5.40	4.95	4.49	4.04
7	96.4%	6.11	5.65	5.19	4.73	4.27	3.81
8	95.8%	5.92	5.45	4.98	4.52	4.05	3.59
9	95.2%	5.72	5.25	4.78	4.30	3.83	3.36
10	94.6%	5.53	5.05	4.57	4.09	3.61	3.13

11	94.0%	5.33	4.85	4.36	3.88	3.39	2.91
12	93.4%	5.13	4.64	4.15	3.66	3.17	2.68
13	92.8%	4.94	4.44	3.95	3.45	2.95	2.46
14	92.2%	4.74	4.24	3.74	3.23	2.73	2.23
15	91.6%	4.55	4.04	3.53	3.02	2.51	2.00

16	91.0%	4.35	3.84	3.32	2.81	2.29	1.78
17	90.4%	4.16	3.63	3.11	2.59	2.07	1.55
18	89.8%	3.96	3.43	2.91	2.38	1.85	1.32
19	89.2%	3.76	3.23	2.70	2.16	1.63	1.10
20	88.6%	3.57	3.03	2.49	1.95	1.41	0.87

[TruthIsAll]

44. THE GRAPH...

[GetTheRightVote]

2. kicking it for TIA

:kick:

[aquart]

3. Kick like a rockette.

[Maraya1969]

4. KICK AGAIN

:kick: :loveya:


But who is going to do what with these numbers? I understand what you are saying but WHO are you/we going to force to report this and demand something be done about it?

[TruthIsAll]

5. It's going to Conyers. n/t

.

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. I emailed your great list of threads to the Conyers site yesterday

as you asked. I haven't gotten a reply so far. I would think it would be a good thing for you to send it with your own name attached. I sent it to his blog site email address; maybe you could send to both there and his official government address?

[earth mom]

6. KICK!

:yourock:

[Old and In the Way]

7. Wow.

And this is worse case because:

(1) No way Bush gets 100% of his 2000 votes. We all know people who admitted they made that mistake. How many just wouldn't vote?

(2) Lots more dormant Democrats voted in this election.

(3) Most independents moved to Kerry.

The only way to prove anything now is a new poll, backed by voter affidavits that ask: who did you vote for? Both Republican and Democrats. Personally, I think all those registered Republicans who voted Kerry will be surprised to know their votes went to Bush...those were low hanging fruit.

One suggestion I'd make to Dr. Dean....invest in lots of good polling data in the run-up to the 2006 election. I think we were bullshitted by polls that oversampled Bush voters...that provided the cover tosteal the election.

[scarletlib]

14. i know i run in liberal circles but i honestly do not know anyone

i repeat, anyone who voted for bush here is west palm beach. i know there were some but i just don't believe he could have gotten that many votes.

[PowerToThePeople]

8. I like it. But a little confused.

Seems to me that the percentage of new voters should be going up as the percentage of returning Gore voters goes down. Because that would mean that the total returning voters dropped, thus more new voters appeared. Correct me if I am wrong.

[TruthIsAll]

12. The percentage of new voters does go up and is factored in...

That is another conundrum for NEP, since Kerry won at least 54% of new voters and as the number of new voters increase, so does Kerry's vote.

Total vote = 122.26 mm = Bush 2000 voters + Gore 2000 voters + Other (Nader 2000) + new voters.

The maximum number of Bush 2000 voters is 39.82% of 122.26.
The maximum number of Gore 2000 voters is 40.25% of 122.26.

Each 1 percent decline in Gore voters means a 1% increase in New voters, or .01*122.26= 1.223 million.

Kerry wins 660,000 (54%), Bush gets 550,000 (45%).

SO FOR EACH 1% INCREASE IN NEW VOTERS, KERRY INCREASES HIS MARGIN BY 110,000 VOTES.

[LatePeriduct]

9. Crap!! Now that's alot of dead guys

Hey this is amazing, and it looks like the State of Florida is finally paying attention to aggregators.

In their latest mainstream article you can read now in fact Florida feds criticize the aggregators for purging!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050328/APN/503281163

Looks like that everyone is finally starting to learn, if only they could prove it was done intentionally!

Well suspense will be killing me. Just letting you all know that Rodney hasn't forgotten anyone, he told us to tell everyone that he is editing the whole blog again so it can reach even more people.

I've been down and out lately, is why I ain't been posting. We that is, everybody who works in the team Rodney is on got attacked by Bozos for Bush like crazy and there was a whole wild fire backlash.

Now at least the attacks have stopped, and am happy to report things are under control.

Rodney wants everyone to tell you that they did uncover evidence of the department of agriculture and that this is not over, its about to blow open wide soon.

They are getting all of the evidence really neccesary together so that this case becomes air-tight and that people understand.

Me, I'm still fending off attacks from some crazy people. I'm keeping myself a low profile too because we've all been targeted by members of a cult based thing that has to do with center for public ethics and policy, which turned out pages and pages of reports on fake voters like dick tracy and mary poppins.

