"The Stolen Election of 2004" by Michael Parenti

[mod mom]

(I posted this as part of a Fitrakis blog suggestion on another post but the article deserves it's own thread)

An best article to come out since the Rolling Stone article is Michael Parenti’s “The Stolen Election of 2004.” Parenti does a good job of summarizing the well-documented Republican strategies that are now corrupting the American democratic process. Here is a link to the Parenti article:

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/03parenti.cfm
July 03, 2006

The Stolen Election of 2004

By Michael Parenti

The 2004 presidential contest between Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry and the Republican incumbent, President Bush Jr., amounted to another stolen election. This has been well documented by such investigators as Rep. John Conyers, Mark Crispin Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Bev Harris, and others. Here is an overview of what they have reported, along with observations of my own.

Some 105 million citizens voted in 2000, but in 2004 the turnout climbed to at least 122 million. Pre-election surveys indicated that among the record 16.8 million new voters Kerry was a heavy favorite, a fact that went largely unreported by the press. In addition, there were about two million progressives who had voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 who switched to Kerry in 2004.

Yet the official 2004 tallies showed Bush with 62 million votes, about 11.6 million more than he got in 2000. Meanwhile Kerry showed only eight million more votes than Gore received in 2000. To have achieved his remarkable 2004 tally, Bush would needed to have kept all his 50.4 million from 2000, plus a majority of the new voters, plus a large share of the very liberal Nader defectors.

Nothing in the campaign and in the opinion polls suggest such a mass crossover. The numbers simply do not add up.


<snip>
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/03parenti.cfm

[emulatorloo]

1. I had forgotten this one:

<snip>

---Cadres of rightwing activists, many of them religious fundamentalists, were financed by the Republican Party. Deployed to key Democratic precincts, they handed out flyers warning that voters who had unpaid parking tickets, an arrest record, or owed child support would be arrested at the polls---all untrue. They went door to door offering to "deliver" absentee ballots to the proper office, and announcing that Republicans were to vote on Tuesday (election day) and Democrats on Wednesday.

<snip>

Thanks for posting - nominating. . .

[mod mom]

5. Have you seen this link to Garybeck's site:

http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/voter-suppression-flyers.html

[ccpup]

6. If true,

why aren't those Rightwing Activist -- you know, the ones who went door-to-door passing along misinformation about when Repugs vote and when Dems vote -- in jail for some kind of Election felony or something?! Why aren't the Dems following up on this and getting the people who were targeted involved in IDing those who came to their doors? Why aren't Dems targeting the Churches who get tax-exempt status and yet have a history of blatantly campaigning for the Repug Party? It's one thing to painstakingly list every friggin' infranction, but it doesn't mean a hill of beans until the Dem Party takes steps to put a stop to it! Just wondering ...

[mod mom]

7. WHy aren't they in jail? Cuz they're now advising GOP contenders:

Lead figure in phone jam to advise GOP contenders
Charles McGee back to work after prison

By DAVID A. FAHRENTHOLD AND ZACHARY A. GOLDFARB
The Washington Post

May 29. 2006 8:00AM



A
major figure in the Election Day phone-jamming scandal that embarrassed and nearly bankrupted the New Hampshire GOP is out of prison and back in the political game.

Charles McGee, the former executive director of the state Republican Party, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and served seven months for his part in the scheme to have a telemarketer tie up Democratic and union phone lines in 2002.

He's back at his old job with a Republican political marketing firm, Spectrum Monthly & Printing Inc., and will be helping out at the firm's "GOP campaign school" for candidates.
Richard Pease, the firm's co-president, said McGee would be available to advise candidates at the two-day event, planned for next weekend in Manchester. McGee's role at the school was reported Thursday by the New Hampshire Union Leader.

<snip>
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060529/REPOSITORY/605290320


despicable-isn't it?

[ccpup]

11. What's despicable

is that the Dems let the GOP get away with it ... time after time after time! If the Dems had hired someone like this after a prison stint don't you think the Repugs would be foaming at the collective mouth about it? That's how they make it "news". But we Dems just let it s-l-i-d-e. :grr:

[mod mom]

12. They have no subpoena power, so else you could bet that Conyers

would have their sorry asses.

That said it is absolutely infuriating that other Dem leaders have not come out strongly about this issue, instead skirting around the periphacy, just like Hilliary and Edwards do in Autorank's post of today. The RFK Jr article and the response it has caused is forcing Dem leadership into action on this matter. This is the reason why we must continue to push what occurred and NOT let it slip into oblivion. WE ARE THE MEDIA!

[timewellspent]

54. Why do the dems let it slide?

I think it is because they are afraid. They do not have the power and that is a big problem. Let's tell the repugs what to do with the power. They work for the people, that is us.

[kster]

2. K&R................nt

[Cary]

3. So what do we do about this? [n/t]

[mod mom]

8. The Election Reform community is small, and we can't do this alone so we

are trying to get this out to the public so that there is massive outrage. We have got to demand action by the Dem party and their leadership.

On a local level you can get active. In Ohio we have an Adopt a BOE program (see CASEOhio.org), run parallel elections, and many other projects focused at correcting the problems. We are a handful of activists though and have been trying to raise awareness, and thus activity to correct the problem.

[Botany]

4. nothing to see here .... move along .... nothing to see here

and in Indiana in 7 counties a straight party ticket (dem only) resulted in a
flip to a 3rd party candidate

and in Iowa with 30% of the vote in early Kerry had a 13 point lead ....
the last 70% of the vote had to come in better than 3 to 1 for bush and it did

and in Columbus, OH a poor white couple came to the Kerry HQs with a
letter that said that their mother could not get an absentee ballot .... after she had
had a stroke ..... it looked like it was from the BOE but it was from somebody eles

in Wisconsin a straight party ticket (dem only) got the Presidential vote flipped

in New Mexico every county that used opti scan went to bush .... even the ones that
went to Gore in 2000 and had more registered dem voters.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. "even the ones that went to Gore in 2000" -- were there any?

I see 11 NM counties that used op-scan on election day 2004; they all went for Bush in 2004, but also in 2000. I don't see any that flipped. More counties used op-scan for early voting, but at least one of them went for Kerry.

"and in Iowa with 30% of the vote in early Kerry had a 13 point lead ....
the last 70% of the vote had to come in better than 3 to 1 for bush and it did"

If we assume that the 13-point figure is true, the last 70% of the vote would have to come in about 53-47, not 3 to 1.

[intheflow]

9. Reading Parenti turned me into a justice and peace activist.

:kick: for one of my heros.
:cry: for voting rights.

[Awsi Dooger]

13. Just one correction among the mess

"Moreover the Democratic party was unusually united around its candidate-or certainly against the incumbent president. In contrast, prominent elements within the GOP displayed open disaffection, publicly voicing serious misgivings about the Bush administration's huge budget deficits, reckless foreign policy, theocratic tendencies, and threats to individual liberties."

