Must Read: The 2004 Election Was Stolen

[TruthIsAll]

http://spiral-stairs.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/30/223723/91

The 2004 Election Was Stolen
by TocqueDeville
Thu Dec 30th, 2004 at 19:37:23 PST


snip

So I've been waiting patiently for a comprehensive analysis of exit poll data by qualified analysts. That moment has slowly, but finally, arrived. The latest is the analysis posted below in its entirety (converted from PDF for convenience and posterity) by Jonathan D. Simon, J.D. and Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D. from Institute of Government and Public Affairs - University of Illinois at Chicago. This paper, combined with others, namely Freeman, is as close to a "smoking gun" as you will ever find.

snip

Also, some fail to appreciate the significance of exit polls for proving election theft. The power of statistical evidence should be well known. DNA or fingerprint analysis is actually statistical in nature. The veracity of such evidence is derived from a statistical probability that no one else shares those traits. By the same token, if the election outcome is statistically improbable, by a factor of 1000 or more, you can pretty much take it to the bank that the outcome is wrong.

`Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', I heard recently. This assertion is built on the false premise that rigging an election in the United States is somehow extraordinary. Considering the history of US elections, and the stakes involved, and the fact that 80% of all votes in the US were either cast on, or counted by two private corporations owned by Republicans, this and all elections should be suspect from the start.

History will judge us harshly for this election. Not just the Bush administration, but the media, the Democrats, and the online community as well. Future historians will no doubt get a chuckle for the providence of the Ukraine fiasco falling so closely behind our own. But mostly, when they examine the American response to the exit poll discrepancies of the 2004 election, they will be saddened by the blaring naiveté, maliciousness, and cowardice.

more...

[bear425]

1. linky please - ty

[TruthIsAll]

3. You're too fast. I just put it in. n/t

.

[bear425]

6. Sorry, It was just the timing and the headline was so intriguing

that I had to read it so fast. Thanks for posting!

[HEAVYHEART]

28. Hmmm..

You said, "You're too fast. I just put it in." It sounds like.. uh nevermind. I thought I was in the Lounge! hehee.. By the way, you rock TruthIsAll!!!!

[me b zola]

50. LOL

n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. link?

Also, per DU rules, please limit copyrighted material to 4 paragraphs. Thank you for understanding.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Amazing how people can cluck their tongues over the Ukraine

While at the very same time insisting that no one could be capable of that sort of thing here in the U.S.

[hilster]

7. yet for some reason

"they" believe that WA state doeshave a problem, even if the proof of that is surpassed by Ohio's own irregularities. Ugh.

I wish we could just have a re-vote nation-wide with paper ballots only and independent people doing the counting. Is that so much to ask?

[adolfo]

5. kick

:kick:

[Bethany Rockafella]

8. It's too bad the mainstream media doesn't know this.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. Kick

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[abbiehoff]

11. What makes you think they don't know?

I'm reasonably sure the MSM can't help but know this. The question is more why are they so unwilling to say anything.

[Bethany Rockafella]

14. Yes, you are probably correct.

They probably know but don't want to bring it up. Cowards, I say.


(except Keith!)

[tngledwebb]

56. They know.

And they don't know, if you know what I mean.

[BamaBecky]

9. Lets blast this to the Main Stream media, Congress & whoever else still

remains on our e-mail lists.....Ha! I have had a few ask to come off of mine - numskulls

[BamaBecky]

12. Super kick!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[tandem5]

13. kick! nt

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[keepthemhonest]

18. why do you come around euler?

what do you want to know?

[euler]

22. Your question implies....

....that you think people join DU in order to learn something. I don't think I will disagree with that.

Having established, at your suggestion, that we are hear to learn, do we want to learn things that are true or do we want to learn things that are false? I doubt many members care for the latter. So, for that reason (and a few others,) I post.

[keepthemhonest]

45. who's truth

is it that you wish to impart on us?

[spooked911]

16. This is a good piece, but is it anything new? Isn't this the same type of

analysis we've seen over and over that only seems to convince the people that already believe the election was indeed rigged.

The part about a code that could add a few votes to every precinct is interesting-- but we need to see that fucking code, assuming it still exists.

