PREDICTION: THIS WILL BECOME AN HISTORIC DOCUMENT

[TruthIsAll]

NOVEMBER 3, 2004
12:23 AM

LONG AFTER THE POLLS CLOSED.

THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN.
EASY TO UNDERSTAND.
CLEAR.
UNAMBIGUOUS.

THIS WILL BECOME THE MOST FAMOUS EXIT POLL IN HISTORY.
IT WILL EDUCATE MILLIONS WHO NEVER KNEW ABOUT EXIT POLLS.
IT WILL ASTOUND MILLIONS WHO KNEW ALL ABOUT THEM.

IT IS THE TRUTH.

13,047 RANDOMLY-SELECTED VOTERS
1.0% MARGIN OF ERROR

KERRY WON THE FEMALE VOTE BY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN BUSH WON THE MALE VOTE.

******* AND MORE WOMEN (54%) VOTED THAN MEN (46%) *********

Kerry = .54*.54+ .47*.46 = 50.78%
Bush = .45*.54+ .52*.46 = 48.22%

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A ROCKET SCIENTIST.
IT'S SIMPLE ARITHMETIC.

IT'S 1 IN 547 MILLION ODDS THAT BUSH WOULD GET 51.23% OF THE VOTE.

[medeak]

1. am shocked by senior vote

after being sold out to pharmaceutical companies

[bush_is_wacko]

18. They don't know that they've been sold out

This was one of the reasons I started looking for information. I worked for Doctors and was so frustrated and even humiliated by having to tell seniors that their deductibles and copays had gone up, behind their backs, without warning! We always tried to notify them in advance of this but inevitably we had a few that would come in find out what they now had to pay and get really upset. I had some crying and others yelling and calling their insurance companies because they thought we were trying to rip them off. Unfortunately some of these people have just stopped getting the medical care they need and apparently they don't talk much amongst themselves. I am disgusted at what this administration has done to seniors, but what do they care they are far more likely to die off before the next election cycle than complain. AARP has sold them out too, they just haven't figured it out yet. Most doctors won't take that AARP discount card. I won't EVER work in the medical industry again unless it is reformed to help ALL people, not just the wealthy. some of these people's copays went from 10 or 20 dollars to 50 dollars!! On a fixed income and no chance of supplementing that income with outside work that is simply not right!

[alexisfree]

25. so...they have complains for higher copays

and they went and vote for antigay and abortion issues?....but yet again we need too look how this administration has fill them up with fear…

[bush_is_wacko]

41. Yes, fear, but also a different view of war than younger people

I think they also have a sense that in war time you don't mess with your President. Many of them were alive and even serving or had a family member serving in WWII. Also don't forget the large number of American Jews that came to this country during that time. They often worship American Presidents because they relate everything to that time in their lives. The older generation in this country sacrificed a great deal. some of them lived through the Depression and think we should all sacrifice everything right now for the war effort. Again, it is an age thing.

[TruthIsAll]

52. 18 NATIONAL POLLSTERS HAD IT RIGHT- KERRY GOT 51%

Taking an average of the final national polls (Registered
voters) and assuming that Kerry would get 67-75% of the
undecided vote, he was projected to win 51.15% (for 67%) or
51.63% (for 75%) of the TWO-PARTY VOTE.

The third party vote was 1.0%
So we must subtract 0.50% from Kerry's and Bush's percentages.

If Kerry won 67% of the undecided: 50.65% = 51.15 - 0.50
If Kerry won 75% of the undecided: 51.13% = 51.63 - 0.50

That exactly confirms the National Exit Poll of 50.78%. 
											
