Re-channeling TIA .... TIA's response.

[mom cat]

My previous post was incomplete, so here is the compete version:

This is my response to the following post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x451161#451228

OK, let's take 'em one at a time.

1) Why would we assume that CPS was right?

Here's why:
Over 3.6 million votes were cast and never counted in 2004, according to data compiled by Greg Palast. This is quite close to the 3.4mm vote CPS discepancy.
There were 122.3 million recorded votes. As a percent of the 125.7 million votes cast, the difference is a tiny 0.15% (0.2/125.7), well within the 0.30% CPS MoE.


Here is what Palast had to say:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/06/06/int06022.html


<snip>

It was Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and on and on. 3.6 million votes were cast and never counted in the 2004 election – 3.6 million. This isn’t Greg Palast getting the info from a black helicopter. This is Greg Palast and our team going through the computer files of the election information agency – and, by the way, the computer files of the Republican National Committee, which is one of the most enjoyable parts of the investigation because some schmuck at the RNC wrote some e-mails, in which they were discussing exactly how to jigger the election. We were able to suck that down through a fake web site.
<snip>

And this is another Buzzflash interview of Greg.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/06/con06219.html

<snip>

But the shoplifting of those votes in Ohio was just the tip of the theft-berg. November 2, 2004 was a national ballot-box bonfire. In total, over three million votes (3,600,380 to be exact) were cast -- marked, punched, pulled -- YET NEVER COUNTED. I'm not talking about the Ukraine or Uganda. I'm talking about the United States of America "with liberty and justice for all."

Well, not "all." The nine-to-one Black-to-White ballot spoilage rate is a national statistic -- not just an Ohio trick. Last year, I flew to New Mexico to investigate the 33,981 cast but not counted ballots of that state in the 2004 race. George Bush "won" New Mexico by 5,988 votes. Or did he? I calculated that, of all the ballots rejected and "spoiled," 89% were cast by voters of color. Who won New Mexico? Kerry won -- or he would have, if they had counted the ballots.

But they didn't count them. And that was deliberate. It's in the plan. It's the program. And the program for 2008 is simple. Two million ballots were cast but not counted in the 2000 race. (Over half, 54%, were cast by African-Americans.) In 2004, the GOP kicked it up to THREE million. Get ready, these guys aim high: "four in '06" and "five in '08" looks to be their game plan.

<snip>


2) Why would we assume that 3/4 of the spoiled ballots were Democratic?

Here's why:
As Palast said, 54% of spoiled ballots are in black districts. Blacks vote 90% for democrats. The majority of the other 46% were also in minority districts (hispanic, asian, muslim). A conservative estimate is that 60% of the remaining 46% were democratic.

Do the math: 76.2% = 54%*90% + 46%*60% = 48.6%+27.6%

3) Finally, the statement that poll respondents overstate having voted for the previous winner is patently FALSE!

Here's why:
In 2000, GORE was the winner by 540,000 recorded votes.

Gore WON the popular vote and he also won in Florida. It's common knowledge that the 2000 election was stolen. There is no question about that FACT. But what about the fact that the Florida RECORDED vote did NOT include 180,000 lost, stolen, over-punched, under-punched and butterfly ballots? And that the MAJORITY of them were Gore votes? And what about the 2 MILLION lost and spoiled votes nationwide? Gore won a clear majority of them as well. So his true victory margin was near 1.5 million votes.

Democrats who voted for Gore in 2000 KNOW that he was the REAL WINNER. The records prove it. And most Bush voters agree, although they won't admit it. So much for that false recall myth. The fact that Gore won invalidates its central premise. Furthermore, the 43/37% "How Voted in 2000" weights were manufactured to match the Bush "vote", even though they are mathematically impossible. No false recall there. It's just simple arithmetic.

Will we see more propaganda and spin to camouflage the facts? Will naysayers continue to push the bogus "false recall" argument to explain the 2004 exit poll discrepancies? Will they continue to defy common sense by claiming that Bush won in 2004 because many Gore Democrats decided to switch. Of course they will. Let's see how the poster tries to spin my response to his questions. He will surely try. But I will let the facts stand.

Of course, there is no evidence that Bush stole it. Bush doesn't torture. He doesn't spy on Americans. Rove's private polling data assured him that the exit polls were wrong. There were WMD in Iraq. No one in the WH had anything to do with the Plame outing. No one even thought the levees would break in NO. No one even thought of planes being used as missiles into buildings. As Condi said, BushCo did at least as much as Clinton to get Bin Laden. Bush never knew Abramoff. Diebold/ESS machines are not hackable; they passed certification with flying colors. Bush was very popular on Election Day. After all, he had a 48.5% rating. Bush was so popular that in 2004 he received 14 million more votes than he did in 2000. Rove never used dirty tricks to win an election. Tom DeLay and Bob Ney (R-OH) pushed for HAVA because they knew the voting machines would provide fast, accurate counts. Must I go on?

