1 of 187 mil: Odds 7 of 18 states deviate beyond exit poll MOE to Bush

[TruthIsAll]

THE CLINCHER. SPIN THIS, PETER JENNINGS!

Another probability calculation which confirms the odds of
today's earlier post of 1 out of 250 million.

Well, not quite. It's 1 out of 187 million. 

Here's the calculation.

Let's calculate the odds that 7 out of 18 battleground states
would deviate OUTSIDE the margin of error and ALL go to Bush.

These are the Kerry exit poll and actual vote margins. 

Exit Poll	Actual BushGain
MO 	-8	-7	-1
CO	-7	-6	-1
AZ	-10	-10	0
MI	3	3	0
AR	-9	-9	0
IL	11	11	0
LA	-14	-15	1
IA	0	-1	1
NM	2	0	2
NV	-1	-3	2
ME	11	8	3

WI	5	1	4
OH	2	-2	4
PA	7	2	5
FL	1	-5	6
MN	10	3	7
NC	-4	-13	9
NH	17	1	16
			
			
			
Battleground States: 18	
Prob that a given state is outside the MOE and deviates to
Bush:2.50%	

Total number of states outside the MOE which deviated to Bush:
7	

The calculation requires the BINOMIAL distribution:			

Probability (all 7 states outside MOE go to  Bush)
= 1-BINOMDIST(7,18,0.025,TRUE)

= 0.000000533%	

or 1 out of	187,453,436	

OUR NEW MANTRA:

1 OUT OF 187 MILLION! 
1 OUT OF 187 MILLION! 
1 OUT OF 187 MILLION! 
1 OUT OF 187 MILLION! 
1 OUT OF 187 MILLION! 
1 OUT OF 187 MILLION! 
1 OUT OF 187 MILLION! 
1 OUT OF 187 MILLION! 

			
			
			
			

[alittlelark]

1. Looks damning, so why is everyone going on about

"9-11 conspiracy theories" on AAR and even the MSM?

Do not be distracted.

[TruthIsAll]

13. THIS PROFESSOR SAYS THAT IT'S 250 MILLION TO ONE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x36855

A million here, a million there, why quibble?

[TruthIsAll]

40. How I did the calculation: The Excel Binomial Distribution Function

BINOMDIST
See Also

Returns the individual term binomial distribution probability. Use BINOMDIST in problems with a fixed number of tests or trials, when the outcomes of any trial are only success or failure, when trials are independent, and when the probability of success is constant throughout the experiment. For example, BINOMDIST can calculate the probability that two of the next three babies born are male.

Syntax

BINOMDIST(number_s,trials,probability_s,cumulative)

Number_s is the number of successes in trials.

Trials is the number of independent trials.

Probability_s is the probability of success on each trial.

Cumulative is a logical value that determines the form of the function. If cumulative is TRUE, then BINOMDIST returns the cumulative distribution function, which is the probability that there are at most number_s successes; if FALSE, it returns the probability mass function, which is the probability that there are number_s successes.

[Bread and Circus]

2. It seems well established that either the exit polls were fraud or...

the vote count was.

A question I have: who was responsible for the "exit polling"?

[Generator]

6. Did you get that little gem of a nugget

from the pollster Minsky?sp? something like that-that was on PBS a few days ago saying that the Dems were too enthusiastic?

Well, the gem of a nugget is that it said in there-next time-they are going to keep the exit polls confidential. Only numbers will be given to the candidates,and the only info to the public will be the reasons for their vote ect.

Bye bye Democracy. It was nice knowing you, truly.

[bleever]

3. TruthIsAll, we're all starting to feel the momentum changing

and those of us who knew like you that this would inevitably force its way into the national consciousness are deeply grateful for your unrelenting analysis and focus. Don't relent!

[NVMojo]

4. don't forget that Nevada lied nationwide that they had a paper trail

but they only had half of their almost 5,000 machines with printers and Vegas had a smorgasborg of voting mechanisms including 10-yr old Seqoias with no printers (2,100), a sprinkling of new Sequoia machines with printers, and 7,057 undervotes and then votes for people who didn't show up ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x2306

[tarheel_voter]

5. I don't understand why the WH is so upset about the exit polls

If the Repukes had truly won a mandate, they would have known it by lunchtime on election day.

Everyone knew this was going to be a close election, the fucking RNC chairman said so all along. Everyone knew Kerry was ahead in the battleground states, even the incredibly biased Gallup poll said as much!

"I never met a republican who didn't like the truth as much as GW Bush" --James Carville.

[peacetalksforall]

7. Truthisall - can you explain "Clincher Peter Jennings"

I followed the analysis and I'm taking your word for the BINOMIAL result, but don't get the Jennings part of this.

