NO MYSTERY: MITOFSKY'S "RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER THEORY" IS DECIMATED.

[TruthIsAll]

It looks like the Mystery Pollster does not walk on water after all.

The Math guys are teaching him a thing or two, as they methodically destroy Mitofsky's bogus theory using cold, hard elementary algebra.

Fallacious arguments and asinine excuses are easy to make up.
But they are also very easy to expose, once the forensic auditors analyze them using readily available data.

However you slice it, one plus one equals two.
Always.

Mathematics: The no-spin zone

I wonder what Sandy Koufax thinks about all this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As one astute observer replied:
"... even if we take the reports' main conclusions as given - that there is a problem with the weather, or distance from the polling site, or interviewer education, or interviewer age, or the interviewing rate et al - it seems that we are inevitably destined for reductio ad absurdum - and the next time the exitpolls are 'wrong', the purported solution will appear as a perfect national blend of gender/age/race/education - and when that doesnt work, we'll hold out for a solution where we try to map those same elements by state, and then by precinct. and when that doesnt work, we'll look at the demographic spread of the recruiters in an attempt to stamp out bias at that level. and so on. and if that doesnt work, we'll find some other seemingly random, contrived statistic that fits the purported narrative such as 'when people pay attention to elections, the WPE increases by order of magnitude - and we have a single data point to prove it'. do others get the same sense? it all just seems kinda futile. which brings me to my next point...

b) (trying not to sound flippant) if we consider exitpolls generally, in the ukraine and elsewhere, they tend to be used as indicators of fraud or otherwise (and i appreciate that the nov2 exitpolls were specifically designed for purposes other than to identify fraud) - but arent they also subject to the same considerations - distrust of the media, age/edu/gender/source of interviewers, weather, distance from polls etc"?


http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/01/the_reluctant_b.html#comments

[RaulVB]

1. Quite amusing to read Blumenthal "bending over" to debunk his own claim...

Great post TIA. I'm reading and enjoying every minute of it.

I find this quote very telling:

"It's becoming more and more apparent that John Kerry was the actual winner of the election, but had it stolen by the Republicans, either through massive vote fraud or intimidation. What a sad day for our former democracy.

Posted by: Jayson | January 24, 2005 12:57 PM"

That Blumenthal has to read about the TRUTH even when he doesn't want to is...sweeeet!

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I would like all the Dems that did not stand up on Jan 6th to read this

[fooj]

6. Why, I think that is a splendid idea...

:kick: Perhaps a little ass-kickin is in order?

[fooj]

3. Yippee!!!!! Where do we go from here?

How do you think they will work this? More bully tactics?

[RaulVB]

4. No way!

Good ol' Mitofsky actually gave it up while trying to do CYA!

[euler]

8. How do you think they will work this?

They will publish papers in scholarly journals that will make TruthIsAll look like a novice. After all, he has admitted in his prior posts that he is not a exit poll/statitics expert.

[TruthIsAll]

10. euler, keep repeating: tia is not an expert, tia is not an expert,

tia is not an expert....

No, but I can add 2+2

Can you?

[SaveAmerica]

14. My goodness, I think it's time for Ferris Euler to have a day off

[texpatriot2004]

5. Thanks TIA

as usual

:yourock:

[euler]

7. methodically destroy ?

Please point out to me where luke methodically destroyed Mitofsky's non-response bias explanation. Please quote the text you are referring to.

All luke has really done by his remarks is prove Mitofsky's own point - "exit polls are blunt instruments.?"

[passy]

11. Hi ! Remember me?

You sure are busy replying to TIA, so much so that you won't reply to my posts. In case you missed it here is a copy of the last reply I posted.
I was called "Please let believers believe"

"I always see your name pop up whenever there is a post from TIA. You always bring down those who show a bit of hope in the exit poll numbers. Now I understand you have your point of view on the issue and as you say "I hate to see us shooting ourselves in the foot all the time", but I think that you should be a bit more laid back.
Why do you care so much if people make fools of themselves? Let them be, it doesn't do you or anyone any harm. I personally am an atheist and I wouldn't go onto religious forums trying to tell them that god doesn't exist, I might think that some of them are making fools of themselves discussing issues which I find ridiculous but I wouldn't want to spend my time refuting their arguments every single time.
Your constant rebuttals add nothing to the discussion. Those who believe that exit polls might be seen as evidence of election fraud already have enough to contend with, like for example repugs who think the whole concept is out of date and seek to get rid of exit polls once and for all, preferably before 2006.
I'm sure you can use your intelligence, energy and internet savvy on other issues such as disenfranchisement which really needs detailed documenting."

[righteous1]

13. IMHO a contrary opinion is invaluable to the discussion.

If conclusions are submitted and they are correct and accurate, they should be able to stand up to scrutiny. If not, then they are most likely misrepresented facts or erroneous deduction. A bit of skepticism is healthy to the process and if a person truly seeks the truth, they are as interested in pursuing that which is wrong with their theory with the same vigor as to that which is right

[RaulVB]

17. What the poster in question is doing is called stalking (n/t)

[Igel]

16. Belief does not require proof and rejoices when there

is no proof.

However much archeological or mythological you present to a believer in Christ, s/he will continue to believe in Christ.

Euler cannot challenge those who truly believe; just those who doubt. (I think I've been lurking in the religious discussion fora a bit too long.)

[fooj]

9. TIA-Thanks for the heads-up...LMAO Baiting the hook again!

Don't bite! Peace!

[Beth in VT]

12. Great stuff TIA, keep at it! n/t

[Hugin]

15. Aha!

Although I already knew the "Scaredy Cat" * voter was a myth after
several people posted being confronted by fundies.

Nice to have some statistical evidence tho. =)

Warm fuzzies.

[Wilms]

18. kick n/t