That was a common fallacy on DU in 2004 and has been repeated ever since. The truth is just the opposite. Here's the relevant paragraph from a PEW study, released a few days before the election:http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=232

"As in previous polls, Bush's supporters are much more enthusiastic than those backing Kerry. In fact, Bush registers a higher percentage of strong supporters in the final weekend of the campaign than any candidate since former President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Fully 39% of likely voters support Bush strongly, while 9% back him only moderately. Roughly three-in-ten likely voters say they support Kerry strongly (32%), and 13% back him moderately, a pattern more typical of recent presidential candidates."

Is that the way it works with incumbents, you look at the vote total from the first election and that's the base number, added to only via percentage of the new voters, or previous supporters of 3rd party candidates? I need to write that down. Silly me. I thought there could be a shift in preference, voters supporting the incumbent this time after backing his main opponent four years earlier.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. just to supply some context for your rhetorical question

What Parenti wrote:

To have achieved his remarkable 2004 tally, Bush would needed to have kept all his 50.4 million from 2000, plus a majority of the new voters, plus a large share of the very liberal Nader defectors.

Nothing in the campaign and in the opinion polls suggest such a mass crossover. The numbers simply do not add up.

Your question:

Is that the way it works with incumbents, you look at the vote total from the first election and that's the base number, added to only via percentage of the new voters, or previous supporters of 3rd party candidates?

Well, no. Strictly speaking, some people argue that the number of Gore voters who voted for Bush in '04 is comparable to the number of Bush (2000) voters who voted for Kerry -- and they claim that the exit polls back them up. (Not that there's any evidence that Parenti thought it through that far.) Problem is, they're dead wrong. There is very good reason to believe that more Gore voters defected to Bush than Bush (2000) voters who defected to Kerry.

But at least that point could be controversial. Here's a point that isn't (quoting Parenti) :

In states that were not hotly contested the exit polls proved quite accurate.

That's true if one interpolates the word "some." But depending on how one counts, there were either 11 or 12 states with double-digit exit poll discrepancies, and most of them weren't at all "hotly contested." Delaware? Vermont?

And here's one that is exit-poll-free (because I snipped the gratuitous and also erroneous reference to exit polls at the end) :

One explanation for the strange anomalies in vote tallies was found in the widespread use of touchscreen electronic voting machines. These machines produced results that consistently favored Bush over Kerry....

Well, no, they didn't, at least for any definition of "consistently favored" that I can think of. I have no idea where Parenti got that "fact." Or this one:

This may be the most telling datum of all: In New Mexico in 2004 Kerry lost all precincts equipped with touchscreen machines, irrespective of income levels, ethnicity, and past voting patterns.

Well, no, he didn't. Actually, the biggest voting problems in New Mexico seem to have been with push button DREs, although Kerry certainly didn't lose all those precincts either.

Oh well.

[mrfrapp]

15. Exit Polls

The issue with the Exit Polls is what bugs me the most. As Parenti notes in the article, Exit Polls are remarkably accurate at predicting the actual result of an election, within fractions of a percentage point in fact, and are used to monitor elections in other countries that have questionable voting procedures. The Carter Centre for example use Exit Polls to help them detect mischievous election officials.

As fortune would have it, another election was taking place in the same week as the 2004 US Presidential Elections in the Ukraine. This too was controversial and fraud was suspected because of discrepancies in the Exit Polls. The MSM even pointed this out as the reason to question the validity of the election! So why didn't the MSM put two and two together and realise that if Exit Poll discrepancies in the Ukraine meant fraud then it would mean likewise in any other country including the USA? It's not as if the so called Orange Revolution happened a year or even a month earlier when the press could plead ignorance of forgetfulness, it was happening at exactly the same time as the election in the US.

It's interesting to re-read the media from that time when journalists where openly discussing Exit Polls in the case of the Ukraine but were mysteriously quiet when it came to discussing the outcome of Bush-Kerry contest. Also remember that the talking heads were happy to discuss Exit Polls before the final result came in... If any evidence is need that the MSM is lazy, ignorant or worse then this is it.

[mod mom]

16. Steven Freeman on the Exit Polls (response to RFK Jr discussion)

in case you missed this:

egitimate election-Key RFK Source-Responds to Criticism of 04 Election


Illegitimate election
A key source for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responds to criticism of his analysis of the 2004 election

By Steven F. Freeman

June 12, 2006 | Because Robert F Kennedy Jr. based much of the discussion in his Rolling Stone article on interviews with me and on a close reading of my new book, coauthored with Joel Bleifuss, "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count," and because Kennedy cites in his thorough footnotes many of the same key sources we worked from, I feel compelled to address directly several statements that Farhad Manjoo makes about the exit polls, both in his original Salon article and in his response to Kennedy's response to that article -- statements that are either incorrect or based on misunderstandings about exit polls and the 2004 results.

We regret that Manjoo did not request an advance copy of our book before writing his article. Had he done so, I'm confident that many of the basic errors he made could have been avoided.

Are exit polls usually accurate?

Yes, they are. On Nov. 2, 2004, Manjoo's source Mark Blumenthal, the Mystery Pollster, had this to say: "I have always been a fan of exit polls. Despite the occasional controversies, exit polls remain among the most sophisticated and reliable political surveys available." Properly done exit polls are highly accurate. Given the large sample size in U.S. exit polls, they ought to be accurate within 1 to 2 percentage points of the official count.

The 2004 Election Day exit poll was a well-funded effort conducted by the most experienced pollsters in the business, and it represented a broad spectrum of media interests, from Fox to CBS. The sample included 114,559 respondents in the 50 state exit polls, conducted at 1,480 precincts throughout the nation. A subsample of these was selected to provide a sample representative of the U.S. electorate for the national exit poll: 11,719 Election Day voters and 500 absentee and early voters. The National Election Pool, NEP, a consortium of six news organizations (ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC) pooled resources to conduct a thorough survey of each state and the nation. NEP in turn contracted two respected firms, Joe Lenski's Edison Media research and Warren Mitofsky's Mitofsky International, to conduct the polls.

more at:


http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/freeman/

[mod mom]

17. Baiman: Clearly a crime was committed in Ohio

"I would take this evidence to a trial. Clearly a crime was committed in Ohio. There is simply no other explanation for these patterns other than vote shifting. The only thing we don’t know is who did it and how. And exactly this kind of information is necessary to get serious electoral reform - that you claim to support."

RON BAIMAN

Ron Baiman is currently a Policy Research Project Development Analyst at Loyola University in Chicago, as well as an visiting assistant professor at the University of Chicago. He holds a Ph.D. in Econonomics from The New School for Social Research.