[TruthIsAll]

8. Peter Jennings called us conspiracy freaks.

He completely disparaged even the POSSIBILITY of election fraud on his newscast yesterday.

There is ONLY one in TV media who has respect for the TRUTH: Keith Olberman.

[Old and In the Way]

9. George Bush is the luckiest man in the world.

Who needs competence when you have this kind of luck?

[City Lights]

10. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a horseshoe up his ass. eom

[Awsi Dooger]

11. TruthIsAll, this is GARBAGE; you don't understand margin for error

Sorry to be so blunt, but it's accurate and therefore this mathematical exercise is worthless. Try finding a clincher that's not so easily spun into the toilet.

MOE is applied to EACH number, not just the MARGIN between the two candidates. You are making the most basic of mistakes, something network anchors and talking heads fall prey to repeatedly.

Let's look at this example, a hypothetical state poll, let's say Florida:

Kerry 50%
Bush 49%

Margin for error 4%

Now let's say Bush wins 52-47%. That is NOT outside the margin for error, despite the 6 point gap. The MOE is applied to EACH of the two numbers. Therefore, Kerry's support is expected to range from 46-54% and Bush from 45-53%. That is where the 95% confidence level kicks in. It is statistically more likely Kerry will be ahead by 1, and so on, than down 4 or 5 or 6, but all fall within the MOE.

Don't take my word for it. Look it up on the internet. Here is the first link in a search I just did: http://momentlinger.typepad.com/momentlingeron/2004/08/understanding_p.html

Besides using the most favorable exit polls for Kerry, like the absurd 57-41 edge in New Hampshire, and even if your initial use of MOE had been correct, you are also understating margin for error among state polls. You are obviously using 3%, based on where Ohio and Wisconsin fit on your list. The margins differed by 4%, yet are listed outside the margin for error on your list. The company that does nationwide exit polls states very clearly on their website that state exit polls include a 4% margin for error, not 3%: http://www.exit-poll.net/faq.html#a15

"What is the Margin of Error for an exit poll?
Every number estimated from a sample may depart from the official vote count. The difference between a sample result and the number one would get if everyone who cast a vote was interviewed in exactly the same way is called the sampling error. That does not mean the sample result is wrong. Instead, it refers to the potential error due to sampling. The margin of error for a 95% confidence interval is about +/- 3% for a typical characteristic from the national exit poll and +/-4% for a typical state exit poll. Characteristics that are more concentrated in a few polling places, such as race, have larger sampling errors. Other nonsampling factors may increase the total error."

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

14. hi TIA...just wanted to say: THANK YOU

for all your work on this issue...and everything else :loveya:

[Hobbes199]

34. 4% is the MOE they give for pre election polling

Which is why most of it is worthless. The news itself has quoted the exit polls as usally being within .5% accurate. Here's a good article on why the difference in the exit polls are significant.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/03110...

>> While not a guide for proving results, it can be a mechanism for ensuring voting accuracy and flagging potential fraud.
>> Perhaps more importantly, while exit polling is unreliable, the odds of ... gaining an advantage from every exit poll in swing states is an extremely improbable coincidence.

Though I think more believable numbers are the 1:50,000 — but what that's saying is that in 50,000 presidential elections we might see this once — three full factors away from reality.

That's enough to raise the question of validity of the election, and that's what we want.

[5by5]

15. Show me the data!

Your calculation of the probability of exceeding the margin of error is only correct if the errors are random. If there's a systematic error, then the calculation is incorrect.

So what could the systematic errors be? Well, one possibility is actually the one that you're suggesting: it's no longer 1/187M if the actual vote count is manipulated in favor of one candidate. This is obvious.

What's not so obvious is that a systematic error in the other measurement can have the same effect. For example, if Democrats voting for Bush felt uncomfortable about admitting it to a pollster, then an error is introduced just as it is if the Repubs are manipulating the vote count. If this error isn't random, ie. it's biased for or against one candidate, then the probability calculation is wrong.

So could this have happened? Who knows? But from the data above, an error in the exit polls is as valid a conclusion as an error in the actual vote count (just not as popular around here). But you say, "Exit polls aren't this far off." But actually they can be. The best example is when the exit polling on the 1981 David Duke Louisiana gubanatorial campaign seriously underestimated his support because people were reluctant to admit to supporting a racist (Duke was a former KKK Grand Wizard). This is the example Chris Gates, chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, used when he was asked to comment on the errors in the 2004 exit polls. He called it the "David Duke effect."

