THE TRUTHISALL MATH: The Democratic Tsunami and GOP House Election Fraud

[mom cat]

THE DEMOCRATIC TSUNAMI

Some in the media are making an argument that electronic vote
switching could not have occurred since the Democrats easily
won the House and just barely squeaked out a majority in the
Senate. 

A recent DU poster wrote a very long, comprehensive OP in
which he posed the question: If there was malicious electronic
vote switching, how come it didn't result in a GOP win? He
stated that since the Democrats won, he "believes"
it is strong evidence that there was no switching in 2000,
2002 and 2004. As if the possibility of switching exists only
if the GOP won. While we were still reeling from that
assertion, he delivered the final blow to rational thought by
hypothesizing that if switching did in fact occur it was due
to touch screen "miscalibration". Well, that's just
another media myth. The 2004 EIRS database documented that
over 95% of reported screen switches were from Kerry to Bush.
The poster's arguments were totally without logical foundation
and only served to detract attention from good points that
were made in the OP.
 
The following analysis estimates the effects of vote switching
in the 61 House GOP seats that were in play. It also
determines which seats were the most likely candidates for
fraud.

KEY MODEL RESULTS
In a fraud-free election, the model projected that Democrats
would win the House by a 242D-193R majority- a 49-seat margin.
With the fraud assumptions factored into the model, the
majority becomes 227D-208R, a 19 seat margin. The margin as of
today is 34 seats (231D-197R), with 7 undecided. Four of the
seven undecided seats are GOP-held.

The Democrats needed to win 15 GOP-held seats for House
control. So far, they have won 29. The purpose of this
analysis is to estimate the number of seats the Democrats lost
due to uncounted votes and vote switching. 

THE MODEL PROJECTED THE DEMOCRATS TO WIN 40 OF 61 GOP-HELD
SEATS, ASSUMING NO FRAUD. IT ALSO PROJECTED THAT 16 OF THE 40
SEATS WOULD REVERT TO THE GOP THROUGH A COMBINATION OF VOTE
SWITCHING AND UNCOUNTED BALLOTS. 

AS OF TODAY, 16 RACES (INCLUDING 3 STILL UNDECIDED) HAVE
SWITCHED. 

Based on the Monte Carlo simulation, the Democrats were on
track to win at least 40 of 61 GOP-held seats in play. In
order to keep them from picking up the 15 GOP seats they
needed, the GOP had to steal at least 26 of the 40 seats. To
accomplish this, they needed to switch at least 8% of the
votes.
But the GOP could not overcome the Democratic tsunami and fell
at least 14 seats (29-15) short. (note: the shortfall does not
include the 7 seats still undecided). 

So why was the GOP unable to steal the 26 seats? The answer:
political and operational constraints held the maximum
feasible amount of switching to 5% of democratic votes.
Anything more than that would have been highly persuasive
evidence of election fraud. The 116 pre-election Generic poll
trend projected a 14% Democratic margin. How do you explain
beating that?

The best the GOP could hope for was to MINIMIZE the Democratic
majority in the House, subject to the 5% CONSTRAINT.

MONTE CARLO SIMULATION MODEL ASSUMPTIONS					
(applied to all 61 elections) 

1) Uncounted ballots: 
3% of total votes cast are never counted (spoiled, lost,
discarded, etc.)
75% of the uncounted votes are Democratic. The evidence for
this assumption is overwhelming: in EVERY election the
majority of spoiled votes occur in Democratic minority
precincts.

2) Switched votes: 
4% of Democratic votes were shifted to the Republicans. 

3) Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA):
60% of undecided voters breaking to the Democrats is a
conservative estimate, especially in this election. Voters
were extremely motivated to kick the GOP incumbents out. In a
historical study of 155 incumbent elections prior to 2006, the
majority of undecided voted for the challenger in 127
elections (82% of 155). They voted for the incumbent in 19.
The other 9 were evenly split. Democratic incumbents won ALL
House and Senate elections. This was an unprecedented
landslide, much bigger than the official results indicate.

VOTE SHARES AND MARGINS: 2004 DEJA VU
The total decline in Democratic margin due to fraud was 4.9%,
a combination of uncounted ballots (3%) and vote switching
(4%).

In 2004, Kerry's 51.50-48.50% 2-party margin in the 12:22am
National Exit poll was transformed to the recorded Bush
51.24-48.76% win in the Final 2pm NEP, a 5.5% decline. The
Final NEP was matched to the vote count. 

In 2006, there was a 6.6% decrease in Democratic margin from
the pre-election Generic poll trend line to the Final NEP. The
difference is further confirmation of fraud. The 116 Generic
Poll trend line projection
51.84D-38.60R is equivalent to 57.3D-42.7R (2-party), a 14.6%
margin. In the Final National Exit Poll, updated 11/08 at 1pm
on CNN, the 2-party average was 54.0D-46.0R, an 8% margin. The
Final 2006 NEP was matched to the recorded vote.

In 2006, the Simulation Model pre-fraud and post-fraud
forecast of 61-GOP held seats resulted in a 4.9% decrease in
the average Democratic margin. It declined from 51.25D-48.75R
pre-fraud to 48.80D-51.20R post-fraud. The 4.9% decline was
far below what was needed by the Republicans to win the House.

Summarizing the Democratic 2-party decrease in margin:
2004: 12:22am National Exit Poll to the recorded vote: 5.5%
2006: Pre-election Generic Poll trend line to the Final NEP:
6.6%
2006: Forecast Model of 61 GOP-held seats, pre-fraud to
post-fraud: 4.9%

__________________________________________________________

Model Forecast (61 GOP-held seats)
Seats Won:    Dem	GOP		
No Fraud 	40	21 (242D-193R)		
Fraud	        25	36 (227D-208R)

Actual          29      28 (231D-197R)
Note: 4 of the 7 undecided seats are among the 61 GOP-held.

Simulation Model Input Assumptions:
Polling MoE:3.0%	
Undecided Voter Allocation to Dems (UVA):60% 

Simulation Output:
Expected Democratic Win: 40 seats	

Probability Analysis 1: 
Democrats win at least N seats for various UVA
UVA	50	55	60	67	75		
N	Probability 
38	15	57	92	100	100		
40	0	8	40	92	100		
42	0	0	2	27	88		

Probability Analysis 2: 
Democrats win at least N seats assuming 60% UVA
N	36	37	38	39	40	41	42
Prob	100	98	92	72	40	11	2

House	Seats:						
Dems	238	239	240	241	242	243	244
GOP	197	196	195	194	193	192	191

The following table shows the relationship between the
percentage of votes switched and the number of races stolen.
The 4% vote-switching assumption equates to 15 stolen seats.
The model indicates that with 7 races still
undecided, the 4% vote switching scenario is close to the
actual result
(see "ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS" below). 
 	
Votes% 0   1	2    3	  4	5    6	  7	8    9	  10	11
Races  1   4	8    14	  15	18   21	  22	26   29	  33	35

These are the 15 seats where fraud was most likely to have
occurred:
IL-6, OH-15, NM-1, NY-29, CT-4
PA-6, KY-4, NC-8, OH-2, IL-10
OH-1, FL-13, CO-4, AZ-1, FL-24
__________________________________________________________

PRE-ELECTION POLLS, PRE AND POST-FRAUD PROJECTIONS

UND - undecided 
SwPr - projected switch from Dem to GOP
SwAct - actual switch from Dem to GOP

	Pre-electionPoll Projection Dem	Proj. (fraud)  Actual 	
HOUSE	         Dem	GOP		Dem	GOP	Prob		Dem	GOP	Dem    GOP     
Win    SwPr    SwAct
	Avg	46.5	45.7		51.2	48.8	99%		48.8	51.2	50.0	50.0	29	16	16
															