Naysayers do us a disservice every time they ignore, deny and obscure the facts. They use faith-based arguments like "reluctant Bush responders" and Gore voter "false recall" and exit poll workers "seeking out" people who appeared to be democrats.

Are those examples of scholarly research? Give us a break.

Citing that statement by Avi Rubin is laughable. It's true, Avi and a few other Johns Hopkins computer scientists determined a few years ago that the voting machines could be hacked. That was a major contribution. It's too bad that the democrats did nothing about it. But to this day Diebold claims otherwise. Why is that is so? The latest video from Princeton PROVES beyond any doubt that the machines can easily be hacked.

Rubin is NOT an election fraud researcher. He's a computer scientist. Did he ever run the numbers? Conyers, Baiman, Freeman, Dopp, Richard Hayes Phillips, Palast, Fitrakis, Miller, RFK, Jr. and I did. Avi was wrong when he said that all these researchers did the nation a disservice by saying that Bush stole it. The latest video from Princeton PROVES beyond any doubt that the machines can be easily hacked. If BushCo had the opportunity and motive, why would anyone think they would not use the means at their disposal to steal the election?

We know that O'Dell, the Diebold CEO, said he would deliver Ohio for Bush. And we know all about Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell, who used every trick in the book to disenfranchise voters and steal Kerry votes. And we know about those Florida precinct registrations vs. the recorded votes. Those opti-scammers, Diebold and ES&S computers sure came in handy.

The naysayers are reaching because they no longer have anything to say. Apparently, they STILL don't believe that the machines were hacked big-time in 2004. They still believe Bush and Rove won it fair and square. That says it all.

The recent Zogby poll revealed that 3/4 of Dems/Independents and 1/5 of Republicans are not very confident that Bush won it fairly.

Who should we believe:
RFK, Olbermann, Richard Hayes Phillips, Conyers, Baiman, Freeman, Dopp, Palast, Arnbeck, Lehto, Fitrakis, Miller, Keefer, etc?

Or Farhad Manjoo, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Bush and Rove?


FACT:
The Democrats have always done better nationwide than in Ohio.
Like Bush, the poster will never admit ther truth, even when the evidence of massive fraud is overwhelming: Kerry won. He will keep hammering that "false recall" argument, ignoring all the documented evidence which now strongly suggests that Ohio was stolen. If Ohio went for Kerry by 200,000 votes (52-48%) as the accumulating evidence appears to indicate, then he MUST have done BETTER than that nationwide. Why? There has NEVER been a presidential election in which the Democratic vote in Ohio was not exceeded by the National vote. Ohio is a traditional Republican state. Furthermore, the Republicans have NEVER won a presidential election in which they did not carry Ohio. In 2004, they KNEW they had to pull out all the stops to "win".

And of course there was Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada...and those other deep RED and BLUE states where switching votes from Kerry to Bush would never be noticed.

FACT:
The poster has never cited one mathematician or political scientist who has even attempted to provide a plausible Bush win scenario, much less even try to refute the myriad analytical arguments that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the election was stolen. Salon's Farhad Manjoo attempted to debunk RFK, Jr. He quoted the poster as his primary source - and the article was universally debunked. Farhad lost whatever sliver of credibility he had when he claimed that the switch from the 51-48% Kerry lead in the NEP to the 51-48% Bush recorded win was of no significance. Well, the 3% discrepancy is triple the 1% MoE and SIX standard deviations from the mean. Since Farhad cannot calculate the MoE or standard deviation, he is unqualified to write about the mathematics of polling and its relation to election fraud.


FACT:
My pre-election projections matched the exit polls.

FACT:
Only one of the 7 political scientists cited by the poster even came close. The other six were way off. Here's the link.
http://www.apsanet.org/content_13000.cfm
___________________________________________________________

Here's the Magnificent Seven, compared to my projection and the NEP:
Author Pick 2-pty RunDate WinProb
Abramowitz Bush 53.7% 7/31/04 -
Campbell Bush 53.8% 9/06/04 97%
Wlezienn Bush 52.9% 7/27/04 75%
Holbrook Bush 54.5% 8/30/04 92%
Beck/Tien Kerry 50.1% 8/27/04 50%
Lockabie Bush 57.6% 5/21/04 92%
Norpoth Bush 54.7% 1/29/04 95%

TIA Election Model, 11/02/04: Kerry 51.3%, 99%
National Exit Poll, 12:22am: Kerry 52.5%, 99.9%

_____________________________________________________________

FACT:
Baiman, Dopp, Freeman and Palast have math/statistics/systems degrees.

FACT:
I have three degrees in applied mathematics.

FACT:
There is not one degreed mathematician that I know of who disputes the analysis.

