CALCULATING KERRY'S POPULAR VOTE BASED ON THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL

[TruthIsAll]

2000.......BUSH KERRY NADER 
....  2004 2000 2004 2004 
NoVote(17%) 39% n/a 59% 1% 
Gore  (38%) 8% n/a 91% 1% 
Bush  (41%) 90% n/a 9% 0% 
Other (4%) 13% n/a 65% 16% 


Assume 100 million voted in 2000 (actually there were a few
million more, but let's keep it simple):
1)Gore got 48.5 million, Bush 48 million, the rest to Nader et
al.

2 Let's assume 20 million new voters, for a total of 120
million
Kerry gets 59%, Bush 39% (Kerry gets 3 out of 5) or Kerry gets
12 out of the 20 million. Bush gets 8 million.
   That's a net Kerry gain of 4 million votes

3) Kerry got 65% (2 million) of the 3 million who voted for
Nader et all. Bush got 13% or 0.5 million.
   That's a net Kerry gain of 1.5 million votes

4) Assume the rest of the voters voted as they did in 2000.

Total net Kerry gain: 4+ 1.5 = 5.5 million votes.
Add 5.5 million to the .50 million Gore margin.

************ Kerry wins by 6 million votes *****************

Therefore, assuming 120 million voted, this is the split:

Kerry: 63 million (52.5%, Bush: 57 million (47.5%)
Deduct 1.0% for the third party vote (split between Bush &
Kerry).

Final Vote:
Kerry 52% 
Bush 47% 
Other 1%

[Truman01]

1. I see the rumor of your Tomb stonning was a bit premature.

Glad to see you are still here. But can I tell you something about all your wonderful math? You don't have the exit polls. Your math is based on reports of the data, an abstraction of the data and not the data itself. Therefore all of your excellent extrapolations are little more than conjecture.

Bush won. We lost. You have little more than wishful thinking to say any differently. Your message is popular because the truth is bleak. We would rather believe that the election was stolen than the truth that we just lost. If we truly lost we have to deal with the fact that we aren't a majority of people. We have to deal with the idea that people who we think are imbecile's BEAT US. That is just too much for the faithful so we would rather spin the fantasy that the all-powerfull Rovemeister fooled us into thinking that Bush won by 1.5 million votes.

For what you are saying to be true, not only would it be a theft and conspiracy of Biblical proportions, but it would require both Republican and Democratic conspirators. Your numbers don't hold. The blue states had shifts just like the red states. In fact the largest of the shifts were in the blue states.

Your mechanism is too obvious and easily proven if it was true. If you want to prove fraud and we are so damn sure it exists, then call Bill Richardson in New Mexico. WE have Democratic control of most of that state. There is a Democrat SOS and Governor. You want to examine the machines go do it.

You know why we don't do that? Because we don't want any hard evidence to interfere with our fantasy because then we would have to do real work like looking in the mirror and saying what is wrong?

TIA this isn't an attack on you. I'm just tired of whatever we are smoking here that makes us refuse to view reality. You are obviously a brilliant guy. I love math and most of the time your stats post are more than I can handle, but in the end stats are stats. They don't prove anything. Evidence proves things, and we are fresh out of that.

TC

[GR]

5. Bush Didn't Win, In My Opinion...

There were way too many discrepancies. You say it would have to be of "biblical" proportions. That's just what it was. The republicans seized power illegally in 2000 and used that power to solidify control in 2004.
It wasn't very complex, just limiting access to voting machines and paper trails was all it took.

Anyone listening to Ken Blackwell, and having an ounce of trust in him, would have to be careening toward mental incompetence at a rapid rate of speed.

Because Bill Richardson doesn't believe the ends justify the means, like the radical reactionary republican fascists now in control of our destiny, doesn't prove a thing about republican fraud or the lack of it.

These people are NOT believers in democracy. They owe feality to unbridled power and nothing else.

We have a Potemkin democracy right now, but that's all we have.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

6. Why don't you take a look at the Mitofsky exit poll data

posted last night by Al the Cat.

[Truman01]

18. Because that isn't it. We don't know where that came from.

And I can't believe that its Mistofsky unless you tell me how you got it since HE and the clients haven't released it.

What you have is a posting of what is purported to be the data.

Tc

[thanatonautos]

36. Correct ... however it is a very extensive posting of what is purported

to be the data. It does look pretty impressive.

Of course it may well be a fabrication,
and the provenance is uncertain.

Also, we certainly know that there is still lower
level data available than this. These are semi-final
tabulations already.

Still, your argument is not entirely convincing.

It need not be Mitofsky who released this
information.

Given the intense interest in the exit polls,
I don't find it totally unbelievable that someone
else may have leaked these tabulations. It could
have been either someone at Edison/Mitofsky, or
someone at any of the networks who subscribe.
There is likely a very large pool of people who are
privy to the data at this level.

So I do find this release very interesting
and worthy of consideration.

Note too, that the entire issue could be put to rest
by Mitofsky, or by any one of the subscribers agreeing
to release the raw data.

I personally think that this should be done as
quickly as is humanly possible.

This kind of openness is important, I would say, in
order to try to put to rest as many of the myths
which are circulating about the election on all sides
as is possible.

All of us deserve to have full access to the data, so
that a scientific analysis can be done independently
by many researchers.

[Truman01]

42. There are so few people questioning that no one cares.

We are the ones that are making something out of nothing.

[thanatonautos]

45. I can't really help it if no one is questioning and no one cares.

That doesn't make the questions invalid.

For what it's worth, I don't think that there is nothing
there ... I don't think there is PROOF there is something
there, but I think that there may be, in all probability,
something there.