1	AZ 1	38	41		50.6	49.4	78		48.2	51.8	45.3	54.7		Yes	Yes
2	AZ 5	48	46		51.6	48.4	98		49.1	50.9	52.6	47.4	Yes	Yes	
3	AZ 8	53	41		56.6	43.4	100		54.0	46.0	56.3	43.8	Yes		
4	CA 4	43	50		47.2	52.8	0		44.9	55.1	47.4	52.6			
5	CA 11	48	46		51.6	48.4	98		49.1	50.9	65.0	35.0	Yes	Yes	
 
6	CA 50	41	55		43.4	56.6	0		41.2	58.8	41.2	58.8			
7	CO 4	43	44		50.8	49.2	85		48.4	51.6	48.3	51.7		Yes	Yes
8	CO 5	42	51		46.2	53.8	0		43.9	56.1	42.7	57.3			
9	CO 7	54	38		58.8	41.2	100		56.1	43.9	56.7	43.3	Yes		
10	CT 2	48	47		51.0	49.0	90		48.6	51.4	50.5	49.5	Yes	Yes	

11	CT 4	51	44		54.0	46.0	100		51.5	48.5	48.5	51.5			Yes
12	CT 5	46	43		52.6	47.4	100		50.1	49.9	56.0	44.0	Yes		
13	FL 13	49	47		51.4	48.6	97		48.9	51.1	50.0	50.0	UND	Yes	Yes
14	FL 16	48	41		54.6	45.4	100		52.0	48.0	50.5	49.5	Yes		
15	FL 22	50	48		51.2	48.8	94		48.7	51.3	52.0	48.0	Yes	Yes	

16	FL 24	43	45		50.2	49.8	60		47.8	52.2	43.0	57.0	UND	Yes	Yes
17	ID 1	38	34		54.8	45.2	100		52.2	47.8	47.4	52.6			Yes
18	IL 6	54	40		57.6	42.4	100		54.9	45.1	48.0	52.0			Yes
19	IL 10	48	46		51.6	48.4	98		49.1	50.9	47.0	53.0		Yes	Yes
20	IL 14	42	52		45.6	54.4	0		43.3	56.7	40.0	60.0			

21	IL 19	36	53		42.6	57.4	0		40.5	59.5	40.0	60.0			
22	IN 2	50	47		51.8	48.2	99		49.3	50.7	54.0	46.0	Yes	Yes	
23	IN 8	53	43		55.4	44.6	100		52.8	47.2	61.0	39.0	Yes		
24	IN 9	46	46		50.8	49.2	85		48.4	51.6	55.1	44.9	Yes	Yes	
25	IA 1	49	42		54.4	45.6	100		51.8	48.2	56.1	43.9	Yes		

26	IA 2	48	50		49.2	50.8	15		46.8	53.2	51.0	49.0	Yes		
27	KS 2	na			na	na	na		na	na	52.0	48.0	Yes		
28	KY 3	52	44		54.4	45.6	100		51.8	48.2	51.5	48.5	Yes		
29	KY 4	45	42		52.8	47.2	100		50.3	49.7	45.3	54.7			Yes
30	MN 1	47	50		48.8	51.2	6		46.4	53.6	53.0	47.0	Yes		

31	MN 2	42	50		46.8	53.2	0		44.5	55.5	40.6	59.4			
32	MN 6	42	49		47.4	52.6	0		45.1	54.9	45.7	54.3			
33	NV 3	39	46		48.0	52.0	0		45.7	54.3	49.5	50.5			
34	NH 1	40	49		46.6	53.4	0		44.3	55.7	51.0	49.0	Yes		
35	NH 2	46	47		50.2	49.8	60		47.8	52.2	54.1	45.9	Yes	Yes	

36	NJ 7	43	46		49.6	50.4	30		47.2	52.8	54.1	45.9			
37	NM 1	53	44		54.8	45.2	100		52.2	47.8	50.0	50.0	UND		Yes
38	NY 3	44	51		47.0	53.0	0		44.7	55.3	44.0	56.0			
39	NY 19	49	47		51.4	48.6	97		48.9	51.1	51.0	49.0	Yes	Yes	
40	NY 20	53	42		56.0	44.0	100		53.4	46.6	53.0	47.0	Yes		

41	NY 24	53	42		56.0	44.0	100		53.4	46.6	54.5	45.5	Yes		
42	NY 26	46	50		48.4	51.6	2		46.0	54.0	48.0	52.0			
43	NY 29	53	42		56.0	44.0	100		53.4	46.6	49.0	51.0			Yes
44	NC 8	48	44		52.8	47.2	100		50.3	49.7	50.0	50.0	UND		Yes
45	NC 11	48	43		53.4	46.6	100		50.9	49.1	54.0	46.0	Yes		

46	OH 1	48	46		51.6	48.4	98		49.1	50.9	47.0	53.0		Yes	Yes
47	OH 2	48	45		52.2	47.8	100		49.7	50.3	49.0	51.0	UND	Yes	Yes
48	OH 15	53	41		56.6	43.4	100		54.0	46.0	49.0	51.0			Yes
49	OH 18	53	33		61.4	38.6	100		58.6	41.4	62.0	38.0	Yes		
50	OK 5	37	59		39.4	60.6	0		37.4	62.6	37.8	62.2			

51	PA 4	47	51		48.2	51.8	1		45.9	54.1	52.5	47.5	Yes		
52	PA 6	49	44		53.2	46.8	100		50.7	49.3	49.0	51.0			Yes
53	PA 7	52	44		54.4	45.6	100		51.8	48.2	57.0	43.0	Yes		
54	PA 8	50	47		51.8	48.2	99		49.3	50.7	50.5	49.5	Yes	Yes	
55	PA 10	47	38		56.0	44.0	100		53.4	46.6	53.0	47.0	Yes		

56	TX 22	36	28		57.6	42.4	100		54.9	45.1	55.3	44.7	Yes		
57	VA 2	43	51		46.6	53.4	0		44.3	55.7	49.0	51.0			
58	VA 5	35	61		37.4	62.6	0		35.5	64.5	40.4	59.6			
59	VA 10	42	47		48.6	51.4	3		46.2	53.8	41.8	58.2			
60	WA 8	45	51		47.4	52.6	0		45.1	54.9	50.0	50.0			
61	WI 8	51	45		53.4	46.6	100		50.9	49.1	51.0	49.0	Yes		
															
.
__________________________________________________________

ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS AND PRE-ELECTION POLL NUMBERS FOR 61
GOP SEATS
SORTED BY DEMOCRATIC WIN PROBABILITY
.
Result: 29 Dem, 29 GOP, 3 Undecided
Note: The Dem total includes KS-2 which is not in the
following table
.
.......Poll	Dem	GOP	Prob	Winner
11/05  Avg   46.5   45.7    79%	29D
.
Group 1:        8 Dem, 4 GOP, 1 UND
.
1	CO 7	54	38	100.0%	Dem
2	OH 18	53	33	100.0%	Dem
3	IL 6	54	40	100.0%	GOP
4	TX 22	36	28	100.0%	Dem
5	AZ 8	53	41	100.0%	Dem
.
6	OH 15	53	41	100.0%	GOP?
7	NY 20	53	42	100.0%	Dem
8	NY 24	53	42	100.0%	Dem
9	NY 29	53	42	100.0%	GOP
10	PA 10	47	38	100.0%	Dem
.
11	IN 8	53	43	100.0%	Dem
12	ID 1	38	34	100.0%	GOP
13	NM 1	53	44	100.0%	UND
.					
******FRAUD ALERT********************************				
.
Group 2:        16 Dem, 10 GOP, 1 UND
.
1	FL 16	48	41	100.0%	Dem
2	IA 1	49	42	100.0%	Dem
3	KY 3	52	44	100.0%	Dem
4	PA 7	52	44	100.0%	Dem
5	CT 4	51	44	100.0%	GOP
.
6	NC 11	48	43	100.0%	Dem
7	WI 8	51	45	100.0%	Dem
8	PA 6	49	44	100.0%	GOP?
9	KY 4	45	42	99.8%	GOP
10	NC 8	48	44	99.8%	GOP
.
11	CT 5	46	43	99.6%	Dem
12	OH 2	48	45	98.8%	GOP?
13	IN 2	50	47	96.8%	Dem
14	PA 8	50	47	96.8%	Dem
15	AZ 5	48	46	95.1%	Dem
.
16	CA 11	48	46	95.1%	Dem
17	IL 10	48	46	95.1%	GOP
18	OH 1	48	46	95.1%	GOP
19	FL 13	49	47	92.6%	GOP?
20	NY 19	49	47	92.6%	Dem
.
21	FL 22	50	48	89.2%	Dem
22	CT 2	48	47	84.9%	Dem
23	CO 4	43	44	79.5%	GOP
24	IN 9	46	46	79.5%	Dem
25	AZ 1	38	41	73.2%	GOP
.
26	FL 24	43	45	58.2%	UND
27	NH 2	46	47	58.2%	Dem
.
*******END FRAUD ALERT***************************				
.					
Group 3:         4 Dem, 15 GOP, 1 IND

