bill clinton lying again?

[tomp]

"President Clinton: I must say I read Robert Kennedy’s article in Rolling Stone and I think all of you should if you haven’t. And before I read it, I was convinced that President Bush had won Ohio…"

if bill clinton thought bush won ohio he's a total freaking dumbass, and we know that's not true. so the question is: why does he want us to think he thought bush won ohio?

does clinton really expect us to believe he’s not aware of the evidence of voting and polling irregularities, that he didn't know about ohio before kennedy's article? i refuse to believe bill clinton is that out of the loop. he has to be lying.

kerry's dropping the issue when he promised to fight for every vote looks even more suspicious in light of clinton's statement (lie).

i don't know why the democratic party has not taken up vote reform as a major issue but in the absence of evidence or explanation to the contrary i'm forced to consider complicity. i’ve asked many times for an answer and none has been offered.

i'm looking for a reasonable, logical explanation of the above.

[NoodleBoy]

1. you seem to be missing the part where he said "BEFORE I read it..."

he pretty obviously changed his mind.

and, on top of that, many perfectly reasonable people do believe Bush won Ohio.

[stepnw1f]

2. "Lying Again"? Ok Rush.... (nt)

[Bethany Rockafella]

3. Maybe he didn't know about all the irregularities either.

Calling President Clinton a dumbass does not compute.

[Kurovski]

24. President Bill should maybe spend some time on DU.

Here's an open invitation to become a ER member Big Dog, Sir.:-)

[CrispyQ]

4. So when they steal the vote & give it to a corporate dem,

the country can stop whining about election fraud. In '08, they will select who runs on the Democratic ticket.

[redqueen]

51. sadly, that sounds entirely plausible ...

*sigh*

[partylessinOhio]

5. Is this the Repuglican Underground????

Why more trashing of a Democratic President who gave us peace and prosperity?

:shrug:

[tomp]

6. i will reply to serious posts only. nt

[TankLV]

7. Then try posting serious thoughts/topics.

We have enough repukes who try to post here under the guise of ridiculuous propositions.

We suggest you re-read Clinton's statement - he proves the OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting.

We are also done replying to ignorant posts.

[BeFree]

8. It is illogical

Clinton must not have done much research, or he is lying. I prefer just plain ignorant. Was it willful or negligent? I prefer negligent.

Witness that he said "before reading". That tells me he didn't bother looking at the data, etc., before RFK did. But once having looked at it, his ill-founded conclusions became evident as just that - ill-founded.

Then, when looking at the overall party response, it does make one wonder just what the hell is going on, and with the lack of any reasonable response coming from the party over the last year, reasonable people really have to wonder just what the hell IS going on. It is only logical.

[zalinda]

9. Okay, let's just put a little common sense

into this discussion. Our pols are busy. Not only do they have to keep up with what's going on in DC, they have their districts too, and the vast majority have families. They have staff who filter all the information that they get. If a staffer doesn't deem it important, the pol won't get any info. They like any other American get most of their "news" from M$M, so if it's not covered, it's not important.

Those in DC, can easily get tunnel vision, and that's where we come in. We need to tell them when they are doing a good job, or not so good. I will keep saying this until some of you get it. You can't just complain and think that things are going to change. How do you get dogs to do what you want, you praise them a lot, and then you scold them when they've messed up. You get a great dog that way. But, just yelling at a dog, gets you a dog that is afraid to do anything.

If you want things to change faster, run for office, become a staff member or volunteer. To sit at your computer and complain doesn't change a thing, it only make people feel bad.

zalinda

[BeFree]

10. I have

"If you want things to change faster, run for office, become a staff member or volunteer."

And I will.

And it helps. Thing is, here, on DU, I can reach more people in ten minutes than I could in ten days.

I liked your 'how to treat a dog' ideas, and you are absolutely correct. But our people are not dogs. They're not quite as smart, eh? <grin>

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

Don't get me wrong, I am an FOB. But that doesn't mean I think he is above my criticism. Please, don't even begin to tell me what to say about my governors. K?

[zalinda]

14. They are when they want to get fed

er, elected.

zalinda

[AlwaysQuestion]

11. Clinton is not above scrutiny

The only thing I can say with any confidence about high powered politicians of any stripe is that they make it their business to find out everything which will impact them positively or negatively. How it impacts the electorate is totally irrelevant; it's how it impacts them, their ambitions; their goals; their agendas. If anything impacts positively on you in the process, consider it a throw-away bonus for you/me/us. Likable/lovable/amiable Bill is no exception. So from MPOV, I say we should try to discover what, if anything, benefits him in the knowing or not knowing.

I always ask myself the question, "Why do people run for office in the first place? Why do they knock themselves out to raise millions of dollars to buy their election? Why will they lie, cheat, obfuscate, connive, and worse to get our vote? All this activity is not conducted so they can do the right thing by you and me. Anyone who wants power that badly is suspect to me right from the get-go.

The biggest mistake we all make is to climb on the band wagon of ANY politician. Given human nature, I decline to put blind faith in anyone. While in real estate it's location, location, location; in politics, it's motivation, motivation, motivation.

While I always have a good many questions, I have very few answers. But somehow it seems to me that the party system in your country and mine does not work well for the majority of us. I find it difficult to try working in a system that is so inherently flawed.

As far as I'm concerned I'm suspect of the Democrats. The Democrats have all the ammunition they need to completely annihilate the Rethugs. Why haven't they? Something is screwy somewhere and I just ain't figured it out yet.

The brains in the head of Bush are what Clinton has just in his ass, so of course, Clinton rules, but I'm suspect of him too. Sorry.

[tomp]

13. not sufficient explanation for me.

i know that clinton is aware of john conyers report. how do i know--because he's bill clinton.

i know that clinton is aware that exit polls are an extremely reliable method of assessing how a vote went. how do i know that--1)because he's bill clinton and 2) because everybody knows that.

i know bill clinton was pays attention to the elections. we can assume he watched the returns and talked with people about '00. '02, '04 and the suspicious overturning of pre-polls and exit polls. again--because he's bill clinton.

add to all of this the fact that his wife wants to run for president and it truly behooves him to know what the hell is going on.

don't try to tell me that any of the above is not true.

the only argument for clinton thinking bush won is that he wasn't aware and that's a patently unacceptable premise.

common sense?

[zalinda]

15. But, you can be aware of, but not know,

the Kennedy article put it all together for him. And, I'm sure that he has had other things to do since the election. He is a very busy man, he's more International than local I think, now. Is he perfect, hell no. But, he did bring dems together like no other President in recent times. And, I don't believe Hillary wants to run for President. She's got it great here in New York, she is liked and respected and treated like a queen in the press. But, we'll see.

I really don't think our pols spend as much time on the Internet as we do, tracking down the truth. Just my humble opinion.

zalinda

[redqueen]

53. i don't think a man of bill's intellect needs kennedy to do the math

just MHO.