Our government has in fact taken exit polls pretty
seriously when judging the validity of elections in
various other countries, and I find it inconsistent
that they do not take them equally seriously when
judging the validity of our own elections.

Of course a statistical argument can't ever prove in
any sense, much less in a legal sense, that the official
election results are wrong, although I can think of many
cases in which highly questionable statistical arguments
have been used almost in a probative sense in legal actions
(consider e.g., all of those DNA analyses which somberly
quote odds of a misidentification smaller than one in
the number of people that are currently living on the
earth, as if such odds were truly meaningful).

Even if we did have access to the full unfiltered data,
and re-analysed it as objectively as possible, and found
that there was a large discrepancy with the election
results, I realize that it still wouldn't prove there
was fraud.

Nevertheless it would and it should raise
considerable suspicion. Enough suspicion to do a
thorough investigation, given the present
abysmal state of our voting system, and the historical
fact that actual demonstrated fraud has not been
by any means a rarity in American elections.

If you consider that to be making something out of
nothing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Happy New Year!

:)

[Truman01]

47. We already have the suspicion without the raw data....

We have to find the fraud. What we keep doing here is using the stats analysis of the polling data as if it is proof of fraud. WE have the suspicion that fraud ocurred, we need proof it ocurred by finding the methodology and proof the methodology happened.

If you want to view the source code, sue Triad along with the BOE. No one has ruled they can't do discovery, they have said there isn't foundation for expedited discovery. We can look at the machines. So let's do it and stop all the stats analysis.

Over the next few months, if Arnebeck and Co. are serious about this suit we will get to look at the machines. If nothing is found nothing will happen. If something is found there will be hell to pay.

My prediction though, if nothing is found, we will be on here in four years hearing that fraud was found on the machines and MSM wouldn't cover it. Just like we constantly hear that when we did the full state recount of Florida Gore won every count. That didn't happen but you can't tell people who already have their minds made up.

TC

[thanatonautos]

48. Good points. Sueing Triad, Diebold, ESS would be a good idea, IMO.

Over the next few months, if Arnebeck and Co. are serious about this suit we will get to look at the machines. If nothing is found nothing will happen. If something is found there will be hell to pay.

At this point, I'm worried that Moyer will just toss the
suit out, if at all possible. Arnebeck seems to have tweaked
his nose in unnecessary ways, and trying to depose Rove
and Bush at this point in the game, if that has in fact
been done, is clearly a purely symbolic and therefore
frivolous gesture. The two questions from Moyer can
easily lay groundwork for a dismissal, depending on how
they are answered by both sides.

My prediction though, if nothing is found, we will be on here in four years hearing that fraud was found on the machines and MSM wouldn't cover it. Just like we constantly hear that when we did the full state recount of Florida Gore won every count. That didn't happen but you can't tell people who already have their minds made up.

In the NYT article, which I actually read on September 12,
I seem to remember that the claim was that Gore won a
recount under 6 out of 9 scenarios, depending on the standards
for accepting or rejecting ballots in the recount, and whether
it was a statewide count or not. A statewide recount such as was
ordered by the Florida supreme court, and under the existing
Florida statute (pre- Bush v Gore), which required determining
the intent of the voter, and looking at overvotes as
well as undervotes, had Gore winning the State by
many thousands of votes. The scenarios under which
Bush won a statewide recount were more restrictive,
and looked somewhat contrived, IMO.

But of course, the actual recount was terminated by the US
supreme court decision to provide injunctive relief in order
to prevent Bush from having a cloud of illegitimacy over his
election, so we can't say for sure what would have happened.

But I agree, it's important not to have your mind made up, and
to remember that the issues are complex.

[Truman01]

51. You make a good post but your facts aren't right....

Its actually ironic how the Gore/Bush recount turned out. I was there, and actually assisted in the recount. Gore lost in all ways of counting (9 of them) except one: Ironically it was in the way that BUSH had asked that the under/over votes be counted. And just as ironically Gore would have lost if the votes had been counted the way he wanted (with a much more broad vote interpretation). So one of the ironies of life is that either man, having gotten what he wanted would have lost!!

The SCOUTS didn't stop the recount with injunctive relief. They ruled that anything but a statewide count would violate Equal Protection, and they directed that it would have to be done by the safe harbor date in order to protect the right of Florida citizens to elect a President.

Since we didn't have time to do a statewide count before the 12th (I believe it was) or the safe harbor date, the count was abandoned and done later by the newspapers.


TC

[spooked911]

53. SCOTUS also ruled that the state-wide recount had to use a uniform

standard-- which was the killer, since there was no way to reach a consensus on that in time.

[Melissa G]

63. And when the papers did the count Bush LOST in most scenarios.

[SicTransit]

67. Did you read the post you're replying to?

Lemme quote:

"Gore lost in all ways of counting (9 of them) except one". This is what I remember, too, about the MSM recount of Florida.

[Melissa G]

72. Yes I read all of Truman's posts in this thread

Here is a link to the article in the Florida paper data link now missing....
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:RnoD_827wtQJ:www.o...

In another thread Understanding life has a much more comprehensive answer that I sent to Freeman for his paper but this spoke better to your question.

[SicTransit]

76. the link does not work. n/t

[thanatonautos]

82. Yes it seems I do have some facts wrong, but I think you do too.

(Edited for grammar.)

I'm interested to hear that you helped in the recount.
Can I ask in what capacity? In any case, thanks for
your efforts.

Can you give me a specific reference for your claim
that only 1 in 9 scenarios resulted in a Gore victory?