Aaargggghh!:mad:

[euler]

17. We continue to allow TIA to shoot us in the foot.

Here's an anlayis of Simon/Baiman paper:

http://stones-cry-out.blogspot.com/2005/01/simon-and-baiman-continued.html

...they are flagrantly biased and illogical in their presentation. The following criticism proves that they are downright misleading and perhaps dishonest in their presentation as well....they are considered authorities by many and their pseudo-science can be convincing for the ignorant. Jonathan Simon has a J.D. and Ron Baiman has a Ph.D. and is affiliated with Institute of Government and Public Affairs University of Illinois at Chicago.....

We all know the exit polls are significantly discrepant. What we do not know is exactly what happened. I've stated before, and I'll state it again: Given the data currently in the public domain, we do not know if the exit poll discrepancy can be explained by: 1) sampling error; 2) non-sampling error; 3) inaccurate vote count; or 4) any combination of 1-3.

To me their analysis tells me two things: 1) they do not understand some fundamentals of statistics; and 2) they realize that their analysis is weak (or bogus), but without it, they think that no one would buy the final three bullets of their paper, which are unsupportable by a fair analysis of the available data and literature.

This is only the start. When real exit poll experts are done, someone will be embarrased. We have to start thinking for ourselves.

More here:

http://stones-cry-out.blogspot.com/2005/01/simon-and-baiman-on-exit-polls.html

[keepthemhonest]

19. the only one shooting "US"

int the foot is you.Why are you here?

[goclark]

46. Correcttoe !

[Junkdrawer]

20. Quoting a R/W Christian Blog?????

DO THEY THINK WE CAN'T READ BETWEEN THE LINES?
"zealous belief in the truth of the segment"
AGENDA DRIVEN
"zealous belief in the truth of the segment"
ANTI-BUSH
"zealous belief in the truth of the segment"
BIAS
"zealous belief in the truth of the segment"


http://stones-cry-out.blogspot.com

[euler]

23. This is a well though out argument.

Every one knows Christians are uniformly stupid. Is that all you can offer the debate ?

[Salomonity]

30. worse than that

It's not merely "christians are stupid", but "if a christian says something, don't listen".

Folks, this has slid past groupthink, past fanaticism. This is starting to get scary. Mathematical questions are not solved by saying "ah, a christian said it, so it doesn't count".

[me b zola]

51. 'scuse me?

I'm a Catholic who knows enough to be wary of Bible thumpers. Any of those Bible thumpers who would speak on political matters is indeed suspect. Many of us here are Christians (Hindus, Buddhists,Muslim, and Jew), and we don't bring our spiritual beliefs into the forum of scientific discourse.

Much of what is said here is said by people of faith. Your spew sounds familiar.

[four_more_whores]

21. Speaking of downright misleading and dishonest...

Can anyone refute that "80% of all votes in the US were either cast on, or counted by two (or more) private corporations owned by Republicans (that have no transparency or cannot be audited)?

[euler]

24. No, but since this proves nothing...

...refuting it is unnecessary.

[New Earth]

25. k

[four_more_whores]

34. It obviously proves that it was a closed election...

It obviously proves that it was a closed not open election. I know this sounds crazy and naive--but, isn't there some sort legal requirement for elections in the US to be open and transparent?

[newyawker99]

58. Hi four_more_whores!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[anaxarchos]

26. Why would you post a criticism of the Simon/Baiman paper...

by "some guy". Is Rick Brady a "real exit poll expert"? Weren't you just talking about "peer review"? Does Brady qualify as a "peer"?

From your links, he hit me as an activest evangelical right-wing nut-job , but hey... I guess we're all "peers" in the eyes of god.

[euler]

27. Did you read it.

No, he isn't an expert, but neither is TIA.

I know this because he said in 2 of his posts "I am not a exit poll expert."

But this doesn't matter. Have you read the analysis I linked to ? You know, the part where Baiman and Simon edited their work based on a critique from this 'activest evangelical right-wing nut-job '

[anaxarchos]

39. Actually, I did read it... both of the "its".

It's long winded and mostly silly... kind of a sheep in wolf's clothing. The reference to Baiman & Simon revising their work is really about them referencing a "personal communication" from the secretive Mr. Mitofsky who apparently doesn't mind talking to activest evangelical right-wing nut-jobs. Other than that, nuthin' there.... just a conclusion looking for facts.