1	NJ 7	43	46	34.0%	GOP
2	IA 2	48	50	20.5%	Dem
3	MN 1	47	50	10.8%	Dem
4	VA 10	42	47	7.4%	GOP
5	NY 26	46	50	4.9%	GOP
.
6	PA 4	47	51	3.2%	Dem
7	NV 3	39	46	2.0%	GOP
8	MN 6	42	49	0.4%	GOP
9	WA 8	45	51	0.4%	UND
10	CA 4	43	50	0.2%	GOP
.
11	NY 3	44	51	0.1%	GOP
12	MN 2	42	50	0.0%	GOP
13	NH 1	40	49	0.0%	Dem
14	VA 2	43	51	0.0%	GOP
15	CO 5	42	51	0.0%	GOP
.
16	IL 14	42	52	0.0%	GOP
17	CA 50	41	55	0.0%	GOP
18	IL 19	36	53	0.0%	GOP
19	OK 5	37	59	0.0%	GOP
20	VA 5	35	61	0.0%	GOP
.

OH-15: Rep. Deborah Pryce (news, bio, voting record), a member
of the House Republican leadership, leads Democrat Mary Jo
Kilroy race by 3,536 votes.
Thousands of provisional ballots will be counted beginning
Nov. 19 — a day later than normal in deference to the Ohio
State-Michigan football game Nov. 18.

NM-1: Republican Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting
record) led
Democrat Patricia Madrid by fewer than 1,500 votes out of more
than 200,000 cast, with about 3,700 ballots remaining to be
qualified and tallied.

NC-8: Rep. Robin Hayes (news, bio, voting record), a
Republican, had a
449-vote lead over Democrat Larry Kissell. About 1,500
provisional ballots remained to be counted.

OH-2: Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican who called decorated
Vietnam veteran Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) a
coward, was ahead of Democrat Victoria Wulsin by about 2,300
votes. Counting provisional and absentee ballots could take
nearly two weeks.

FL-13: A recount began Monday in the contest for the seat Rep.
Katherine
Harris (news, bio, voting record) gave up to make her failed
Senate run.
The Associated Press has declared a winner in that race:
Republican Vern
Buchanan, who leads Democrat Christine Jennings by about 375
votes, or less than 0.02 percent.

WA-8: GOP Rep. Dave Reichert led Democrat Darcy Burner by
about 3,500
votes, but many ballots in this heavily vote-by-mail state
remained to be
counted.

FL-24: Clint Curtis (D) is contesting the election with Tom
Feeney (R).
Curtis has testified under oath that in 2000 he was approached
by Feeney to develop vote-switchin software. Curtis has passed
a polygraph test. 

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

Downloads in a minute (4mb)
Easy to use (3 inputs)
Press F9 to run 200 simulations
Pre-election/exit polls
(51 State & 18 National)

A challenge to all those who still believe Bush won:
Use the National Exit Poll 
"How Voted in 2000" demographic
("NatExit" sheet) to come up
with just ONE plausible Bush win scenario. 

Note the feasibility constraint: 
The maximum ratio of Bush 2000 voters to the total 2004 vote
is 39.8%
(48.7mm/122.3mm)

Post the scenario on the Election Forum at
ProgressiveIndependent.com and/or Democratic Undergound.com 



View the original 11/1/04 election model forecast of Kerry
winning
51.63-51.80% of the 2-party vote:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/

[stepnw1f]

1. KUDOS to TIA!!!! (nt)

[philb]

8. Detailed analysis of Palm Beach precincts with reported switching or long lines>>major impacts

and swings in vote totals , which supports the results of TIA and Jonathan's Exit Poll anaysis

Since only a relatively small portion of voters had the knowledge and motivation to report irregularities, only a small portion of total irregularities were reported, but Florida had the largest number of reported irregularities of any state and the thousands of reported irregularities serve as a good paper trail of election fraud and irregularities in the 2004 election.
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

The analysis found that precincts with reported machines that were switching votes from Kerry to Bush had a significantly larger swing of the Dem vote percentage between 2000 and 2004 than the average for precincts without reported vote switching, with a swing of 6.8% on average.
Exit poll data showed that a higher percentage of Democratic voters voted for Kerry in 2004 than for Gore in 2000, over 90%, and that Independent voters preferred Kerry by a significant margin.

The analysis found that precincts with reported long lines or machine problems had a significant reduction in official vote turnout from the 2000 to the 2004 elections, with a swing of 7.8% on average for such precincts. It seems ironic that precincts with extremely long lines correlated with extremely low official turnout compared to other precincts. This would seem to imply that the low official turnout was due to the electoral system rather than voter apathy. This consistently was found to be in minority precincts.

Summary of precinct data and statistics for affected areas:
http://www.flcv.com/pbvsum.html

Summary of all precinct data and statistics for Palm Beach county precincts:
http://www.flcv.com/pbvdata.html

The official vote results were found to be extremely questionable statistically based on the voter registration data and exit poll data by university researchers such as Hout, Freeman, etc. And the authors own similar study http://www.flcv.com/fla04EAS.html

Exit poll data showed that a higher percentage of Democratic voters voted for Kerry in 2004 than for Gore in 2000, over 90%, and that Independent voters preferred Kerry by a significant margin.

But while the Democrats had an 8 to 1 advantage in new registrations in Palm Beach County between 2000 and 2004 and had a major get out the vote campaign, the Republican vote total increased more than the Democratic vote total. Similar occurred in neighboring Broward and Dade counties and in other touchscreen counties.
http://www.flcv.com/fla04EAS.html
http://www.flcv.com/browardo.html
http://www.flcv.com/dadeo.html
http://www.flcv.com/kerrywon.html

[mom cat]

9. Thanks philb. It looks like a lot of statisticians are coming to the same conclusion:

Dirty tricks are still alive!

[mom cat]

60. DATA UPDATE FROM TIA:

Notes:
Projection based on the final pre-election poll.
Democrats assumed to win 60% of the undecided vote.

Chg1: Change in Dem margin from poll to actual.
Chg2: Change in Dem margin from projection to actual.

Proj: projected Dem vote (zero fraud).
ProjF: projected Dem vote (fraud).
	
SwA: Switch from Projected Dem Win to GOP.

Key results:
The KS-2 projection was not available as there was no polling
data.

The Republican actual margin exceeded the polling margin in 33
races.
The Democratic actual margin exceeded the polling margin in 23
races.
There was no change in 4 races.

The Republican actual margin exceeded the projected margin in
38 races.
The Democratic actual margin exceeded the projected margin in
22 races.

The Republican margin exceeded the projected margin by over 5%
in 25 races.
The Democratic margin exceeded the projected margin by over 5%
in 11 races.