I suppose you might be talking about the Miami
Herald/Knight Ridder/USA Today study, which
found that Bush just about tripled his margin
if the statewide undervotes alone were counted
under a broad standard. But this study was
completed very early on, and it did not count
the overvotes, if I remember. There was a
broader coalition of newspapers which eventually
also did the recounting, but I still think it
included more than one scenario under which Gore
won a statewide count.

I was working from memory, so I may well be wrong
about which and how many MSM recount scenarios
led to a Gore victory, as well as the margins of
victory.

However, the following Washington Post article of
November 12 doesn't agree with what you say -- or
with what I say:

(I remembered September 12 as the date, and the Times
as the paper, memory does play tricks, and I'm sure there
was a Times article: I'm not going to check on it now
because I'ld have to pay to get it out of their archives,
and I object to their prices. I'll check the library later.)

Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush

But Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All
Uncounted Ballots

The study showed that if the two limited
recounts had not been short-circuited -- the first by
Florida county and state election officials and the
second by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush would have
held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from
225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But
the study also found that whether dimples are
counted or amore restrictive standard is used, a
statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.

So, according to this, there were at least 2
scenarios under which Gore would have won a statewide
recount. That's better than the 1 out of 9 you claim, though
I grant it's not the 6 out of 9 that I claimed, and
the margins are not what I claimed.

As to your further points about the irony of it all,
I'm not certain there is all that much irony.
Let's face it. Both sides wanted to win, and
only one side got what it wanted.

Nevetheless, Gore did make pretty early on in the
process, an offer to the Bush side, for a full statewide
recount. The offer was categorically rejected.

Bush Rejects Gore Offer of Statewide Hand Recount

So I believe that your implied premise, that the Bush
side ever contemplated a statewide recount, or in fact
ever contemplated with very much pleasure any recounting
at all, never mind a recount including both under
and overvotes, is a false premise.

If recounting statewide had been offered by the Bush
side, it's a fair bet that it would have been
accepted, though I'm sure that there would still
have been battles about the standards.

In fact the reality is that the Bush side
fought tooth and nail against any hand counting of
ballots after the initial automatic machine recount
was done, and then, when limited hand recounting was
allowed, they fought like tooth and nail to preserve
and to maximize their winning margin.

They lost the initial legal battle, initiated in Federal court on 11
November, to stop the limited hand recounts, when the
US district court held against them on 13 November.
They appealed to the 11th circuit, which denied the
appeal on 17 November. Meanwhile in the State courts
there was a ferocious battle on the part of Harris
to stop all of the handcounting. That battle was lost
on 15 November, when the Florida supremes denied
her motion to halt the recounts. Harris immediately
announced that she would not certify the new totals
on 18 November and Gore filed on the 16th for an
emergency motion to prevent her from certifying
on the 18th, which was granted on the 17th. On
the 21st the Florida supremes ruled that the hand
counted totals had to be certified by Harris.
Right after that, on 22 November, the Bush
camp filed a certiorari petition with the US supremes
to block the Florida supremes decision (in Gore v
Harris).

Obviously, the Democrats fought like tooth and nail
in State courts to continue the counting, and to
have it done under the terms they considered would
best favour them.

The counter-efforts eventually resulted in the 537
vote winning margin that was finally certified by
Harris, after the Florida Supremes declined to
restart the counting in Miami-Dade, which had been
halted by the board there after the `spontaneous'
mini riot by the supposedly enraged `Cuban'
voters, as they were reported to be.

It was natural enough for the Bush side to fight
against any counting, given the situation: I
understand the motivation well enough.

But to talk about Bush wanting overvotes and undervotes
to be counted by some standard or other on a statewide basis
is, I think, counterfactual. Statewide there were, I think
about 61,000 undervotes, as opposed to more than 110,000
overvotes. A recount in the initial four counties, it
was thought, by both sides, would favour Gore over
Bush, in both the undervotes and the overvotes, so counting
was opposed by the Bush side.

It's certainly fair to complain that Gore initially only
requested a limited recount of four counties ... that's
for sure true. Under the scenarios with such a limited
recount, (excepting of course, a revote in Palm Beach),
Gore lost.

An exception to the general rule that the Bush camp
didn't want to count votes was the (disputed)
overseas military ballots, which the Bush side
insisted should all be counted, a condition which
the Democrats agreed to.

As for the thousands of vote margins I was thinking of:
I've probably factored in the results of the butterfly
ballot, which conservatively speaking probably fed
at least 2,000 Gore votes directly to Buchanan.
Buchanan got about 3400 votes there in the initial count,
and it's known he had a few hundred supporters in Palm
Beach, but I personally don't believe in the scenarios
that have a lot of Republican votes going to Buchanan,
despite that a Reform Party candidate for congress did
garner quite a few votes).

Buchanan himself has agreed that those were not his
votes at various times, but may have made contradictory
statements at others.

But those estimates are, naturally, distinct from the
recount efforts. The only way to correct them was to
revote Palm Beach County, which is, interestingly
enough something that has happened at least once
in a previous presidential election, when there
was an egregious error in a ballot.

As for what I said about injunctive relief: you're
right. What I must have been remembering, incorrectly,
is that the US Supremes stayed the hand counting ordered
by the Florida Supremes on December 9th. But the court
then issued its final decision on December 12th,
when the safe harbour date was already safely
`upon us.'

I've never quite understood why the safe harbour
provision was considered to be binding on Florida
by the Florida supreme court, but that's another
matter.

I appreciate your input.