Latest Poll Results				Projected Kerry % of Vote			
	                         Other/undecided % to Kerry					
Date	Poll	Kerry	Bush	MoE	2-party	60%	67%	75%	80%	87%	
1020	AP	49	46	 3.50 	0.516	0.520	0.524	0.528	0.530	0.534	
1021	Time	46	51	 3.00 	0.474	0.478	0.480	0.483	0.484	0.486	
1024	LAT	48	47	 4.00 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1025	Harris	48	47	 2.50 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1026	ICR	44	46	 3.10 	0.489	0.500	0.507	0.515	0.520	0.527	
1027	Econ	49	45	 2.00 	0.521	0.526	0.530	0.535	0.538	0.542	
1029	Nwk	45	48	 4.00 	0.484	0.492	0.497	0.503	0.506	0.511	
1030	Pew	46	45	 3.50 	0.505	0.514	0.520	0.528	0.532	0.538	
1030	Zogby	47	48	 3.10 	0.495	0.500	0.504	0.508	0.510	0.514	
1030	ARG	49	48	 3.50 	0.505	0.508	0.510	0.513	0.514	0.516	
1030	ABC	48	47	 3.00 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1031	Marist	49	48	 2.50 	0.505	0.508	0.510	0.513	0.514	0.516	
1031	TIPP	44	45	 3.50 	0.494	0.506	0.514	0.523	0.528	0.536	
1031	CBS	46	47	 3.00 	0.495	0.502	0.507	0.513	0.516	0.521	
1031	FOX	48	45	 3.40 	0.516	0.522	0.527	0.533	0.536	0.541	
1031	DemC	48	47	 3.10 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1031	Gallup	48	46	 4.00 	0.511	0.516	0.520	0.525	0.528	0.532	
1031	NBC	47	48	 3.00 	0.495	0.500	0.504	0.508	0.510	0.514	
										
	Mean	47.17%	46.89%	3.21%	50.15%	50.73%	51.15%	51.63%	51.92%	52.34%	
	Median	48.00%	47.00%	3.10%	50.52%	50.90%	51.35%	51.75%	52.00%	52.35%	

[foo_bar]

54. I leave you to your angry mob

As we joke in the biz, "The light bulb has to want to change."

This isn't merely a waste of my time, it's a waste of yours. But we all have our vices. For some it's religion, for others Astrology or picking ponies, and others still choose the bottle. For this reason I can't judge your hobby, although it speaks volumes (literally at times) about the importance of a well-rounded education.

The numbers do speak for themselves, as any Kabbalist will tell you, but without any accompanying research or citations or falsifiable hypotheses, it's circular onanism.

Having Truth in one's nomme de plume makes one an arbiter of truth the way the Clear Skies Initiatives made our skies clear, or the Patriot Act was a patriotic act. You have a good head for crunching numerals, so your talents won't go unnoticed in the service of fact without histrionics and innuendo.

Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

[TruthIsAll]

60. You have a beautiful way with words which are devoid of the facts.

What should they believe - your magnificent prose or their lyin' eyes?

[Lostnote03]

61. LMAO>>>>Whew!!!!!...n/t

[euler]

64. Perhaps an intervention might help ???

Grasping at straws here.

[euler]

63. Now you've decided it's a....

...good idea to compound your error. Good luck with those degrees.

[euler]

62. They were all HYP. NO. TIZED. by Rove.

[loudsue]

26. I remember reading some of the letters the RNC sent to seniors prior to

the election: They were scaring the pants off the elderly, telling them lies about what would come of them if Kerry was elected.

Some of the letters were posted on DU, but I didn't bookmark them. Some DUers' parents/grandparents got them.

:kick::kick:

[bush_is_wacko]

44. Yes, our elderly are very susceptible to that type of thing.

I remember seeing a few myself.

[RaulVB]

2. TIA, your work will be part of history books (n/t)

[TruthIsAll]

59. HOW COME THE WP/NEP GRAPHIC IS NOT ON POLLINGREPORT.COM?

Instead they have the bogus LA Times Exit Poll.

[snot]

3. Kick; and is Wikipedia been updating?

[snot]

6. Could you edit to state date of article in Wash. Post?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I love how they skew the youth vote to make it look smaller.

18-29 = 11 years
30-44 = 14 years
45-59 = 14 years
60+ = around 20 years

Granted, the bloc would still be a little small, but not nearly as small as one might have you think.

[intheflow]

5. Great posting, TIA, as usual.

I have a question for you, though. It states that this shows "preliminary exit poll" numbers. Is that the same as "raw exit poll data"? Or is this showing up after the data was manipulated? It seems like it makes a stronger case if these percentages represent the manipulated data.

[xultar]

7. That's why we LoveYA TIA! n/t

[spooked911]

8. Could it be that exit polls are really a scam?

Meaning, they aren't really exit polls but essentially educated guesses.