						
		Pre-election …Actual Vote… Margin	 ………Democratic
2-party………	Margin
Dem		Dem	GOP	Dem	GOP	Chg1	Poll	Proj	ProjF	Actual	Chg2	Win	SwA
	Avg	46.5	45.7	48.9	49.3	(1.2)	50.4	51.2	48.8	49.8	(2.9)	29	16
													
1	AZ 1	38	41	43	52	(6)	48.1	50.6	48.2	45.3	(10.7)		Yes
2	AZ 5	48	46	51	46	3 	51.1	51.6	49.1	52.6	2.0 	Yes	
3	AZ 8	53	41	54	42	0 	56.4	56.6	54.0	56.3	(0.7)	Yes	
4	CA 4	43	50	45	50	2 	46.2	47.2	44.9	47.4	0.3 		
5	CA 11	48	46	52	48	2 	51.1	51.6	49.1	52.0	0.8 	Yes	
													
6	CA 50	41	55	40	57	(3)	42.7	43.4	41.2	41.2	(4.3)		
7	CO 4	43	44	43	46	(2)	49.4	50.8	48.4	48.3	(5.0)		Yes
8	CO 5	42	51	38	51	(4)	45.2	46.2	43.9	42.7	(7.0)		
9	CO 7	54	38	55	42	(3)	58.7	58.8	56.1	56.7	(4.2)	Yes	
10	CT 2	48	47	50	49	0 	50.5	51.0	48.6	50.5	(1.0)	Yes	
													
11	CT 4	51	44	48	51	(10)	53.7	54.0	51.5	48.5	(11.0)		Yes
12	CT 5	46	43	56	44	9 	51.7	52.6	50.1	56.0	6.8 	Yes	
13	FL 13	49	47	50	50	(2)	51.0	51.4	48.9	50.0	(2.8)		Yes
14	FL 16	48	41	49	48	(6)	53.9	54.6	52.0	50.5	(8.2)	Yes	
15	FL 22	50	48	51	47	2 	51.0	51.2	48.7	52.0	1.7 	Yes	
													
16	FL 24	43	45	43	57	(12)	48.9	50.2	47.8	43.0	(14.4)	UND	Yes
17	ID 1	38	34	45	50	(9)	52.8	54.8	52.2	47.4	(14.9)		Yes
18	IL 6	54	40	48	52	(18)	57.4	57.6	54.9	48.0	(19.2)		Yes
19	IL 10	48	46	47	53	(8)	51.1	51.6	49.1	47.0	(9.2)		Yes
20	IL 14	42	52	40	60	(10)	44.7	45.6	43.3	40.0	(11.2)		
													
21	IL 19	36	53	40	60	(3)	40.4	42.6	40.5	40.0	(5.2)		
22	IN 2	50	47	54	46	5 	51.5	51.8	49.3	54.0	4.4 	Yes	
23	IN 8	53	43	61	39	12 	55.2	55.4	52.8	61.0	11.2 	Yes	
24	IN 9	46	46	49	40	9 	50.0	50.8	48.4	55.1	8.5 	Yes	
25	IA 1	49	42	55	43	5 	53.8	54.4	51.8	56.1	3.4 	Yes	
													
26	IA 2	48	50	51	49	4 	49.0	49.2	46.8	51.0	3.6 	Yes	
27	KS 2	na	na	51	47	na	na	na	na	52.0	na 	Yes	
28	KY 3	52	44	51	48	(5)	54.2	54.4	51.8	51.5	(5.8)	Yes	
29	KY 4	45	42	43	52	(12)	51.7	52.8	50.3	45.3	(15.1)		Yes
30	MN 1	47	50	53	47	9 	48.5	48.8	46.4	53.0	8.4 	Yes	
													
31	MN 2	42	50	39	57	(10)	45.7	46.8	44.5	40.6	(12.4)		
32	MN 6	42	49	42	50	(1)	46.2	47.4	45.1	45.7	(3.5)		
33	NV 3	39	46	47	48	6 	45.9	48.0	45.7	49.5	2.9 		
34	NH 1	40	49	51	49	11 	44.9	46.6	44.3	51.0	8.8 	Yes	
35	NH 2	46	47	53	45	9 	49.5	50.2	47.8	54.1	7.8 	Yes	
													
36	NJ 7	43	46	53	45	11 	48.3	49.6	47.2	54.1	9.0 		
37	NM 1	53	44	50	50	(9)	54.6	54.8	52.2	50.0	(9.6)	UND	Yes
38	NY 3	44	51	44	56	(5)	46.3	47.0	44.7	44.0	(6.0)		
39	NY 19	49	47	51	49	0 	51.0	51.4	48.9	51.0	(0.8)	Yes	
40	NY 20	53	42	53	47	(5)	55.8	56.0	53.4	53.0	(6.0)	Yes	
													
41	NY 24	53	42	54	45	(2)	55.8	56.0	53.4	54.5	(2.9)	Yes	
42	NY 26	46	50	48	52	0 	47.9	48.4	46.0	48.0	(0.8)		
43	NY 29	53	42	49	51	(13)	55.8	56.0	53.4	49.0	(14.0)		Yes
44	NC 8	48	44	50	50	(4)	52.2	52.8	50.3	50.0	(5.6)	UND	Yes
45	NC 11	48	43	54	46	3 	52.7	53.4	50.9	54.0	1.2 	Yes	
													
46	OH 1	48	46	47	53	(8)	51.1	51.6	49.1	47.0	(9.2)		Yes
47	OH 2	48	45	49	51	(5)	51.6	52.2	49.7	49.0	(6.4)		Yes
48	OH 15	53	41	49	51	(14)	56.4	56.6	54.0	49.0	(15.2)		Yes
49	OH 18	53	33	62	38	4 	61.6	61.4	58.6	62.0	1.2 	Yes	
50	OK 5	37	59	37	61	(2)	38.5	39.4	37.4	37.8	(3.3)		
													
51	PA 4	47	51	52	47	9 	48.0	48.2	45.9	52.5	8.7 	Yes	
52	PA 6	49	44	49	51	(7)	52.7	53.2	50.7	49.0	(8.4)		Yes
53	PA 7	52	44	57	43	6 	54.2	54.4	51.8	57.0	5.2 	Yes	
54	PA 8	50	47	50	49	(2)	51.5	51.8	49.3	50.5	(2.6)	Yes	
55	PA 10	47	38	53	47	(3)	55.3	56.0	53.4	53.0	(6.0)	Yes	
													
56	TX 22	36	28	52	42	2 	56.3	57.6	54.9	55.3	(4.6)	Yes	
57	VA 2	43	51	49	51	6 	45.7	46.6	44.3	49.0	4.8 		
58	VA 5	35	61	40	59	7 	36.5	37.4	35.5	40.4	6.0 		
59	VA 10	42	47	41	57	(11)	47.2	48.6	46.2	41.8	(13.5)		
60	WA 8	45	51	50	50	6 	46.9	47.4	45.1	50.0	5.2 		
61	WI 8	51	45	51	49	(4)	53.1	53.4	50.9	51.0	(4.8)	Yes	
________________________________________________________________													

61 Races Sorted by Change in Democratic Margin: Projected to
Actual


	Race	Change
1	IL 6	(19.2)
2	OH 15	(15.2)
3	KY 4	(15.1)
4	ID 1	(14.9)
5	FL 24	(14.4)

6	NY 29	(14.0)
7	VA 10	(13.5)
8	MN 2	(12.4)
9	IL 14	(11.2)
10	CT 4	(11.0)

11	AZ 1	(10.7)
12	NM 1	(9.6)
13	IL 10	(9.2)
14	OH 1	(9.2)
15	PA 6	(8.4)

16	FL 16	(8.2)
17	CO 5	(7.0)
18	OH 2	(6.4)
19	NY 3	(6.0)
20	NY 20	(6.0)

21	PA 10	(6.0)
22	KY 3	(5.8)
23	NC 8	(5.6)
24	IL 19	(5.2)
25	CO 4	(5.0)

26	WI 8	(4.8)
27	TX 22	(4.6)
28	CA 50	(4.3)
29	CO 7	(4.2)
30	MN 6	(3.5)

31	OK 5	(3.3)
32	NY 24	(2.9)
33	FL 13	(2.8)
34	PA 8	(2.6)
35	CT 2	(1.0)

36	NY 19	(0.8)
37	NY 26	(0.8)
38	AZ 8	(0.7)
39	CA 4	0.3 
40	CA 11	0.8 

41	NC 11	1.2 
42	OH 18	1.2 
43	FL 22	1.7 
44	AZ 5	2.0 
45	NV 3	2.9 

46	IA 1	3.4 
47	IA 2	3.6 
48	IN 2	4.4 
49	VA 2	4.8 
50	PA 7	5.2 

51	WA 8	5.2 
52	VA 5	6.0 
53	CT 5	6.8 
54	NH 2	7.8 
55	MN 1	8.4 

56	IN 9	8.5 
57	PA 4	8.7 
58	NH 1	8.8 
59	NJ 7	9.0 
60	IN 8	11.2 
61	KS 2	na


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

Downloads in a minute (4mb)
Easy to use (3 inputs)
Press F9 to run 200 simulations
Pre-election/exit polls
(51 State & 18 National)

A challenge to all those who still believe Bush won:
Use the National Exit Poll 
"How Voted in 2000" demographic
("NatExit" sheet) to come up
with just ONE plausible Bush win scenario. 