[fasttense]

83. Safe harbor date????

Look back in history, how many times did the president NOT get sworn in January???? Do you know? Look it up. Since when has this safe harbor date been used before? It is BS made up by a bunch of politicians who wanted to keep the guy, who gave them their lifetime positions, in office. A late coronation for B*sh would not have held back Democracy it would have reinforced it if your interpretation of the Gore recount were true. The Supremes had no intention of counting every vote. They only wanted B*sh in the white house.

[spooked]

9. True Man, how then would you explain the exit polls?

and the odds of them deviating to Bush being millions to one?

As far as New Mexico goes, you can hack a machine with a modem so it doesn't matter if your Governor and SOS are Democrats or not.

You say the majority of Americans voted for Bush...How many people do you personally know who voted for him? I know of 3 myself.

But if you are right, then I'm more interested in your opinion of what is going to happen to this country of ours now that THEY have taken over the country.

No way, can't be. Remember, you don't stand in line for 6 hours to vote for more of the same.

And those thunderous cheers that Bush got from the audience after Kerry conceded? Those were all of his staffers excited beyond belief because they had been certain that they were out of a job.

Do you REALLY think Americans are that stupid??

[Truman01]

19. First, as I said, we don't have the data....

Secondly, the deviation happened in blue and red states. Third and most importantly it doesn't PROOVE anything. It is just a basis to ask questions from.

Again, first lets see if we really have the exit data because it hasn't been released by the source.

TC

[Truman01]

43. No, I would explain the polls the way Mitofsky did......

He didn't release those polls, Kerry did.

TC

[Melissa G]

59. Read the Freeman paper. It discredits this straw man excuse

academically. Mitofsky does not explain the polls. This is a myth.

[SicTransit]

69. Please explain:

is Mitofsky on the level or not? If he is, then why do you not believe him when he says that his data does not indicate fraud? If he is not, then why do you trust any of his data at all?

[Melissa G]

74. The answer to this is also in the straw man response

in Freeman's paper.It does not lend itself well to a short answer. If you care about a real answer read the paper. If you are playing a Truman game...

[SicTransit]

75. Give the link nt

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Truman01]

20. I wasn't being sarcastic, I do like TIA nt

and I see NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. What Evidence are you referring to? Stats like this aren't evidence.

TC

[Darkhawk32]

11. Dude, he has the final unaltered exit polls...

So he should base all his numbers and the bogus final exit poll numbers.

Mitofsky has been asked time and time again to release his raw data, but won't.

[Truman01]

21. How do you know they are bogus?

You guys aren't use to dealing with evidence. You take what you want to take because it lends itself to what you already believe. That isn't how evidence works.

AS YOU SAID, we don't have the raw data because Mitofsky won't release it for WHATEVER reason. We don't know.

Arnebeck did something laughable in his suit, he spent pages building up Mitofsky as an expert, an unimpeachable source, and then said that Mitofsky altered his results to hide the fraud. Which is it, is he good or evil. you can't have it both ways.

If you don't have the data, you can't draw conclusions. What you have is second abstraction conjecture.

TC

[Melissa G]

64. There is plenty of data to draw conclusions from

Just because the data is not complete does not invalidate it.

[farmbo]

12. Why shouldn't the burden be on the Government to prove elections are fair.

...instead, as your post clearly suggests, upon we the people-- without access to exit poll data, without the power of subpoena, and without access to the machines-- to "prove" voter fraud?

Consider:

Blackwell is desperately fighting all attempts to give testimony under oath...

Exit polling companies and MSM outlets are summarily refusing to release polling data which-- by all valid accounts-- would show a 2-3% Kerry lead in Ohio...

Triad (vote tabulator company)technicians appear to have systematically swapped out parts on county tabulation computers prior to the Ohio recount...

The GOP- controlled Ohio Supreme court is refusing access to those machines...

The list goes on. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. Something stinks in Ohio and TIA is right to use whatever circumstantial evidence he has at his disposal to RUB IT IN THEIR NOSES until someone in the media wakes up. If Blackwell shows us the machines and answers questions under oath, I will be the first to lead Democratic navel-gazing sessions to muse over how we can "appeal to the Red states".

The burden of demonstrating free and fair elections should be on the government and not the people!

Otherwise, we are stuck with a system that is no longer a functioning democracy.

[Truman01]

22. They certified the election results. That is them meeting their

burden. There is nothing in the law that says they have to answer every cockeyed allegation of fraud that someone wants to make. Especially when that fraud has NO evidence.

Let's take what you said one at a time:

"Blackwell is desperately fighting all attempts to give testimony under oath..."

You are assuming he is "desperately fighting" anyone faced with what they consider a frivolous deposition would file to avoid the deposition. Arnebeck is dreaming, and discrediting his case if he thinks Rove, or * are going to be depoed about this.

"Exit polling companies and MSM outlets are summarily refusing to release polling data which-- by all valid accounts-- would show a 2-3% Kerry lead in Ohio..."

How do you know what they "would show" if you haven't seen them? Is this your guess? MSM companies aren't required to release them and you can't use them unless you get them released. They don't indicate fraud right now because you haven't seen the real data to analysis it.


"Triad (vote tabulator company)technicians appear to have systematically swapped out parts on county tabulation computers prior to the Ohio recount..."

Again your statement is loaded with assumption that has little or NO backing. Systematically? We have ONE affidavit that isn't even an affidavit. Swapped out parts? If this is true, maybe it was just maintenance. Neither you or I can say what it was about or even prove it happened.

"The GOP- controlled Ohio Supreme court is refusing access to those machines..."

This isn't proof of anything. The SC of Ohio hasn't been Petitioned with a valid suit, or given any proof, evidence, reason to do what you ask. It isn't up to them to investigate.