In his June 7, 2006 reply to Kennedy’s rebuttal of his earlier critique Farhad Manjoo citing Mark Blumenthal, claims that:



a) The exit poll margins of error for Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio were between 5% to 7%. This is preposterous. Rather than relying on Mark Blumenthal (an unreliable source for quantitative analysis), I urge Manjoo to download the National Election Pool a “Methods Statement” for the Edison Mitofsky (EM) exit polls (produced on Nov. 2 2006) at:



http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/MethodsStatementNationalFinal.pdf



The second page of this statement sets 95% confidence intervals for these polls (for a “characteristic” held by roughly 50% of those polled, for example a Presidential candidate preference for which there is a close to even split) squarely at 4% for sample sizes of 951-2350 – the range of reported sample sizes for these states. However, as Blumenthal knows, the reported sample sizes (also in the methods statements) are about half of what they really are (see Mitofsky correspondence in Baiman June 5 Free Press AAPOR report). For these true doubled sample sizes of 2351-5250, NEP’s own estimated confidence interval falls to 3%. This clearly puts the Ohio discrepancy of about 4% outside of the margin of error - even using NEP's inflated margins of error.

My margin of error calculations (and I believe Freeman’s) find a 2% margin of error with a 30% cluster adjustment factor. As I have stated in my earlier response to Manjoo, this puts Ohio well outside the margin of sampling error with odds of less than 1,900 that Kerry’s reported result is true given the exit poll result. This is not “slight” evidence but rather highly statistically significant, especially one considered with the inexplicable pro-Bush exit poll discrepancies in the two other key battle ground states of Florida and Pennsylvania. As Freeman and I have stated, the odds that these “sampling errors” (in the same direction and of these magnitudes) would occur for these three states simultaneously in less than one in 182,000,000 (i.e virtually impossible - this number is based on doubled sample sizes). Moreover, when one looks at precinct level exit poll data , and not just aggregate state polls, the evidence in even more striking and inexplicable. A fact that Manjoo has not addressed at all.



<snip>

http://www.Baiman.blogspot.com

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. nope, sorry

The Carter Center actually has repeatedly warned against using exit polls to analyze elections. They did do some follow-up work in Venezuela partly in response to the, umm, I think Penn Schoen exit poll that supposedly indicated that Chavez had lost, but they did not set out to "use" exit polls there.

Freeman demonstrated that exit polls were "remarkably accurate in predicting" three consecutive German elections, but that is far from proving that they are remarkably accurate in the U.S. Actually, the 2005 German exit polls were a few points off, although Freeman never updated his analysis to reflect that fact.

Many, many reasons were presented to suspect the election results in Ukraine. It is ahistorical to single out the exit polls as "the reason."

I've explained many times why many knowledgeable observers including me don't think the U.S. exit polls evince fraud, and I'm happy to do it at any time. Don't blame the MSM, lousy as it often is.

[mrfrapp]

19. Interesting

"The Carter Center actually has repeatedly warned against using exit polls to analyze elections."

Really? So how does the Carter Center monitor elections if not by monitoring/conducting exit polls? I know they do a lot of other work in ensuring fair elections but I've been led to believe that the monitoring of exit polls was crucial.

"Many, many reasons were presented to suspect the election results in Ukraine. It is ahistorical to single out the exit polls as 'the reason.'"

I didn't mean to present it as 'the reason', I was simply pointing out the absurdity of the press discussing exit polls in one instance and ignoring them in another. :-)

"I've explained many times why many knowledgeable observers including me don't think the U.S. exit polls evince fraud, and I'm happy to do it at any time."

Clearly, exit polls are prone to bias if not conducted correctly but given a large enough random sampling of the electorate an exit poll would be someway accurate. I would be interested to read any articles or papers on the subject if you could recommend them. :-)

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. hey there

Short answer: the Carter Center recommends quick counts. I did a little compilation here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1328708&mesg_id=1336021

The exit polls were somewhat accurate in the U.S., even if we assume that the official returns were accurate. 51-48 one way versus 51-48 the other wouldn't even be detectable as error in most polls. (Some of the state discrepancies were larger, of course.) But the problem with talking about a "large enough random sampling" is that there isn't much relationship between "large enough" and "random." The exit poll was big, but it can't be guaranteed random because voters can't be compelled to participate randomly. Making the sample larger doesn't reduce the bias. The most famous biased poll (not an exit poll) in history, the 1936 Literary Digest poll, was something like 20 times as large as the 2004 exit poll, and the discrepancy was something like seven times as large.

I'm not sure where to start in terms of articles about exit polls. Here is an article by an SSRC working group:
http://elections.ssrc.org/research/ExitPollReport031005.pdf
Mark Blumenthal, aka Mystery Pollster, has written lots of stuff on exit polls -- the index is at
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/exit_polls/index.html
I coauthored an article for Public Opinion Pros, but I actually haven't figured out whether I am allowed to post it myself. You can read several other things I wrote at
http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/
Of course, lots of people will tell you that this is all nonsense, but I haven't found that they do very well when it is time to explain why. Your Mileage May Vary.

[BeFree]

20. From the Carter Center about exit polls

Election returns were to be posted on the Internet as they were received at IFE. Election day went well, with about 64% turnout, relatively peaceful, only a dozen or so disqualified "casillas" out of 113,000, and a barrage of exit polls and quick counts. About 4 p.m. we stopped by PAN headquarters, and Vicente Fox showed us the results of 10 exit polls, all except PRI's showing Fox ahead. Ultimately, this proved to be the case, with a surprising PAN margin of victory of about 6% for president. PAN also won both contested governorships, a plurality in both houses of congress, and came close to winning the mayorship of Mexico City. Everyone accepted these early returns, and there were gracious concession speeches before midnight.

http://www.cartercenter.org/search/viewindexdoc.asp

[BeFree]

21. Even more

Immediately after voting ceased, exit polls showed Toledo in the lead but without a majority and Garcia being narrowly in second place, with a run-off now required within 30 days of the final announcement of official results. That evening, Transparencia announced its quick count, which was accepted by the news media and the public as practically final. Toledo had 36.6 percent, García 25.9 percent, and Lourdes 24.2 percent (which would prove to be almost exactly accurate).

http://www.cartercenter.org/search/viewindexdoc.asp

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. as so often, you are off-topic

The question isn't whether the Carter Center ever alludes to the results of exit polls; it is whether it uses them to monitor elections. If you actually searched the site, I assume you were just about to post this quotation

"Avoid exit polls, which are unreliable in a climate of suspicion and which will create a negative atmosphere if the voters feel they are being watched."
http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/1154.pdf, page 4

but just haven't gotten to it yet.

[BeFree]

23. Not true

"Avoid exit polls, which are unreliable in a climate of suspicion and which will create a negative atmosphere if the voters feel they are being watched."