See this article:

http://onlinejournal.com/evoting/010705Landes/010705landes.html

It's VERY interesting.

[sunnystarr]

24. It's not only very interesting but extremely plausible as well.

WE really do need to tear down that wall and find out what's really going on. The question is how and who.

[TruthIsAll]

55. If it's a scam, why does the Media always pay for it and Rove use it?

And why have they been used for 30 years.

And why did we cite the exit polls in the Ukraine?
But call them bogus here?

[euler]

66. All these question have really basic answers. The fact that...

...you ask these questions says a lot about you knowledge about exit polling. An exit polling novice would know the answer to these questions. That makes you something below a exit poll novice (in my opinion).

Stop posting for a week and start reading what other statisticians are saying. Your prayers will all be answered. In fact, you can read about how your notions have been soundly debunked by taking the time to visit just 3 liberal blogs. I say liberal, only because you have indicated you know more about exit polling than moderate and conservation exit poll experts.

start here:

http://www.mysterypollster.com

Note: The mystery pollster is up for the Koufax award for "Best Expert Blogger of 2004." This award is given to the best Progressive blog run by a subject matter expert (in this case, statistics.)

In addition, you might want to read the 12/29/2004 version of Freemans paper. While his conclusions are still suspect, he does indicate that he at least knows the answer to your questions.

[TruthIsAll]

72. Well, Mitofsky's MOE is still 1%. No mention of cluster.

Does MP know that Mitofksky claims the national exit poll is a RANDOMLY_SELECTED sample?

And by so doing, confirms the simple MOE calculation that I have been posting for months:
MOE = 1/sqrt(n).

Here n= 13,047.
So the MOE is 0.88%.
I won't quibble.

And that this also would apply to state polls, except that the MOE would be higher (1.8% - 4.0%) based on the sample size.

Face it. The key arguments of MP (non-randomness and MOE "cluster" effect) are effectively demolished by Mitofsky in the notes accompanying the National Exit Poll.

That MOE sure is a tight noose, isn't it?

Koufax award?
Sandy was perfection.

MP is far from perfect.







Sorry, no 5% MOE.

[euler]

77. Where ?

"Does MP know that Mitofksky claims the national exit poll is a RANDOMLY_SELECTED sample?"

Need a link.

[Salomonity]

80. He claims no such thing

That formula you keep quoting ad nauseum for margin of error applies ONLY if each sampled voter is independent of every other, which is NOT the case here--if a voter in precint A is polled, then the chance of another voter in precint A being polled is much higher than for a voter in some other precinct B, because Mitofsky doesn't poll every precinct.

The voters polled, in other word, are clustered, and the traditional error formula DOES NOT APPLY. Full stop. Any attempt to assume otherwise is the mark of a mathematical illiterate, using formulas in contexts where they are invalid.

Further, we've had reports posted here that in at least one precinct, Democratic voters were volunteering to be polled, and were indeed being given questionnaires. If true, that's another nail in the coffin of the random sample.

If there was even a slight disposition of republicans to answer less often, again, the poll is no good.

If too many urban voters were polled--which is likely, because there's no way to compare urban vs rural turnout until the votes are counted--the poll is no good.

Why should we believe you, rather than Mitofsky, since he knows a lot more about the poll's internals, and unlike you, seems to understand statistics?

[euler]

81. You think this is the final NEP exit poll release ?

The final NEP poll will not say "Preliminary" at the top and "these percentages may change" at the bottom.

By the way, we have dualing Mitofsky's, but with one difference. I give the links to my sources, you don't

What I am pointing out is that, there is a 1% chance of getting a result that is inaccurate by more than the "margin of error" - IF the population distribution is truely random AND the sampling is truely random - neither of which is the case. The logistics of achieving anything approaching a random sample in an exit poll are daunting, and we know that the distribution within the population is not random

**************************************************

Much of the belief that the election was stolen was based on "screen shots" of raw numbers provided by CNN. In exit polling, raw numbers mean almost nothing – since the essence of a successful exit poll is to interview a sampling of voters, and then apply a variety of methods in order to adjust to the most probable accurate assessment. "To say you want the raw data is ludicrous," ... "You can't use it until you do something with it. You're talking about a bunch of naïve people that had the first course in statistics."