Great work though.

[BamaBecky]

11. kicking for truth!

[Disfronted]

13. You just proved if the election day exit polls are right Kerry won n/t

[TruthIsAll]

17. No, we have proved Kerry won, even assuming bogus Final Exit Poll stats

for the "How Voted in 2000" demographic, because the 43% Bush 2000 voter turnout is mathematically and physically impossible.

Of course, Kerry also won the earlier, preliminary polls outright.

[Disfronted]

27. But you use exit polls to allocate undecided voters n/t

[TruthIsAll]

33. There is no "undecided" voter ; you are confusing the demographic

We have
1) Bush 2000 voters
2) Gore 2000 voters
3) Other 2000 voters (Nader et al)
4) New voters who did NOT vote in 2000.

The Final exit poll, which FAVORS Bush, had Kerry winning the New voters by 54-45%. The preliminary polls, which FAVORED Kerry, had him winning NEW voters by 57-41 (13047 respondents) and 59-39 (11027 respondents)

No undecided here. This was an EXIT Poll. People already voted.

Read my other posts for more detail.

[seriousstan]

34. I asked this below, what about crossover voters.

Voters that changed their opinions based on 9/11 and foreign policy?

I ask because I know of at least 4 in my small sphere of friends/relatives.

[TruthIsAll]

35. If anything more crossed over from Bush to Kerry

In the 13047 exit poll (the "pristine" poll) Kerry won 90% of Dems, Bush 91% of Repubs. No massaging of the data.

The massaging was done later to match the recorded votes.

[seriousstan]

37. I disagree, I also think these are the voters most likely to lie about

how they voted. Regularly Dem. voters who, because of 9/11 and their agreement with the war, decided not to change horses in mid-stream. I have heard this from my mother and several friends and their wives.

These same people would never tell an exit poll that they voted for Bush. My mother would never tell an exit poll anything.

I think you are missing many votes here and therein lies your error. Your stats don't take into account people's emotions about a single issue.

[LatePeriduct]

49. His other stats are sorted by issue too. n/t

nt

[Chi]

52. If you have anything to substantiate these theories.....

Heya Stan
If you have anything to substantiate these theories, or you run into anything in the future, I would like to read it.
This would be a sort of missing link in the scheme of things, but I wouldn't buy it unless it's backed up by someone/somewhere.
With all the reports floating around by geniuses...I'm confident someone has done a report that includes this, if it's got any basis in reality.

[Peace Patriot]

62. "My mother would never tell an exit poll anything."

So, she's out of the picture, whether voting Dem or Repub. She would be part of the non-responder % no matter who she voted for.

US Count Votes not only found that the "reluctant Republican responder" theory was without foundation in Edison/Mitofksy's own data, they also found evidence, in the E/M data, that the exit poll was actually skewed to Bush--meaning that Kerry's margin of victory was even higher than the exit poll 3%.

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

[TruthIsAll]

15. View the Mathematical FACTS for the TRUTH.

These are the FACTS:

V2004 122.26 million voted in 2004

V2000 104.77 voted in 2000
G2000 50.999 voted for Gore
B2000 50.456 voted for Bush
O2000 3.315 voted for Other
D 3.667 died (8.7 per thousand annual death rate)

So there were
NetN 17.490 New voters, net of deaths

Since
GD 1.785 Gore voters died
BD 1.766 Bush voters died
OD 0.116 Other voters died

then there were
TN 21.157 New voters

And we must have
MG 49.214 Maximum no. Gore 2000 voters
MB 48.690 Max no. Bush 2000 voters
MO 3.199 Max no. Other 2000 voters
MT 101.103 Max Total no. returning voters

MinNew 21.157 Min number of New voters

The total 2004 vote was comprised of:
V2004 = 122.26 = MB + MG+ MO + MinNew

Assume the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM of 21.157 million New Voters:

KV= Kerry Vote = MG + Kerry % of New Voters
BV= Bush Vote = MB + Bush % of New Voters

and
KV = 49.214+ .54* 21.157 =60.639
BV = 48.690+ .45* 21.157 =58.211

So, according to the Bush-favored Final Exit poll, in which Kerry won 54% of New Voters, Kerry won the election by 2.428 million votes.

This is a MINIMUM MARGIN, because the earlier, believable exit polls gave him 57%-59% of New Voters.

This analysis assumes all Bush 2000 voters voted for Bush and all Gore 2000 voters voted for Kerry. It is a very conservative assumption, since much of the evidence had former Bush 2000 voters going for Kerry this time, not the other way around...

[keepthemhonest]

16. Keep it coming TIA

You'll get through to the thick skulls soon.

[bleever]

18. We were told on Nov. 3 that 1+1=3, and that we should move on.

Sorry for the analogy, but this election was a bowl of chili with a finger in it.

Not moving on.

Thanks, TIA.