What this refers to is in states where the exit polls are controlled by one party. What sets us apart is that up until midnight our exit polls were pure science, then had controls from the ruling party layered over that science.

Or are you saying the exit polls Miscountski produced were done so under a "climate of suspicion... (and U.S.)...voters feel they are being watched"?

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. "What this refers to is..."

Well, dude, you have no way of knowing that. It's not as if the Carter Center commissioned its own exit poll.

The "pure science" of U.S. exit polls says that a lot of them have been off beyond the margin of error. As to whether that's because of a "climate of suspicion," people can form their own views. The stuff about "controls from the ruling party," well, as far as I can tell you just make that stuff up to annoy me.

[BeFree]

26. So...

....you are saying Miscountski operated under a fear of suspicion and the voters were paranoid?

If that is what you are saying, then we are talking a different ball game, because those were the conditions Carter was working under in those other countries.

Too, who controls the voting systems in the US with the $4 billion in federal dollars going to a handful of companies with direct ties to the republicans? THAT is what annoys me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. your post has nothing to do with what I wrote... but hey, that's fine n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

58. how about this exit poll?

If bumper stickers were exit polls, then NC truly did go for
Bush.

Although our affiliated voters in NC are majority Dems,
we have a large portion of unaffiliated.

But our state is full of cars/SUVs/RangeRovers with "W"
or GWBush or Bush stickers or bumperstickers.

And zillions of those darned yellow ribbon support our troops
(but keep sending more over there and keep screwing with their benefits).

So, if bumper stickers were votes, W won.

I think playing the "abortion" card won it for W here,
even with some Dems. I had some tell me they had to vote
for Bush because of the abortion issue, which is nuts, considering
how many lives have been lost because of his policies.

[BeFree]

28. Then from a OTOH link.. a Piled Deep and Full

http://elections.ssrc.org/research/ExitPollReport031005.pdf
"One feature of the end of the 2004 presidential campaign was the leaking of
preliminary exit poll data from the National Election Pool (NEP) on several websites
during the afternoon of November 2.1 The leaks were not completely unexpected because
a similar incident occurred during the 2000 presidential campaign. Several websites
announced in advance their intention to locate and release early data, and the activity and
visibility of several websites and blogs had increased significantly during this campaign.
The difference in 2004 was that the early exit poll data were incorrect in that they
suggested that John Kerry was ahead in the national poll and leading in several key states
that would have been sufficient to give him an Electoral College majority. Furthermore,
even the final data had a Kerry bias in their estimate of the outcome."

Just the introduction and already jumping to conclusions. pdf.

It has been proven that the early numbers were pure, and the final numbers were severly altered.

I guess the article has already accepted as proof the bad analysis of the reasons Mitofski's final poll numbers were 6% off from his estimates?

Like I said, that link is .pdf. Piled Deep and Full. But lets us do some more digging......

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. where is your evidence?

Sooner or later, everyone is going to catch on that you routinely make bold statements of fact without lifting a finger to support them. And some of them won't mind. But I do. Reality matters.

"It has been proven that the early numbers were pure...."

WTF does that mean, "pure"? For that matter, what do you mean by "early" and "numbers"?

[BeFree]

30. Two shovels full

page 3

As a result, there was sufficient public discussion and consternation that a
committee of the U.S. House headed by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) held open
sessions about election administration and the exit polls to which several of the principles
were invited for presentations. NEP and its partners remained relatively silent through all
of this, and it was not until January 19, 2005 that a report was released by Edison
Research/Mitofsky International about what happened with the exit polls on Election
Day.

Note that they don't say how the Conyers committee did not have partisan support, and was fought the whole way by the powers against him. Or that none of the characters in question were willing to particiapate, yet they make it look like it was complete. heck, they don't even refer to Conyer's findings. pdf

page 8

Representative John Conyers, Jr.
scheduled a hearing on December 8 to discuss the election outcome, including the exit
poll results. NEP and its partner news organizations did not participate in this meeting,
and they declined an invitation to make their "raw" data publicly available.23



page 10. Talking about the E/M 2005 report on E/M errors

..result, there are some sections of the report in which there is an extremely detailed level
of disclosure about what the exit poll data show, but in other parts of the report there are
only hypotheses about what might have been the cause for a particular observation.
These hypotheses can guide future experiments in exit polling methodology or even
direct changes in the methods, but they cannot explain in a strict causal sense what
happened in the 2004 data collection.

Note the important use of the word Hypotheses in that it could not explain what happened. But that is the same info claimed in the introduction as their conclusion. pdf

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. yadda yadda yadda

If you think the Conyers report has anything to do with the exit poll argument, by all means let us know what. Otherwise, we can just add it to a long list of topics that the SSRC document spends little or no space on -- but so what? Not a rhetorical question.

"Note the important use of the word Hypotheses in that it could not explain what happened."

OK, we can add this to your definitions list: what do you mean by "explain"? and for extra points, what do you suppose they mean by "explain in a strict causal sense what happened in the 2004 data collection"? Hint: they don't think the exit polls show that the election was stolen.

[autorank]

45. The sequence of claims about EM and folks is interesting.

For years up to 2004: "Great work - giant in the field 'the gold standard' of exit polling.

2004, a "big game" so to speak. "Oh my God! What a disaster." Chased the white whale and lost big.

Right after 2004: "His record for accuracy is well known. "'his caution in projecting winners is a Mitofsky trademark, one which has served him well…,' said David W. Moore, the managing editor of the Gallup Poll in his book, "The Super Pollsters.""

Mitofsky Corporate site
http://tinyurl.com/lbsf3

What a remarkable lapse, terrific, terrible, terrific. Go figure.

Can you explain this Be Free?

[BeFree]

46. Can I explain this?

Well, yes, I can.

And it starts by asking: What did the media expect to get for their 10 million dollars they paid Mitofsky?

The answer: The early estimates, the numbers that claimed Kerry won.

What Mitofsky is saying now is just an effort to stay in the running for another $10 million.

[autorank]

51. I knew there was an answer;)

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. fact check

Mitofsky has, naturally, been touting his reputation for accuracy for years. Heck if I know how long; the earliest archive.org version is from June 2001, and the quotation appears there. The 2nd edition of that book came out in 1995, so I wouldn't be surprised if Mitofsky has been quoting that for at least ten years.

What really blows my mind is when people seem not to read the words they are quoting. Mitofsky wants to be admired for his caution in projecting winners.

Did Edison/Mitofsky project Kerry as the winner in 2004? Nope.

Would Mitofsky's reputation for accuracy be better if E/M had projected Kerry as the winner? Well, maybe on DU. Otherwise, probably not.