FACT:
The DU poster lost the famous DU "Game" thread.
>>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x390193

In order to explain how Bush won by 3 million votes (after finally agreeing that the "How Voted 2000" Bush 43/Gore 37 weights were mathematically impossible) he had to assume Bush vote shares far beyond the final exit poll MoE. To back up, he relied on the Gore voter "false recall" hypothetical, citing the NES 600-sample poll.

For his implausible Bush win scenario, he assumed that:

a) Kerry won 84.83% of Gore voters.

FACT:
The 12:22am National Exit Poll said he won 91%.

b) Kerry won 52.9% of those who did not vote.
FACT:
The NEP said it was 57-41%.

c) Kerry won 7.20% of Bush 2000 voters.
FACT:
The NEP said he won 10%.

d) Kerry won 65.9% of Nader (other) 2000 voters.
FACT:
The NEP said he won by 71-21%.


There was no factual basis for those assumptions; the poster had to back into those implausible Bush vote shares to explain his Bush win scenario. It was just more spin to explain away the impossible Final NEP 43%/37% Bush/Gore weights which were necessary in order to match the impossible recorded vote.

The poster constantly challenges other DUers to explain the mathematical logic of my posts. What will he say when BushCo steals the congress again in 2006, after a full year in which the Democrats held a CONSTANT 10% lead in the Generic Congressional polls? Will he offer the weak argument that the public was so scared of terrorists that they voted for the party of a reckless, ignorant, fear-mongering, under 40% job-rated "War President"? Will he say that BushCo won 2006 fairly just like they did in 2000/2002/2004?

Will he continue to maintain that there was no proof that the election was stolen? Will he say that the polls were off? Will he claim that the 100 generic congressional polls taken over the past year were poorly designed and biased to favor Democrats? Will he insist that the vote count was correct? Based on his track record, I predict he'll do just that. But he'll never be able to prove that the election was a fair one.

Review this post on Nov. 8.


Sorry for the incomplete first post.... mom cat

[babylonsister]

1. Thanks, mom cat-K&R!

And great channeling job! :evilgrin:

[mom cat]

2. His information is so important and brings needed clarity to the debate.

[mom cat]

3. This really answers to challenges to his theories decisively!

TIA:
:patriot::toast::bounce::bounce::headbang::smoke::smoke::yourock::smoke::smoke::headbang::bounce::bounce::toast::kick:

[BeFree]

6. K&R

We are with ya, TIA, all the way.

[mom cat]

11. This post really undercuts his critics.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. why do you think so?

Are you serious, mom cat? Then show me something beyond the ability to copy and paste.

Really. I am looking for one serious progressive* who agrees with TIA and who is capable of arguing substance. TIA isn't much good at arguing; he just sort of extrudes.

I will ask again:

The late pre-election polls showed Kerry winning New York by 15 to 18 points.
The exit poll showed Kerry winning New York by 31.3 points.
The official returns showed Kerry winning New York by 18.3 points.

(1) How does TIA get away with claiming, "My pre-election projections matched the exit polls"? That's simply not true -- and New York is not the only example.

(2) Does anyone really think that Kerry won New York by 30 or more points? If so, people seem awfully uninterested in the fact.

* EDIT TO ADD: not to limit it to progressives -- I would settle for anyone who is capable of arguing substance. My goodness, this is depressing.

[mom cat]

55. TIA Responds:

TIA Responds:
>
>No match? Only to those who will not see. These charts prove they match very
>well, thank you. The poster would like you to believe that since 6 out of 50
>states did not match to within 4%, then there was no match. That is called a
>red herring.
>
>The poster just proves he is a) either ignorant of the normal curve,
>or b) is attempting to intentionally mislead.
>
>FACT:
>In 39 states, one individual led both the pre-election and exit poll.
>FACT:
>In 15 of 17 battleground states, one individual led in both polls.
>FACT:
>In 15 states, pre-election vote shares differed from the corresponding
>exit poll vote shares by less than 1%; in 29 states, by less than 2%; in 32
>states, by less than 3%; in 42 states, by less than 4%.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Regarding New York State, a little history:
2000 official result:
Gore:60%
Bush:35%
Nader:5%

In 2004, Kerry won 71% of the former Nader vote; Bush had 21%

Allocate the Nader 5% to Kerry and Bush:
Kerry = .60+.71*.05= .60+.0355= 63.55%
Bush = .35+.21*.05 =.35+.0105= 36.05%

So it is not inconceivable that Kerry won NY by 37.5%

Now, let's look at the NYS pre-election poll, projection,
exit poll and actual recorded vote...
Pre-election poll: Kerry 57-39%
Election Model projection: Kerry 59-40%
Exit poll: Kerry 64-35% (agrees with the above allocation)

Recorded vote: Kerry 59-40%
(the poster believes this is correct; no spoiled/lost votes or fraud)
____________________________________________________

Now, on to the match between the pre-election and exit polls.
The poster claims there is no match. He's obviously wrong.
The numbers don't lie.