[Old and In the Way]

19. And the hits just keep on coming........

[eowyn_of_rohan]

20. What do you actually DO with the results of all your number crunching

...What specifically does anyone here do with it? SO curious...

[TruthIsAll]

21. I don't do anything with it. But it gets around the NET pretty quick.

Bloggers read DU.
They comment on the analysis.
They link to the threads.

Didn't Ted Koppel and other MSM deniers refer to us as "Spreadsheet Bloggers"

And the Freepers see it.
But of course they don't, or won't understand it.They call me the DUmmy Tin-foiler. I'm sure that the few who can put a paragraph together still come to DU to try to spread fog and distract from the guts of the analysis. But it doesn't work.

The analysis still stands, as solid as ever. Even some naysayers are admitting that they can't fault the mathematics - they gave up on that.

These "How did you vote in 2000" threads which have decimated the Final Exit Poll are causing a stir. Blogs are commenting.

And naysayers are coming back from their short-lived DU sabbatical to bash me, questioning my academic credentials - as if that matters.

They just don't get it. They can't refute the analysis, so they resort to personal attacks on my credibility.

It's percolating.
I'm sure Conyers will see it.

[PATRICK]

22. The Rove counterstroke

which the media congratulated him on without going that little step toward a sane conclusion was to work mightily to create a new pretext of GOTV and "new voters". All that one could sanely presume would be a pretext unless the ABB simply stayed home out of boredom. The confusion of the battleground states could have been sorted out by taking into account the cheating methods long built in in those very states.

ANY Rove argument is taken as scientific fact before the fact by their propaganda wing. These problems were not faced head on. THAT was the unfought front where the Coup simply marched right in- again, with only a new set of shoddy invisible clothes for the Emperor. That and the subtext of fear.

This whole illusion and this whole fraud machinery must be taken on directly and with full force and ingenuity. Like any disease in the body politic. It is not the "contest" as usual as even the concession stupidly ceded.

[Maraya1969]

23. Kick again

:kick:

[dzika]

24. Great TIA! This is a step forward...

Can you point me to a link for this statement:

This analysis assumes all Bush 2000 voters voted for Bush and all Gore 2000 voters voted for Kerry. It is a very conservative assumption, since much of the evidence had former Bush 2000 voters going for Kerry this time, not the other way around...

Also, I am concerned about how the NEP has discredited their own exit polls. If I understand their logic, the raw exit polls are faulty and so the weighted exit polls must also be faulty. The only thing that they seem to assert as being correct is the final vote count. It seems like circular logic designed to give the MSM no where to go with the story.

I don't mean (or desire) to be so negative but how do we convince the MSM to believe an analysis of an exit poll which they have already accepted as wrong?

[TruthIsAll]

26. Which Exit Poll?

The Final?
But they matched the vote with it.
So it must be right to them, right?

But I have just shown that it is wrong, because they use an impossible 43% Bush/37% Gore return voter mix.
The maximum for Bush is 40%, assuming 100% turnout..

So the exit poll is wrong.
But it matched the recorded vote.
So how can the vote be right, right?

dzika, this is very simple.

1) Bad Poll = Bad Vote
2) Good Poll = Good vote

So from 1) if they admit the poll is bad, so must be the vote.
If they say the Final Exit Poll of 13660 is good, just wave the 43/37 in front of them and tell them its impossible.
How did they come up with that number?

If they say the Prelim. 13047 Exit Poll is bad, just wave the 41/39 in front of them. Although 41/39 is extremely unlikely, it IS possible. And Kerry wins by 3%.

So the Good Poll is the Preliminary 13047 at 12:22am.
The Bad poll is the Final 13660 at 2:05pm.



So

[Old and In the Way]

29. DO you find this odd?

So the Good Poll is the Preliminary 13047 at 12:22am.
The Bad poll is the Final 13660 at 2:05pm.

Did the final 600 samples take 14 hours to add to the total...or is your 2:05pm an error? If it really was correct at 2:05pm....that should send a very big red flag up the pole.

[TruthIsAll]

36. It was posted on CNN at 2:05 pm, 14 hours after the polls closed.

...

[Old and In the Way]

39. So 94% of the polling data is accummulated and reported during

the election day....but the last 600 poll results take almost 14 hours to release? What makes me think that they wanted to back in the results to minimize suspicion, but maximize the impact? I'll bet they spent a lot of quality time tenderizing that data to make it just right for consumption.

Something really stinks with that....why 14 hours to integrate the last 4.7% of the data? A big bright spotlight should be illuminating this question. Seems to me that should have taken all of 5 minutes to compile with the rest of the results.

[dzika]

30. I understand. bad poll = bad vote

Has NEP ever claimed that any characteristic in the final poll was valid (except for the vote count)?

Isn't the logic from NEP something like:

bad raw exit poll + valid vote count weighting = bad exit poll with correct vote count

The MSM must agree with NEP because they haven't published a story on exit polls since the NEP report. Nightline seemed to wait for that very report just so they could hold it up as the final solution.