[BeFree]

56. Which brings up an interesting point

It has been said that the measures Mistofsky has used to make an attempt to explain why the estimates were 6% off, are extraordinary.

So just imagine if he stuck with his estimates and tried to explain why they were correct. Why, he'd have made enemies of bushco and never again gotten a contract.

But the way he has gone about it - taking the extraordinary measures he has to show how he messed up, keeps him in the running for more contracts and in the good graces of bushco.

Still, the estimates, even after modeling and all the rest, showed Kerry won. Then came the midnight massacre and the resultant reaching past all possibilities, to make the estimates conform to the machine generated numbers.

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. well, I don't think so

Actually, if the exit polls held the key to demonstrating election theft, I think that would be the crowning achievement of a career.

"Still, the estimates, even after modeling and all the rest, showed Kerry won." No, they didn't. They showed a race too close to call. Sorry about that.

[autorank]

32. Channeling TIA, for the sake of further insight on Parenti's article

This should add to the discussion;)
-----------------------------------
This is a good article, but Parenti made a few data errors (he actually understates the Kerry margin). He does not point out that the Final NEP (13660 respondents, 1:25pm, Nov.3) is the ultimate SMOKING GUN, since the "How Voted in 2000" weights mathematically impossible and therefore TOTALLY INVALIDATE THE FINAL NEP.

If we cannot accept the results of one voter characteristic, we cannot accept ANY OF THE OTHERS (i.e. Party-ID, Gender, When Decided, etc.) In fact, changes in weights and/or vote shares in ALL of the voter characteristics from the 12:22am timeline to the Final NEP are consistently BEYOND the MoE.

Parenti did not account for the approximately 3.5mm Selection 2000 voters who died prior to 2004. Bush needed 13 million new voters (not 11.6mm) to go from 49mm to 62mm. Kerry led by 51.4-47.6% (not 53-47%) at the 12:22am timeline (13047 respondents), indicating a 5mm (not 1.5mm) Kerry margin. The Final NEP (13660 respondents,1:25pm, Nov.3) manipulated the 12:22am NEP timeline results in order to MATCH the recorded vote which Bush won by 51-48%.

As I have posted ad nauseam, the Final NEP "How Voted in 2000" weights (43% Bush/37% Gore) are mathematically impossible, since at most 48.7mm Bush 2000 voters returned to vote in 2004 and 48.7/122.3 is 39.82%. The discrepancy (43%-39.82%) far exceeds the MoE for this characteristic.

So much for rBr. Mitofsky needed another bogus hypothesis: "false recall". Meaning that 7.5% (3/40) of Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied when they said they voted for Bush in 2004. That explains the 43/37 weightings. Right.

Why would they lie? Exit poll responders are never revealed. Who are they trying to impress -the Exit Pollsters? Or was it that they forgave Bush and approved of his policies? Has there ever been a president so incompetent and corrupt? Bush makes Nixon look like FDR.

And how could they forget that they voted for Gore? They knew they were Democrats all their lives. Their parents voted for FDR and JFK. They voted for Clinton. Are we to believe that they forgot all about Selection 2000? Bush and Scotus stole it from Gore. How do you forget that? Republicans are as vulnerable to Alzheimer's as the Democrats. Remember Reagan?

________________________________________________________________________
July 03, 2006
The Stolen Election of 2004
By Michael Parenti

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/03p...

The 2004 presidential contest between Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry and the Republican incumbent, President Bush Jr., amounted to another stolen election. This has been well documented by such investigators as Rep. John Conyers, Mark Crispin Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Bev Harris, and others. Here is an overview of what they have reported, along with observations of my own.

Some 105 million citizens voted in 2000, but in 2004 the turnout climbed to at least 122 million. Pre-election surveys indicated that among the record 16.8 million new voters Kerry was a heavy favorite, a fact that went largely unreported by the press. In addition, there were about two million progressives who had voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 who switched to Kerry in 2004.

Yet the official 2004 tallies showed Bush with 62 million votes, about 11.6 million more than he got in 2000. Meanwhile Kerry showed only eight million more votes than Gore received in 2000. To have achieved his remarkable 2004 tally, Bush would needed to have kept all his 50.4 million from 2000, plus a majority of the new voters, plus a large share of the very liberal Nader defectors.

Nothing in the campaign and in the opinion polls suggest such a mass crossover. The numbers simply do not add up.

In key states like Ohio, the Democrats achieved immense success at registering new voters, outdoing the Republicans by as much as five to one. Moreover the Democratic party was unusually united around its candidate-or certainly against the incumbent president. In contrast, prominent elements within the GOP displayed open disaffection, publicly voicing serious misgivings about the Bush administration's huge budget deficits, reckless foreign policy, theocratic tendencies, and threats to individual liberties.
Sixty newspapers that had endorsed Bush in 2000 refused to do so in 2004; forty of them endorsed Kerry.

All through election day 2004, exit polls showed Kerry ahead by 53 to 47 percent, giving him a nationwide edge of about 1.5 million votes, and a solid victory in the electoral college. Yet strangely enough, the official tally gave Bush the election. Here are some examples of how the GOP "victory" was secured...

____________________________________________________________


The Law of Large Numbers & Central Limit Theorem: A Polling Simulation
by TruthIsAll

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

According to the final 2004 NEP, which Bush won by 51-48%, 43% of the 13660 respondents voted for Bush in 2000 while only 37% voted for Gore. This contradicts the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. Furthermore, 43% of the 122.3 million who voted in 2004 is 52.57mm, yet Bush only got 50.45 mm votes in 2000. The 43/37% split is a mathematical impossibility.

In addition, approximately 1.75 mm Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Therefore, no more than 48.7 mm of Bush 2000 voters could have turned out to vote in 2004. The Bush 2000 voter share was 48.7/122.3 (or 39.8%), assuming that all of the Bush 2000 voters still living came to the polls. These mathematical facts are beyond dispute. Kerry won the final 1:25pm exit poll by 50.93-48.66%, assuming equal 39.8% weights.

For the same reason, Kerry must have done even better than his 51.4-47.6% winning margin at the 12:22am timeline (13047 respondents). Here the Bush/Gore mix was 41/39%. But we have just shown that 39.8% was the absolute maximum Bush share. If we apply equal weightings to the 12:22am results, then Kerry won by 52.25-46.77%, a 6.7 million vote margin (63.8-57.1mm).

First-time voters and those who sat out the 2000 election, as well as Nader and Gore 2000 voters, were overwhelming Kerry voters. The recorded Bush 2004 vote was 62 million. Where did he get the 13 million new voters from 2000? How do the naysayers explain it? Only by ignoring the mathematical facts and raising new implausible theories.