Your list doesn't go on, it has more of the same. NOTHING.

I'm just sick of the fantasy around here that we have PROOF, evidence, of anything.

What we have is an election that didn't go our way and a stubborn unwillingness to believe that we dont' hold a majority opinion in the US.

TC

[Melissa G]

65. If you are sick of all this good work maybe

you need a nice long vacation so you can think more clearly. There is plenty of Truth here and your ranting that there is not does not make it so.

[ClintCooper2003]

27. Tell it to the folks in the Ukraine. The proof was in the exit polls.

[Truman01]

29. Thats true, but the people here doing the exit polling don't see

any problems. They saw a need to modify the exit polling because some of their assumptions were wrong. They called every state right using the exit polling you have.

Of course we want to say that the exit poller is bought off. Well if he was "in on the fraud" why on earth did he release numbers that would show that??????

No states were called and then retracted due to exit polling. Mitofsky would not allow states to be called on the early data released because he knew it was not completely accurate.

But we suddenly decide it is accurate and the later polling that matched the counts are fraudulent.

Of course this is a circular arguement but logical falicies in our argument don't bother us because we made up our minds first and then fit the evidence to what we already believe.

TC

[ClintCooper2003]

34. Whoa, slow down there Tiger!

No one is saying the exit pollsters were bought off, at least I'm not. I'm suggesting that when the results were so far off from the exit polls, there was a great need to quiet the populace by readjusting the exit poll data to conform to the "actual results."

Also, most of the results on a state by state basis were way, way off from the original exit polls. Perhaps you are looking at the exit polls that are currently posted on CNN.com. Those are not the original exit polls. Those are the exit polls that they mixed with actual results to make them look right. Mitofsky is on record stating this and he also sent me an email personally on the matter.

When the results didn't match the original, uncorrected exit polls, CNN ripped those exit polls right down from their website and replaced them with corrected data using partial results. Thus, the new exit polls cannot be used as a check against mistabulation and/or fraud, because the INCLUDE the results. Got it?

Learn.

[Truman01]

35. I've got it, but Mitofsky said in an email posted on this web site

that he did not release numbers prior to poll closings! That fact was quietly ignored.

Then when Mitofsky wouldn't release his raw data and tried to explain why he adjusted the data, people here began saying that he was a "stooge" of the MSM and GOP.

We have a very sticky problem if Mitofsky won't come out and say that his exit polls indicate fraud. We set him up as an expert, he doesn't agree with us.

TC

[ClintCooper2003]

41. Yes, you are correct. The 7:30 sweep was not released on...

CNN.com until after the polls closed. But nevertheless, he was still sending out the early sweeps of exit polls to his 100 subscribers - it's just that they weren't supposed to be posting the early sweeps on the internet or broadcasting it. Once the polls were closed, however, CNN.com had the go ahead to post the last exit poll sweep on their website.

Also though, keep in mind that I personally caught Mitofsky in a lie. He tried to tell me that the numbers posted on CNN.com weren't weighted. If this batch of exit polls now being shown is to be believed, it is very clear that each sweep is weighted, because that's what it says at the top of each exit poll.

[Truman01]

44. Don't you see how tenuous your PROOF is? nt

[spooked911]

54. Not really

Of course no one has PROOF, but we have damn good evidence of funny business.

Didn't you read that Mitofsky lied to ClintCooper? That's pretty damning in itself.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Truman01]

40. It was reported that TIA was tombstoned. I don't know if it was true

It was on another thread.

TC

[Melissa G]

61. Truman.. What are you smoking?

There is massive evidence of voter FraWd and civil rights abuse. Your data is flawed as is the logic of your rather weak arguments.
How were you in Florida when you misstate the outcome of the recount published in the papers that showed Bush lost in 5 of the 9 scenarios used in the article?

[TruthIsAll]

89. YES, AND THE UNBLEMISHED DATA WAS RESURRECTED AS WELL

http://www.exitpollz.org/CNN_national2.htm

[displacedtexan]

2. Of course, you're correct!

Everyone on the Frontside Of The Bell Curve knows this is closer to the truth than the MSM version of election 2004.

Thanks for doing the math!

[xultar]

3. TIA I missed ya baby. Glad to see you alive and kickin...

thanks for the info in the post. This one is a bookmark. X

[Goldeneye]

4. Dude, when do you sleep?

[mod mom]

7. Great work TIA! Please sleep later-we need you!

Happiest of New Years!!!

[SharonRB]

8. Welcome back, TIA

I was sorry to see yesterday that you had been tombstoned. I don't know how you did it, but glad you're back. I always enjoy your posts.

[Not a Sheep]

13. So, let me get this straight....

Bush didn't win the popular vote by 3+ million, Kerry actually won by 6 million? They managed to steal that many votes? Why when they didn't have to?

It's MUCH more resonable for them to steal a couple hundred thousand in Ohio and/or Florida. Afterall, we knew the election came down to a few battleground states.

On election night I was shocked that so many people voted for Bush. Personally, I don't understand why Kerry didn't win in a landslide. But as hard as it is to believe, Bush beat Kerry in the popular vote.

Do I think something fishy went on in Ohio? Yes, all the stories and evidence are hard to ignore but there is still NO SOLID PROOF. I wish there was.

We really need to accept the fact that more Americans voted for Bush than Kerry. Obviously, if there was fraud in Ohio (or somewhere else), Kerry could have easily had the electoral votes but *approximately* 60 million people chose Bush and that's WAY too many.

[SmokingJacket]

14. Motive to steal more votes than needed: to get a "mandate" nt

[keepthemhonest]

16. Why did they steel more

yes for the mandate but also he had to steel that many to win. They got Greedy and their greed made it obvious that they cheated.That is why the exit polls make it so obvious.