Am I misunderstanding the position of the NEP?

Personally, I think that the raw exit poll was very close to correct. Your earlier proofs regarding the 2000 vote characteristic are strong evidence and this makes the case even stronger.

(I now wish to resign as naysayer... "It's hard work")

[seriousstan]

25. Do you account for voters for Gore that then voted for Bush this time?

I am sorry if this is addressed in the numbers and I have missed it. That many columns of non-work related figures just makes me go blind sometimes.

[FogerRox]

31. If you DID NOT vote for Bush in 2000--why would you vote for BUSH

in 2004-doesnt seem remotely logical.

Oh my god I was wrong ---George Bush turned into such a good president. Only if I had known in 2000--I would have voted for him then. Iam soo glad I now get the chance to vote for him in 2004, because hes such a good..........

I think you get the message--right.

Anyone who says one bit of BS about GOre 2000 voters--turning around and going Bush in 2004--just aint thought it thru.
Were there some--yeah maybe--statistically insignificant numbers.

[seriousstan]

32. I am talking about the security/foreign policy issue voters.

I know several personally that voted differently this time than last for just that reason. I highly doubt the number is insignificant and wondered if it was taken into account.

Do you know for sure it was not?

[Old and In the Way]

42. Counter intuittive, no?

Democrats who voted for Gore, rewarded a Republican pResident who-

(1) Stole the election from Gore.
(2) Allowed 9/11 to happen.
(3) Lied about WMD to invade and occupy a country that has nothing to do with 9/11, killing 100's of thousands in the process.
(4) Let's the family of the guy who is fingered for 9/11 leave the country.
(5) Has no problems with outsourcing/job losses of this administration.
(6) Likes having that $500BB surplus turned into a $500BB deficit.
(7) Knows that the next President will be appointing ant--Democratic Supreme Court justices.

(8) And, last but not least.....thinks Bush would be a better President than the John Kerry.

Riiiiiiight.

[FogerRox]

51. Old and In the Way --said ""Counter intuittive, no?" EXACTLY my friend

I stiil think that:
An incumbant Pres. gets his MAy/June approval rating in NOV.
Bush was at 44%--call the 3rd party vote 1%--that leaves 55% for Kerry.
Kerry may have won by 10%

That means that about 12 million votes were mopped up with a huge mop.

[theboss]

73. My best friend and his wife did it

So, it happens....

[TruthIsAll]

40. On Edit: The exit poll accounts for crossover.

This is from the FINAL Exit Poll
With the IMPOSSIBLE 43/37 mix, which I have changed from
fiction to reality in my sensitivty analysis.

10% from Gore to Bush.
9% from Bush to Kerry.

VOTED IN 2000
	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17%	45%	54%	1%
Gore	37%	10%	90%	0%
Bush	43%	91%	9%	0%
Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
	100%	51.11%	48.48%	0.41%
	122.26	62.49	59.27	0.50

[Peace Patriot]

67. And I keep adding that there is an emotional/political factor in the...

...big Democratic success in new voter registrations in 2004 that should be considered. It goes beyond the data but it is compelling. New voters don't arise out of a vacuum. They are prodded by highly motivated family, friends, co-workers and volunteers to register and vote for the first time. And a large majority of those family, friends, co-workers and volunteers were Democrats, who got others to register Democratic.

It is ludicrous to think that all that pro-Democratic activity--both by the former Dem/Gore voters who were prodding new voters, or the new voters themselves--was occurring in order to re-elect George Bush. Were people registering Democratic in droves, to vote for Bush? Were their family, friends, co-workers or volunteers prodding them to register Democratic, to vote for Bush?

It's nonsense. And we know, anecdotally as well, that there was very great enthusiasm on the Democratic side of this election, a huge volunteer GOTV effort, many young people involved (students, rappers, rockers) and Rock the Vote, big, spontaneous, enthusiastic crowds for Kerry/Edwards everywhere they went (compared to dismal, highly vetted, bussed-in Pod People for Bush), the highly motivated Dean people won over to the Kerry camp (ABB), the Nader voters won over to the Kerry camp (ABB), an enormous number of grass roots groups working together (and having smoked the peace pipe temporarily with the DNC), and numerous anecdotes of former Bush voters and Republicans voting for Kerry. (I have one myself--an entire condo complex full of elderly rich people in San Diego--all despised Bush and his war.)

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Kerry's margin of victory was 10% (as suggested above). --especially if you ADD IN an estimated number of voters who never got to vote due to massive and illegal suppression of Democratic voters by Republican election officials in Florida and Ohio (at least). Hundreds of thousands of Kerry votes don't even make it into those figures (the various exit polls and official results). (Dr. Michael Haut of the U.C. Berkeley Research Center found 130,000 to 330,000 phantom votes for Bush in FLA's 3 major Democratic counties--but how many KERRY votes were simultaneously suppressed in those Dem counties--by Jeb Bush's purge lists, etc.?)