Bill Leonard, a former CBS News VP who was a polling pioneer, has called exit polls "blunt instruments." The widely circulated notion that they are always right is dead wrong.

The notion that a single definitive number showing Kerry winning ever existed is also wrong. "We never had unadjusted unofficial totals," said the source. "As we get more data, we're always adjusting."

http://www.alternet.org/story/20934

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Nice discovery! If you do it by the regions.. Kerry - 50.03% Bush - 47.46%

[TruthIsAll]

16. The male/female split is the most important characterstic by far.

They both add to 100%.
No ambiguity.
You are a man or you are a woman.

As Edison/Mitofsky say: for a 50% characteristic, the MOE is 1%0.

Got to believe them.
They're the experts.

[Raksha]

10. You're right...it's simply mathematically impossible!

Even I can understand that. Now if only I could get that Washington Post page to print out! I've tried several times with your earlier notes along these lines but haven't been able to do it.

[mcscajun]

11. The most 'telling' division is the split...

between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'
The flip happens right at the 50k mark.

[ivorysteve]

12. Speaking of raw exit polls...

Has Mitofsky et. al announced a date when the raw precinct-level numbers will be released (the chart above is analysis)? You know, how long after Shrub is ensconced on his throne and it's safe to bring out the unadulterated truth?

[Alizaryn]

38. March, I think I hear somewhere?

[Mistwell]

13. How many times have you posted this same thing

20 times? 30 times? Exactly how many times have you posted that screen shot?

[RaulVB]

14. And what would be the problem? (n/t)

[JohnOneillsMemory]

15. Newly enlightened come to this site every day. This is the beginning. n/t

[TruthIsAll]

74. That is why we must kick these facts until they become mainstream. n/t

.

[Helga Scow Stern]

17. And I hope TIA keeps posting it, day after day, if necessary, until it

is no longer swept under the rug.

Thanks, TIA! :hi:

The spin vortex is on high speed. We need to keep renewing the truth!


:yourock:

[TruthIsAll]

19. Don't you love it? n/t

.

[northamericancitizen]

20. Keep on going, kicking and talking about it. If we don't who will?

[IndyPriest]

42. Yes, I do! n/t

[dzika]

46. It's not a screen shot.

It is still coming off of the Washington Post server.
It hasn't been modified since election night.

[Philly Buster]

75. I'm new here

For many it may be old but for alot of us we're just getting into the discussion even if we've been reading the site for a while.

[bush_is_wacko]

21. Do you really think this is the smoking gun.

They have all been ignoring this kind of stuff from what I can tell. I would like to see someone gain access to the damn machines and find the ghost program. I have a couple of relatives that are very good programmers and have been doing it since the computer industry took off. Both of them think it is VERY possible to hide something like what has been discussed here. The thugs are counting on Americans being stupid enough not to realize this. They all got together and tried to debunk the possibility by calling us and our Senators and Representatives conspiracy theorists. Every one of them said the same damn thing. I did notice however that lots of them didn't show for that little debate. I think they were too scared to have their names connected to either side of the argument. They know we are on to something.

[Beth in VT]

28. Why won't they release the data,

and why won't they answer questions?

[goclark]

35. They are not ignoring, they are covering

It is hard work to hide the TRUTH.

Our conscious is clear, they are trembling in their boots.

Remember, they are really wimps and bullies.
They talk a good game but when the going gets tough ,the bullies run home crying to their mamas.

[bush_is_wacko]

43. Covering IS a better choice of words and I agree I think they

were a little shaken up by our "little" movement. I actually think they know there is some substantial evidence. Their reaction to Senator Boxer and Rep. Tubbs-Jones and all the rest was well orchestrated and it was a definite attempt to deflect the accusations.

[Not a Sheep]

22. Smoking Gun- indisputable evidence (especially of a crime)........

That poll is not a smoking gun. No matter how many times it's posted, no matter how many times someone says it is. I wish it was but it is not.

My prediction: It will not become "a historic document" that will "educate" and "astound millions". In my opinion, your rhetoric is highly inflated.