HERE'S A COMPREHENSIVE ELECTION 2004 SITE:
POLLING DATA, ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION
and...
THE EXCEL INTERACTIVE ELECTION MODEL
http://www.truthisall.net/

[mod mom]

33. Thanks Auto, I was hoping you'd preform a little channeling.

Guess I can expect a few more "ignored" entries on this post ;)

[autorank]

35. It's so nice to see the actual username of a respondent to this message.

I think that this is constructive criticism and Parenti should just get ahold of it, evaluate it for himself, and incorprate it. It's a major project with different people offering new perpsetives and informaiton that augment those that are already out there.

Thanks to Parenti for making his statement, which was powerful despite any extra data added.

[BeFree]

34. Channel on, Dude!

I'm trying, you tell TIA I'm trying, K? I ain't no whiz at this stuff, but I know what's right and what's wrong, and I'm trying.

Thanks, Mike, that does add a great deal. Hell, it seals it shut: Kerry won.


BTW: just saw Rep. Corrine Brown (D) Jacksonville Fla. on the floor of congress saying "Don't forget the coup de ta' of 2000". Warmed me cockles it did.

[autorank]

36. I'm going to start channeling you too;) You do a great job!!!! It's

noticed by all. No qualifiers necessary...and you're brief, unlike certain people writing this message.

Corrine Brown (D) Jacksonville Fla. should know. Wasn't that where they threw out about 20 thousand ballots, mostly in minority districts and refused to allow for a challenge? I remember seeing the community representative talking about

It's all Mexico baby, Mexico is America is Mexico. Canada and Great Britain, watch out, it's headed your way. Pretty soon some weenie in one or both of those fine nations will come up with a scheme to "modernize" voting and then they'll get those last minute 1-3% victories.

The Political Lynching of Congresswoman Brown

Greg Palast
July 2004
http://tinyurl.com/nt4gh

NBC News first reported tonight about an “outburst” on the floor of the House. Turns out it was Corrine Brown (D- Jacksonville, FL) debating the request made by five Representatives to have the UN monitor U.S. Elections (see article re/their original proposal below). Turns out that House leadership answered their call with legislation forbidding any U.N. money be used to monitor elections in the U.S.

Rep. Brown then said that the House leadership had participated in a “coup d’etat” in 2000 by stealing the election and that we would need monitoring to make sure it didn’t happen again. They played a tape of the leadership then shouting Brown down, slamming the gavel and telling her to get off the floor.

The House then voted along party lines - now here is the big news - TO HAVE HER COMMENTS STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD:

--------------------
These comments:
On video too:

"Representative Brown said, "I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No we're not going to get over it and we want verification from the world."

[BeFree]

37. Well

I am honored. Honored to be amongst such a fine company of people not willing to "get over it." People willing to speak the truth against the powerful, and against those who call us crazy. Amongst people who love our freedoms.

And lets face it: what we are doing will save lives. We will save lies by seeing to it that the truth is known and the crooks who are signing death sentences for so many innocents will one day be put in their rightful place. In jail.

I also do it to save my own life, for if as long as they stay in power, my life is in danger.

Corrine speaks for me. It was inspiring to see her on Cspan this eve as she and others spoke for Voters Rights Bill. Just as I had reached a new low, there she was, speaking to me, and for me.

You, Autorank, are inspiring, TIA is inspiring, IndyOp is inspiring. Nearly all the folks here are inspiring. Thank you all.

[Awsi Dooger]

38. Can't believe he's still using the lame "How They Voted in 2000" argument

Reminds me of something Michael "Roxy" Roxborough, chief linesmaker in Las Vegas for two decades, said to me on a radio program in the early '90s; "If a sportsbook's bottom line depended on who people claim they bet on, as opposed to the team they actually bet, every casino in this state would be out of business."

No kidding, especially the Super Bowl. No one had the loser in the Super Bowl.

I know I read a paper by OTOH on this topic months ago. I'll let him elaborate here if he chooses, but one of the findings was an impossibly high number of Clinton voters in '96, if you base it on how the same question in the 2000 exit polls was answered. That race was 8.5 points in '96 but remarkably soared to something like a 15 point gap if you relied on memory of the voters in 2000.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. glad TIA is feeling better -- but he is still wrong

And, frankly, I don't see how he has the slightest excuse for being so wrong at this point. As Awsi pointed out, I don't think TIA has lifted a finger to explain the "too many Clinton voters" in 2000.

I dare TIA to do what I did -- to look at every available exit poll dataset. I obtained nine, prior to 2004, and every single one overstated the previous winner's vote share. Even the 1976 exit poll overstated Nixon's 1972 vote share (I suppose that could be because so many die-hard Nixon voters turned out).

Here's a handy compilation: http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/too-many.pdf , Table 3.

There is no "new implausible theor(y)" here -- just facing facts.

[Awsi Dooger]

62. TIA responds with the Voila theory

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=3008

"Could it be that a percentage of 2000 voters claiming to have voted for Clinton in 1996 did not realize that their votes were not counted? How would they know? But WE know that almost 3mm votes are lost (spoiled, discarded, hidden) in every election, and the vast majority are democratic votes. Therefore, it's conceivable that Clinton may have lost 2mm votes because of this phenomenon and his true (not recorded) vote was 46+2 = 48mm after all. Voila!"

With an estimated residual rate of 2.1% in '96, that would be approximately 2 million unattributed votes, since 96+ million were cast. It's generally accepted .5% are intentional under votes, even in a presidential race. So that wipes out 500,000. Assigning a full 2 million extra votes -- a 4.35% bump if we're going from 46 to 48 million -- in Clinton's direction alone seems like an extravagant reach to me, although TIA did include the fall back words discarded and hidden. I guess switched hadn't made its debut yet.

I'm wondering why the same principle was conveniently ignored regarding Bush's total in 2000? TIA seems perfectly willing to assign 2/3 of the "lost" '96 votes to Clinton, presumably allocating the remaining nearly one million to Dole, Perot and the lessers. 2000 had approximately 9 million more official votes for president and roughly the same residual rate, about 2%. So why aren't we Voila-ing two million 2000 votes to Gore and one million more to Bush? I never seem to notice that in TIA's summary. He grants Bush the 49 million in 2000, based on the "How They Voted" percentage adjusted for mortality. Seems to me it should be closer to 50 million. That's not 62 million, but maybe he cheated less than it appears :)

I am glad to see TIA back in business, and hopefully full health very soon.

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. TIA tends to stop when he reaches a conclusion he likes

"it's conceivable that Clinton may have lost 2mm votes...." Moving from that to "Voila" within a sentence seems to evince the will to believe, not the desire to know.