[Not a Sheep]

17. So they're smart but they're stupid................ (more)

OK let's assume they did it for a mandate. But you say they "also had to steal that many to win". Maybe I don't understand what you're saying but they only needed to steal Ohio to win the election.

On one hand we want to beleive they are so smart that they can figure out way to steal millions of votes but on the other hand we need to believe they are so stupid as to "get greedy and make it obvious" (as you put it).

I think people need to be careful they aren't trying too hard to rational everything so that it fits what they wish to be true.

Just my opinion.

[keepthemhonest]

24. I am not saying that they are smart

at all. Just because someone is a crook does not make them smart.They were not smart at all to commit the act in the first place.They had a probably a couple of hackers, now the hackers I give all the credit to(if any at all.) Greedy and dumb I would say.
You said
"I think people need to be careful they aren't trying too hard to rational everything so that it fits what they wish to be true"
this is what you are doing, is wishing it wasn't true,it sounds like you are the one doing the wishing.
Why are you here? Are you sitting on the fence about whether or not there was fraud?

[Not a Sheep]

30. Setting you straight......

"Just because someone is a crook does not make them smart."

Obviously that's correct. I'm not sure what your point is however. I didn't say all crooks were smart.
--------------------------------------------------

"I think people need to be careful they aren't trying too hard to rational everything so that it fits what they wish to be true"
this is what you are doing, is wishing it wasn't true...

Ah, no... read more below on what I said I wished in my first post...

--------------------------------------------------

"Why are you here? Are you sitting on the fence about whether or not there was fraud?"

So if I disagree with you, you wonder why I'm here? Furthermore, I initially said, "Do I think something fishy went on in Ohio? Yes, all the stories and evidence are hard to ignore but there is still NO SOLID PROOF. I wish there was."

So, you see, I wish there was solid proof of fraud. But no, I don't think there was massive fraud that shifted million of votes as this thread initially stated.

You want to think that they stole million of votes to change the popular vote. I don't know that it's even possible to do that but I would assume it would take some brains to do it.

So they go to the extreme of shifting millions of vote but then you think "they got greedy" and "their greed made it obvious that they cheated". So all the sudden they are morons overcome by greed.

Sorry, it makes no sense.

[keepthemhonest]

32. Yes it does

make sense. They got greedy because Bush wanted a mandate you see, he wanted everyone to think that he was legit this time and actually got elected by a majority not just the electoral votes.You see.greedy.
I've got to go we'll take this up later maybe.


Have a Happy New Year everyone .

[Time for change]

28. He had to win the popular vote as well as the electoral vote

That gives him more credibility and also much more difficult for Kerry to avoid conceding.

[spooked911]

55. All good points

It is really too much to believe that Kerry won by 6 million, as nice as it would be.

[Melissa G]

58. Not A Sheep... your name seems to belie what you are arguing...

Large theft was the way to avoid detection. By avoiding slight padding they surpassed the margins needed for automatic recount in several states like Florida where if you steal big there is no easy way to question the theft because unless you can quickly prove it would change the outcome of the election you have no stature to even ask for a recount. Steal small possibly get caught. Steal big they can't investigate. Great Rove Strategy!

[keepthemhonest]

15. RIght againTIA

I was looking at that wondering how that would calculate out but I knew you would do it.Thanks and yes this is PROOF positive.Bush Stole about 8 million votes in order to win, that is where he got the 8 mill new votes form Kerry.


As seito says "Kerry on"


For all those doubters "Kerry won get over it!"(sorry can't remember who I stole that from

[nodictators]

23. Most of this "analysis" is wrong

1)Gore got 48.5 million, Bush 48 million, the rest to Nader
et al.

This is irrelevant since those are Election 2000 data

2 Let's assume 20 million new voters, for a total of 120
million
Kerry gets 59%, Bush 39% (Kerry gets 3 out of 5) or Kerry
gets 12 out of the 20 million. Bush gets 8 million.
That's a net Kerry gain of 4 million votes

Item #2 based on the poll data it is true. However, it's not a "gain" for Kerry.

3) Kerry got 65% (2 million) of the 3 million who voted for
Nader et all. Bush got 13% or 0.5 million.
That's a net Kerry gain of 1.5 million votes

Item #3 is erroneous, there is a confusion between 2000 data and 2004 data. There were only about a million votes for presidential candidates other than Bush or Kerry in 2004, not 3 million. Furthermore, we don't know how many voters who didn't vote for Bush or Gore in 2000 might have voted in 2004. So, take 65% of what?

4) Assume the rest of the voters voted as they did in 2000.

Item #4 is non-analytical: Assume the Result.

[keepthemhonest]

25. TIA

is right and you are wrong.Thanks come again.

[Not a Sheep]

31. Like I said........

"I think people need to be careful they aren't trying too hard to rational everything so that it fits what they wish to be true."

"TIA is right and you are wrong. Thanks come again."

??????????????????????????????????????????

So I guess that clears it up.

[keepthemhonest]

33. I guess all great

people are going to have people following them around trying to dismiss what they are trying to prove.

Like when Christopher columbus was trying to show the world was round but the bible said the world was flat.Some sheep might have fit in very well with the world is flat people.

[ClintCooper2003]

26. I completely agree. However, Rove and company are saying that...

millions of Republicans simply weren't voting for a long time. I'm sorry, but if the Clinton impeachment scandal wasn't enough to get Republicans off their arses and vote for Bush in 2000, nothing would be!!!!

[flaminbats]

38. your analysis makes very generous assumptions..