I'm just saying that the data means something beyond the numbers. That new Dem reg figure tells us quite a lot about the 2004 election, including that repeat Gore voters (the already registered Dems) were so highly motivated about this election that they nagged and nagged and nagged their ne'er-do-well non-voting children (or parents), their family a-politicals, their opinionated co-workers who never vote, their neighbors who want to avoid jury duty, etc., etc., to register and vote THIS TIME, because this was THE most important election in U.S. history. (I don't know how often I heard that from people during the campaign.)

Data and anecdotal information, and intuition, agree.

[bpilgrim]

28. Thanks TIA

for sharing :toast:

peace

[kiwi_expat]

41. I must be missing something....

Do any of your cases provide for a whole bunch of Gore voters who voted for the "War President" this time? Isn't that at least a possibility?

(Am I one of those bad "naysayers" - even though I think that tabulator fraud occurred and that Kerry won the Election, if not necessarily the popular vote?)

[TruthIsAll]

43. kiwi, r u serious? Read the exit poll category weightings.

"Do any of your cases provide for a whole bunch of Gore
voters who voted for the "War President" this time?
Isn't that at least a possibility?"

Come on now...

Why are you making it so tough on all of us?
Look at the inflated 10% Gore voters for Bush
And the 9% of Bush voters for Kerry.

I thought we were on the same page here.
Have you bothered to even look at the Exit Poll category
weights?

From the FINAL, IMPOSSIBLE EXIT POLL

Remember 43%/37% is impossible. 
Bush 2000 voters could not comprise 43% of the 2004 total,
because 43% of 122.26 is 52.57 million votes.

And Bush only got 50.456 million votes.

And some (3.5%) have died.
Meaning the maximum was 39.82%

This is A MAJOR SMOKING GUN, KIWI.
DO YOU SEE IT?

VOTED IN 2000
	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17%	45%	54%	1%
Gore	37%	10%	90%	0%
Bush	43%	91%	9%	0%
Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
	100%	51.11%	48.48%	0.41%
	122.26	62.49	59.27	0.50

[kiwi_expat]

46. You're right. I did miss something.

I missed the significance of "In fact, we are going to assume that ALL the Final Exit Poll stats are correct, except for the 43% Bush - 37% Gore mix". I didn't bother to track down a link.

My partner says that 10% seems to be "a whole bunch". So I'll accept that you have provided for a whole bunch of Gore voters voting for the "War President". However, I would think that the 9% of Bush voters that voted for Kerry would also be a "whole bunch". And I would hope that at least one scenario would provide for a whole bunch MORE Gore voters voting for Bush than Bush voters voting for Kerry. And I don't mean 10% of 10%.

(I will be off-line for a week.)

[TruthIsAll]

47. OK, you really want to stretch it, don't you?

This is a breakeven scenario: 
16% of Gore voters vote for Bush
Oh sure.

Voted	2000	
Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
24.831	None	20.31%	41.5%	57.5%	1%
47.376	Gore	38.75%	16%	84%	0%
46.850	Bush	38.32%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	Other	2.62%	13%	71%	16%

	TOTAL	100 %	49.46%	49.54%	1.01%
122.26	Votes	122.26	60.47	60.56	1.23
Kerry	Margin	0.10	
.....................................

This assumes 20% of Gore voters vote for Bush.
Right.

Voted	2000
	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
24.831	None	20.31%	41.5%	57.5%	1%
47.376	Gore	38.75%	20%	80%	0%
46.850	Bush	38.32%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	 Other	2.62%	13%	71%	16%

	TOTAL	100 %	51.01%	47.99%	1.01%
122.26	Votes	122.26	62.36	58.67	1.23

Kerry	Margin	-3.69			
		
.............................................
Let's get back to reality: the 13047 Exit poll.

Voted	2000
	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
24.831	None	20.31%	41.5%	57.5%	1%
47.376	Gore	38.75%	8%	91%	1%
46.850	Bush	38.32%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	 Other	2.62%	13%	71%	16%

	TOTAL	100%  	46.36%	52.25%	1.39%
122.26	122.26	56.68	63.88	1.70

Kerry	Margin	7.20			

[kiwi_expat]

48. Thanks for that.

:-)

Bye for now.

[kiwi_expat]

57. Would you find this combo more plausible?

Do you think 11% Gore voters voting for Bush and 5% Bush voters voting for Kerry is more plausible than 16% Gore voters voting for Bush? How about 10% Gore, 4% Bush?

This really doesn't matter as long as you are not trying to "prove" that Kerry won the popular vote. And I notice that you did not say "proof" this time.

But if the point of the exercise is to "prove" that Kerry won the popular vote, we would need to be sure that there is no plausible mix where Bush could have won it. That is why I am being so picky.

[TruthIsAll]

58. Both of your scenarios are implausible

YOU:
Do you think 11% Gore voters voting for Bush and 5% Bush voters voting for Kerry is more plausible than 16% Gore voters voting for Bush?