Now I admit that making any sort of comparison to David Duke is uncomfortable, but we know that some Democrats did in fact crossover and vote for Bush. We also know from pre-election polling that Bush's support among Republicans was better than Kerry's support among Democrats (something like 92-84). So the question is, would a Republican voting for Kerry be more or less likely to lie about it than a Democrat voting for Bush? Bear and mind, also, that there were likely more of the latter.

Think about it (as painful as it might be)--if you were a Democrat voting for Bush, would you admit it to a pollster? On the otherhand, the Republicans who said they were voting for Kerry seemed rather proud of it.

"Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion."
--Unknown

[noiretextatique]

16. zell miller spoke at the GOP convention eom

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kellis]

18. Me too TruthisAll

:kick:

[noiretextatique]

19. out in force tonight...but easy to detect

one-note wonders, for the most

[foo_bar]

37. bullies with nothing to say beyond ad hominem attacks

are more reminiscent of "Freepers" in my experience.

[foo_bar]

32. 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

- John Keats

[oldmanpeacenik]

20. I could use some help....

...because I'm no great shakes at math.

I can't find anything in that article that says that the margin of error is 2%. I didn't even see a reference to a source. My eyes are pretty tired after all this, though, so forgive me if I didn't see it.

Also, even if the margin of error really is 2%, and it really does apply to each percentage, that would knock out Wisconsin and Ohio. Anyone around here who can verify--like, with a source--that that's how the MOE is supposed to work?

But it all might not matter. What does the calculation come out to when you do it on 5 states?

[TruthIsAll]

21. Exit polls are much more accurate than regular polls (3%)

They are widely quoted as having an MoE under 1%. I use 2% to be conservative. If you look at the results, you'll see that of the eighteen, FOUR exit polls were EXACTLY correct, FOUR were within 1%, TWO within 2% and ONE within 3%.

The other SEVEN were over 4%. These are the suspicious ones which taken as a group, give a 187 million to one probability of fraud.

Now, for your other question:
For 5 out of 18 states to be beyond the MoE and ALL favoring Bush,
the probability is: 0.000349713%

That's ONE out of 285,948 !!!

[oldmanpeacenik]

33. Well, you answered some of the questions....

but not all.

Look, I'm sorry to keep picking on you about this, but it matters. When I go out and argue politics with my friends, they make me have sources for the numbers and facts I cite, and I do the same to them. If I go out there and can't defend what I say, I'm gonna look dumb. Nobody will believe me. Worse yet, it'll cast doubts on any other evidence of fraud I try and cite, because people'll just figure that the old man's tinfoil top hat is a bit too tight again.

So I'm asking you again. What is your SOURCE for your figures on exit polls? You said it's "widely reported" but you didn't give me one damn link. Well I'll see your zero links and raise you a few.

http://www.jsonline.com/election98/exitsid.asp
http://www.exit-poll.net/faq.html#a15

Overall they say that national exit polls have a 1-3% margin of error, but state polls--which is what you're using--have 4%. When you're looking at voting in other countries, they probably have a bigger population than most states, so the margin of error would be smaller.

And what about the margin of error applying to one number or to both?
'Cause if it applies to both, then if Kerry loses 4% and Bush gains 4% over the exit poll, it's still within the margin of error. And the difference between the exit and the actual would be -8, to use your way of figuring. That leaves you with NC and NH...if the exit polls you're citing are accurate (seems like some folks disagree, but they didn't cite sources either).

With the help of my son, who recognized that you were using Excel, I plugged in 1-BINOMDIST(2,18,0.025,TRUE) and got around 1 in 100.

Like I said, I'm not great at math, so I may very well have done something wrong here. If so, I'd be obliged if you'd point it out to me, but I would greatly appreciate it if you backed up your argument with some sources.

[foo_bar]

36. you assumed a 3% MoE in your previous exercise

the one where you considered 18 geographically distinct polls to constitute N=18000. If the MoE is "widely quoted" as <1% (in spite of the polling consortium itself citing a 4% MoE for state exit polls), why throw in an extra percent "to be conservative"? Was your 3% MoE estimate extra conservative, or am I a troll for even asking?

[RunningFromCongress]

22. Hey man no offense, but you also had 90+% chance of Kerry PV win...

and while I think we may have won florida, I would be willing to pay you $1000 if there was enough fraud to give Bush the 3.5 million win in the popular vote

[TruthIsAll]

23. Kerry WON the popular vote on earth but lost it in Cyberspace..

Keep your money.

[RunningFromCongress]

24. Seriously you think there was 3.5+ million fraudulent votes?

I mean I'm in no posistion to know one way or the other...I mean I think yeah we probibly won Ohio & NM, maybe FL, but to have 3.5 million+ votes lost or switched seems a little over the top to me. I think we can all agree on huge turnout, more than in 00, so you can't say the votes were made up. So we have 2 options, millions of Kerry votes were switched to Bush; or millions of Kerry votes were thrown out. I dunno, I'll buy into a EC win, but PV i dunno...