"Assume the rest of the voters voted as they did in 2000."

Why assume anything when running against an incumbent? Kerry lost in Iowa and New Mexico, two states in which Gore won in 2000. Bush lost in New Hampshire, where Gore lost in 2000. Just looking at these three states demonstrates that Kerry lost western votes Gore won, while winning some votes in the Northeast which Gore lost.

It's more likely Bush won some Gore voters, enough to make up for the former Nader voters won by Kerry. If Kerry wanted to win the same votes Gore won, he should have picked Gore as his running mate.

[RaulVB]

39. By your own "argument"...

You should understand that "*" lost a huge amount of votes with respect to the year 2000.

But you don't want to hear that since it would destroy your "honest analysis", right?

[flaminbats]

50. IMO Bush lost by over half a million votes in 2000..

in my analysis this is another reason Democrats must unify behind abolishing the Electoral College.

[keepthemhonest]

46. You are making an assumption that the results of the election

are accurate ,with your statement below.We are saying that those results are nnot accurate.
In fact they are probably the opposite.
"Just looking at these three states demonstrates that Kerry lost western votes Gore won, while winning some votes in the Northeast which Gore lost. "

Based on the exit poll data ,the statistical ananlyses have been able to show it was nearly impossible for Bush to win.A Miracle,Perhaps. People who understand the math believe something is fishy and the rest are in denial.




Kerry won get over it!

[keepthemhonest]

49. go TIA n/t

[flaminbats]

52. I agree that Kerry probably did win in Ohio and the Electoral College...

even if you believe that Kerry lost in New Hampshire but won Iowa and New Mexico..I still support a recount in Ohio!!!

So what??? Are you blaming me for the chance that no Democratic Senator will back Conyers?

[Melissa G]

57. Flamingbats you are missing other threads like the CNN poll that

support the breakdowns that are being used in these analyses.

[spooked911]

56. I hate to say it, but this may PROVE the exit poll is whacked

It simply doesn't make sense that Kerry won by that large of a margin.

[McCamy Taylor]

60. What doesnt make sense? They padded the * vote all over

the country, not just in Ohio and Florida. Hell, they did it in Texas. There were machines here that would read Bush when you pushed Kerry, and they knew they were going to carry this state.

Kerry got the popular and the electoral vote--just like Gore.

[Melissa G]

62. Steal Big was the lesson they learned from 2000.

It bypasses so many of those nasty recounts that could prove **** lost.

[rdmccur]

66. Why??

[spooked911]

85. This means they stole 9 million votes

to give * his 3 million edge. I can't see how they could do this and really get away with it.

I believe they stole the election, but I always thought they would steal just enough to be able to get away with it and not do any blatant stealing.

Stealing 9 million votes is outrageous.

They COULD have stolen 9 million votes-- but it just seems hard to believe that they could do it and get away with it so easily.

But probably I am giving too much credit to the media.

[rdmccur]

68. Take a look at what US News and World Report

said about the vote in Argentina
But exit polls are only not good in the US--I forgot

[rdmccur]

70. TIA

I think everyone should read Freeman's latest analysis and discussion as a prerequisite for some of your threads! (With the caveat that their intent is to critique them.)

[Bill Bored]

71. Wow, this is SOME THREAD. Millions and millions of votes for Kerry!

But here's why this particular bit of the smoking exit poll theory is wrong:

The polls sampled 13,660 people across the country. Less than 1/4 of them answered the question of whom they voted for in Y2K. Therefore, you can't use the answer as if it reflected the whole universe of Y2K voters and you can't use the numbers in the answer to show the percentage of first-time Dem/Repub voters who voted for Kerry or Bush because the sample size isn't large enough for the whole country. 77% of the national sample didn't even answer this question.

(And as Truman01 says, it's probably not raw data either.)

[TruthIsAll]

77. 3168 responded to the question. That's a 1.78% MOE. n/t

.

[Bill Bored]

78. It's so accurate that it shows that Bush beat Gore in 2000 by 6%!

That's a 6,000,000-vote margin using your methodology. I don't think this is true. We know Gore won the popular vote, don't we?
And that's the adjusted (Nov. 3) version. The earlier ones show that Bush beat Gore by 3,000,000 votes. Better tell Redefeat Bush the bad news.

[TruthIsAll]

79. Simple answer. They oversampled Repukes. And Kerry still won.n/t

.

[TruthIsAll]

80. Let's see your analysis re: Bush beat Gore. Refute mine. n/t

Don't just throw numbers out there.

Prove it.

Line by line.

[Bill Bored]

81. No need for line by line

Even Steven Freedman in his latest draft admits this can be considered circular reasoning.

1. You are relying on data from an answer to a question that 77% of the sample didn't respond to.

2. The 23% that did respond are already known to be inaccruate because Gore won the popular vote while they said he lost it.

3. So therefore, the rest of the data in this sample may be wrong too.

4. How do we know that ~90% of Y2K Bushies voted for him again this time? Because THIS sample, which we already know to be flawed, says so?

5. Conversely, how do we know that ~90% of Gore voters voted for Kerry?

What we do know is that there were Republicans for Kerry and Dixiecrats for Bush, but in what exact proportion nationwide? I know from personal experience that Democrats in Iowa voted for Bush! Who'd have thought that was possible?

Now according to the same Exit Polls:

Look at the question on page 3 of the Scoop PDFs:
"No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a Dem or Rep?"
n=13,067 (big sample!), 11% of Dems voted Bush, only 6% Reps voted Kerry. This is not that much different than the unadjusted 7:30 PM numbers either. More Dems for Bush than Reps for Kerry.