ME:
YES, BUT IT IS STILL IMPLAUSIBLE, ONLY LESS SO.
11% OF GORE VOTERS FOR BUSH IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BUT PLAUSIBLE.
16% OF GORE VOTERS FOR BUSH IS A PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

KERRY WILL NEVER GET JUST 5% OF REPUBS. THAT IS IMPLAUSIBLE.
BUT I WILL RUN THIS IMPLAUSIBLE SCENARIO IF YOU WISH.

YOU:
How about 10% Gore, 4% Bush?

ME:
YES, BUT IT IS ALSO IMPLAUSIBLE.
10% OF GORE VOTERS FOR BUSH IS PLAUSIBLE, BUT NOT 4% BUSH FOR KERRY.

KERRY WILL NEVER GET JUST 4% OF REPUBS. THAT IS IMPLAUSIBLE.
BUT I WILL RUN THIS IMPLAUSIBLE SCENARIO IF YOU WISH.

LOOK AT PARTY CROSSOVERS IN THE FINAL NATIONAL EXIT POLLS FOR 1996-2000 AND THE 2004 PRELIMINARY 13047 POLL:

90-92% OF DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE DEM.
8-10% OF REPUBS VOTED FOR THE DEM.

LET'S BE REALISTIC.
DON'T ASSUME OUTLANDISH HYPOTHETICALS.
USE HISTORICAL PARTY CROSSOVER RATES, WITH "PLAUSIBLE" ADJUSTMENTS.

EVEN WITH IMPLAUSIBLE ASSUMPTIONS FAVORING BUSH, MY SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT HE IS A LOSER.
YOU:
This really doesn't matter as long as you are not trying to "prove" that Kerry won the popular vote. And I notice that you did not say "proof" this time.

ME:
DOES 99.99% PROBABILITY CONSTITUTE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN A COURT OF LAW?

YOU:
But if the point of the exercise is to "prove" that Kerry won the popular vote, we would need to be sure that there is no plausible mix where Bush could have won it. That is why I am being so picky.

ME:
THERE IS NO "PLAUSIBLE" MIX IN WHICH BUSH WINS.
THE TURNOUT/NEW VOTER SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PROVES IT.

YOU HAVE SUGGESTED TWO "IMPLAUSIBLE" SCENARIOS.
BUT I WILL RUN THESE SCENARIOS IF YOU WISH.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

61. "War President"

Bush "won" two elections via serious criminal fraud. No question about it.
That being said, I have seen the spurious "War President" come from somebody who used to be smart and leftie. At a Christmas party, this ex-hippie brother-in-law of mine ranted like a Fox "news" host about how wrong it would be to change presidents during wartime (you know the joke about the kid who murders his parents then asks the judge for clemency because he's an orphan?) It's such a feeble argument, but after seeing somebody I once respected, a history teacher, a formerly good American fall for that argument, I won't underestimate how easily people can delude themselves.
On the other hand, I am also acquainted with enough Bush-to-Kerry converts that no scenario would be realistic if it did not count some folks who came to see through the lies... or who liked the campaign promises of 2000 and saw the old Bush flip-flop again and again.

[kiwi_expat]

63. Please run this scenario:

11.5% Gore voters and 94% Bush voters voting for the "War President".

Thanks.

[liam_laddie]

65. national popular vs. electoral?

To TIA and everyone working on this and the SW Ohio thread...
I'm far from any sort of analyst, have been following TIA's work
for several weeks, and it looks pretty convincing. I've had
debates with other lib's who aren't ready to accept widespread fraud. They ask "Where's the proof?" My only retort is we have lots of evidence, and I suppose it would take a court verdict to call it "proof." Is this a clear way of framing an answer?
Also, and I may have missed a post, but is there anyway to translate TIA's work to electoral votes? I working with others on the Ohio problem, wonder if other states are being worked up.
Assuming one needs to identify NEP exit-polled precincts and
so forth. Any one, any ideas?

[TruthIsAll]

68. You must look at the state exit poll deviations...

Five states flipped from Kerry to Bush from the state exit polls: IA, NV, NM, FL, OH, a total of 7+ 4+ 5 + 27 + 20 = 63 electoral votes
So he probably had 252+ 63 = 315 EV.

The best current estimate is that Kerry won by 52-47% or 6 million votes.

[Peace Patriot]

69. I would say (instead of "lots of evidence), the following:

1. The NEP final exit poll, which was "adjusted" to agree with the official result, assumed that Bush got 43% of the Bush 2000 repeat voters in 2004. But that number adds up to more votes than Bush got in 2004. Ergo, it cannot be right. (--especially since some of them died). Kerry wins every exit poll analysis where the weighting factors are more realistic (including some that favor Bush so much as to be near impossible).