BTW, I am waiting for Sly and the Family Stone's analysis. I'm betting that at least you can dance to that.

[TruthIsAll]

29. So where is Sly and the Family Stones analysis?

I guess they are waiting for the absolute final, complete, last, ultimate, revised, researched, updated, long-awaited, adjusted, vote-contaminated, 10% MOE version of the National Exit Poll.

The one in which Mitofsky will prove that he can't vouch for the accuracy of those earlier exit polls.

Is that what you are waiting for?

Is that the final smoking gun which will prove that the votes were calculated precisely, but that the exit polls sucked eggs?

Is that the one we should be waiting for? The one which will beyond a doubt prove that Bush truly won this election fair and square?

Keep waiting.

[Salomonity]

31. "vote contaminated"

Every poll has error. The main reason US exit polls are so accurate is that the errors can be detected and corrected through comparison to actual votes. The 'contamination' is the whole POINT of an exit poll.

But yes, it is worth waiting for the accurate data.

[TruthIsAll]

32. We already HAVE the data. It resides on the WP web site.

Take a good look.

13,047 respondents as per Edison/Mitofsky
1.0% MOE as per Edison/Mitofsky
Randomly-selected sample as per Edison/Mitofsky

Kerry wins 50.8-48.2

Why don't you get it?

[Salomonity]

33. here's why--

Two reasons:

1) There's a finite probability that the results are simply outside the margin of error. Margin of error is relative to a given confidence level--for any confidence level, there will still be results outside the margin of error.

2) That margin of error is assuming a fair sample. If Democrats were even very slightly more willing to talk to pollsters, that would account for the error.

If rural precincts were even slightly underpolled, that would as well. The number of rural vs urban vs suburban vs exurban precincts to poll must be chosen in advance, and there's no particular reason to believe Mitofsky got it on the nose.

That's why I don't "get it".

[pauldp]

35. So we need the raw data right? n/t

[Salomonity]

40. it'd help --nt

[pauldp]

43. So who have you written to requesting it?

[TruthIsAll]

49. Now you are criticizing Mitofsky's expertise?

1) There's a finite probability that the results are simply outside the margin of error. Margin of error is relative to a given confidence level--for any confidence level, there will still be results outside the margin of error.

Sure. A finite probability. Like 1 out of 547 million that Bush would end up 6 standard deviations away from his sample mean.
Keep dreaming.

2) That margin of error is assuming a fair sample. If Democrats were even very slightly more willing to talk to pollsters, that would account for the error.

Come on. Don't embarrass yourself. Democrats slightly more willing to talk to pollsters? Now you are really reaching back to that original canard. It's a joke. That is pure bunk and you know it. I guess you have run out of things to say, as have the rest of you guys, Mystery Pollster included.

You say:
If rural precincts were even slightly under-polled, that would as well. The number of rural vs urban vs suburban vs exurban precincts to poll must be chosen in advance, and there's no particular reason to believe Mitofsky got it on the nose.

Really? Mitofsky has been doing these polls fore 25 years and you really think he forgot where to poll? Now you are criticizing Mitofsky's expertise?

This is all so sad. You guys are so desperate. Its just pathetic.

You say:
That's why I don't "get it".

I understand now.

[me b zola]

52. Did you raise your concers re the Ukranian elections?

[chorti]

36. stones-cry-out does not refute simon and baiman

Basically this analysis is saying that Simon and Baiman made a few minor errors in their statistical analysis, which the author believes refutes their whole paper. That's BS. They are minor errors if errors at all and I think are understandable given the rush to get this stuff out when it can still be relevant. Simon and Baiman show that even with a best-case scenario for Bush, the final outcome had at most a 1 out of 47 chance of occuring. Brady says that those chances are too good for Bush. WTF? By Brady's logic - because they overstated the chances that Bush actually won the popular vote their whole analysis is bad and therefore ... But Brady has no therefore. He is one of those fXXXing academics who likes to argue minor points but has no major point. He does absolutely nothing to refute the basic theme of Simon and Baiman - that, assuming correct exit poll methods, the national popular vote total can not be right.