Note the feasibility constraint: 
The maximum ratio of Bush 2000 voters to the total 2004 vote
is 39.8%
(48.7mm/122.3mm)

Post the scenario on the Election Forum at
ProgressiveIndependent.com and/or Democratic Undergound.com 

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/InteractiveElectionSimulation_12255_image001.png

View the original 11/1/04 election model forecast of Kerry
winning
51.63-51.80% of the 2-party vote:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/

[In Truth We Trust]

2. K&R Exfuckingactly! The needed to minimize it or blow it for 08 Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW!

Great Post! Bookmarked for future disinformationalist's.

[Febble]

4. So, can you put the post into English?

It seems to me that what TIA is saying is that he predicted a bigger win than the Dems got, so there must have been fraud.

Do you know why TIA's predicted so much larger a gain for the Dems than other pundits, such as Larry Sabato?

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

For a while this forum looked as though it was focussed on the real evidence for corruption and miscounting in the last election.

I really hope that focus comes back. But haring off after frankly silly inferences made from polls is not doing anything for the credibility of the ER movement. You have a great case. You have power in the House and Senate. For God's sake don't blow it with crappy statistics.

[kster]

6. Statistics are crappy as a whole, or just TIAs statistics are crappy

I just want to make sure I understand you. K and R

[Febble]

18. Certainly not all statistical analyses

are crappy. There is some excellent work being done undervotes in Florida as we speak. But any statistical analysis is only as good as its assumptions, and TIAs are questionable. You need to put probabilities on your assumptions being correct, as well as on the probability of a particular inference being correct, given your assumptions. TIA doesn't.

[kster]

42. Are the statistical analysis in your Country crappy...nt

[Febble]

45. Some are, some aren't

bad statistics are certainly not a uniquely US phenomenon. I have a paper on my desk full of bad statistics waiting for my review right now. I think the authors are Australian.

On the other hand some of the best statisticians I have ever met have been American including those who taught me.

[philb]

50. That can be assessed to some degree independently of his analysis

If an argument is valid and the hypothesis is true, then the conclusion is true.

So the issue seems to be to define the argument and hypothesis, and assess whether the argument is valid and the hypothesis(or hypotheses) true. Or as you note the probability that the hypothesis is true.

And if the argument isn't clearly always valid, the probability that it is valid.


What do you think about the probability of his hypotheses being true?

[Febble]

52. Well, probabilities

regarding his assumptions would be somewhat subjective, but to estimate the likelihood of them thoroughly, you would have to look at past data. It's what pundits and political and social scientists, and public opinion survey researchers spend many hours, many conferences, and many papers doing. And in neither 2004 or 2006 was the consensus of opinion close to TIA's estimates. Sam Wang was briefly in line with TIA just before 2004, but he's not actually a political scientist, and he had the grace to make the point that he hadn't factored in the probability of his assumptions being true.

That in itself doesn't mean that TIA wrong, but it does mean he's out on a limb. And he seems to think that either no-one else has looked at the data, or they have and they are all out of step except him*.

If you are really interested in a detailed critique of TIA's analysis, I can take specifics. But his questionable assumptions include:

That sampling error is the only error in a poll.
That when there IS bias in the poll it would favor Republicans, not Democrats
That people recall their previous votes correctly (there is excellent evidence that they do not, and that they tend to misreport having voted for the previous winner)
That undecideds always break for the challenger
That incumbents below 50% always lose
That Likely Voter models are less reliable than Registered Models.

He also seems to misunderstand a lot about the way the exit poll data is collected and subsequently processed. I posted a diary about exit poll methodology on Daily Kos just before the election.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/4/135126/905

It would be nice to see evidence that TIA had actually read it, or something like it.

on edit: *and a few others, like Freeman, and Baiman. But they also make questionable assumptions.

[mom cat]

55. TIA RESPONDS: Setting the record straight

As is typical, we can always expect beautifully stated
misrepresentations of the facts as well as factual omissions
in your posts. This one was no exception. Now I will set the
record straight.

You claim that I made the following statements:

FEBBLE:
That sampling error is the only error in a poll.

TIA: 
I never said that. I said that scientific polling minimizes
the error and that’s why pollsters always quote the MoE based
on sample-size.

FEBBLE:
That when there IS bias in the poll it would favor
Republicans, not Democrats

TIA:
A few FACTS.
1) It’s a well known fact that approximately 3% of the votes
are uncounted due to lost, spoiled and provisional ballots.
The vast majority of these votes are in minority districts
(50% in black districts). Since the minority black vote is 90%
democratic, and the Hispanic vote at least 60%, a fair
estimate is that 75% of the uncounted votes (2.25%) are
Democrat and the other 0.75% Republican. That’s a 1.5% bias in
favor of the Republicans. 

2) There is a proven reluctance of low-income Democratic
voters (under $50K) and high-income Republicans ($100k+) to
participate in exit polls. But since low income voters
outnumber high-income voters by almost 3-1, there's another
component of Republican bias.

3) Exit poll response was high in Bush states and low in Kerry
states. 
Here's GRAPHIC MATHEMATICAL PROOF USING LINEAR REGRESSION
ANALYSIS:

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/StateVotevsExitPollCompletionRate1_27680_image001.png

FEBBLE:
That people recall their previous votes correctly (there is
excellent evidence that they do not, and that they tend to
misreport having voted for the previous winner)

TIA: 
If you consider that the FINAL National Exit poll is ALWAYS
MATCHED TO THE RECORDED VOTE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE WEIGHTS ARE
FUDGED TO MATCH THE VOTE. I CALL IT FUDGING; YOU CALL IT VOTER
MISREPRESENTATION. Witness the 2004 Final NEP, which Bush won
by 51-48%: 43% of 2004 voters were Bush voters and 37% were
Gore voters? This was a FUDGE necessary to match the recorded
vote. In the 12:22am poll, which Kerry won by 51-48%, the mix
was 41 Bush/39 Gore. Mathematically, the Bush MAXIMUM Bush
2000 representation weighting was 39.8%, which is the ratio of
Bush 2000 voters still alive n 2004 by the 122.3mm who voted.

Do you want MORE of this evidence? Look at the 2006 NEP. The
7pm poll had the 2004 weighting as 45Bush/46 Gore. The FINAL
had it 49 Bush/43 Gore/8 Other. Where did the 8% for OTHER
voters come from? Third-party 2004 voters comprised 1% of the
vote. Where did the excess 7% come from? Kerry. Here’s why:

Are we to believe Bush voters outnumbered Kerry voters by 6%?
Even if you believe the 2004 FINAL, which we have proven
bogus, the Bush margin was 3%. In reality it should have been
50Kerry-47Bush, after deducting 1% for voter mortality over
the 2-year period. Now 50% = 43% + 7%. There is your Kerry
vote.

FEBBLE:
That undecideds always break for the challenger. 