(Note: To quote TIA, above, "Bush 2000 voters could not comprise 43% of the 2004 total,
because 43% of 122.26 is 52.57 million votes. And Bush only got 50.456 million votes.")

2. The TV networks CHANGED the exit polls (which Kerry won) to fit the official result (Bush won) on everybody's TV screens on election day. They made the presumption that the official result was correct and changed the exit polls to make it match up with the official result, using unrealistic weighting factors such as that 43% Bush repeat vote.

3. Exit polls are used worldwide to verify elections and to detect fraud. By changing the exit poll data to fit the official result, the TV networks denied Americans strong evidence of fraud. The people in the Ukraine had the real, undoctored data, the two separate figures--exit polls vs. official result--which didn't agree, and they could plainly see that something was very wrong. Not so Americans. That's why there was no big outcry here, at first. Now we're finding out the truth--and numerous Ph.D.'s in statistics, from top universities are now crying foul on the 2004 election and are calling for investigation.

3. The official result, that this national exit poll was "adjusted" to agree with, was coming from electronic central vote tabulators, run on secret, proprietary software, owned and controlled by major Bush supporters, including one (Diebold CEO) who was the Bush campaign chair in Ohio, and promised in writing to "deliver" Ohio to Bush in 2004.

4. One third of the country voted on these Republican-controlled electronic voting systems with no paper trail. (Non-recountable, non-auditable, non-transparent.). Extensive evidence has been found of significant skews to Bush in electronic voting vs. other methods of voting.

5. Detailed analysis by various top statistics experts points to a Kerry victory with a margin of somewhere between 3% and 10% (not counting massive and illegal vote suppression against Democratic voters, in Ohio and Florida in particular--voters who never got to vote).

[liam_laddie]

71. retort to doubters

Thanks TIA and PP!! This makes a cogent argument...good!
Does anyone know who is or what groups are working on the high-flip states besides Ohio? One needs to have accessible friendlies in the county BoE's, which I've developed in Ham Cty OH. Wondering if or when we could begin to assemble materials from these key states. I realize it's too early now, but
establishing connections ought to be a project.
I mentally, emotionally puke when I think about what these crooked leeches are doing to OUR country. But then, maybe it never was "our" country, only a country always controlled by $$$
and we average citizens have swallowed their Kool-Aid for generations.
That gets me even more pissed-off. See the Wed NYT front pager about DeLay's family payroll? That's gotta be a big whack upside his skull! Sleep tight, y'all....

[TruthIsAll]

72. There are 64 million Kerry voters who feel the same way you do...

Now if we could just get Kerry to realize that he really DID win.

[TruthIsAll]

66. FOUR SCENARIOS

Kerry wins the only plausible scenario - and even two of the
three implausible ones which all favor Bush.

IMPLAUSIBLE SCENARIO 1:
Use the Final Exit Poll (13660) with PLAUSIBLE weights
(assuming only Bush voters who are still alive turned out in
2004).

Also assume that an IMPLAUSIBLE 16% of Gore voters vote for
Bush this time. That's 8.16 million Gore voters voting for the
guy who stole the election in 2000. 

Bush wins by: 2.28 million votes.		

Voted	
2000	               Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
22.386	None		18.31%	45%	54%	1%
48.598	Gore		39.75%	16%	84%	0%
48.073	Bush		39.32%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	Other		2.62%	21%	71%	8%

	TOTAL		100.00%	50.54%	48.68%	0.79%
122.26	Votes		122.26	61.79	59.51	0.96

......................

PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO 2. 
Assume 10% of Gore voters vote for Bush, the historical
average.

Kerry	wins by 3.56 million.			

Voted	
2000	               Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
22.386	None		18.31%	45%	54%	1%
48.598	Gore		39.75%	10%	90%	0%
48.073	Bush		39.32%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	Other		2.62%	21%	71%	8%

	TOTAL		100.00%	48.15%	51.06%	0.79%
122.26	Votes		122.26	58.87	62.43	0.96

.......................................

IMPLAUSIBLE SCENARIO 3: 
Same as above, but now assume an IMPLAUSIBLE 13% of Gore
voters voted for Bush (that's 6.63 million Democrats crossing
over to vote for the guy who stole the 2000 election from
Gore).

Kerry	wins by 640,000 votes.			

Voted	2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
22.386	None		18.31%	45%	54%	1%
48.598	Gore		39.75%	13%	87%	0%
48.073	Bush		39.32%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	Other		2.62%	21%	71%	8%

	TOTAL		100.00%	49.35%	49.87%	0.79%
122.26	Votes		122.26	60.33	60.97	0.96
.....................................................


IMPLAUSIBLE SCENARIO 4:
Let's make it an IMPLAUSIBLE 14% of Gore voters for Bush, but
now assume that Kerry wins new voters by 57-41%, as per the
Preliminary Exit Poll (13047):

Even with 7.14 million former Gore voters crossing over to
Bush, Kerry still wins by 1.24 million votes.