[Junkdrawer]

38. If by "We" and "us", you mean the R/W blogger you cite and his ilk...

then yes, it's true. Otherwise, you start your criticism with a sophistry. Why should I continue to give you my time?

[nodictators]

41. Actually, the NEP poll was amazingly accurate in many states

Leaked NEP poll data was on the Internet at 1 pm EST on Nov 2. I personally obtained it in mid-afternoon that Election Day, hours before any statewide poll closures.

The data correctly showed Kerry losing in Arizona and Colorado. The percentages given were very close to the actual results.

Even more amazingly, NEP called Iowa a tie. In fact, it took the Iowa election officials 3 days to figure out who won. They finally decided on Friday, Nov. 5, that Bush won Iowa.

I still have the leaked data. I'll put it up soon in its own thread.

The hard fact is that the NEP poll was very accurate, except for Ohio, Florida, and, to a lesser extent, New Mexico.

Yes, the election was STOLEN!

BTW, can anyone tell us why Bush showed up in Columbus, Ohio on Election Day? Intelligent minds want the true answer.

[Karenca]

54. That is an anti-Liberal..ant-Dem,, pro-Repuke-NeoCon site.....

And I am not mentioning the 'Christian" influence. That's only a small, small part of the problem.

As a Democrat/Liberal, are you aware of the propaganda you are being fed?
As a Liberal, don't you think your time would be more well served getting your info from less partisan sources? Being that the Corporate Media is whoring themselves, wouldn't you agree that a source that leans towards the right is only going to give you more of the same propaganda that MSM is already poisoning us with?

[livvy]

37. Thanks, TIA. Interesting link.

I get it, well most of it :). You get it. Most of the posters here get it. Why don't others get it? That's the part I don't get. I wish there was a way to force the MSM to do their job. So many people are still so unaware that there was even a problem.
Grrrr.....


Keep up the interesting and informative posts. I don't understand all of the math, but I'll take your word for it. Gotta have a little faith in some people.

[bleever]

42. Only one person wasn't stunned by the late turnaround on Nov. 2:

the guy with the bank of computers set up in the White House dining room.

For anyone not up on this ongoing drama, Mystery Pollster is full of jargon, blather, and a fair chunk of reasonable chatter, but he never succeeds in refuting the historical track record of exit polling, or supporting his guesses as to why the exit polls were off (i.e., totally freakin' worthless).

In the end, the apologist for the "exit poll error" only has his best guesses to offer in support his foregone conclusion.

Shoulda kept it a mystery, pollster.

[deacon2]

44. Why don't people get "it"?

Willful ignorance springs to mind. The need to "see the holes in His hands and thrust my hand into His side." That sort of thing. Sorry for the biblical analogy - nothing here rises to that level of importance in my opinion - but it does dovetail nicely with the idea that some will dismiss absolutely anything that threatens their world view. We are all prone to this as humans - it's just that some of us can be persuaded eventually by logic and most of us certainly by the solid legal argument that motive and opportunity are all a criminal needs to ply his trade.

[Beth in VT]

53. Denial - they're not prepared to cope with the implications. n/t

[GOPBasher]

47. Show this to the naysayers on DU.

[keepthemhonest]

48. some of the naysayers are right here on this very thread n/t

TIA, the people who are refuting these exit polls are in denial or they just don't understand the math.Period.

[Karenca]

55. no, I don't think that's why they're here.

I think thteir motives are alot less innocent.

[mdb]

57. Why is it that people are not suspicious of the networks...

for not releasing the raw exit poll data?

We hear the media will not release the raw data because the exit poll data, is "still being analyzed."

We hear ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News needs to properly analyze this data which consist of a mathematical analysis, by dozens of professional analysts and has been ongoing for over 2 months now. This alone raises a lot of suspicion.

When things are all straightened out to their liking you may see the raw exit poll data.

Partial Conclusion fromm examination

In light of the history of exit polling and the particular care that was taken to
achieve an unprecedented degree of accuracy in the exit polls for Election 2004, there is
little to suggest significant flaws in the design or administration of the official exit polls.