YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE THREAD: "FINAL NEP PADDED BUSH VOTE BY MIN 3.85 mm"?

[TruthIsAll]

Poll question: YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE THREAD: "FINAL NEP PADDED BUSH VOTE BY MIN 3.85 mm"?

DUers, I would like your reaction to today's post.

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS, PLEASE INDICATE WHY.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x349796

[aquart]

1. Link?

[TruthIsAll]

14. Would the DUer who disagrees and believes Bush won explain why?

You responded:
"I disagree totally with the analysis. Bush won the popular vote."

I'm sure DUers would like to see your proof.

[thethinker]

2. It makes sense

This was the only way they could keep Kerry from protesting the vote. If it had been close, he would have asked for a recount.

[Goldeneye]

5. I think bush popping out the next day and saying he had a mandate

is the craziest part of it all. They had big plans for Bush Term 2 and they were going to need a mandate. I think they were planning on "winning" even bigger, but Kerry did well enough that he ate away at Bush's mandate padding. Even though the result was only a few points difference, they still had big plans and thats why Bush was blubbering about a mandate when he had a few point "win." The mandate was also, like you said, necessary to prevent a recount.

If you think about it...there was never a chance Kerry was going to win. They have so much bs to cover up: 9-11, Iraq War lies, halliburton contracts, and god knows what else. Where's that list of Bush scandals again? And if you project this into the future, we won't gain seats in 2006 either because then Bush could be impeached...it can't happen.

[Old and In the Way]

8. You are absolutely correct.

"They have so much bs to cover up"...their lives depend on it. But I think they can be beaten in 2006. We know their tricks and we have to work to shut those avenues down.

Actually, change could happen tomorrow. If enough moderate Republicans moved across the aisle, Democrats could drive legislation to stop the BFEE now and start repiaring the damage they've done.

[Goldeneye]

13. I hope you are right about change

It does seem like there is a lot of election reform work being done. But if the election system isn't fixed the only way we can get back any kind of power is for huge majorities to vote for the democrat. Two or three points won't do it...as we saw in 2004. Its gonna have to be 5 or more points.

[Goldeneye]

3. Could we make this a media blaster issue?

Send it to every media outlet, every blog, every online newspaper we can think of. Its so frustrating to look at information like this and know that Americans will never know the truth.

[berniew1]

4. Check out the new Florida thread for support for your result

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x349702

[dzika]

6. "I understand the analysis. But it does not prove that Kerry won."

I think that's what the opposition would say, anyway. Doesn't this just prove that the weighted exit poll is faulty?

[TruthIsAll]

9. But the faulty exit poll matches the vote. Therefore the vote is faulty.

.

[kiwi_expat]

10. I agree with dzika

The fact that Mitofsky's final massaged demographics are faulty does not prove Kerry won the popular vote. No matter how much we wish it did.

Even if we could prove that the final vote Kerry vs. Bush percentages are "faulty", that does not automatically mean that Kerry WON the popular vote. He might merely have lost it by less.

I suspect that Kerry did win the popular vote, possibly by many millions. But in order to PROVE that, you would have to demonstrate that there is NO demographic combo where Bush could have won - or else you get all 50 states' votes manually recounted.

[ihelpu2see]

7. I think Kerry won and believe that TIAs work is thorough but

I also feel the answer lies in PA. Penn. had been pretty close in pre-Nov 2 polls. Leaning for Kerry but the way thier voting machines are set up did not allow for the "rigging" that occurred in Ohio. I believe I read a press release about the way that the Party Line is listed in PA has something to do with how the computerized machines were set up and that is why PA had a larger swing for Kerry, probably representing the "True" vote for Kerry.

I will try to find the link. or if someone else has it, let me know

thanks


edited for spelling

[Sancho]

11. What I can't "see" from the analyses....

I looked at the website that report various percentages by demographics from the exit polls. What is mostly a problem for me that demonstrates fraud would come from the raw data that matches an individual to responses that would not make sense. For example:

How many people in Tampa Florida who were democratic and reported to vote for Castor but not for Kerry?

How many individuals reported to vote for Gore in 2000 who claim to be liberal who now report they voted for Bush in 2004? What are the counties with lots of those unlikely combinations?

I think the analysis demonstrates some logical impossibilities from the percents - but I'd like to have the stack of actual data sheets. Are they available?

[TruthIsAll]

12. The precinct detail, though important, is not as important as...

the total picture.

Focus first on the forest, not the trees.

You are convinced that the forest is not green.
That is number 1.

To find which individual trees have died would just be a confirmation of what you already know to be true.

[Bill Bored]

19. PA Straight Party Voting

allows the voter to vote for Kerry and then straight Republican without having an overvote, even if Bush is also selected as part of the Republican ticket. If Kerry is selected in any order, the vote goes to Kerry. In other states with Straight Party Voting, it's much harder to vote cross-party, especially with Diebold machines which will only register a vote for Kerry if he is selected AFTER a Republican Straight Party selection.