It's sad but it could be true. We have seen the enemy and he is us.

[TruthIsAll]

84. The last 2000 of the full 13,067 was contaminated; use the first 11,000

You:
"No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a Dem or Rep?"
n=13,067 (big sample!), 11% of Dems voted Bush, only 6% Reps voted Kerry.

Me:
You are using the full 100% sample, the last 20% of which was rigged.

THAT IS THE WHOLE STORY. MITOFSKY ET ALL ADMIT THEY MIXED THE VOTES WITH THE POLLS. WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT THAT?

Historically, more Dems vote for the Repuke than vice versa.
This time, the they split 90-10 and a 91-9, based on the UNALTERED 11,000 POLL RESULTS. They canceled each other.

But... there are more Dems than Repukes.
Independents/moderates went for Kerry.
And there are more Dems than Repukes.

That's why Kerry won.

That's how ANY Dem wins.


How did Bush get 63.6% of the final 623 polled?

Kerry was the solid winner in EVERY REGION but the south.

Kerry won the VAST majority of NEW voters in EVERY region:
70% East/West; 54% Midwest/South

Bush got 48.1% of the FIRST 2545 polled.
Bush got 63.6% of the FINAL final 623 polled. WTF?

This brought him from 48.1% to 51.3% of the 3168 total.

The MOE for the 3168 polled of the 11,000 who responded to
the question: "Who did you vote for in 2000" is 1.78%.

Pretty tight. So the responses are very accurate.

Bush got 48.1% of the initial 2545 polled.
He got 421 of the final 663.

What are the odds of Bush getting at least N of the next
663?
We assume 48.1% as his true mean.

Once again, using the binomial probability function, where N
is the number polled going for Bush of the final 663.

In Excel:
Prob = 1-BINOMDIST(N,623,0.481,TRUE)


N Prob Odds = 1/Prob
300 47.3046924% 2
320 4.74269085% 21
340 0.05303931% 1,885
360 0.00005261% 1,900,953
380 0.00000000% 24,406,050,179
390 0.00000000% 6,429,121,523,727
395 0.00000000% 37,219,831,631,161
400 0.00000000% 47,657,138,913,974

The probability for N= 421 cannot be calculated in Excel.




Date Time N K B K% B%
11/02 4:00pm 1916 977 900 52.1% 47.9%

11/02 7:30pm 2545 1295 1198 51.9% 48.1%
11/03 1:24pm 3168 1536 1619 48.7% 51.3% <<???
Change 623 240 421 36.4% 63.6% <<?????

.................................................

[Bill Bored]

87. I made reference to the uncontaminated polls too.

Me: "This is not that much different than the unadjusted 7:30 PM numbers either. More Dems for Bush than Reps for Kerry.

It's sad but it could be true. We have seen the enemy and he is us."

TIA, in your analysis, you are conflating Y2K Gore voters with 2004 Dems and Y2K Bush voters with 2004 Reps. You can't make those assumptions.

Instead, just look at the actual 2004 question, which almost everybody answered, on Page 3. This is where you find out who's a Dem and who's a Repub, and who are Dems and Repubs in NAME only. Not from how they voted in 2000, which also happens to be a much smaller sample containing other flawed data in EVERY version of the poll, but in the question where they were actually _asked_ which party they are.

Also, the MOE for the 3,168 should be based on 120,000,000 voters, just like the MOE for the 13,660. Is that what you're basing it on?

Anyway, look at this:

According to the unadjusted 80% poll:
________ K _ B
DEM 38% 90 9
REP 36% 7 92
with 95% of the sample responding,
Kerry beat Bush 51-48.

According to the adjusted 100% poll:
________ K _ B
DEM 37% 89 11
REP 37% 6 93
with 96% of the sample responding,
Bush beat Kerry 51-48.

So when Kerry was ahead, they overweighted Dems, or the weighting was correct, based on time, geography, etc.

The adjustment weighted the 2 parties equally (perhaps this is wrong, but then you have to prove it within 1%). Also, they gave Kerry less of the Independent vote in the adjusted version.

IMHO, this is where you should direct your analysis. Ask yourself, based on geography, timezones, etc. how this can be possible. That will yield the best "evidence" because this is where the election was swung. Look for states without VVPBs, audit trails, and with Repub Govs, SOSs, etc. I've already posted the Governors' party data as a function of Red Shift: <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=219744&mesg_id=220995>

As to mixing the exit polls with the election results, please cite me a reference that says this was _never_ done before, because we know there's one that says it has been done?

[bleever]

73. Kicking for all the beating wings, lifting this thread higher and higher.

Mmmm...pie...

:)

[1democracy]

86. New idea of detecting fraud using exit polls and actual numbers

I believe the exit polls show Kerry winning. What if we could confirm that by getting a timed record of the actual votes as they emerged on Nov 2 from the AP? We might be able to catch the appearance of the "phantom votes" at a particular time. Or we could see if the accululating actual vote tallies paralleled or diverged from the exit polls.

From the thread on ballot scamming:

"by Lynn Landes 10/22/04
The Associated Press (AP) will be the sole source of raw vote totals for the major news broadcasters on Election Night. However, AP spokesmen Jack Stokes and John Jones refused to explain to this journalist how the AP will receive that information. They refused to confirm or deny that the AP will receive direct feed from voting machines and central vote tabulating computers across the country. But, circumstantial evidence suggests that is exactly what will happen.


And what can be downloaded can also be uploaded. Computer experts say that signals can travel both to and from computerized voting machines through wireless technology, modems, and even simple electricity."

We need this data!

[Bill Bored]

88. kick and see post #87 n/t