Note: The Final NEP (13660 respondents, posted on CNN 2pm on Nov.3)) was
adjusted to match the recorded vote. It has been proven bogus (Bush/Gore
43/37% weights in the "How Voted in 2000" democgraphic are
mathematically impossible). So the recorded vote had to be bogus as well.

1) Pre-election National polls MATCHED the National Exit Poll within 0.5%.
The NEP is the 12:22am timeline (13047 respondents).

Here's proof:

NATIONAL PRE-ELECTION 18-POLL WEIGHTED AVERAGE:
POLL KERRY BUSH OTHER
AVG 47.80 47.14 1.0

Sensitivity analysis of 18 pre-election polls to UVA:
UVA = percent of undecided voters allocated to Kerry.
UVA KERRY BUSH
50% 49.83 49.17
55% 50.03 48.97
60% 50.24 48.76
67% 50.52 48.48
75% 50.85 48.16

____________________________________________________

NATIONAL EXIT POLL DEMOGRAPHICS
(12:22am, 13047 respondents)

CATEG KERRY BUSH
Gender 50.78 48.22
PartyID 50.69 47.50
Voted2k 51.41 47.62

GENDER Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Total
Male 56.20 46% 47% 52% 1% 100%
Female 65.97 54% 54% 45 1% 100%

Total 100% 50.78% 48.22% 1.00% 100%
122.17 62.04 58.91 1.22 122.17

PARTY Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Total
Dem 46.17 38% 90% 9% 1% 100%
Rep 42.53 35% 7% 92% 1% 100%
Ind 32.81 27% 52% 44% 2% 98%

Total 100% 50.69% 47.50% 1.27% 99.46%
121.51 61.93 58.03 1.55 121.51

VOTED
2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Total
No 20.77 17% 57% 41% 2% 100%
Gore 47.65 39% 91% 8% 1% 100%
Bush 50.09 41% 10% 90% 0% 100%
Other 3.67 3% 71% 21% 8% 100%

Total 100% 51.41% 47.62% 0.97% 100%
122.17 62.81 58.18 1.19 122.17

____________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL PRE-ELECTION 18-POLL SUMMARY:
Kerry won 11, Bush 6, 1 tie
Kerry won 5 of 9 Registered Voter (RV) Polls
and 6 of 9 Likely Voter (LV) Polls

Total Poll Total Weighted Average
Sample Sample MoE KERRY BUSH
Date 26961 Group 0.60% 47.80 47.14

1-Nov Marist 1166 LV 2.87% 50 49
1-Nov Econ 2903 RV 1.82% 50 47
1-Nov TIPP 1284 LV 2.73% 44 47
1-Nov CBS 1125 RV 2.92% 47 48
2-Nov Harris 1509 LV 2.52% 50 47

2-Nov Zogby 1200 LV 2.83% 50 47
31-Oct FOX 1400 RV 2.62% 48 45
31-Oct DemCorp 1018 LV 3.07% 48 47
31-Oct Gallup 1866 RV 2.27% 48 46
31-Oct NBC 1014 LV 3.08% 47 48

31-Oct ABC 3511 RV 1.65% 47 48
30-Oct ARG 1258 LV 2.76% 49 48
30-Oct Pew 2408 RV 2.00% 46 45
29-Oct Nwk 1005 RV 3.09% 44 48
26-Oct ICR 817 RV 3.43% 48 48

24-Oct LAT 1698 RV 2.38% 48 47
21-Oct Time 803 LV 3.46% 46 51
20-Oct AP 976 LV 3.14% 49 46
____________________________________________________________________



2)The pre-election state polls matched the exit polls within 0.5%.

Here's proof.

Assumption:
60% of Undecided Vote allocated to Kerry

Calculate:
Kerry's pre-election state poll projections and compare then to the exits
(ignore third party vote shares).

Key results:
1. There was a 0.37% deviation (assuming 60% undecided to Kerry) between
the average state pre-election poll and the average exit poll.
2. There was a 0.05% deviation (assuming 55% undecided to Kerry) between
the average state pre-election poll and the average exit poll.
3. In 39 states, one individual led both the pre-election and exit poll.
4. In 15 of 17 battleground states, one individual led in both polls.
5. In 15 states, pre-election vote shares differed from the corresponding
exit poll vote shares by less than 1%; in 29 states, by less than 2%; in 32
states, by less than 3%; in 42 states, by less than 4%.

KEY QUESTION: Since those who do not believe the exit polls claim that the
exits were biased for Kerry, does the close match between the state
pre-election and exit polls imply that the pre-election polls had to be
biased for Kerry also?