[Bill Bored]

23. See this thread and DO SOMETHING tomorrow!

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=264034>

[Wabbajack]

27. According to

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/

*'s official % is 50.73 not 51.23

[TruthIsAll]

31. More Proof: Late votes are for Kerry; early votes were rigged for Bush.

.

[Wabbajack]

39. Yeah

It really narrowed in a lot of states. Take Colorado, I think Kerry won there, officially it was closer than Florida.

[foo_bar]

29. so 13,047 > 13660?

Mitofsky's own organization links to a very different set of data, purportedly with a sample of 13,660 (randomly self-)selected voters:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/

So we have the author of the poll on one side, versus a context-free chart captioned "preliminary exit poll results" with a smaller sample (preliminary: That which precedes the main discourse, work, design, or business; something introductory or preparatory). But we're to take the latter on faith from a person whose last all-caps prediction was that Clinton was "speaking code" when he said Bush won the election, and that all would be revealed on 1/6/05.

Now, what do you suppose "preliminary" means in this context? It means your source has more contemporary data, "LONG AFTER THE POLLS CLOSED":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitPolls_national.html

ALL Kery Bush Nadr
Are you:
Male 46 44 55 0
Female 54 51 48 0

So images don't lie, only Mitofsky and the WaPo lie. After they uncovered the smoking gun. This picture is so damaging to the conspiracy, they forgot to take it off their image server.

[TruthIsAll]

30. So, of the final 613 votes...Bush gained 679, Kerry lost 9? Right.

Total Kerry Votes Bush Votes
13047 50.78% 6625 48.43% 6319
13660 48.43% 6616 51.23% 6998

613 -2.35% -9 2.80% 679

[foo_bar]

49. nowhere does it mention 6625-6319 votes

that's an extrapolation based on a jpeg full of percentages labeled "preliminary" multiplied by 13047. The two-party share went from 99.21% to 99.66%, so Nader and Badnarik must have lost votes by that same sort of "reasoning":

Total Third-Party Votes %
13047 103 .79%
13660 57 .34%

OMG OMG! THEY TOOK 46 VOTES FROM THE GREENS ET AL.!

[TruthIsAll]

57. That "JPEG" is from a WP site which still exists.

My reasoning is impeccable.

Simple multiplications.
Now you even question THAT.
Your new strawman: Nader and Bednarik.
Introduce more fog into a very simple calculation.
AND THE CALCULATION DOES NOT ADD UP.

KERRY HAD 9 OF HIS VOTES MYSTERIOUSLY VANISH.
WHERE DID THEY GO?
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

SPIN. SPIN.

A THIRD GRADER CAN SEE THE RIGHT THROUGH THE SCAM.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

[euler]

68. Foorbar right TIA wrong. This is not the final exit poll.

Sorry, wasted thread, but it will still make a great T-Shirt. Send me one.

The final exit poll will come from Mitosfsky, not in a preliminary exit poll you found on WP.

[BeFree]

32. Stolen

What more proof does anyone truly need?

[TruthIsAll]

33. How about Freeman?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x262361

[TruthIsAll]

34. And Baiman and Simon...

http://freepress.org/images/departments/PopularVotePaper181_1.pdf

[TruthIsAll]

36. My probability calculations and analysis of roundoff error

National Exit Poll Nov 3, 12:23AM

Sample-size: 13,047 voters
Downloaded by: Jonathan Simon at 12:33 am.

As stated by Edison/Mitofsky (see notes in graphic below):
1-Margin of Error (MOE): 1.0%
2-Randomly-selected sample

This analysis is very similar to that of Ron Baiman.
Baiman calculated the odds of the Kerry shift (-2.56%).
For completeness, I calculate the odds of the Bush shift (+3.01%).

The voting split:
Female: 54%
Male: 46%

The split was consistent with earlier samples from 4pm and 7:33pm.

This is how they voted:
Women for Kerry: 54%-45%
Men for Bush: 52-47%

Since there were more women voting than men, Kerry had the advantage.

Calculation of the national percentages based on the gender split:
Kerry = .54*.54+.47*.46 = 50.78%
Bush = .45*.54+ .52*.46 = 48.22%

Kerry led the national exit poll by 2.56%.
But Bush won the vote by 2.80%.