Even if we assume that approximately 135% of residual votes (or whatever the number would have to be) in 1996 went to Clinton, we would also have to assume 100% turnout in 2000 among the Clinton voters, contrasted with maybe 87% turnout among the Dole voters. Or perhaps we could assume that the 2000 exit poll just happened to be "off" on that particular question. Regardless, one still has to account for why eight other exit polls dating back to 1976 were also "off" on that question, always favoring the previous winner -- and why 14 out of 14 National Election Study questions about past vote have also been "off" in the same direction.

Ten exit polls in all; fourteen NES studies; all overstating the vote share of the previous winner. Who can look at that record and conclude that the past-vote question is accurate?

[autorank]

40. .Hello to the two right above me. Good morning.

I can't see your posts which should tell you something. You can continue to respond to me I'm sure
but it might not want to since I'm not seeing anything you write. Kind of like doing pantomime
for Tiresias.

:)Have a nice day:)

[mod mom]

41. It makes life more bearable-doesn't it?

DU is too valuable of a tool to get messages out to waste by being thrown off over distractors. I glad there are so few here that warrant use of the "button".

Fight on Auto!

:patriot:

[autorank]

42. :)

:hi:

[Febble]

44. Well, I don't know if I am

on your list, but it strikes me as a) silly and b) offensive to taunt posters you don't want to listen to with the information that they are not being listened to.

Actually, I think it is rather important information. If you are happy to continue to believe that the fact that more people in 2004 reported voting for Bush in 2000 than could have voted for Bush 2000 is indicative of fraud in 2004, and yet refuse to apply the same logic to the reported Clinton 1996 vote in 2000 (massive pro-Gore fraud in 2000 anyone?) then, fine, continue to stick your fingers in your ears.

But frankly, I don't think it is OTOH that looks silly.

(This post is for the benefit of those DU readers who don't stick their fingers in their ears when faced with pesky facts).

[mod mom]

48. 1. Posts 17, 18 and 32 all contain very regarded experts 2. Febble,

you know very well that that the exit polls are just one piece of the puzzle, with much hard evidence to back up it's premise. 3. Some of us are working to rectify the wrong by exposing the wrong doing, getting it out to the public and (since it is not front and center with the Dem party) coming up with a plan (s) to make sure is doesn't occur again. What is the point in have your blood boiled while travelling in the same circles?

[Febble]

50. Well, 18 seems to be OTOH

so there seems to be a numbering problem with the ignore button.

17 is about Ron Baiman's analysis which is entirely about exit polls, and, IMO entirely wrong. You describe him as a "very regarded expert" - well, I'd like to know by whom. You are smart enough, Mod Mom, to have your own opinion of his paper - what do you find convincing about it?

32 references TIA, who, I certainly agree, is "well-regarded" on DU, and I have rather more respect for his mathematical abilities than I have for Baiman's (it's his assumptions I quarrel with). But again, we all have brains, and I repeat my question: if too many apparent Bush 2000 voters in the 2004 exit poll is supposed to be "the clincher" for pro-Bush fraud in 2004, how do you explain too many Clinton 1996 voters in the 2000 exit poll? Was there massive pro-Gore fraud?

Well, I don't think so, what seems more likely is that people misreport their past vote in favour of the incumbent. OTOH (whose posts of course you will have missed) did an extensive trawl of past exit poll data and found voters consistently over-reported having voted for the incumbent - even for Nixon. In other words, the finding that there were around the same proportion-too-many apparent Bush 2000 voters in the 2004 exit poll (reweighted) as you would expect from past patterns is actually evidence in favour of the accuracy of the reweighted poll, not the reverse.

I agree, that exit polls are just "one piece of the puzzle" - but as far as I can see they are the piece that doesn't fit. I agree with you that there are plenty of other pieces, and those pieces point to a grossly unjust election - one marred, above all, by voter suppression.

I also think there is every reason to abhor the advance of crap digital voting machines (though every reason to welcome the end of punchcards). And the idea of having my blood boiled while travelling in the same circles doesn't appeal to me at all.

But I don't think publishing papers claiming that the exit polls are "virtually irrefutable evidence of fraud" in Ohio when they patently are not, or that claiming that the fact that an impossible proportion of 2004 voters claimed to have voted for Bush in 2000 is "clinching" evidence of fraud, when a similarly impossible proportion of voters claim to have voted for the incumbent in every election since at least Nixon, is the right way of "getting it out to the public" - given that both these claims can be easily refuted and risk make the case look silly.

I think the cause of election reform is irrefutable. I'd just like it made with irrefutable arguments, not refutable ones. I find that irrefutable arguments tend to work better, particularly when you aren't preaching to the choir.

But I'm glad to see I'm not on ignore. I do suggest that ignoring counter-evidence is counter-productive to any cause.

edited to add

And I'm glad to note that the great man himself is not ignoring me either, bless him. Nice to hear your voice, TIA! :hi: I was so glad to hear the good news!!

[mod mom]

53. my mistake, 16 and 17. As I have said before, I defer to others when

exit polls are concerned and those with more experience in statistics. I believe both Baiman and Freeman are highly credentialed. How do you think Dr Baiman got to Loyola and U Chicago? What about Dr Steven Freeman as well?

but as I stated previously...my determination in this area was a personal one: I witnessed what occurred in the near east suburbs of Columbus, OH on that cold rainy Nov day and no one will ever convince me that I did not witness a crime. My precinct had short lines and later no lines (as documented in affidavits, one of which was my husband's, who worked as a precinct runner for the Kerry campaign); while nearby long lines (5 hours in Cols 25-B a precinct I canvassed and hence knew the determination of the voters) and broken machines. Nov 5th, the Columbus Dispatch publishes a map with votes per machine, which is very different from my experience. I start making calls/sending emails to the Franklin Co BOE, SOS office. After many attempts I finally connect with someone. I have saved his emails for documentation. I finally am sent a spreadsheet that breaks down machine allocation by precinct with reg voters, actual voters, new registrations etc for both 2000 and 2004 (this is the now infamous spreadsheet that was used to determine how high Dem precincts (low income) were allocated machines in an unfair manner) and how many machines were allocated and also with held. As I stated, I am no expert with numbers so I got this info out to the Freepress (who were holding public testimony hearings) who got it out to many others.

I attended all the public hearings and heard testimony from so many. Riveting stories, from honest law abiding citizens who despite determination, were not allowed to vote. More and more evidence has come out and much of it has been documented here, as well as with the House Judiciary Dem Staff. I worked on a liaison committee with this (legal) staff early in '05 and what I heard committed me to close my business and focus on this issue and exposing the fraud.

Anyone who attempts to diminish this issue is no friend of democracy and I simply do not have time to go around in circles with those who refuse to look at the entire body of evidence and scream foul.

[Febble]

55. yes, I figured (eventually) you must have meant

Freeman.

