Anyone find Sam Wang's analysis of the FL, OH, & PA results persuasive?

[Karmadillo]

http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html

<edit>

Tuesday, November 16, 11:45PM: Below is a graph of all state polls in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the weeks preceding the election. The gray band indicates ±1 SEM surrounding the average for the last seven days; this is about half the width of the 95% confidence band. The arrowheads indicate the final announced outcomes. Ohio and Pennsylvania polls were consistent with the final outcome, but Florida polls were not consistent.

Pennsylvania polls indicated a Kerry win by 2.1 ± 0.7%; the final result was Kerry by 2.2%.

Ohio polls indicated a Bush win by 1.0 ± 0.7%; the final result was Bush by 2.5%. This could be accounted for by the trend toward Bush in the last five days.

Florida polls indicated a Bush win by 1.4 ± 0.9%; the final result was Bush by 5.0%. This final result is off by 4 SEM. It is also in the same direction as the claims of voting fraud made based on county-level data. Although not definitive, these data are at least consistent with the suggestion that something unusual happened in Florida, either in the 33 polls conducted in the final weeks of the campaign, or in actual voting.

However, note the counter-argument that nationally, Bush performed about 3-4% better than in 2000, and in that year Florida was essentially a tie.

graphs follow...

[Hobbes199]

1. Pre-election polls have a MOE greater than +/- 4%

Exit polls have a MOE less than +/- 2%

[ParanoidPat]

2. I found it interesting and posted the link on several of the.....

.......analysis threads here. No one seemed particularly interested at the time. :shrug:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. It's a lot to absorb, but links there lead me to this:

THE POLLSTERS
Mark Mellman

The uphill fight is impossible to predict now

".... we simply do not defeat an incumbent president in wartime. After wars surely, but never in their midst. Republicans have been spinning this fact for months, and they are correct.

Democrats have spoken often and powerfully about the nation’s economic problems. But by historical standards, they are not that bad. The “misery index” is 7.8 today but was 20.5 when Jimmy Carter was defeated. Economic models of elections show Bush winning 52-58 percent of the vote.

One could simply suggest that the models are off, but there is more to it than that.

These models essentially confirm that the level of economic pain we are now feeling is not commensurate with voting an incumbent president out of office.....

Bush’s approval ratings are also indicative of the difficulties Kerry faces. It is certainly true that the average incumbent who has been reelected has had a much higher job approval rating — 62 percent. Bush’s approval rating is now about 49 percent. Yet the last time an incumbent was beaten — Bush’s father — just 33 percent approved of his performance. When Carter was defeated, he had an approval rating of only 37 percent. On average, incumbents who have been defeated have only had a 38 percent job rating. Bush is 10 points higher than that.

We often point to the fact that a majority of Americans say the country is seriously off on the wrong track. Fifty-two percent hold that view. But when Bush Sr. was defeated, 72 percent thought the country was seriously off on the wrong track.

Only 39 percent give the economy a positive rating, a problem for the incumbent.

Yet in 1992, only about 10 percent were positive about the economy.

Taking all that and more into account, an expert forecasting model suggests that Bush will get 51.6 percent of the two-party vote...."

http://www.thehill.com/mellman/110204.aspx

[sweetladybug]

5. I personally think this is bullshit! Just trying to convince us that Bush

was finally elected. I DON'T BUY THE BULLSHIT

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Look, I am having trouble too

but the sad truth is they kept a lot of Dems from voting in Ohio, and/or did somehting to suppress our totals.
I am not sure they fabricated whole votes from cloth on their side.

[truehawk]

9. Okay, go look at the Pollbooks in Republican Precincts and

count the signatures plus the absentees plus the provisionals and compare to the vote totals.

Just do it!

[ewulf]

4. Undecided voters

tend to break against the incumbent... How could the undecideds break FOR the incumbent by such a margin?

[On the Road]

7. One Thing That Was New for Me in His Analysis

Was this graphic:



I missed the last-minute swing to Bush in Ohio.

I do find Sam Wang's analysis to be generally excellent. Even given potential fraud in Ohio and Florida, the gains by Bush were very broad if not very deep. At a local level, Bush did better in so many different counties that it's difficult to believe it was all fraud.

There was genuine support for Bush that was hidden by traditional polling and analysis. That is perfectly consistent with fraud.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. If I read those correctly, it shows Florida should have gone Kerry

as Zogby seemed to guarantee.
Ohio and Pa. are in line with those graphs.

[truehawk]

10. Did you listen to the Ohio Hearings????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=59002&mesg_id=59002