Exit Actual Diff
Kerry 50.78% 48.43% -2.35%
Bush 48.22% 51.23% 3.01%
Diff 2.56% -2.80% -5.36%

As stated by Mitofsky/Edison, the MOE = 1%.
Therefore, the population standard deviation is:
StDev = MOE /1.96 = 0.00510

This means that 95% of the time we would expect that the Bush actual vote would fall between 47.22% and 49.22%, within 1.0% of his exit poll sample mean of 48.22%.

What is the probability that the Bush tally would exceed his exit poll sample mean by 3.01%, and rise from from 48.22% to 51.23%?

Probability = NORMDIST(0.4822,0.5123,0.0051,TRUE)
Probability = 0.00000000183

The odds are 1 out of 1/.00000000183 or

**************** 1 out of 547,044,797 ****************


ROUNDING
The exit poll percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.
It would be preferable to show at least 1 decimal place for
greater computational accuracy.

Therefore, I have also calculated the odds assuming
1) a Best Case scenario for Bush (numbers rounded UP 0.5%),
and
2) a Worst Case scenario (his numbers rounded DOWN 0.5%).

The 0.5% adjustments were made to the female/male split as
well as to Bush's percentage for each.


THIS IS THE BASE CASE CALCULATION FOR THE EXIT POLL DATA
SHOWN IN THE GRAPHIC WHICH WAS ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST 1%:

Kerry = .54*.54+.47*.46 = 50.78%
Bush = .45*.54+ .52*.46 = 48.22%

These parameters were entered into the normal distribution
function:

Probability = NORMDIST(0.4822,0.5123,0.0051,TRUE)
Probability = 0.00000000183

............................................................
HERE ARE THE CORRESPONDING CALCULATIONS FOR THE BEST AND
WORST CASE SCENARIOS FOR BUSH, AFTER INCREMENTING INPUT
PARAMETERS BY THE +/-0.5% ROUNDOFF ERRROR.
............................................................

WORST CASE: -0.5%

Split
Male 45.5%
Female 54.5%

Vote%
Male 51.5%
Female 44.5%

Weight 47.69%

Probability = NORMDIST(0.4769,0.5123,0.0051,TRUE)
WORST CASE PROBABILITY
Prob Odds: 1 out of
1.82532E-12 547,849,842,147
..............................................................

BEST CASE +0.5%

Split
Male 46.5%
Female 53.5%

Vote%
Male 52.5%
Female 45.5%

Weight 48.76%

48.76% = .465*.525 + .535*.455


Probability = NORMDIST(0.4876,0.5123,0.0051,TRUE)
Probability ODDS: 1 OUT OF
6.09049E-07 1,641,904

To summarize:
Best Case (+0.5%): 1 out of 1,641,904
Most likely(as reported): 1 out of 547,044,797
Worst Case(-0.5%): 1 out of 547,849,842,147

[foo_bar]

48. there's far more Creationists with Ph.Ds

But the academic types know better than to use words like "proof" around competing hypotheses based on inferences.

[Melissa G]

70. You have a lot on nonsensical posts but this one is up there.

Are you a creationist with a Ph.D?

[bleever]

37. The most obvious takes the most time

to be taken for granted.

NGU.

And you won't even have to wait for "never".

:)

[no_vote_no_count]

40. I find your posts worth reading,

and always take the time to look---thank-you for posting them.

But, why the all-caps in most of your subject headers, and why the all-caps in your posts? You don't need to shout here, heavens knows you have a friendly audience.

[TruthIsAll]

51. Not shouting, amplifying "WE'RE MAD AS HELL, NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE"

tia

[moondust]

45. Do you have a link to that document?

[RunningFromCongress]

47. Umm The relig affil. #s add up to 122% of all voters

53+27+3+7+10+22 = 122

I'd like to say though that it's prolly b/c there are ~48% of the protestants who classify themselves as evangelical

[foo_bar]

50. is Evangelicism always a subset of Protestantism?

I mean, is evangelical an abbreviation of evangelical protestant, or do they count evangelicals of other creeds? I guess a little grey line would've made sense, but it does say "preliminary".