Voted	2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
22.386	None		18.31%	41%	57%	2%
48.598	Gore		39.75%	14%	86%	0%
48.073	Bush		39.32%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	Other		2.62%	21%	71%	8%
	TOTAL		100.00%	49.01%	50.02%	0.97%

122.26	Votes		122.26	59.92	61.16	1.18
		

[Greylyn58]

45. Wow...and Kick!!!

[merwin]

50. Great work TIA :)

[byronius]

53. DAMN YOU'RE COOL, TIA!!!

Even if you're so obviously a Prince of Nerds. I, a mere Nerd Bishop, pledge fealty to you. Let's get 'em!!

[Andromeda]

54. Kick for TIA!

:toast:

[jen4clark]

55. Another KICK for TIA

Thank you!!!!

:kick:

[NationalEnquirer]

56. Great analysis!

But frankly, I think * may have won the "war".
I dont think anyone is listening.
I just spent 4 weeks without DU, and gotta tell ya, it was so depressing.
Man I need you people these days, I am having a hard time living amongst idiots..

[kster]

59. Kick..........n/t

[anaxarchos]

60. Kick....

[davidgmills]

64. TIA -- Just keep on keeping on

Although I don't understand the math, I get the gist.

I suppose what is so telling for me lately is the fact that the exit polls proved to be so accurate for hand counted paper ballots and so far off for computer tabulated ones.

I wonder how long it will take to get the message out. I publish articles to my friends and colleagues every chance I get.

The more work you do, the more follow up there is by the big guns, and the quieter the critics get.

And some of the big guns work is getting posted overseas. The rest of the world will know or knows already. I keeping hoping for a Radio Free America to broadcast to the American public what we here on DU know.

[BlueIris]

74. TIA is my hero! n/t

[Peace Patriot]

70. I want to add a few more bitsof soft data that supports the extensive...

hard data pointing to a Kerry win, and that is, Americans' overwhelming disagreement with every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic--in the range of 60% to 70% disagreement. On the Iraq war, on torturing prisoners, on the privatization of Social Security, on the deficit--you name it--Bush simply does not represent the majority of Americans, and strong disapproval of Bush AND his policies has been consistent since before the election.

I recall seeing one poll on his inauguration day (!) that showed him with a 48% approval rating. Can't find it now--but his approval ratings have hovered around 50% for over six months--astounding disapproval ratings for a recently "re-elected" 2nd term president.

As for the war, Americans have strongly disapproved of it from the very beginning. Almost 60% of Americans disapproved of the invasion of Iraq in February 2003 (just before the invasion). That disapproval continues to this day, at almost 60%. The only exception was during the invasion itself, and in the couple of months of heavy fighting just afterwards (understandable, since it is likely that many people being polled at that time would have feared that a negative answer might cost American lives--but that hasn't changed their disapproval of the war before or since, except perhaps by underestimation--with the same factor at work in peoples' answers but to a smaller degree.)

I keep reading these opinion polls, and thinking, "Wow! How could this guy be president? Most people strongly disapprove of everything he's doing--so, who elected him?" Of course, it was the news monopolies and Diebold who "elected" him. We know that. But still, I wonder at the news monopolies (not to mention the Democratic leaders and whatever "liberal commentators" might be left standing), and their total lack of curiosity about these very strange facts: Bush supposed elected by 3.5 million votes, yet 60% to 70% of Americans disagree with him on EVERYTHING.

It's odd--even knowing what we know.

See http://207.44.245.159/article8191.htm --for some of the more recent polls. (Your eyes will bug out, and you'll say, "Wha....?!")

------

NOTE:

I just discovered that the URL above doesn't get you to the polls article any more (you might have to search that site), so here's the NYT site (registration required), and a portion of the article:

WISING UP:
PUBLIC SKEPTICAL OF BUSH PLANS
NEW POLL FINDS BUSH PRIORITIES ARE OUT OF STEP WITH AMERICANS

(3/3/2005) --Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

… Four out of five respondents said it was the government's responsibility to assure a decent standard of living for the elderly. . . . 63 percent of respondents say the president has different priorities on domestic issues than most Americans. Asked to choose among five domestic issues facing the country, respondents rated Social Security third, behind jobs and health care. And nearly 50 percent said Democrats were more likely to make the right decisions about Social Security, compared with 31 percent who said the same thing about Republicans. . .

… "There are so many other things that seem to me to be more critical and immediate: I think the national debt is absolutely an immediate thing to address," said Irv Packer, 66, a Missouri Republican. He added, "Another one that I'd really like to see people working on is the environment."

. . . 58 percent of respondents said the White House did not share the foreign affairs priorities of most Americans. . . Sixty percent of respondents - including 48 percent of self-described conservatives - said they disapproved of how Mr. Bush was managing the deficit. And 90 percent of respondents described the deficit as a very or somewhat serious problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/politics/03poll.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1109912880-9FJIlEsrSmsZ/Plcuih5Vg

[torque]

75. kick