TIA:
I never said ALWAYS. I said the vast majority of the time. The
evidence is a study of 155 incumbent elections that you
yourself quoted: in 82%, the challenger won the undecided
vote; the incumbent, just 12%; neither, 6%. And of course,
pollsters Zogby, Harriss and others have always claimed that
undecided voters break to the challenger by better than 2-1,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE INCUMBENT IS UNPOPULAR, AS BUSH WAS IN
2004 (48.5% rating) and in 2006 (33% rating). That’s why I
conservatively assume that Kerry in 2004 and the Democrats in
2006 would win the undecided vote by 60-40% in my election
models. And that is why my 2004 PROJECTION (51.8 Kerry-48.2
Bush) and 2006 projection (57D-43R) WERE BOTH RIGHT ON THE
MONEY. They were based on 18 final national pre-election polls
and 116 pre-election Generic polls in 2006. 


FEBBLE:
That incumbents below 50% always lose. 

TIA
I never said ALWAYS. But Bush had 48.5% ratings in 2004. He
stole the election. Carter (1980), Bush (1992), Ford (1976)
all had ratings below 50%. And they all lost. 

FEBBLE:
That Likely Voter models are less reliable than Registered
Models.

TIA
I said they were less reliable in 2004, when new Democratic
registrations were massive and young, single cell-phone users
were unlikely to be contacted. These were NOT likely voters.
Facts, Febble. Facts.

Fianally, you have claim elsewhere in this thread that my
analysis is not supported in the "reality-based"
community. Well, what about Freeman, Mark C. Miller, RFK,
Baiman, Dopp, Jonathan Simon, Bruce O'Dell, Conyers, Fitrakis,
Richard Hayes Phillips, Palast, Michael Keefer, etc? They aint
exactly chopped liver.

On The Other Hand, they aren't members of your
"reality-based" community which includes E-M,
Mystery Pollster, Rick Brady, Farhad Manjoo, Diebold,
ES&S.



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

Downloads in a minute (4mb)
Easy to use (3 inputs)
Press F9 to run 200 simulations
Pre-election/exit polls
(51 State & 18 National)

A challenge to all those who still believe Bush won:
Use the National Exit Poll 
"How Voted in 2000" demographic
("NatExit" sheet) to come up
with just ONE plausible Bush win scenario. 

Note the feasibility constraint: 
The maximum ratio of Bush 2000 voters to the total 2004 vote
is 39.8%
(48.7mm/122.3mm)

Post the scenario on the Election Forum at
ProgressiveIndependent.com and/or Democratic Undergound.com 

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/InteractiveElectionSimulation_12255_image001.png

View the original 11/1/04 election model forecast of Kerry
winning
51.63-51.80% of the 2-party vote:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/

[Febble]

58. Last post

FEBBLE:
That sampling error is the only error in a poll.

TIA:
I never said that. I said that scientific polling minimizes
the error and that’s why pollsters always quote the MoE based
on sample-size.

Well, that isn't true. It isn't why pollsters always quote the MoE based on sample-size.

Here is Mitofsky on the subject:

REPORTING SAMPLING ERROR
I want to say a few words about reporting sampling error. A number of people who have spoken here have talked of not reporting sampling error because it was confusing all those dear mindless souls who listen to our results. They were concerned we would make people think that sampling error was the only error in the survey.

http://www.nyaapor.org/WMitofskySpeech.htm

You cannot "scientifically" eliminate bias from a survey. Inferring that from the fact that a pollster quotes the MoE based on sample size put TIA in the category of those "dear mindless souls" who would be "confused" into thinking such a thing.

FEBBLE:
That when there IS bias in the poll it would favor
Republicans, not Democrats

TIA:
A few FACTS.
1) It’s a well known fact that approximately 3% of the votes
are uncounted due to lost, spoiled and provisional ballots.
The vast majority of these votes are in minority districts
(50% in black districts). Since the minority black vote is
90% democratic, and the Hispanic vote at least 60%, a fair
estimate is that 75% of the uncounted votes (2.25%) are
Democrat and the other 0.75% Republican. That’s a 1.5% bias
in favor of the Republicans.

2) There is a proven reluctance of low-income Democratic
voters (under $50K) and high-income Republicans ($100k+) to
participate in exit polls. But since low income voters
outnumber high-income voters by almost 3-1, there's another
component of Republican bias.

Spoiled votes would not cause bias in the sample. They would simply cause a discrepancy between the sample and the count. However, the effect is likely to be small because the spoiled votes tend to be concentrated in strongly Democratic precincts which are not highly represented in the precinct sample. It will be an effect however, although much smaller than the effect on the actual results. I share with TIA his indignation at this systematic disenfranchisement of largely Democratic voters. As for his second point - TIA read it in a book somewhere. It is not something that can, or should, be generalised to exit polls. There are many sources of evidence, including direct experimental evidence that in exit polls, Democratic voters tend to be over-sampled.

3) Exit poll response was high in Bush states and low in
Kerry states.
Here's GRAPHIC MATHEMATICAL PROOF USING LINEAR REGRESSION
ANALYSIS:

Overall response rates are not a proxy for response bias. Response bias occurs when the response rates for one set of voters differ from the response rate for the other set of voters, whether the two rates are 15% and 20% or 60& and 80%. Moreover, selection bias will not show up in response rates - and may even be associated with higher response rates. If more willing voters are being selected, completion rate will go up.

FEBBLE:
That people recall their previous votes correctly (there is
excellent evidence that they do not, and that they tend to
misreport having voted for the previous winner)

TIA:
If you consider that the FINAL National Exit poll is ALWAYS
MATCHED TO THE RECORDED VOTE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE WEIGHTS
ARE FUDGED TO MATCH THE VOTE. I CALL IT FUDGING; YOU CALL IT
VOTER MISREPRESENTATION. Witness the 2004 Final NEP, which
Bush won by 51-48%: 43% of 2004 voters were Bush voters and
37% were Gore voters? This was a FUDGE necessary to match the
recorded vote. In the 12:22am poll, which Kerry won by 51-48%,
the mix was 41 Bush/39 Gore. Mathematically, the Bush MAXIMUM
Bush 2000 representation weighting was 39.8%, which is the
ratio of Bush 2000 voters still alive n 2004 by the 122.3mm
who voted.

Do you want MORE of this evidence? Look at the 2006 NEP. The
7pm poll had the 2004 weighting as 45Bush/46 Gore. The FINAL
had it 49 Bush/43 Gore/8 Other. Where did the 8% for OTHER
voters come from? Third-party 2004 voters comprised 1% of the
vote. Where did the excess 7% come from? Kerry. Here’s why:

Are we to believe Bush voters outnumbered Kerry voters by 6%?
Even if you believe the 2004 FINAL, which we have proven
bogus, the Bush margin was 3%. In reality it should have been
50Kerry-47Bush, after deducting 1% for voter mortality over
the 2-year period. Now 50% = 43% + 7%. There is your Kerry
vote.

I really can't be bothered to explain this to TIA again. He needs to read Mark Lindeman's paper:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/too-many.pdf

That undecideds always break for the challenger.

TIA:
I never said ALWAYS. I said the vast majority of the time.
The evidence is a study of 155 incumbent elections that you
yourself quoted: in 82%, the challenger won the undecided
vote; the incumbent, just 12%; neither, 6%. And of course,
pollsters Zogby, Harriss and others have always claimed that
undecided voters break to the challenger by better than 2-1,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE INCUMBENT IS UNPOPULAR, AS BUSH WAS IN
2004 (48.5% rating) and in 2006 (33% rating). That’s why I
conservatively assume that Kerry in 2004 and the Democrats in
2006 would win the undecided vote by 60-40% in my election
models. And that is why my 2004 PROJECTION (51.8 Kerry-48.2
Bush) and 2006 projection (57D-43R) WERE BOTH RIGHT ON THE
MONEY. They were based on 18 final national pre-election
polls and 116 pre-election Generic polls in 2006.

Well, did he weight his probability by his estimate of the probility of his assumption being true?

FEBBLE:
That incumbents below 50% always lose.