[ccarter84]

16. uh...and I KNOW how to use the block button

but then again that'd be just juvenile right...and why when I get the chance to argue against such sound logic?

Clinton is smart, but he's got a lot of stuff on his plate like most americans do...and past decisions obviously weren't all that smart or else he wouldn't have been stupid enough to do certain things while in office. Likewise I think a lot of our representatives are 'smart' in some sense of the word at least, but the amount of information they need to process is frankly beyond anyones capacity; and the insular bubble in which they operate from takes a lot of beating at before it gets weakened let alone punctured.

my argument may not fall under 'common sense'....but i'll be content finishing with the classic
end:rant:

*edit* oh and I agree with zalinda's post above...it makes good points i failed to include

[blm]

18. Clinton and MacAuliffe were running the DNC from 2001-2005 and they

heard about machine fraud in 2002 and the election fraud from 2000, but considered it conspiracy theory talk from the left.

Kerry was told the DNC had 10,000 lawyers lined up to combat any election problems but there were NONE looking for machine fraud or working to counter the GOPs 4 years worth of purging voter rolls and suppressing the vote.

Dean has to work his ass off to play catch up in so many crucial states now where the Dem infrastructure was so weak that it collapsed long before the 2004 election.

[tomp]

25. so clinton was aware or not aware of election theft in ohio...

...before kennedy's article? did clinton think bush won ohio before kennedy's article?

[blm]

58. I just find it hard to believe - he's a voracious reader of news, so it

really makes me doubt his assertion, like when he told David Letterman that he hadn't heard of the Downing Street Memos when it was two months after they had first appeared and we all were working our asses off to generate headlines in the corporate media for Conyers and Kerry's letters of inquiry.

[tomp]

60. agreed. nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. some of the above is not true

I don't know what Bill Clinton thinks about exit polls, but everybody does not know that they are "an extremely reliable method of assessing how a vote went." In fact, until and unless someone comes up with specific evidence of massive fraud in 1992, I know that they are not extremely reliable.

I've encountered very few people on the board who have done the work even to be able to debate this point. I marvel at the extent of the confidence that everyone already agrees with what you think.

[tomp]

26. if you're looking for evidence of fraud look for variance...

...from exit polls, or pre-elections polls that exceed the margin of error. i haven't looked a '92, but in every election since '00 there have been polling problems. maybe in '92 it hadn't occurred to anyone that this could or might be done at the level it's being done now. plus, clinton won. i wouldn't expect bush or the republicans to be digging in to voting problems NOW because they're "winning". i'll have to leave it to some more statistically and research oriented person to dig up the evidence you seek.

i don't claim to be an expert on statistics or polling but i know what i've read and heard about them. there are glaringly obvious problems. you didn't know that? oops, guess i was wrong when i said everybody.

[Febble]

32. Well...

I think you'll find that OTOH and myself have done a fair bit of analysis of variance in exit and pre-election polls regarding both 2004 and previous years.

You might like to check out papers on OTOH's home page here:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/

(He gave the link in another post)

As for me, as a result of a series of exit poll diaries on Daily Kos, culminating in this one:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/19/81031/0928

I was contracted to run a series of analyses of variance in the precinct level exit poll data for Mitofsky (as you will see from my sig). One important finding from that work is posted on OTOH's home page here:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/slides.html

But to respond more directly to your post:

The exit polls in 1992, like all exit polls since 1988 at least, appeared to favored the Democrats (not the Republicans) - in other words the count, as usual, was "redder" than the poll. So although Clinton won in 1992, the polls gave him a bigger margin than his eventual margin - so he had a fair incentive to dig for fraud if he thought that's what the polls indicated, seeing as he presumably hoped to (and did) defend his incumbency in 1996.

The exit polls in 2000 were closer to the result than in any of the previous three elections. So 2000 is a reasonable baseline from which to assess increase in poll discrepancy, and thus potential increase in vote-theft (or miscounts favoring Bush, as that might include differential residual vote-rates).

And what you will see from this analysis:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/slides.html

(commentary is by Mark Lindeman, and the measure of discrepancy used was developed by Lindeman, Liddle and Brady, see below, but the analysis itself was carried out by me, for Mitofsky).

and from my own commentary here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/3

is that at precinct level, there is absolutely no correlation between Bush's performance relative to 2000 and the discrepancy in the exit poll. If there was any substantial variance in fraud, and that fraud was of a type to be reflected in the exit poll, one would expect shared variance between Bush's performance and exit poll discrepancy, and there isn't any.

Moreover, as Mark Lindeman shows here:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/surprise01.pdf

variance in the degree to which the vote-count deviated from pre-election polls is actually negatively correlated with the degree to which the vote-count deviated from the state exit polls, suggesting that if there is a common factor, it is not fraud.

But it is delightful to see someone else showing an interest in variance. It's from a pretty exhaustive analysis of variance in polls at both precinct and state level that I have come to the conclusion that fraud is unlikely to have been a major factor in the discrepancy between the polls and the count in 2004, and thus that it is unlikely that Kerry got more votes than Bush.

A paper Lindeman and I wrote together with Rick Brady describing our approach to analysing variance in precinct level exit poll data was presented at the American Statistical Association JSM in Minneapolis last August, and can be downloaded here:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/ASApaper_060409.pdf

in case you are interested.

Cheers

Elizabeth Liddle

[tomp]

36. well, you certainly have given me lots of homework.

i will review the material you so thoughtfully have provided.

i am interested, and will pursue to the level i am mathematically capable.

thank you

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. let me try a shorter Febble

The long Febble is excellent, but bite-size pieces may be good too.

First of all, you seem to be arguing that 'everybody knows' that the exit polls are accurate, so if the exit polls were off in 1992, then fraud must account for it.

Actually, the exit polls were also off (by smaller amounts) in 1988, 1996, and 2000. Also in the off-year elections of 1994 and 1998. And apparently also in 1984 (ABC -- I don't have enough info about the others). The 1980 ABC poll was pretty accurate, at least overall.

So, how do we know that the exit polls were actually accurate in all those years? We don't. Some people like to assume that exit polls are accurate. Or they "prove" that exit polls are accurate by cherry-picking the polls they consider.

Suppose that we relax the assumption that exit polls are accurate, and look at pre-election polls as you suggest. Then we will see that in 2004 from state to state, the big exit poll discrepancies don't coincide with discrepancies from the pre-election polls. (That's in the "surprise" paper that Febble mentioned.) New York is an excellent example: the exit poll result is far out of whack with pre-election polls as well as official results. But you can look at all the states together and see that if anything, the states with big exit poll "red shifts" are states where Kerry did better than predicted in pre-election polls.

I haven't seen anyone offer a serious attempt to explain this result, assuming that Bush won the popular vote. I've seen people try to explain it away, but not very convincingly.