Table Column headings:
Kproj: Kerry pre-election poll+undecided allocation
Kexit: Kerry Exit poll
Kact: Kerry Actual vote

KpDev: Kproj-Kact
KeDev: Kexit-Kact
Diff: KeDev-KpDev

Sensitivity of net average deviation to pre-election Kerry
undecided allocation

Undec % 50 55 60 67 75
NetDev% 0.26 -0.05 -0.37 -0.81 -1.31

WEIGHTED by individual state votes/total votes:
Kerry's pre-election projection is 50.37%.
His 2-party exit poll is 50.51%.

Pre-election polls, projections and exit polls

. Pre-election...................DeviationFromKAct
. Kerry Bush Kproj Kexit Kact KpDev KeExit Diff
AL 39.0 57.0 41.4 41.1 37.1 4.30 3.98 -0.32
AK 30.0 57.0 37.8 40.1 36.8 1.03 3.37 2.34
AR 45.0 50.0 48.0 46.6 45.1 2.93 1.53 -1.40
AZ 46.0 48.0 49.6 46.9 44.7 4.88 2.21 -2.67
CA 49.0 42.0 54.4 55.7 55.0 -0.64 0.69 1.33

CO 47.0 48.0 50.0 49.1 47.6 2.37 1.44 -0.93
CT 52.0 42.0 55.6 58.5 55.3 0.33 3.20 2.87
DE 45.0 38.0 55.2 58.4 53.8 1.37 4.61 3.24
DC 78.0 11.0 84.6 91.6 90.5 -5.92 1.11 7.03
FL 47.0 47.0 50.6 49.9 47.5 3.12 2.45 -0.67

GA 42.0 52.0 45.6 43.1 41.6 3.95 1.46 -2.49
HI 45.0 45.0 51.0 53.3 54.4 -3.40 -1.08 2.32
ID 30.0 59.0 36.6 33.3 30.7 5.92 2.66 -3.27
IL 54.0 42.0 56.4 57.1 55.2 1.19 1.93 0.73
IN 39.0 58.0 40.8 41.0 39.6 1.22 1.39 0.17

IA 50.0 44.0 53.6 50.7 49.7 3.94 1.01 -2.93
KS 37.0 60.0 38.8 34.6 37.1 1.67 -2.53 -4.20
KY 39.0 56.0 42.0 40.8 40.0 2.01 0.76 -1.24
LA 40.0 48.0 47.2 44.5 42.7 4.53 1.83 -2.70
ME 50.0 39.0 56.6 54.8 54.6 2.02 0.25 -1.77

MD 54.0 43.0 55.8 57.0 56.6 -0.77 0.47 1.24
MA 64.0 27.0 69.4 66.5 62.7 6.66 3.72 -2.94
MI 52.0 45.0 53.8 52.6 51.7 2.07 0.83 -1.25
MN 52.0 44.0 54.4 54.6 51.8 2.64 2.85 0.21
MS 42.0 51.0 46.2 43.2 40.5 5.71 2.71 -3.00

MO 44.0 49.0 48.2 47.5 46.4 1.82 1.09 -0.73
MT 36.0 57.0 40.2 39.3 39.5 0.70 -0.22 -0.92
NE 32.0 61.0 36.2 36.5 33.2 3.05 3.39 0.34
NV 49.0 49.0 50.2 50.7 48.7 1.52 1.98 0.46
NH 47.0 47.0 50.6 55.5 50.7 -0.09 4.80 4.89

NJ 50.0 42.0 54.8 56.1 53.4 1.43 2.76 1.33
NM 49.0 49.0 50.2 51.3 49.6 0.60 1.74 1.14
NY 57.0 39.0 59.4 64.0 59.3 0.11 4.68 4.57
NC 47.0 50.0 48.8 47.3 43.8 5.04 3.55 -1.49
ND 35.0 55.0 41.0 33.6 36.1 4.91 -2.51 -7.42

OH 50.0 47.0 51.8 52.1 48.9 2.86 3.12 0.26
OK 28.0 61.0 34.6 34.7 34.4 0.17 0.30 0.13
OR 50.0 44.0 53.6 51.2 52.1 1.49 -0.89 -2.38
PA 50.0 45.0 53.0 54.4 51.3 1.74 3.15 1.41
RI 56.0 36.0 60.8 64.2 60.6 0.22 3.66 3.44

SC 42.0 55.0 43.8 45.8 41.4 2.44 4.42 1.98
SD 42.0 52.0 45.6 37.4 39.1 6.51 -1.67 -8.18
TN 47.0 50.0 48.8 41.2 42.8 5.99 -1.66 -7.65
TX 37.0 59.0 39.4 36.8 38.5 0.91 -1.65 -2.56
UT 24.0 69.0 28.2 29.9 26.7 1.55 3.28 1.73