TIA
I never said ALWAYS. But Bush had 48.5% ratings in 2004. He
stole the election. Carter (1980), Bush (1992), Ford (1976)
all had ratings below 50%. And they all lost.

Whatever.

FEBBLE:
That Likely Voter models are less reliable than Registered
Models.

TIA
I said they were less reliable in 2004, when new Democratic
registrations were massive and young, single cell-phone users
were unlikely to be contacted. These were NOT likely voters.
Facts, Febble. Facts.

And TIA didn't investigate the fact that this was compensated for by up-weighting the age demographic.

Fianally, you have claim elsewhere in this thread that my
analysis is not supported in the "reality-based"
community. Well, what about Freeman, Mark C. Miller, RFK,
Baiman, Dopp, Jonathan Simon, Bruce O'Dell, Conyers,
Fitrakis, Richard Hayes Phillips, Palast, Michael Keefer,
etc? They aint exactly chopped liver.

They ain't exactly unanimous either.

OK, I'm calling this off. I can't converse with a poster who isn't here. If TIA wants me , he knows where to find me.

Peace.

Lizzie


edited for typo

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. oh, and by the way

You claim that I made the following statements:

Uh, no. She wrote that your (TIA's) questionable assumptions in the analysis under discussion included the ones she enumerated.

If you don't understand why your P values assume zero bias, then you are beyond help. If you don't understand the difference between statements and assumptions, ditto.

So much for setting the record straight.

[mom cat]

22. See LandShark's post on the Holt bill also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2749355

[texpatriot2004]

3. To the greatest page with you and thanks TIA nm

[babylonsister]

5. TIA and mom cat, you both rock! Thanks!

Your hard work is so appreciated!

[FogerRox]

7. I dont need no stinking numbers to know TIA is right...

I could feel it in my gut. KnR too.

[mom cat]

23. The stinking numbers are the cherry on top!

One big WOOT for your gut! :headbang:

[livvy]

10. Love TIA's stuff. Thanks for posting.

The thing that has been bugging me, is why did we win? Mind you, I'm not complaining. This helps me to understand that part. It's like many were saying, a very large majority was impossible to fudge.
What are the implications between having a simple majority, and a major majority? The offices that were confiscated through fraud, how does that benefit the thieves? I'm still trying to sort that part out. It would make a difference with any bills that were returned to Congress in the event of a veto. What else? What am I missing? How else does it benefit the pretzelnut and his bowl of bad nuts?
I wish my brain would wrap around the numbers. I'm not mathematically deficient, but a bit of a statistical impairment is certainly not out of the question.

[Febble]

19. The reason you won

is that you finally made your case. Congratulations! Now you have to restore integrity to the election process. There's plenty of stuff that needs cleaning up. I just wouldn't use these statistics to find out where.

[In Truth We Trust]

27. Your use of the pronoun is very very telling. HCPB's NOW!

[Febble]

28. I wonder what it tells you?

But what it means is that I am a British citizen, and I live in the UK. I am a member of the British Labour party, and was devastated by Kerry's defeat. I am overjoyed by the Democratic victory in both House and Senate. At last there is hope for the planet, and for Iraq.

Was that what the pronoun told you?

[In Truth We Trust]

36. Tony Blair is a member of the Labour Party as well. He would be your equivalent to our DINO syndrome

To what evidence do you dispute TIA great and obviously well done work?

Btw, I assume you can read between the pronouns so to speak.

[Febble]

37. Sure

And like you guys with your DINOs you do what you can to get them replaced. It was one of the reasons I was desperate for a Kerry win - it would have been a great boost to the anti-Bush faction within the government. I hope Gordon Brown will take over within a few months.

Regarding TIA's work: this piece of work seems largely to do with his own pre-election predictions which were very much more optimistic than those of most pundits, and was based on generous assumptions.

Try:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

and check out the plots here:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/


With polls, your answer depends on your assumptions. As you cannot be sure your assumptions are correct, you should also estimate the probability that you are correct (a judgement call). TIA does not do this. He also assumes that the only error in the exit poll is sampling error, despite good evidence that exit polls in the US tend to show a pro-Democratic bias (he does not believe this is the case).

See

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/4/135126/905

for more on this, by me.

I have no problem with TIA's calculations, but when you compute probabilities you make certain assumptions. If these are violated, or not justified by the nature of the data, then your answer will be wrong. I think TIA's answer is wrong, for those reasons.

I'm not sure what you mean by reading between pronouns, but I have now explained my use of the second person.

[mom cat]

39. Responce from TIA

Febble, you obviously ignored the model analysis. In fact, your lack of focus betrays your fixed agenda once again: to debunk any and all analysis which point to election fraud is based on pre-election and exit polling data.

You are wrong. I do take Democratic exit poll bias into account:
1) Of the 3% of uncounted votes in every election, the vast majority are Democratic. That would skew the exit polls to the Democrats. I'm surprised you still don't get it: UNCOUNTED DEMOCRATIC VOTES WOULD EXCEED UNCOUNTED REPUBLICAN VOTES BY 1.5% (2.25%-0.75%R). OF COURSE, THE DEMOCRATIC EXIT POLL RESPONDENT HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT HIS/HER VOTE WAS NOT COUNTED.

2) I certainly do take probabilities into account in my projections via Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 trial elections using each of the 61 pre-election polling data and a 3% MoE.

3) The Undecided Voter Allocation assumption that a majority (60% is conservative) break for the challenger is based on the historical study of 155 incumbent elections which you are well aware of and in fact mentioned in one of your posts. All 61 incumbents in this analysis were Republicans.

4) What do you have to say about the 116 pre-election generic polls, all won by the democrats, in which the trend line pointed to a 14% democratic margin, after applying a 60% UVA? Why don't YOU calculate the probability that the final results would be off by at least 3X the MoE?

5) And finally, how do you explain the 49%Bush-43%Kerry Voted in 2004 weightings? LIke you explained the 43% Bush/37% weights in the Final 2004 NEP?How do you explain the remaining 8% when onlt 1% voted for third party candidates in 204? You can't logically, but you will surely try. Are you going to say that voters were more 6% likely to say they voted for Bush with his 35% rating?

Febble, the reality based FACTS are NOT on your side.

[Febble]

40. Response to TIA

1. I do not have a fixed agenda. This false.

2. I am quite aware that uncounted Democratic votes may contribute to a discrepancy in the exit polls. Indeed, in my work for Mitofsky I specifically looked for evidence of this, and found some that, while not conclusive, is suggestive that it may have played a role. The measure of precinct level discrepancy I used, developed together with Mark Lindeman, meant that it was more sensitive than the traditional measures to bias in extreme precincts, and this may have been why my analysis was able to detect something. The finding was that in urban precincts, particularly largely black urban precincts, those precincts in which older technology was used (levers and punchcards) the discrepancy was greater then where digital technology was used. It was a small effect, and may have been confounded by other factors, but it was of interest. However, because uncounted Democratic votes tend to be concentrated in extreme Democratic precincts, it is unlikely that even large numbers of residual votes would have a large impact on the exit poll, simply because extreme Democratic precincts are not heavily represented in the precinct sample. I agree with TIA, and with Greg Palast (though I would still like details of where he gets his numbers) that uncounted Democratic votes, together with voter suppression, cost the Democrats many votes in each election, and, indeed, cost Gore the presidency. But the exit polls are unlikely to reflect this loss except at precinct level, and discrepancies between overall exit poll estimates and counted results are unlikely to index, or even reflect, the magnitude of this problem.

3. What I said is that TIA does not factor in the probability that his own assumptions are in error.

4. As many others have argued, translating a generic ballot into seats is difficult, given the nature of congressional district boundaries, and, indeed, the number of seats up for election. Nonetheless several pundits attempted it. None that I was following came up with TIA's optimistic projections. Larry Sabato pretty well nailed it.

5. As TIA knows, retrospective inflation of the winners margin is a routine phenomenon in exit polls, regardless of the popularity of the incumbent. It even happened with Nixon, who was not even president by then. These facts are not on TIA's side.