[tomp]

37. bite size is good.

clearly, my conception of the validity of exit polls is not as advanced as yours and febble's, and my assertion that they are extremely reliable is off the mark, to say the least.

in regard to 2004, not being a statistician, i wouldn't have an explanation for you. to me the problem you raise rasises questions about the validity of polling at all. assuming all polls carried out with rigorous method, and all votes counted honestly and accurately, shouldn't they all lead to the same conlusion or verify one another.

thank you for your thoughtful post.

[BeFree]

41. Remember, tomp

That the early numbers which were leaked via the internet were solid estimates that cost the media people $10 million. They - the media - expected the numbers to be accurate, its why they paid the big bucks.

Then realize that what you are being told here are only theories on why the final exit-poll numbers and results deviated by 6% from the early numbers. Its only a theory, and its a theory that has NOT been fully vetted because the data has not been examined by independent sources - it is all one sided.

Its odd that we heard that exit-polls should not be used to analyze elections, then, on the other hand, the same people attempt to analyze the elections using exit-polls, so that tells ya something.

All we can really rely on, because of the pureness of the numbers, is the early, leaked numbers that the media relied upon to begin calling the election for Kerry.

And know that the rove machine is doing everything it can to hide its involvement in the alteration of numbers to make it appear bushco won the election. Expect nothing less than corruption from bushco, and you will never be surprised.

[Febble]

43. Sure, exit polls can be used to analyze elections

You just can't assume a priori that the exit polls themselves are without bias.

You try to quantify the bias; you also set up testable hypotheses that will indicate the likelihood of fraud.

And, as I've said to you countless times, the data I have analysed are far "purer" than the "early, leaked numbers". They are the actual responses to the poll interviewers, without any weighting whatsoever.

But it would be much better to have a proper audit, as exit polls are not only "noisy" but prone to bias.

BTW - did you know that the Theory of Evolution is "only a theory"?

It just happens to be rather well supported by fact.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. why this is wrong

tomp, you can go to exitpollz.org and find CNN.com screen shots for exit poll results from almost every state. Those results didn't "leak()" -- they were released, as CNN.com announced in advance that they would be released after the polls closed. (Some of the screen shots there incorporate vote counts, and I think all the rest actually incorporate pre-election polls -- but they certainly document the "red shift" in the exit polls.)

I have explained to BeFree many times the distinction between numbers that "leaked" before the polls closed, and numbers that were released after the polls closed. I don't know why he refuses to acknowledge it.

No one ever said that "exit-polls should not be used to analyze elections"; what I say is that the results aren't guaranteed to be accurate. I don't know why BeFree doesn't acknowledge that distinction, either.

I guess it's a matter of interpretation whether the media "beg(a)n calling the election for Kerry," but the exit pollsters never called it for Kerry. (Apparently they never called Ohio at all.)

One might infer that BeFree believes I am part of the "rove machine," but who can tell? For the record, I'm not. In any case, I try to explain and to document my arguments so that it really doesn't matter. You're always welcome to ask for more documentation.

[BeFree]

49. To be clear, tomp

The rove machine wouldn't dare come to DU, they would be exposed.

No, bushco hides behind HAVA. They hide in the vote counting machines that HAVA spent an extraordinary $4 billion buying from their friends - Diebold, et al.

But what we are seeing written here, is a result of bushco's careful hiding of their Diebolded results from prying eyes such as those here.

What I am saying is that what bushco has done is make it virtually impossible to follow their trail. IMO, it has even led some DUers off the trail, but most of us will never give up looking and probing until we can convince everybody else that the elections were stolen.

NGU

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. I worry that you are two to four years too early

Most of Ohio voted on punch cards. I haven't seen any serious effort to argue that the punch card tabulators were "Diebolded."

But punch cards are out. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

[tomp]

62. BeFree, i also wonder about the media polls.

i had always heard how reliable they were. OTOH and Febble openend my eyes to some questions of their overall reliability.

i'm not sure it matters how much was spent on them (though $10 mill seems like a lot of money to me). one thing i forgot was that it's the corporate media we're talking about here, no? why trust them? would it be so unreasonable for them to be part of the game?

assume for a moment that exit polls were once very reliable predictors of election results. then people like rove figured out that they couldn't steal elections without it making it look like polls were not reliable (pre-election polls could be included here as well). would it be worth $10 mill to keep everyone guessing and have no good reference point?

i don't know. quite frankly, it's hard to know whom to trust anymore.

btw, on those exit polls that had 6% error, what was the margin of error?

thanks

[OnTheOtherHand]

65. something about the $10 million

If you look at one of the CNN.com tables, I think it becomes pretty clear that the media aren't just paying for the hope of being able to call the election early. (In fact, mostly not: they don't call close states based on exit polls alone. The exit polls do help them to call states sooner than they would if they were only relying on vote counts.) They are paying for the answers to all those other questions, so they can talk about the gender gap and the "values vote" and so on.

Actually, the exit polls would probably be more accurate if most of the questions were cut out. It's a tradeoff.

There is no single answer to the "margin of error" question. The exit pollsters calculate standard errors (which can be converted to margins of error) for each state based on the actual data, but they don't do it for the national sample because they don't actually project the popular vote. But if you look at all the results together, there is no question that the polls were way outside sampling error.

The thing a lot of people seem to miss is that big samples reduce the sampling error but don't necessarily reduce other kinds of error. That's why when major papers report on their surveys, they always include a disclaimer not to interpret the "margin of error" as a guarantee of accuracy. The 1936 Literary Digest poll had a "margin of error" under plus-or-minus 0.1%, but it was off by more than 20 points. I'm not even sure how to calculate a probability that small.

I think it's an interesting question whether some fraud-designer would do something to mess up the exit polls in, say, New York just to throw people off the trail. I don't think it happened -- it strikes me as too clever by half. But someone could come up with a scenario that I never thought of.

[tomp]

70. perhaps it's not about accuracy...

...or verification at all. sounds more like the exit polls are designed, at least partly, to provide fodder for talking heads as much as anything else.

i mean, if the exit polls aren't carried out in a way that allows for predictive accuracy, how can they be accurate about "values vote" issues, and who really cares? is anybody going to call the media on the accuracy of the numbers of blacks or women, for example, who voted for a candidate? what would they use as a reference to question the accuracy of such numbers?

if the exit polls ARE carried out with the intention of accurate prediction of races, why are the media not defending those polls that they created and paid for?

and, if they do defend the validity of their own polls, wouldn't that be a great story to push ratings? imagine being the first to call fraud in an election!

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. yes, definitely "fodder for talking heads," although...

I'm as curious as anyone to find out anything I can about why people say they voted for Bush, anyway. I think exit polls are cool. (Or, in academese, "exit polls are a valuable source of information, albeit one that needs to be used judiciously.")