VT 53.0 40.0 57.2 65.7 60.3 -3.10 5.39 8.49
VA 47.0 51.0 48.2 48.0 45.9 2.33 2.09 -0.24
WA 52.0 44.0 54.4 55.1 53.6 0.75 1.42 0.67
WV 45.0 49.0 48.6 45.2 43.5 5.08 1.67 -3.41
WI 51.0 44.0 54.0 50.2 50.2 3.81 0.02 -3.79
WY 29.0 65.0 32.6 32.1 29.7 2.91 2.38 -0.53

Avg 45.6 48.3 49.2 48.8 47.1 2.12 1.75 -0.37
Med 47.0 48.0 50.0 49.1 47.5 2.01 1.83 -0.32

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. mom cat, once again you did not address my post

My very simple, reasonable request was to address one point in your own words, not to post another round of goo by someone who isn't even allowed to post here. To demonstrate something beyond the capacity to cut and paste.

I don't think you can truly agree with what you don't understand, and you can't truly understand what you can't explain. So the question remains: does anyone other than TIA think he or she understands TIA's posts, and is willing to explain and defend them in his or her own words?

Otherwise, all you have is an appeal to authority. We are asking the Republicans to love the truth more than their heroes; we ought to do the same.

TIA can accuse people of trying to mislead all he likes. Only he should have the class not to do it here, because the moderators tombstoned him over a year ago.

TIA, you can wave your arms and crosspost your tables all you like, but the actual pre-election poll numbers still show Bush ahead. If I give you your "adjustments" for the sake of argument, you still have to explain why the states where the exit polls supposedly point to fraud mostly aren't the same states where the pre-election polls supposedly most strongly point to fraud. But you can't. So personal attacks, and lots of irrelevant figures, are all you have left. At least, that is how it has gone so far.

EDIT to add "most strongly," since under TIA's assumptions there seems to be fraud almost everywhere, and to again supply the link to the graph

[EFerrari]

4. Always happy to kick and rec TIA

:)

:kick:

[leftchick]

5. Go TIA!

The Best! :)

[texpatriot2004]

7. K & R for Transparent Democracy nm

[EFerrari]

8. I have no mouse. This is how they do it.

:kick:

[mom cat]

10. No mouse? I'll see if the kittens can spare some. We had a good catch

today! Got some big rats too, Hastart, Rice, Foley etc! We have plenty of rodents to share!

[EFerrari]

27. LOL! Good!

:)

[Chomp]

9. Sorry,

but how do people K&R information they don't understand?

[BeFree]

17. We do understand

What part is it that you don't understand? Tell me and I will try to help you. It really can be complicated so it is understandable that some might not quite get the finer points.

But it is important that people do get what TIA is saying. I really think I can help, so ask away.

[mom cat]

24. The silence to your offer says it all. They have no answers.

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. oh, hello there

The OP is just about endless. If there is one thing in there that you think is important, or even interesting, perhaps you could explain it in your own words.

But if you like long, I can do long. Here is long: http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/beyond-epf.pdf

This whole crazy notion that everyone who has thought about it agrees with TIA ought to stop. It is doing a lot of harm.

Looking forward to your answers,
OTOH

[mom cat]

44. What possible harm is being caused by the fact that a lot of people

dissagree with you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. that's not what I said, obviously

If you wish to respond to any part of what I actually wrote, I hope you will.

[mom cat]

49. Obviously it IS what you actually said, And I quote your post:

"This whole crazy notion that everyone who has thought about it agrees with TIA ought to stop. It is doing a lot of harm."

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. which means almost the opposite of your version

There is a big difference between saying that it is harmful to insist that everyone should agree with TIA, and that it is harmful to disagree with me. Could you possibly think that these are the same thing?

[Jcrowley]

12. Excellent post

I really don't want to rain on the Foley paparazzi parade but the argument that the Foley scandal is going to bring down the Republican party is tenuous, as we can from your post the game is rigged. Now it's undeniable that the Foley story has so many elements to it that it would naturally garner much attention but a post like this should serve as a bracing wake-up call to the very distracted political consumer.

K&R

[mom cat]

15. Excellent observation. We can't wait for Repub screw-ups to take them

down. TIA's message is clear. These are no longer simple little frar pranks or even old fashioned Repub "dirty tricks". There is a well organized criminal effort backed by a power hungry mob behind the vote theft and it is sure to be even more organized this time. I am so thankful for TIA and his heroic efforts to spread the truth.

[DemReadingDU]

38. Has there been any whistleblower from this mob?

It's obvious that this power hungry mob has been stealing elections for many years. So why haven't any whistleblowers from this mob spoken up!

Conyers, Baiman, Freeman, Dopp, Richard Hayes Phillips, Palast, Fitrakis, RFK, Jr. are the good guys speaking up. They know elections are stolen.

We need someone that know the bad guys from the organized criminal mob, to start speaking out.

Who is organizing the mob to steal elections?
The Bonanno Family?
The Colombo Family?
The Genovese Family?
The Luchese Family?
The DeCavalcante Family?
Tony Soprano?
?????