[mom cat]

43. TIA response to FEBBLE and other interested DUers.

DUers may not be familiar with these facts.

Given:
Bush 2000 vote: B= 50.45mm
2004 total vote: N= 122.3mm
Annual U.S. mortality rate: R= 0.87%
Final NEP: W= Bush 2000 voters/N = 43%

Calculate:
1 The number of Bush 2000 voters (D) who died prior to 2004: D = 4*R*B
2 The maximum number (X) of Bush 2000 voters who could vote in 2004: X = B–D
3 The maximum weighting (W) of Bush 2000 voters who voted in 2004: W = X/N

If the calculated W does not equal the Final NEP W of 43%, which one is correct?

What does this tell us about the "false recall" theory, that a significant percentage of exit poll respondents falsely report who they voted for in the prior election?

What does this tell us about the Reluctant Bush Responder (rBr) theory, that for various reasons Democrats are more likely to be exit-polled than Republicans?

[Febble]

44. Well, TIA knows the answer to this one

or if he doesn't, it's not for want of being told.

If the calculated W doesn't equal the Final NEP W, then the probability is that, as usual, people misreported their previous vote in favor of the winner.

This "retrospective inflation" of the winner's margin is evident, as Mark Lindeman showed here:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/too-many.pdf

in every single presidential exit poll since 1976, and applies whether the previous winner is Republican, Democrat, running, losing, or even still in office (Nixon). The fact that Bush's retrospective margin was not much inflated in the unadjusted poll, is if anything, evidence that adjustment was required - that Bush 2004 voters had been undersampled. The adjusted margin is more inline with the kind of retrospective margin inflation expected. TIA makes exactly the same error that O'Dell and Simon just made in their recent "Landslide Denied" paper.

So that is the answer to TIA's question. It tells us that Kerry voters were probably sampled at a higher rate than Republicans (as is evident from other analyses) and that people misreported their previous vote in favor of the winner in the same kinds of proportions as would be expected, given the pattern we observe in the historical data.

TIA needs get his head out of Excel and into Adobe Acrobat.

[mom cat]

47. Feeble. Once again you avoid the facts.

Febble, once again you stubbornly avoid the FACTS and the IMPLICATIONS of the FACTS.

First of all, you didn’t do the math. Because if you did, you would know that at MAXIMUM, only 48.7mm Bush 2000 voters could have voted in 2004. And therefore the MAXIMUM Bush weighting was 39.8% = 48.7/122.3%. The 43% weighting was IMPOSSIBLE. This is a MATHEMATICAL FACT.

Therefore, if you were willing to accept this MATHEMATICAL FACT, you would have to agree that the Final NEP 43% Bush weighting was a FICTIONAL ARTIFICE AND NOT A SAMPLED RESULT. IT WAS AN ARBITRARY FUDGE WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO FORCE THE FINAL NEP TO MATCH THE BUSH RECORDED VOTE.

Even you have agreed that the Final NEP is ALWAYS matched to the recorded vote.

Why, for heaven's sake, is it not yet clear to YOU that matching to the recorded vote count ONLY makes sense IF the vote count is ACCURATE and there is ZERO FRAUD? This should be clear to everyone, even a third grader who cheats on his arithmetic test.

THEREFORE, THE FINAL NEP IS A FRAUD.

When will you accept the FACT that the RECORDED 2004 VOTE was BOGUS and that BushCo used massive FRAUD to STEAL the election? In fact, BushCo has successfully stolen EVERY election since 2000 -except for 2006. They were stopped in 2006 only because of the Democratic TSUNAMI.

The reality-based community must therefore conclude that your “retrospective” exit poll argument HOLDS NO WATER AND IS JUST ANOTHER RUSE TO DEFLECT FROM THE FINAL NEP'S EGREGIOUS MATCHING TO FRAUDULENT, MISCOUNTED VOTES.

If you were a true analytical investigator, you would not employ TWISTED LOGIC TO DEFEND THE FINAL NEP AND CONSTANTLY CRITICIZE THE ACCURACY OF PRE-ELECTION AND PRELIMINARY EXIT POLLS WHICH CLEARLY POINT TO FRAUD.

If you were a true analyst, you would stick to the mathematical facts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. why this is wrong

Short version: as has been explained many times, there is no reason to expect exit poll respondents to report their past votes accurately. Therefore, while it may be true that no more than 39.8% of 2004 voters could have voted for Bush in 2000, there is no clear limit to what percentage of 2004 voters could have claimed to vote for Bush in 2000. The apparent overstatement is in line with overstatements of previous winners' vote shares in other exit polls.

It must be frustrating to believe that the entire reality-based community should have looked at the exit poll tabulations in November 2004 and realized that Kerry won the election. All those people blithely writing as if Bush won -- are they innumerate? careless? craven?

Maybe they just don't take polls as literally as, apparently, you do. Skepticism about polls could be reality-based, don't you suppose?

[Febble]

51. mom cat:

Is this you talking, or am I talking to TIA? Either way, please get my name to right.

Only the first of those is anything close to a mathematicial FACT. They are mathematical inferences, and assertions based on a stubborn refusal to understand the nature of the data.

I have attempted repeatedly to explain to TIA why his inferences are erroneous, and he is clearly as frustrated as I am with him that I don't see it his way.

However, if these arguments are yours, I am happy to discuss them with you.

[mom cat]

53. I am sorry about the misspelling of your name. It was a mistake,

not intentional.

[Febble]

54. No problem

It's TIA's assumptions I have a greater problem with!

[mom cat]

56. I thought for sure that you would recognize that the post was from TIA.

[Febble]

57. Well, I thought it probably was!

He has an inimitable style!

[Awsi Dooger]

41. Many of the 61 on that list were not incumbents

Those may have all been GOP held seats. I scanned the list quickly and didn't notice any that were not. But it's hardly true all were held by Republican incumbents. Off the top of my head I counted at least 8 or 9 that were open seats.

That's not a case where you apply the incumbent rule. That's why it's specifically called the incumbent rule, not the party-held rule.

[Judi Lynn]

11. Going to re-re-read this. Very, very interesting. Thanks, mom cat. n/t

[snot]

12. k & r -- nt

[diva77]

13. Will someone PLEEZ send this to James Carville -- so maybe Carville is

right, we shoulda had a bigger win -- but he never mentions election fraud as a factor (or does he? I haven't read where he's mentioned it -- anyone know??)

:shrug:

[mom cat]

25. Good idea ... Do it!

[diva77]

29. I think Howard Dean needs to see this too!!

[eridani]

14. It's SECONDARY data, not direct info about what went on--

--inside the machines. Poll stats are (and always will be, no matter how good they get) a step away from the info we really need to have. And there's vote suppression and dirty tricks to deal with too, don't forget.

[Febble]

31. Yes, with excellent data

Robocalls, push polls, undervotes.

[Roland99]

15. Read another analysis on opednews.com but can't find it now.

[cosmicdot]

16. is this the one?

Clear evidence 2006 congressional elections hacked

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_061117_clear_evidence_2006_.htm

[mom cat]

24. Woohoo! Thanks for that one too! Yould you post that separately so more

people could see it? Let me know if you do. Thanks.

[Roland99]

26. Bingo!

[fooj]

17. KandR

B-)

[mogster]

20. Kick!

:kick:

[chill_wind]

21. K&R! Thank you once again, MomCat.

[mom cat]

30. Meow! Love that cat!

[chill_wind]

49. I love mom cats & kitties! Here's the linky :-)

http://img184.echo.cx/img184/2055/catsiam2lv.gif

[AtLiberty]

32. K & R

[mom cat]

33. TIA on the Exit Polls:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x458020

[happydreams]

34. Kick. TIA nails it.

[texpatriot2004]

35. So whose job is it to match the NEP to the final vote? What

individual or group is manipulating the information?

[Febble]

38. Read this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/4/135126/905

and you might like to check out the links.

[Hugin]

46. Thanks for the rational reply, TRUTHISALL.

You, sir, are a patriot!

(Thanks for posting this here mom cat!)