"i mean, if the exit polls aren't carried out in a way that allows for predictive accuracy, how can they be accurate about 'values vote' issues, and who really cares?" (etc.)

Well, the difference between 48% Bush and 51% Bush is huge, because the election outcome depends on it. But the difference between, say, 37% and 40% agreeing that "Bush would do a better job of fighting the war on terror" -- please note that I just made that question up! -- isn't so huge. At that point, the possible error in the percentage is probably less important than the inherent ambiguity of the question wording.

Also -- and this is where things really get controversial -- if a question is strongly correlated with vote choice, then reweighting the exit poll tables or tabulations to match the vote choice should yield better results. (For instance, if the poll undersampled Bush voters, it probably also undersampled people who think Bush would do a better job yadda yadda.) And if the question isn't strongly correlated with vote choice, then reweighting basically shouldn't matter. So, that is why the exit poll tabulations are weighted to match the official returns: because, if the official returns are more accurate than the poll, reweighting ought to yield more accurate tables. That's why it is standard procedure. I doubt it ever occurred to the pollsters or the networks that it might be perceived as a cover-up.

But what if the exit polls were more accurate than the official count? That gets complicated, which is why Febble's posts are so long. ;) It would be pretty nutty to "defend" the polls if in fact the polls were wrong. The main thing would be to try to find out. Pretty early on -- I'm not sure when -- someone at Edison/Mitofsky looked at precinct-level exit poll 'error' vis-a-vis voting method. (Some academics did the same thing at the state level, although the first time they tried it, they used the wrong data.) Also, the exit pollsters would know that they had had trouble with bias in the past, and that some of their state numbers were out of whack with pre-election polls. So they had good (IMHO) reason to believe that miscount didn't account for most of the exit poll discrepancy. I always thought the more interesting question was whether miscount might account for an important part of the discrepancy. It took me a while to realize that the people I was working with were starting from totally different assumptions.

[BeFree]

72. Hope this helps, tomp

The exit polls are designed to give an estimate of the vote so that the talking heads can tell us who is going to win, thereby making them look smart.

One reason there are other questions in the interview is that answers to those questions help to eliminate bias and further enrich the estimates. As TIA has shown, the alterations of the final poll numbers shows the final alterations were without foundation, ie, were made up, because the answers to the other questions didn't match the finals, in fact, they degraded the finals.

The media did not create the polls. Mistofsky created the polling. The media just paid $10m for the effort. And they are not defending the polls. It seems, actually they are trying to stay away from the controversy.... I figure if they let their reporters go after the facts all hell would break loose. They don't want to be in the middle... they like bushco in power.

[tomp]

73. thanks otoh and befree

i have to say this is some thick stuff. i'm a litle underwhelmed with the ability of polls to tell me anything definitive right now. if you can't trust a mathematician who can you trust? with all due respect, i'm really glad pollsters aren't doing my brain surgery.

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. nope, "brain surgery" and "margin of error" are a scary combo! n/t

[tomp]

75. LOL ! nt

[Awsi Dooger]

76. Something I've wondered about for a long time

I'm sure there is a flaw in this that's why I've been hesitant to bring it up.

But regarding the accuracy improvement via less exhaustive questioning, couldn't there be two types of exit pollers, one who sampled a much larger percentage of voters but only asked the basics; "Who did you vote for?" and "What is your party affiliation?" Maybe one other quick but relevant question, possibly altered depending on the state or even precinct. Obviously the exit poll interviewer could throw in the sex and maybe age estimate, if that isn't asked.

Then you use those numbers to supplement and verify the findings from the more extensive exit interviews.

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. two quick thoughts

Well, before the thoughts -- it's a decent idea. And one appeal is that it is pretty cheap to implement.

First, actually, in the experimental study I read about (but didn't read the original), the shortest questionnaire had the highest completion rate, but also had a higher bias rate than the medium-length one. Don't know if that result would be robust; it just goes to show what a dark art this really is. The science comes in managing the uncertainty, not obliterating it.

(I have a thought about this, reflecting on some parallel elections: asking more -- but not too many -- questions may reassure some prospective respondents that they are taking a "real survey" and not just being fooled into revealing their vote choice.)

Second, the sponsors may prefer to have more data rather than (possibly) more accurate data, given that in close races, the official returns are going to be crucial anyway. I mean, you'd have to be nuts to call Ohio based on a marginal interview result just because you're 'pretty sure' that you've solved the problems from 2004. (But of course you would still want better data, if you could get it. It's a tradeoff.)

[Awsi Dooger]

79. Looks like my idea isn't exactly original

Tonight I read the EM report from January 2005 carefully top to bottom for the first time and on page 47 was startled to read this paragraph, the fourth and last point in possible changes to improve WPE:

"Fourth, we should experiment with the use of shorter questionnaires in tandem with long-form questionnaires. One way would be administering short questionnaires to every other exit poll voter, thereby improving the tallies. The tallies from these short questionnaires could then be included with the results from the long-form questionnaires."

Funny, because before seeing that paragraph I thought the 2004 data indicated my idea didn't have much weight. The interviewing rate was much more ambitious than I thought, most precincts at 1-5. In fact, among 7-10 only 10 was used in more than 100 precincts, with 7-9 used in by far the lowest number of precincts. I was under the false impression 6-10 was more common as a group than 1-5 but that's not the case at all, not even close. While it's true 1 and 2 had the lowest WPE it was still nearly 4.

Meanwhile, distance from polling place was virtually straight plunge, lowest WPE inside the polling place and with one exception every subsequent distance worse than the previous, especially 100+ feet at -12.3. Completion rates also decline steadily in relation to distance.

I left that pdf concluding distance and age of the interviewer were more vital than more or shorter surveys.

Meanwhile, back to your reply, I like your two points. Although in terms of data I wonder if Mitofsky won't place more emphasis on getting it right, rather than prioritizing what the sponsors want. Not that I know that relationship and who pulls trump. The networks are naturally going to be conservative and rely more on actual vote count from now on. But EM has taken so much grief out of 2004 I'm certain he wants to point to his numbers and say we got it right, and avoid an analysis/rationale paper like I read tonight.

Also, do people leaving a polling place on election day really consider it being fooled into revealing their vote choice? The first time I was approached by an exit poll interviewer in Miami I knew exactly what he wanted, or so I thought. I spit out who I voted for then I was stunned he wanted me to stop and fill out a lengthy survey. That experience admittedly made me shy away from the area in subsequent elections. Now I vote early in Nevada and would be thrilled to take the time, but I have never seen a hint of an early exit poll interviewer in that setting.

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. yeah, I'm sure Mitofsky thinks about this a lot

I have to admit I forgot last night that they actually put that recommendation in the report. I think there is precedent for Mitofsky recommending things that the sponsors don't go along with, but I don't know how this one will turn out.

I think that distance and interviewing rate work in similar ways: they both promote (but don't create) bias. They make it easier for voters to avoid interviewers and/or for interviewers to pursue some voters rather than others.

