|
Edited on Tue Jun-24-08 03:13 PM by tiptoe
DU's Sancho recently posted a realistic, blunt warning to Barack Obama supporters and the efforts they might extend towards his campaign's success -- a warning similarly reflected in each of TruthIsAll's frequent "Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation" updates, when he says " But there's a catch", i.e. a qualification that's also a warning, not applicable solely to *his* but to *all* professional/pundit predictions and projections, one which he (unlike the others who have not directly and extensively researched Election Fraud) is not only qualified to give but also (too, unlike the others) willing to disclose. And you, an obviously dedicated campaigner for Obama, would be wise to heed both of them and not ignore TruthIsAll's projections-and-warning with some indiscriminate "Don't trust them", lest your well-intentioned, focused efforts for Obama and other candidate success go mis-directed or fall short of the task. Here's what Sancho detailed on June 18 (a reference-linked version of which appears here): Florida elections were rigged for the last decade; I see no difference today...caging, absentee ballots manufactured and lost, access to polls, registration lists, hacked DRE's, undervotes, butterfly ballots, hanging chads, crooked election supervisors, poll worker challenges, riots at election offices, crooked judges/courts, no meaningful investigations, manipulated primary dates...on and on
Obama better realize that a grass roots campaign, rallies, polls, and predictions are MEANINGLESS if there is no fair election. Only a few key states are needed to swing the electoral college while only a relatively few per cent of votes need to be altered in those key states.
Kerry and Gore "won". Neither occupied the White House. Sancho commented on TruthIsAll's contributions on Election Fraud and poll analysis: Even though poll analysis may not be statistically convincing in traditional terms (p<.05 and all that R. A. Fisher stuff), there are several positives to TIA's posts: - Anecdotal evidence of vote switching, undervotes, etc. are pointing to election fraud, but not "legal proof", and that is consistent with TIA's hypotheses; a form of convergent validity
- Some of TIA's analyses reveal patterns that hold pollsters feet to the fire in the future and they may be forced to be more transparent about the popular processes
- If we think that elections can be rigged, a well-designed exit poll at the precinct level (parallel election) is likely the only way to provide clear evidence of all the possible manipulations of machines, tabulators, provisional ballots, etc. so that proper investigations and re-elections can be held
- Some of TIA's analyses are refutable, but as stated before, non-ignorable nonresponse can only be determined with heroic efforts (see Howard Wainer: Eelworms, Bullet Holes, and Geraldine Ferraro: Some Problems in Statistically Adjusting for Survey Nonresponse) and TIA is making the heroic effort that needs to be done - maybe something will surface that can't be refuted at some point
- TIA's posts have generated a number of other investigations by statisticians and political scientists - good for the order to do this thinking
- Even when a given analysis is questionable in sampling/probability terms, the variety of analyses as a group by TIA have more convincing weight - sort of a poor man's meta-analysis
- TIA's discoveries remind me of John Snow
(http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/fatherofepidemiology.html ). Sometimes there is no scientific proof, but the pattern can show one where to look
- TIA has certainly got more people reading about polls and statistics that would normally be interested. A more sophisticated public won't be as easily fooled by unexplained weighting in the future
- TIA has been responding to criticisms over the last couple of years and takes the debate to a new level about WPE, reluctant responders, and attractive pollsters
- TIA's viewpoint is not one of an insider (pollster) and many disciplines can't see the forest for the trees, so having an outside examination is a good idea; the rhetoric that "exit polls can't prove fraud" is mostly a pollster's lament, not a universal law of physics!
2004 POLLING ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS - TruthIsAll
State Pre-Election polls, Projections, Exit polls and Recorded vote
Some argue that exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote can't prove that fraud occurred.
But that's not a valid criticism. The question should be:
Do the Exit polls, in conjunction with the Pre-election and Approval polls, indicate that fraud was likely?