[mom cat]

45. The Bush crime family!

[bridgit]

13. mom cat...

:hug: k&r'd :kick:

[mom cat]

21. Love your cat!

[Melissa G]

14. Fine channeling job mom cat! You are an excellent medium!

TIA, of course, TRULY AND DEEPLY ROCKS!!!!:yourock::yourock::yourock:

And naysayers, well.. they provide an opportunity for discourse..and well, chuckles..since the rest of the country seems to be catching on much faster than they do.. Thank Goodness!!!

[mom cat]

22. None too soon. We are on the verge of another "opportunity" for theft.

[understandinglife]

16. Recommended.

Thank you.


Peace.

[bling bling]

18. K&R. I don't care about what anybody else thinks.

The election was stolen. Thank you to everyone who continues researching and exposing this shameful disgrace of an "election". I saw with my own eyes CNN.com change their exit poll numbers for Ohio from Kerry to Bush around midnight without any mention of it.

I feel so goddamn certain that the election was stolen that I think anyone who thinks otherwise is a batshit crazy tin-foil wearing nut with their eyes willfully glued shut.

But that's just me.

[mom cat]

23. It ain't just you bling bling. There are a lot of us who can see what

happened, thanks to TIA and others who refused to be silenced by half baked critics.

[bobbolink]

19. And the (Dem) Gov of NM fought recount, etc....

Yet many here think Richardson would be just fine as a presidential candidate.

:eyes:

All this info must somehow be made public in a BIIIGG way!

[Roland99]

20. Well, let's kick and rec this one!

[dogindia]

25. k&R.

[Melissa G]

26. Kick-etty for TIA!!! Kick etty via mom cat!!! n/t

[autorank]

28. K & highly R - Great post. Only a fool would challenge election fraud

Only a fool would challenge election fraud this point. I mean, seriously, torture, lies about war, mercury in the streams, bankrupting the country, screwing seniors with the fake drug program, desecration of the environment her and around the world, dispatching ChoicePoint to Mexico to buy the voter rolls database, letting Kahn off the hook, letting bin Ladin off the hook, huge distortions through withholding information on 911, refusal to inspect incoming ship cargo, Hastert, Foley, Abramoff, Blackwell...

Any one who says that, as if by magic, election fraud is somehow off that list is just nuts.

[Melissa G]

29. Nuts, you say...as in squirrelly?.. as in from some other alternate

universe?..as in clueless?.. as in not reality-based??? as in delusional???..is that what you are saying???

[troubleinwinter]

30. Well dayum!

I was just still trying to understand this stuff, but I guess I can't anymore, because if I do, I might be "batshit crazy tin-foil wearing nut with...eyes willfully glued shut...a fool...Nuts, squirrelly, from some other alternate universe, clueless, not reality-based, delusional".

Thank the cheerleading team bunches for telling me that I'm an idiot for trying to learn, understand and weigh it for myself. I have spent months reading this subject, and now I know I have my "eyes glued shut" because I haven't yet figured out the complicated statistical analysis, and foolishly tried to think.

Fuck. I wish you'd posted this a long time ago. I coulda just gone over to FR to be called "batshit crazy" and saved myself a whole bunch of time trying to learn something.

[BeFree]

35. Nah

You just ain't looking at it the right way, that's all.

What was said is that anyone who denies that the same group who brought us all the aforementioned ills, would bring us election fraud to boot, is in the class of the aforementioned. You ain't in that class. Are you?

[troubleinwinter]

36. Do you mind?

"What was said is that anyone who denies that the same group who brought us all the aforementioned ills, would bring us election fraud to boot, is in the class of the aforementioned."

Uh. I'm still trying to decifer that sentence, but my point is that that the posters in this thread are saying that I am "batshit crazy tin-foil wearing nut..... delusional" merely by attempting to read, learn and understand the subject.

Up until now I thought there were interesting discussions (legitimate debate about whether the election was PROVABLY stolen or Most Likely but NOT PROVABLY stolen), but now it appears that anyone who is trying to learn might be "in the aforementioned class" (whatever the fuck that means).

Seems to me that it would be best to encourage people to LEARN from those who discuss the issue, rather than calling folks that are not yet on your exact band wagon "fools, nuts, squirrelly, from some other alternate universe, clueless, not reality-based, delusional".

Geezus. It's a complicated subject/science. Do ya mind very much if we bother to actually try understand it, and not be called names while we do?

[BeFree]

37. Don't mind one bit

Folks who are willing to tackle this issue are welcomed.

But people who just out and out deny that ANY theft occured are in your aforementioned group.

Aforementioned means: that which was mentioned before now.

Before now the group mentioned was that group that sits in DC wasting time, lives and money on all their evil plans. Aka bushco.