You rightly pointed out that the WPE at an interviewing rate of 1 was still -4 or so -- but the mean WPE for the smallest distance is actually -5.3. In fact, you will often encounter the argument that 'Mitofsky blames bias on things like distance and interviewing rate, but look, WPE is significant regardless.' I'm still searching for the perfect analogy to explain why this misses the point. It's a bit as if doctors attributed some health problem to some enzyme in the bloodstream, and cited as evidence a study in which eating foods known to produce that enzyme -- let's say broccoli -- led to higher rates of the problem, and the huffy rebuttal came back, "Why, they're trying to blame the problem on broccoli! that's nuts!" Obviously one study doesn't prove the case, but the rebuttal is totally off-point.

But an enyzme in the bloodstream probably could be measured directly; participation bias can't. I guess that's why some people are convinced that it is mystical and mythical.

"Also, do people leaving a polling place on election day really consider it being fooled into revealing their vote choice?"

Heck if I know. It's a conjecture as to why a really short form might have even higher bias than a medium-length form. Not to engage in psychological profiling, but I noticed back in the 80s that reluctant responders seem to be sort of 'fearful' about a lot of issues -- foreign policy issues were the ones I was considering at the time. Literally, the reluctant responders expressed more fear of just about everything -- the stuff hawks worry about, the stuff doves worry about, all of it. (This absolutely is not something I am prepared to offer as a scientific generalization, just something consistent with some work I happened to do in my misspent youth.) I bet a small fraction of people would be especially put off by a short questionnaire.

But we don't need that hypothesis in order to account for the increased bias; it could just be that folks who are reluctant responders, for whatever reason(s), are less encouraged by a shorter questionnaire than other folks. Any divergence in the D and R participation rates increases bias, regardless of whether each rate is going up, down, or sideways.

(By the way, I think it's ironic that some people sincerely think I have a "know it all" attitude, considering how often I say that I don't know things. Just as a rough indicator, I just did a search and found that I had used the word "dunno" in fifteen separate threads since the first of the year. I wholeheartedly endorse Al Gore's quotation from Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.")

[Awsi Dooger]

81. Do we know anything about the 2002 exit polls?

I'm asking because of your point about reluctant responders and fear. Extremely interesting to me, especially that the correlation was made as early as the '80s, and possibly dates as long as surveys have been taken.

9/11 is almost never taken into account when comparing the 2004 election to 2000. Exit polls or otherwise. That's one of my frustrations, on DU and elsewhere. The GOP played relentlessly to fear throughout that cycle and especially the final push. I'm guessing here, but if 9/11 increased (or prioritized) the fear level of American conservatives in general, and also swayed the so-called security moms in the GOP's direction, isn't it possible Republican voters are now several percentage points more reluctant to respond than prior to 9/11, and that will likely continue?

This is the only link I have regarding early numbers in 2002: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000507.html

Notice the early numbers, similar to 2004, generally overstate the Democrat and often by huge percentage. Strickland lost big. Bowles lost. Shaheen lost. Mondale lost. Johnson won but it was a furious early morning Indian precinct rally by a few hundred votes. Pryor won but not close to 18 points. There basically isn't an overstated Republican number in the bunch. And notice Chambliss is consensus leading by 4 point in Georgia. TIA and others who championed early exit polls post-2004 conveniently ignored that +4 in the aftermath of 2002. They defaulted to pre-election polls to scream fraud, most taken weeks before the election. I was shocked Barnes lost the gov race but it was obvious Chambliss had all the momentum and would probably win since the final polls were basically even. I've mentioned many times Georgia state polls dramatically overstate the Democrat, dating long before Diebold. I use a +4.5 point adjustment toward the Republican in that state, my Partisan Adjustment Number (PAN) theory.

Anyway, perhaps yourself or Febble have seen actual numbers from 2002 or know something about them. If it was similar to 2004 with Republicans reluctant and understated in swing state after swing state, I'm shocked EM didn't make adjustments heading to '04.

Combine that fear factor with GOP distrust of the media in general, the liberal bias crap, and the fact exit polls suddenly became a media issue in 2000 with the early call for Gore, and it's a little bit predictable -- if that's the word in 2006 :) -- that Republicans shy away from exit pollsters in increasing number beginning in '02. Do the exit poll interviewers wear street clothes, or are they obvious with unforms and logos of the consortium, CBS, FOX, etc.?

Regarding that link I posted in this thread, I think I was the only DUer who warned about early exit polls prior to 2004. I posted that same link in a thread early on election day, in the GD 2004 forum, titled something like, "Warning; the early afternoon insider numbers in 2002 were terrible." Several DUers jumped in and agreed with me. Maybe someone can search and find that old thread.

Somehow I ignored my own advice. Within 12 hours I was working GOTV and lost a chunk of money betting on Kerry due to early exit poll hysteria on DU.

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. interesting -- I have 2002 sitting on a computer somewhere...

There actually are good reasons why early numbers can be off without evincing "real" bias, but I haven't looked hard enough to be entitled to a view. Do bear in mind the big tilt in 1992; is there a good reason for that? I haven't thought about it yet.

[Awsi Dooger]

83. One other point regarding fear

I had hoped the decline of national security fear as a GOP trump card would be substantial this year. We desperately need that, particularly to restore the gender gap in federal races.

But the StrategicVision state polls have a startling finding. One question is, "Do you expect a homeland terrorist attack within six months?" The consensus stuns me, more than any public response I can remember. In every state it's between 71 and 82% yes. The highest numbers are in New York and New Jersey, which makes sense. The undecideds outnumber no, which is typically in the 10% range.

[OnTheOtherHand]

84. yikes

I need to look at that some more. It doesn't seem to jibe with other stuff I've seen -- but of course that doesn't mean it's wrong.

[OnTheOtherHand]

87. OK, some perspective on the threat of terrorist attacks

Question wording can have huge effects. (The context of the questions can have a huge effect, too: people may sound more or less worried about terrorism depending on what they were just asked about.) I'm not going to tell anyone what to infer from these results; I don't know myself.

Strategic Vision, various states in recent months: "Do you expect another terrorist attack within the United States in the next six months?" All very high; the most recent (both 7/12) are Georgia: 74% yes, 14% no, 12% undecided; and New Jersey: 77%/10%/13%.

Harris Interactive*, 2/06, "How likely do you think it is that there will be a major terrorist attack in this country in the next 12 months?...Very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, not likely at all" 17% very, 49% somewhat, 23% not very, 10% not likely

CBS News, 3/06, "How much confidence do you have in the ability of the US (United States) government to protect its citizens from future terrorist attacks--a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?" 17% great deal, 43% fair, 28% not very, 10% none.