[masshole1979]

25. Funny how the PV suddenly matters...

Four years ago he lost by 500,000 and they brushed it off. Now he gets less than 3 percentage points' lead in the vote tallies, and the popular vote suddenly counts.

I can't tell you how many people here in Mass did not bother to vote. I almost didn't vote. There was NOTHING on the ballot that wasn't already decided. Some people made hay of the fact that Kerry took home fewer votes than Gore in Mass. but that's because we had all these cool referenda on the ballot four years ago, and this year, squat. I'm sure it was like that elsewhere. Of course, if we naively believed the PV would matter, more would have shown up, but we've all had that beaten out of us. Meanwhile, the conservatives were pushing for big turnouts in Southern states b/c of the anti-gay referenda and the open Senate races. Before the election, someone from The Nation actually wrote an article about how suspicious that looked--as if they were trying to legitimate a coup if they somehow lost the electoral college.

[RunningFromCongress]

26. I'm not saying it matters, I'm just saying his PV predictions were way off

so why take these numbers to be any less off. That's my point. I could give 2 shits if Kerry lost the PV by 15 million and took the EC by 1. But when you want to post generated numbers as fact you need to be accountable for previous numbers as well.

Look I have no doubt something is a mess in Ohio, but I can't really take these number seriously when past ones were so off (apparently).

Now I'll be MORE THAN HAPPY TO EAT MY WORDS BELIEVE ME. But I just can't see that many votes being faked/stolen/changed in the PV. So I can't believe these current "odds"

[masshole1979]

28. sorry for the tangent...but...

hey fellow insomniac...

Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system about * and his new PV man-date.

BUT if the exit polls are correct--and I'm no math major--Kerry would have a lead in the PV, simple as that (of course, not a landslide, but significant). The thing is, you have to take into account states like NH that went for Kerry but not by as big a margin as they did in the exit polls. When you're talking about a big state like PA, that is potentially hundreds of thousands of votes (was PA won of the off-trend states? don't want to get foot in mouth disease...just citing an example).

But yeah, you have a point, it wasn't a landslide. I think people who were predicting a Kerry PV landslide were neglecting the issue of no cool ballot initiatives in blue states but plenty of GGG stuff in the red states.

[TruthIsAll]

30. You are confused. Exit polls are virtually NEVER off by more than 1%.

My final model projection had it 51-48 Kerry. It was based on final state polls with the assumption that the bulk of the undecided would go to Kerry). The pollsters said the race was tied, but they also expected the undecided would go to Kerry.

My projections just extrapolated 3 out of the 4 the undecided to their final 48-48 tie. No rocket science, no convoluted economteric model. Undecideds always go to the challenger - and they did this time, also.

Eventually, it will become common knowledge that Bush stole MILLIONS of votes. It's just as easy to steal millions as it is to steal thousands.

Two professors (one former MIT, the other currently at Univ. of Penn.) have published probabilities comparable to mine. Check the threads.

[RunningFromCongress]

35. I just want to know some answers

were you wrong about a large Kerry victory in PV? If so, fine, then I can work with your current numbers.

If you think Kerry won the PV; then we have an issue of some 3.5 million votes that were either

a) switched from Kerry to Bush
b) invented
or
c) turnout was 120+ million and Kerry's votes were deleted

[TruthIsAll]

39. I want to know the answers also. Let the lawyers investigate.

I do math. And use common sense. That's it.

[masshole1979]

27. Could you please explain this to The Nation?

David Cornhole is throwing cold water on the fraud allegations in this month's issue...WTF? When did disenfranchisement suddenly become so hip on the Left? Stockholm Syndrome?

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041129&s=corn

[cthrumatrix]

41. we heard the pollster excuse - "dems were enthusiastic".....my ass

[Andromeda]

29. TIA, the talk shows should ask you on...

to talk about this. You are so smart, in fact what you do goes waaaay over my head (linguistics is my specialty)and I have a lot of respect for your abilities.

I wanna see you on Hardball, Paula Zahn, Aaron Brown and Keith Olbermann!

Make everybody aware of the real truth!

[TruthIsAll]

31. No thanks. That's not necessary. There are much more qualified

people than I to present the case. I will stick to DU.

[TruthIsAll]

38. am kick

.

[TruthIsAll]

42. Ok, let's split the difference: (187+250)/2= 219 million to ONE

Next thing you know, The Repukes will say the Bernoulli was a lousy mathematician. And that Gauss was a louse.

[TruthIsAll]

43. kick 187 million times

tia