The others mentioned before now refers to those who deny that bushco et al would steal an election given all the evil that bushco has done as was aforementioned. Those are the squirrels you mentioned before now.

Hope that helps.

[bling bling]

40. Just so you know...

There are other liberal discussion boards who won't even allow discussion of election theft because they think it makes the liberals look like we're a bunch of nuts.

There are some liberals and lots of republicans who think that those of us who question the merits of the election are batshit crazy tinfoil wearing sore losers.

I assumed, wrongly I see, that anyone posting on this thread would know who I was referring to and would understand that I was just taking the name-calling that's typically applied to us and turning it right back around on them.

Sorry you took it personally. Good for you for checking out this thread for information.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. well, are you prepared to discuss this issue?

Because it has been months since anyone even tried to offer a substantive response when I explain why I disagree with TIA. Questioning the merits of the election, cool. Trashing people who think Bush actually won, deeply uncool, IMHO. But I will accept that it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

[BeFree]

47. Why do you disagree with TIA?

What numbers of his can you categorically claim are not correct?

Why not start a new thread with such claims? That would be cool.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. asked and answered, and answered, and answered

Here are three reasons.

Because the exit polls say Kerry won New York by 31, and the pre-election polls said he would win it by 15 to 18, and TIA says the exit polls and pre-election polls match.

Also, because the exit polls say Kerry won New Hampshire by 15, and the pre-election polls had it within 3 points, and TIA says the exit polls and pre-election polls match.

And, more generally, because the graph here shows no relationship or a negative relationship between exit poll discrepancy and pre-election poll discrepancy. And TIA says the exit polls and pre-election polls match.

So, you believe the man? Okay. Your choice.

When I'm ready to launch the TIA FAQ, I'll start a thread with some of my favorite points.

[BeFree]

57. Picky

TIA says that nationally the exit polls and pre-election polls were close. NY and NH are outliers in the polls and are consequentially minor to the general theme. Ever heard of Margin Of Errors? Certainly those two states are beyond the margins but still relatively minor when weighted in the whole nation's polling.

So, if that's all you got, then you haven't said much. TIA rules!

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. that is malarkey on a stick

"outliers" is not a magic word that you can wave around to avoid unpleasant facts.

TIA may say that nationally the exit polls and pre-election polls were close, but the actual pre-election polls beg to differ. They showed Bush ahead.

But the reason that graph is so important is that it shows that there is no relationship, or a negative relationship, between exit poll discrepancies and pre-election poll discrepancies from state to state, even using TIA's pre-election estimates.

[Melissa G]

48. I'm not saying any of those things about you if you are trying

to understand TIA's post. Those are the kind of comments that have been that have been tossed at those of us who have been trying to discover the various types of fraud that we believed took place in 2000, 2002 and 2004..
So yes, as the tide has turned and a majority of folks around the country now believe that much is quite fishy with the last election or possibly elections..some of us are having an in-house chuckle over those words that were previously tossed at us...So this is just us chuckling amongst ourselves.. not laughing at you.

There are many folks writing volumes on how '04 was stolen...We have yet to see the epic book on how it was not..We have seen some scribbles to that effect but many, if not likely most, of us around here who have read those scribbles find them unconvincing.

If you have real questions please post them and I'm sure many will be happy to help you try to find answers.

[autorank]

51. "We have yet to see the epic book on how it was not."

The elected need to prove that they were elected. That's where the burden of proof starts.

Some think that the burden lies on us, the citizens, to prove that those elected were not.
Au contraire...prove that you won or don't rule, step down, admit that it's a baseless election.

When the election process creates massive doubts, this issue becomes highly relevant. All of the
quesitons about 2004 amount to a demand that we see proof that * won!

What's wrong with this logic? If someone sells you a car, you ask for a test drive. If it's a pair of
glasses you look through them to make sure they work. Well, it's time that people put on their best
reading glasses and give 2004 a look. The questions are both necessary and sufficient to justify a
lack of confidence in the election. The failiure to answer those questions is all the proof we need
that the election is not legitimate.

[autorank]

50. No I just mean "nuts" in the generic, slang sense...

Like "are you nuts?" The guy stole it. Benign rhetorical slang;) People shouldn't have a cow.

[Solly Mack]

31. R

:)

[Kip Humphrey]

32. BRAVO TIA!!! - K&R. My "Favorite of 2006" award goes to...

[EFerrari]

33. Great choice.

:)

:kick:

[helderheid]

34. love you!

[Senator]

39. k&r

[Melissa G]

54. Kickin' for Truth is All! Kickin' for Truth!

[lonestarnot]

56. Just get to the fuckers and beat 'em down if they announce

before the votes are counted this time! Oh did I say that?

[mom cat]

62. Damned right!

[goclark]

58. Yea TIA!!! Bookmarked nt

[Melissa G]

61. Kicking for fair elections!