Gallup, 3/06**, "(Next, I'm going to read a list of problems facing the country. For each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all?) How much do you personally worry about...the possibility of future terrorist attacks in the U.S. (United States)?" 45% great deal, 31% fair, 18% only a little, 6% not at all (see below)

ABC/WaPo, 5/06, "Thinking about the next 12 months, would you say you feel optimistic or pessimistic about...the country's ability to defend itself against terrorist attacks?" 65% optimistic, 32% pessimistic

ORC for American Red Cross, 5/06, "(I'd like to know how likely you think different emergency or disaster situations are to happen in your community in the next two years?...1-Not at all likely, 5- very likely)...Terrorist attack with potential for serious injuries or loss of life" 12% responded 4 or 5 (the database doesn't give a full distro)

* Harris Interactive is an Internet panel survey, well established, but somewhat controversial -- I thought I should mention it.

** A few comparatives: the percentages who said "great deal" and "fair amount" for each of the following: "crime and violence," 45/36; "illegal immigration," 43/29; "the economy," 43/37; "the quality of the environment," 40/37. (Hey, here's a crazy idea: imagine we had a government that acted as if the public was almost as worried about the environment as it is about terrorist attacks!)

[Febble]

78. Well, it's interesting

that while non-response bias is a problem associated with low response rates, measures taken to increase your response rates won't necessarily decrease your non-response bias, because there is no guarantee that measures you take to encourage responses won't act differentially on differentgroups of potential respondents.

From MysteryPollster:

UPDATE & CLARIFICATION (5/17) More about the 1997 study:

The experimental research cited above was part of the VNS exit poll of the New Jersey and New York City General Elections in November, 1997. While my original description reflects the substance of the experiment, the reality was a bit more complicated.

The experiment was described in a paper presented at the 1998 AAPOR Conference authored by Daniel Merkle, Murray Edelman, Kathy Dykeman and Chris Brogan. It involved two experimental conditions: In one test, interviewers used a colorful folder over their pad of questionnaires that featured "color logos of the national media organizations" and "the words 'survey of voters,' 'short' and 'confidential.'" On the back of the folder were more instructions on how to handle either those who hesitated or refused. The idea was to "better standardize the interviewer's approach and to stress a few key factors" to both the interviewer and the respondent intended to lead to better compliance.

In a second test, interviewers used the folder and offered a pen featuring logos of the sponsoring news organizations. A third "control" condition used the traditional VNS interviewing technique without any use of a special folder or pen.

There was no difference between the folder and folder/pen conditions so the two groups were combined in the analysis. The results showed that both the folder and folder/pen conditions slightly increased response rates but also introduced more error toward the Democratic candidate as compared to the control group. Since there was no difference between the folder/pen and folder conditions, it was the folder condition, not the pen, that appeared to influence response rates and error.

The authors concluded in their paper:

The reason for the overstatement of the Democratic voters in the Folder Conditions is not entirely clear and needs to be investigated further. Clearly some message was communicated in the Folder Conditions that led to proportionately fewer Republicans filling it out. One hypothesis is that the highlighted color logos of the national news organizations on the folder were perceived negatively by Republicans and positively by Democrats, leading to differential nonresponse between the groups.

Murray Edelman, one of the authors, emailed me with the following comment:

The reference to this study at the 2004 AAPOR conference by both Bob Groves and Kathy Frankovic in their respective plenaries has inspired us to revise our write up of this study for possible publication in POQ and to consider other factors that could explain some of the differences between the two conditions, such as the effort to standardize the interviewing technique and persuade reluctant respondents and the emphasis on the questionnaire being "short" and "confidential." However, we agree that the main conclusion, that efforts to increase response rates may also increase survey error, is not in question.

[Awsi Dooger]

82. Great stuff Febble

And I'm sure glad you included a link, otherwise I might have concluded you made all that up, weren't being honest. :evilgrin:

I wonder why further studies weren't pursued? That one identified differential non-response and speculated to the reason. Wonderful. We know why we lost. So where were the followups, designed to isolate conditions promoting increased and balanced response rates? Or has balanced response always been assumed, minus gimmicks, giveaways or unusual conditions that might encourage/discourage one side or the other?

Frankly, I don't know why this is limited to election day. Why can't Mitofsky evaluate now, have his people stand outside a Target or whatever and try various techniques in approaching and interviewing people? Vary the color schemes. Distance. Dialogue when approaching the person. Age. Props. Gender. Length of survey. Whatever. Determine the optimum, for acceptance and completion rate. Like my sports research, you might start out looking for one thing and find a different benefit. Perhaps the budget isn't what it needs to be for something like that. Or he thinks nothing is gained if there isn't a political result at the end of the day, a numerical evaluation. I wasn't exactly impressed with this blurb from the January 2005 paper: "There are several changes in the exit poll process that might lessen the WPE. Only further experimentation will confirm this." Great. Practicing on the day of the final.

Do we even understand why people choose to participate or decline? The type of personality traits more likely to describe a yes or no? OTOH's point about fear and reluctant responders got me thinking along those lines. We know all about the respondents and apply that to the population.

Also, Febble, fascinating stuff reading the comments at the bottom 80% of that Mystery Pollster link. I missed all that fun in the first half of 2005 after taking a break from DU and political banter. Sorry to read about the witch hunt description, regarding Kathy Dopp's behavior on this site.

[BeFree]

66. Yeah, tomp, who ya gonna trust?

Here's the thing.... you are wise to question everything. In that process I have found these distinctions:

There are two sides... those that side with power, money, fame and fortune, and those on the side where the truth is all. In this case what we see is that the power people have not been honest.

The exit poll numbers that first came out - leaked over the internet - were honest numbers. Then the spin began. But before that spinning the people who bought and paid for the numbers rightfully used them to project a Kerry win.

Well, as the official results came in, there appeared a great discrepancy with the exit-polls. What did the exit poll people do? They began altering their honest numbers. Then they made excuses for their alterations, excuses that have been proved to be dis-honest.

Did they undertake a study to honestly evaluate the discrepancy? No. What they did was take the official results on faith and try to figure out why their honest numbers did not match. True, it was not their job to be the examiners of the official results, but that is where the honesty went out the window: instead of saying that the honest numbers bring about the need for honest questions, and a look at all possibilities, they buckled under to the thumbs of power, money, fame and fortune, and simply tossed their numbers away, refusing to question the official results.

So, it has been left to us, the unorganized, netroots netizens to ask the questions unasked by those who stood to lose power, money, fame and fortune.

So we carry on. Why? Because we have discovered that there appears to be a cover-up. We know about the machines. We also know Americans, on the whole, do not condone this administration and that this administration would do anything to obtain, keep and hold power.

Do we have all the answers? No. But there is one answer that we do have, and that is that we can not trust those who are motivated by money, fame, fortune and power. But we can trust those whose motivations are to find the truth.

And we will. Stick with us. Question everything. NGU.