[TruthIsAll]

53. The total, less evangelicals, is exactly 100%. But I guess that

is what you are going to grasp at when you have nothing else.

[cilla4progress]

56. Print poster?

I've trying futilely to copy into my word processor so I can hang on the wall everywhere I go. Anyone got any suggestions (it's either too wide or too long).

Thanks, as always, TIA.

[TruthIsAll]

58. Sure would make for a nice tee-shirt, though.

tia

[BamaBecky]

65. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/exitpoll110800.h

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/exitpoll110800.htm

[TruthIsAll]

73. The Gore/Bush 2000 exit poll result was right on target.

The Gore margin, based on the exit polls, was 0.9%, which was off by about 0.4%, since Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 out of a little more than 100 million, a 0.5% margin

We don't know what the actual percentages were before rounding to the nearest one percent.
Why do they do this?
They should round to the nearest 0.1%.

They could have been exactly right, or off by as much as 0.9%, yet still falling within the 1.0% MOE.

Gender Split Gore Bush
Male.... 48% 43% 52%
Female 52% 54% 42%

Total 100% 48.7% 46.8%

Comparing to Kerry/Bush

Kerry got 54% of the female vote, as did Gore
Bush got 52% of the male vote both times.
Kerry got 47% of the male vote, where Gore got 43%.
Bush got 45% of the female vote vs. Kerry, but only 42% vs. Gore.

This time, the Female/Male split was 54/46.
Last time, it was 52/48.

Kerry did better than Gore because
1) more women voted this time, percentage-wise
2) Kerry improved his share of the male vote by 4%
3) Bush improved his share of the female vote by 3%.
4) Kerry did exactly the same as Gore with the women.
5) Bush did exactly the same with the men.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I47271-2000Nov8

[sharman]

67. So why doesn't someone do a post-electon canvas?

Pick a few suspicious precincts and canvas all the registered voters--even better if you can get the election day roster=the actual voters.

When I suggested this in a Will Pitt thread, it was pooh-poohed because "you couldn't be sure that voters would tell the truth." Well duh, the same holds true for exit polls. Obviously, exit polls have enough validity to be used worldwide as a means of verifying the honesty of an election. Post-election polls should have no less credibility. Furthermore, where you can canvass an entire precinct, there is no weighting or other guestimating to extrapolate to the total. You have polled 100% of that population. It matches the official tally, or you have a real basis for suspicion.

This would be an extremely telling piece of information. It shouldn't be that expensive to do. Why is no one taking this obvious step?

[TruthIsAll]

69. They are afraid of what might be revealed. n/t

.

[Melissa G]

71. It is time to get the Dems to put our money where our mouth is

By creating a real Liberal media outlet and doing this type of precinct polling where we prove the voting anomalies.
We need a big mouthpiece and documented data to send out on it.
They are our airwaves. We need to take them back!

[sharman]

76. Seriously

Arnebeck, the Glibs, any of the legions we've had in Ohio after the election. We've got voter lists, we've got people, money's been donated. Why isn't someone doing this?

[super simian]

78. Just asking...

...what is truly the solution here? Gore was elected in 2000 and we got * and then Kerry was elected in 2004 and then we got * again.

What is truly the solution here? Waiting for a repug legislature that hates paper trails to enact election reform? What is TRULY the solution?

Just asking because I seriously need help figuring this out!!

[euler]

79. Have you read this ?

At the top it says "Preliminary exit poll"

At the bottom it says "Final percentages may shift"

Let me assure you that the exit poll released by the NEP will NOT contain these phrases. Why don't you just wait for it instead of wasting everyones time.

[TruthIsAll]

82. We have already seen how they adjusted the numbers

in a "later" version: Kerry LOSES nine votes, Bush gains over 600.
Let them explain that one.

They have already said that they "adjusted" the numbers by mixing actual votes with the poll.
Sorry. It won't fly.

A vote is a vote.
It's not a poll response.

A poll response is a poll response.
It's not a vote.

IN THE REAL WORLD, VOTES ARE NOT MIXED WITH POLLS.

Only in bizarro world does that happen.
We live in the real world.

Black is still black.
White is still white.

Truth is still truth.
Fiction is still fiction.

Orwell is turning over right now.