Well, there is obviously a problem in evaluating statistical evidence when all you have is competing claims from apparent experts. But neither Baiman nor Freeman are political scientists, and Freeman makes no claim to statistical expertise:

"I come to the subject not as a specialist, and least of all in statistics, but rather as an interdisciplinary scholar familiar with the fields in question and willing to ask what appear to be obvious, important questions for which reasonable answers have not been forthcoming."

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ASAP-Improbabilities051014.pdf

Baiman seems prone to major errors:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=399398#399632

and "jumping the gun"

http://www.baiman.blogspot.com/

And while I appreciate that a willingess to admit errors is part of what makes a good scientist, I would argue that there are a great many more errors in Baiman's work than those he has conceded.

And I would also argue that Freeman's work, though eloquent, is also prone to errors. Even in the paragraph you cite:

Yes, they are. On Nov. 2, 2004, Manjoo's source Mark Blumenthal, the Mystery Pollster, had this to say: "I have always been a fan of exit polls. Despite the occasional controversies, exit polls remain among the most sophisticated and reliable political surveys available." Properly done exit polls are highly accurate. Given the large sample size in U.S. exit polls, they ought to be accurate within 1 to 2 percentage points of the official count.

his quotation from Mark Blumenthal is, to say the least, highly selective. Blumenthal's very next two sentences were:

They will offer an unparalleled look at today's voters in a way that would be impossible without quality survey data. Having said that, they are still just random sample surveys, possessing the usual limitations plus some that are unique to exit polling.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/exit_polls_what.html

And his claim that "given the large sample size in U.S exit polls, they ought to be accurate within 1 to 2 percentage points" is a dead giveaway that he knows very little about polling. Sample size is absolutely no protection against bias, and bias is a perennial problem with polls. Public opinion researchers are obsessed with bias.

So, no, however highly credentialed these two are in economics (Baiman) or organizational dynamics (Freeman) I don't think those credentials entitle you to take them at their word on the subject of polling, the relevant areas of expertise being political science and public opinion research. Which is one of the reason I have rather more admiration for TruthIsAll who remains resolutely anonymous, and lets his arguments speak for themselves. Unfortunately I think they are flawed, but that does not diminish my respect for his mathematical accuracy and ingenuity, nor for his reliance on argument rather than authority.

And while I'm at it, I will state that my own credentials are in a bizarrely off-topic range of disciplines (music; architecture; psychology), and I therefore have no option but to rely on my arguments (although I will say that my training in psychology has involved me heavily in quantitative data analysis). OTOH, OTOH, has credentials in political science and public opinion research, and also extensive experience of quantitative data analysis.

But qualitative research is also vital, which is why, as I've said before, I place a great deal of credence in eye-witness evidence like yours.

[mod mom]

57. Bob Fitrakis is a professor of political science,an international election

observer, an attorney and an award winning investigative journalist. He puts much weight on the work of Baiman and Freeman. He has also worked at collecting and archiving the evidence which consists of affidavits, copied ballots, videos and public records. He has witnessed events as a member of election protection and spoke first hand to countless individuals both involved with administering the election and those who participated in the election process. He has spent days sifting through public records at BOE warehouses and through public record requests. He has worked closely with John Conyers and the House Judiciary Democratic Legal Staff and has addressed the Democratic Progressive Caucus on this issue. I will also note here that Bob is a close friend and someone I will honestly say I trust thoroughly. The late Rev Bill Moss (an African American minister and community social justice activist) had said that Bob Fitrakis cannot be bought. This is true.

[Febble]

61. Yes,

Bob Fitrakis is not only all the things you say, but is actually in Ohio, and for that reason I have always taken his writing seriously. After the election, I checked FreePress daily. And in fact I sent him (and Harvey Wasserman) my own analyses of the Franklin County machine allocation data (don't know if they got them, because I didn't hear, but presumably they were busy).

But it was when he started to put weight on the work of Freeman (Baiman hadn't turned to Ohio at that stage) that I began to disagree at least with his interpretation of the exit poll data. I don't know what he thinks of Baiman's paper, although I see that it is posted at FreePress. If he is convinced by it, that's his prerogative, but I think he is wrong, for reasons I give in my review.

I think there is good evidence for corruption in Ohio, and there is less good evidence. The exit poll evidence is most definitely in the "less good" box, and Baiman's analysis is of it is actually wrong. Freeman's exit poll analyses are also mostly wrong. Much of Fitrakis's evidence seems to be good.

As I said, I like good cases to be made with irrefutable arguments, not refutable ones. The Baiman and Freeman exit poll arguments are all too refutable.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. news flash: it's not about you -- it's about reality

The 'jams fingers in ears' thing does strike me as weird, but hey, I'm a big tent guy.

[Awsi Dooger]

60. His avatar is what busts me up

Silver and Black. The big bad outlaw Raiders. Afraid of no one. In fact, we'll thrive with your castoffs and malcontents.

Yet someone using that avatar is bragging about being so fragile he makes liberal use of the ignore function.

I don't even know where the ignore button is, let alone how to use it.

[ccarter84]

49. nothing to see here....agreed

sorry i'm late for the debate...no regular internet right now.

I like the idea of bringing all these ideas to try and give the whole picture, but I think this article could use some serious revisions in the first part, where theres a lot of vagueness ...more of a weakness than a strength

"Moreover the Democratic party was unusually united around its candidate-or certainly against the incumbent president. In contrast, prominent elements within the GOP displayed open disaffection, publicly voicing serious misgivings about the Bush administration's huge budget deficits, reckless foreign policy, theocratic tendencies, and threats to individual liberties." --- I don't remember it being quite this cut and dry...

"Military personnel, usually more inclined toward supporting the president, encountered no such problems with their overseas ballots." Now lets say my memory is clouded....these guys are in Iraq...you really think that when they see the real situation on the ground, unlike the spoon fed public, that they will hold as hardline as past trends would indicate

"Pro-Bush precincts almost always had enough voting machines, all working well to make voting quick and convenient." flimsy because if you follow the logic, the restriction in number of machines as there is no doubt there was targeted deficiencies, would be getting multiple times the amount of use as those in the republican districts. We know these are inferior products, they don't perform well in humid environments and probably are built with the shoddiest components available to justify the outrageous maintenence contract fees by these companies.

There are a few things towards the end of the article that I don't think I'd seen before, so kudos in that regard, but I would LOVE to have some CITATIONS for these, cuz to the average non-introduced reader ...if I were one, i'd easily believe he pulled alot of these facts out of his arse...

[autorank]

52. Very good point on references. Here's a link.

I took Kennedy's references from Rolling stone and broke them out, those with links embedded.

It's really quite a collection of references. I think it had a very positive effect on the initial
audience of "poo bahs" who couldn't ignore it. Pres. Clinton, for example, was recommending it (not reported except in a few places).

Here's the link to the evidence thread. Appologies in advance for some typos.

http://tinyurl.com/legjj