[Febble]

67. BeFree, I don't know where you are getting this stuff

but most of it simply isn't true.

The exit poll numbers that first came out - leaked over the internet - were honest numbers. Then the spin began. But before that spinning the people who bought and paid for the numbers rightfully used them to project a Kerry win.

No, they didn't use the numbers "to project a Kerry win". This isn't true. They posted crosstabs, and those showed Kerry ahead, but no-one projected a Kerry win, because none of the crucial margins was outside the margin of error of the polls.

Did they undertake a study to honestly evaluate the discrepancy? No. What they did was take the official results on faith and try to figure out why their honest numbers did not match. True, it was not their job to be the examiners of the official results, but that is where the honesty went out the window: instead of saying that the honest numbers bring about the need for honest questions, and a look at all possibilities, they buckled under to the thumbs of power, money, fame and fortune, and simply tossed their numbers away, refusing to question the official results.

No, they didn't "toss the numbers away". The took a good look at them "to try to figure out why their honest numbers did not match", and concluded that their poll was biased. And then, far from tossing the numbers away, Mitofsky actually tossed them to me. And he tossed them to me because I'd posted a paper on the internet saying I thought the numbers should be reanalysed, and in particular:

it would therefore be of interest to know what proportion of total variance in genuine within-precinct “bias” could be accounted for by the factors postulated in the E-M report, and whether, after thus accounting for known methodological factors, any precincts/states proved to be statistical outliers that might indicate the possible contribution of vote-count corruption to the exit-poll error.

And so I did. And I've told you what I found.

[BeFree]

68. And I ain't buying. Nice try tho.

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. And you ain't trying. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. good questions

Sometimes people get stuck on a seesaw -- "are the polls accurate, or are the official returns accurate?" Hey, what if they're both wrong?

And then there is a binary thing: "are the polls accurate, or are they inaccurate? valid, or invalid?" I think the polls are pretty good; they look pretty bad because they came down on the wrong side of a close election.

The exit polls could provide strong evidence of fraud even if they aren't trustworthy. For instance, if the exit poll discrepancies did tend to be in the same states where the pre-election polls were off in the same direction -- even if there was a lot of other "noise" as well -- that would be a different story. So, I think we can learn some things from exit polls as long as we don't take them too literally.

Last year at a conference, I tried to quote Bruce O'Dell, who said something like this to me: "If the 2004 election wasn't stolen, that doesn't mean it couldn't have been stolen."

EDIT TO ADD: By the way, I'm not attributing either of those questions above to you, just 'speaking' generally. And I didn't try to offer a complete answer to what you actually asked, but I hope you can see how I think my response fits in.

[Febble]

20. Well, I can only ask

whether you think that Clinton thought there had been massive fraud in 1992? He was certainly aware that the polls were considerably more favorable to him than the count, but of course he was a long way ahead of Bush senior anyway. So if he didn't think the exit polls evinced fraud in 1992, why would he think that exit polls were "extremely reliable" in 2004? And if he did think that polls evinced fraud in 1992, why didn't he do something about it then? The discrepancy was only slightly less than in 2004.

[tomp]

27. see post #26 nt

[tomp]

12. my assumption is that he knew before reading kennedy.

i simply cannot fathom bill clinton not knowing about it, not paying attention to it. can anyone tell me with a straight face that clinton was not aware of john conyers report? that would be unbelievable.

thank you. my point is exactly that-it is illogical.

[Febble]

21. John Conyer's report

is strong evidence that the Ohio election was a travesty of democracy. It is not conclusive evidence that Kerry won. I read the Conyers report, avidly, from cover to cover. It appalled me. It convinced me that Ohio was not fought on a level playing field. It did not convince me that Kerry would have won on a level playing field.

But you don't have to be a liar to have read Conyers report and yet remain unconvinced that Kerry won Ohio. The report doesn't even claim that.

[tomp]

28. for the record: did kennedy convince you? nt

[Febble]

29. No

But I've never been particularly hung up on the numbers. I don't think you need to be convinced that Kerry would have won Ohio to be convinced that the election in Ohio was unjust, and I was convinced of that anyway.

I still don't think the numbers add up to a probable Kerry win on a level playing field. But they could have done, and there is no way of knowing for sure. So I still think it's possible.

I think there are two very important and very separate questions:

Was the election fair? My answer is no.

Would Kerry have won a fair election? My answer is probably not.

I don't think the answer to the question has any bearing on the answer to the first. I don't think the result of election process in a mature democracy should be "probably". Ergo, America does not have a mature democracy.

[kster]

30. My head is

Are you related to my wife? :rofl:

[Febble]

31. Well, kster

as I said, I remain open to the possibility Kerry might have won Ohio if all those who wanted to vote for him had been able to vote (in other words, I think voter suppression was a major problem for Kerry in Ohio).

I don't believe it is likely that Kerry won the popular vote.

Which of these two statements do you find most amusing?

And why?

[kster]

33. You are far to brilliant, not to have

read the writing on the wall, about this past election. People on one side of the debate are craving to get this debate ON TV, People on the other side of the debate, that have control of the ON TV media refuse to have an open and honest debate ON TV.

If that isn't throwing up any red flags for you (that you may be wrong), I don't know what will.

[Febble]

34. Well, gee thanks

but yes, I read the writing on the wall, and as I said, I am in no doubt that the election was unjust, nor that deliberate attempts to steal the election were made. Absolutely there were red flags, it's why I got involved in the first place.

And I quite agree with you that the issue cries out for public debate - on TV, and well beyond.

So I am still puzzled as to why you should have found my comments amusing.

We seem only to differ as to the scale of the problem, not as to whether there is a problem. Many reasonable analysts have come to similar conclusions to mine as to the scale of the problem. But that doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem. Frankly I think it is a human rights (and certainly a civil rights) issue apart from anything else. Plus of course, the very fact you guys even have to consider analysing exit polls to find out shows how crap your election methodology is.

Nothing amusing about any of that, as I'm sure you will agree.

But, as I said, I still think that the evidence strongly suggests that in 2004, the scale of vote-theft wasn't popular-vote winning, and probably not electoral vote-winning either (though voter suppression might have been).

And I'm wondering what it is about that last paragraph that you find so amusing - and why.

[tomp]

39. i'm having trouble with your distinction...

...between the method being messed up and kerry not winning the popular vote.

if the method of registering voters and counting votes is messed up, how do we have any real idea what the "popular vote" is, except by adding or subtracting likelihoods from the count as it stands (i.e., conyers and kennedy's critiques). maybe our definitions are different. i don't think we know the popular vote until we have a fair election.

[Febble]

46. Well, I do draw a distinction

between vote miscounts and voter suppression, although I consider both equally heinous.

Bush got about 3 million votes more than Kerry in the count. So if you have evidence that 3 million Kerry voters were suppressed, I'm willing to concede that Kerry won the popular vote. But I haven't seen any argument that puts that estimate at 3 million. Perhaps you can make one.