Pre-Election Polls
(Pre Undecided Voter Alloc)
Recorded Vote( Official Vote Count )
SEP – Proj
SEP – Vote
Exit Poll Projected
EV SEP
EV
Proj – SEP
Proj – Vote State
Wtd Avg
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY EV
538
9
3
10
6
55
9
7
3
3
27
15
4
4
21
11
7
6
8
9
4
10
12
17
10
6
11
3
5
5
4
15
5
31
15
3
20
7
7
21
4
8
3
11
34
5
3
13
11
5
10
3 Kerry
47.7 %
39
30
45
46
49
47
52
78
45
50
42
45
30
54
39
50
37
39
40
50
54
64
52
52
42
44
36
32
49
47
50
49
57
47
35
50
28
50
50
56
42
42
47
37
24
53
47
52
45
51
29 Bush
47.0 %
57
57
50
48
42
48
42
11
38
47
52
45
59
42
58
44
60
56
48
39
43
27
45
44
51
49
57
61
49
47
42
49
39
50
55
47
61
44
45
36
55
52
50
59
69
40
51
44
49
44
65
Kerry
51.0 %
41.3
39.0
48.0
49.8
55.0
50.0
55.8
85.5
57.0
51.5
45.8
51.8
37.5
56.3
40.5
53.8
38.5
42.0
48.3
57.5
55.5
70.0
53.5
54.3
46.5
48.5
40.5
36.5
49.8
50.8
55.3
49.8
59.3
48.5
41.8
51.5
35.5
53.8
53.0
61.3
43.5
45.8
48.5
39.3
28.5
57.5
47.8
54.3
48.8
54.0
32.8
Kerry
51.8 %
42.5
40.3
46.7
44.8
59.8
50.1
62.2
90.9
61.3
50.9
42.5
56.4
30.8
57.0
40.0
50.7
37.5
39.6
44.1
55.5
60.0
64.8
54.4
55.7
45.8
49.0
37.7
36.7
52.9
57.0
57.8
52.9
64.1
49.2
32.9
54.2
33.5
53.0
55.3
61.8
45.9
36.3
42.8
40.6
29.2
66.4
49.4
57.0
40.3
52.0
31.2
Kerry
48.3 %
36.8
35.5
44.4
44.5
54.3
47.0
54.3
89.2
53.3
47.1
41.4
54.0
30.3
54.8
39.3
49.2
36.6
39.7
42.2
53.6
55.9
61.9
51.2
51.1
40.2
46.1
38.6
32.7
47.9
50.2
52.9
49.0
58.4
43.6
35.5
48.7
34.4
51.3
50.9
59.4
40.9
38.4
42.5
38.2
26.0
58.9
45.5
52.8
43.2
49.7
29.1 Bush
50.7 %
62.5
61.1
54.9
54.3
44.4
51.7
43.9
9.3
45.8
52.1
58.0
45.3
68.4
44.5
59.9
49.9
62.0
59.6
56.7
44.6
42.9
36.8
47.8
47.6
59.0
53.3
59.1
65.9
50.5
48.9
46.2
49.8
40.1
56.0
62.9
50.8
65.6
47.2
48.4
38.7
58.0
59.9
56.8
61.1
71.5
38.8
53.7
45.6
56.1
49.3
68.9
Diff
0.8 %
1.2
1.3
(1.3)
(5.0)
4.8
0.1
6.4
5.4
4.3
(0.6)
(3.3)
4.6
(6.7)
0.8
(0.5)
(3.0)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(4.1)
(2.0)
4.5
(5.2)
0.9
1.5
(0.7)
0.5
(2.8)
0.2
3.2
6.3
2.5
3.2
4.8
0.7
(8.9)
2.7
(2.0)
(0.8)
2.3
0.5
2.4
(9.4)
(5.7)
1.4
0.7
8.9
1.7
2.8
(8.5)
(2.0)
(1.5) Diff
3.6 %
5.7
4.8
2.3
0.3
5.5
3.1
7.9
1.7
8.0
3.8
1.1
2.4
0.5
2.2
0.8
1.5
0.9
(0.0)
1.9
1.9
4.1
2.9
3.2
4.7
5.7
2.9
(0.9)
4.1
5.1
6.8
4.9
3.9
5.7
5.7
(2.6)
5.5
(1.0)
1.7
4.4
2.4
5.0
(2.1)
0.3
2.4
3.2
7.5
4.0
4.2
(2.9)
2.4
2.2 WPE 7.1 % 11.3 9.6 4.6 0.5 10.9 6.1 15.7 3.4 15.9 7.6 2.2 4.7 1.0 4.4 1.5 3.0 1.7 (0.1)3.8 3.8 8.1 5.8 6.3 9.3 11.3 5.8 (1.8)8.1 10.1 13.6 9.7 7.8 11.4 11.3 (5.2) 10.9 (1.9)1.8 8.8 4.7 10.0 (4.2)0.5 4.8 6.4 15.0 7.9 8.4 (5.8)4.7 4.3 Kerry
331
6
55
9
7
3
3
27
4
21
7
4
10
12
17
10
5
4
15
5
31
20
7
21
4
3
11
10
Kerry
325
55
9
7
3
3
27
4
21
7
4
10
12
17
10
5
4
15
5
31
20
7
21
4
3
11
10
< 2.0%
21
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes > 2.0%
33
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
> 6.0%
25
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