What I have seen, is the argument that at least 1 and a half million votes were shifted from Kerry to Bush. Actually, the argument tends to be that about 3 million votes were shifted from Kerry to Bush, because that particular argument tends to derive from the exit poll evidence, and if we regard the exit polls as a better index of the true result than the count, then Kerry beat Bush by about the same margin as Bush beat Kerry, i.e. by about 3 million.

But I don't think this is likely to be the case. I think the exit polls indicate the opposite - that vote-switching on a scale of millions is unlikely, and that the exit poll discrepancy was due to a biased poll.

In which case, it is more likely that the vote count is closer to the true count than the exit poll "count" is.

But the exit polls say nothing about voter suppression.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. except for uncounted provisional ballots?

I mean, people who cast uncounted provisional ballots could show up in the exit polls, and could be victims of voter suppression. It's the semantic gray area between "miscount" and "suppression" (as you know, but tomp may not).

But the uncounted provisional ballots in Ohio were something like 0.6% of the vote -- which could be substantively important combined with other factors, but couldn't begin to account for the exit poll discrepancy.

[Febble]

54. Yes, and also

differential residual vote rates that differentially affected Democratic voters within a precinct would show up as redshift, but given that it seems to be a long-standing problem, wouldn't show up as a correlation between swing and shift. But by the same token it can't account for much shift because there wasn't much in 2000.

And that's really vote-suppression (people casting a vote that isn't counted) rather than voter-suppression.

But vote-suppression that affected both kinds of voters, but predominantly in Dem precincts wouldn't show up in exit polls, but would affect Kerry's total more than Bush's (the TimeForChange scenario).

Those are countable though - do we know how many?

[tomp]

38. i didn't tally up the numbers in the kennedy article...

...but given the thin margin of bush's "victory", the number of potential uncounted or miscounted votes seemed to easily to put the result into question and lean toward kerry.

what did bill clinton see that you didn't that convinced him?

[Febble]

48. Well, he mentioned Steve Freeman's probability

estimate for the exit poll discrepancy, which I think has nothing to do with anything. So if that was what convinced him, maybe that is where we differ.

[BeFree]

52. I like that:::: probability

Thats what we shall call these theories from now on: just probabilities.

In that vein, we shall say that it is beyond probability that the $10 million exit-polls, paid for by the media, would have their early numbers off by 6%+ is like a brazillian to one.

That it is beyond probability that the stolen election trail would be left easily exposed by the biggest crooks to ever have committed a crime.

That it is probable that the trail was designed so that even careful statisticians could not find the trail; even exit-poll statisticians.

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. that seems self-contradictory

at least in ordinary English.

You seem to be saying that the fraud is both statistically obvious and statistically undetectable. Certum est, quia impossibile.

[BeFree]

57. Obvious

Are you saying the early exit poll estimates - that the media bought and paid $10m for - were not obvious? Wow.

What's not obvious is the trail of the thieves. It is so well hidden that some people can't even imagine that the theft occured.

So what do you mean? Is it that since the early numbers were based on statistics and because we belive those early numbers we should now believe the contradictory statistics?

If that is your case, it's no wonder you seem confused. I am not confused, it's obvious wherein the difference resides.

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. wow indeed

No, I did not say that the early estimates "were not obvious." They just don't support the inference of fraud, for reasons I have often explained. There are no "contradictory statistics."

As far as I can tell, the difference resides wherein I know something about the sibject. But I try to keep an open mind.

[kster]

17. I'd "KNOW" how the votes were counted and tabulated if I was a candidate

but for some reason the Dems and Repubs Politicians do not care, that alone makes me suspicious.

You are 100% correct with this statement.

"Then, when looking at the overall party response, it does make one wonder just what the hell is going on, and with the lack of any reasonable response coming from the party over the last year, reasonable people really have to wonder just what the hell IS going on. It is only logical".

[diva77]

22. I don't know of any incumbents who have been vocal about the machines

and since Hillary is an incumbent, maybe he's trying not to upset those who control the machines!

:shrug:

[diva77]

23. oops, just thought of 1 -- Cynthia McKinney, I think?

[tomp]

40. OTOH and Febble, thank you...

...for turning my rather hyperbolic post into a serious discussion of what we know and don't know. i really do appreciate the information and will try to absorb as much as i can of your references.

at this point, it still seems to me that, at least since conyers' report, clinton had to know that the playing field was not level. he could have said that, and he could have said it earlier, in defense of fair voting and in the interests of the democratic party (for that matter, the dem party could have said it). that leaves something at best disingenuous.

perhaps my definition of lying is too strict. i try to stick to the standard of: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. when looking a clinton's overall pattern i don't think that's what we're getting. nor do i don't think clinton is alone in that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. well, thank you

To tell the truth, I absolutely expected that you would flame me off the map.

The last thing I would ever say about Clinton is that he is a straight talker -- although on policy issues, he was a heck of a lot more honest than Bush IMHO. The bumpersticker (when Clinton lied, no one died) doesn't begin to cover it. That's just talking generally. I have no clue what Clinton really thinks about Ohio. But I can't believe, any more than you can, that he ever thought the playing field was level there.

EDIT TO ADD: To be fair, I don't think he said that he ever thought that. Whatever else we say about Clinton and/or Ohio, I think there's a big difference between "Bush won" and "the playing field was level."

[Febble]

55. You're welcome

nice to talk to you!

[kster]

61. Who do we blame for this? Clinton? Dems? Repugs?

Seems like the other side had the same problem, at one time, that we are having right now.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a0de22c0d2d.htm

[tomp]

63. not quite sure what you're getting at.

dems are trying to steal elections too? gore tried to steal florida?

one of the main purposes of my original post was to try to determine why the democratic party has not made all these voting irregularities a top priority. i've been looking for an explanation and haven't found one.

maybe the dems are as dirty as repubs when it comes to elections and are just having a bad run of late. maybe they want to be able to try some of this themselves or are already trying. maybe it's about giving the corporations who they want in power and making it just look like we have a democracy.

if anyone knows, they ain't sayin'. but clinton's rather disingenuous remark has to make one wonder.

[tomp]

64. p.s.: i gotta go to bed. will check back. nt

[w4rma]

86. A) Clinton is human, even tho he held the office of President. B) He's not

lying. C) **Before** he read it he though Shrub won Ohio and now he isn't so sure after he read the article. D) I bet he probably never read the Conyers report before reading Kennedy's analysis.

Simple, logical.

[nolabels]

88. The road to hell is lined with good intentions

Is it really necessary to protect the Presidency of Bill Clinton STILL?

I am ambivalent over if he was good or bad for the country but compared to the current chimp that the corporations help install, Bill compares to the chimp almost beyond human, to a deity even. It might be the contrast that is at odds but it is easy to notice some of the results have been the same.