In Ohio however, there is no straight party voting (or at least there isn't supposed to be) so while this may be important in IA or NM, it should not have been a factor in OH.

What PA also had were a fair amount of mechanical lever machines which are harder to hack than e-voting systems. Perhaps this, along with an easy to use straight party option resulted in less errors or fraud in PA.

[ihelpu2see]

22. thanks... eom

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Why hasn't this info been given to John Conyers?

:shrug:

[Chi]

16. exceedingly likely

I'll be honest...I voted for 'B'.
I think the numbers make it exceedingly likely that Kerry won, but I can't call it proof. To me proof is 100%, without any other possibilities. I see other possibilities here (though exceedingly unlikely ones), which makes me not want to use the word proof.
If the only evidence available of election fraud, was the numbers in your post, I could not say in absolute confidence there was fraud.

Maybe my definition of proof isn't accurate, I will have to check that.

I will give ya 'proof' when it comes to disproving random error as the cause though.

don't be hateing 8/
(Chi eyeballs all the exits in the room)

[Chi]

17. Correction

I just looked up 'proof'...

"1 : the effect of evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that a particular fact exists"

I should have looked that up before voting...
Take away 1 'B' vote, and put in 1 'A' vote.

Sorry

[kiwi_expat]

18. Even with that definition of "proof", all that is "proven"...

...is that Mitofsky's demographics are wrong. Not that Kerry won the popular vote.

I think the most persuasive argument for a Kerry win is that tabulation fraud would have been easy to do - and the partisan corrupt companies responsible for the tabulation would not hesitate to do it. But that is not proof, either.

However, recounts could yet prove tabulation fraud - and a Kerry Ohio and/or Florida win. I.e., prove that Kerry won the Election.

[TruthIsAll]

20. You are still missing it, Kiwi..

The Demographics are not only wrong, THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE in
the FINAL  Exit Poll. It was not a sampling error.

But the Demographics make sense in the 13047 Poll, which Kerry
just happened to win, by at least 51-48%.

Look closely at what happened.
They matched to a recorded vote using an IMPOSSIBLE 43% Bush
2000 Voter stat.

Therefore, the recorded vote was IMPOSSIBLE  AS WELL.

	13047 prelim exit poll 122:22am				

	VOTED 2000
	      Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
	No	17%	41%	57%	2%
	Gore	39%	8%	91%	1%
	Bush	41%	90%	9%	1%
	Other	3%	13%	65%	22%
		100%	47.38%	50.82%	1.80%
		122.26	57.93	62.13	2.20
Bush is trailing by 4.21 million votes				
Increase Bush's share of new voters to 45%, reduce Kerry to
54%							
	VOTED 2000
      	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
	No	17%	45%	54%	1%
	Gore	39%	8%	91%	1%
	Bush	41%	90%	9%	1%
	Other	3%	13%	65%	22%
		100%	48.06%	50.31%	1.63%
		122.26	58.76	61.51	1.99
	Bush made progress, but still trails by 2.75 mil.	
Increase Other for Bush to 21% and Gore for Bush to 9%

	VOTED 2000
      	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
	No	17%	45%	54%	1%
	Gore	39%	9%	91%	0%
	Bush	41%	91%	9%	0%
     Other	3%	21%	65%	14%
		100%	49.10%	50.31%	0.59%
		122.26	60.03	61.51	0.72
Bush is now trailing by 1.48 mil.		
					
	Reduce Gore for Kerry to 90%				
	VOTED 2000
      	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
	No	17%	45%	54%	1%
	Gore	39%	9%	90%	1%
	Bush	41%	91%	9%	0%
	Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
		100%	49.10%	50.10%	0.80%
		122.26	60.03	61.25	0.98
Bush is trailing by 1.22 mil.		
					
	Increase Gore voters for Bush from 9 to 10%				
	VOTED 2000
         	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
	 No	17%	45%	54%	1%
      Gore	39%	10%	90%	0%
	Bush	41%	91%	9%	0%
	Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
		100%	49.49%	50.10%	0.41%
		122.26	60.51	61.25	0.50

Bush is trailing by 0.75 mil.		
Change the Gore/Bush mix				
					
Increase Bush to 42%, even though 41.26% is the maximum,
assuming not one Bush 2000 voter died and all returned to
vote.The hell with the Reluctant Bush Responder theory.				

	VOTED 2000
      	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
	No	17%	45%	54%	1%
      Gore	38%	10%	90%	0%
	Bush	42%	91%	9%	0%
	Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
		100%	50.30%	49.29%	0.41%
		122.26	61.50	60.26	0.50

Bush takes the lead.
But 1.23 million is not enough				
Hell, 42% is already an impossibility, let's make it 43%				
Increase the Bush/Gore spread to 43-37%				
We need to match Bush's 3 millon win margin.				

NATIONAL EXIT POLL: 
Weights not adjusted for 3.5% death rate					
100% turnout of 2000 voters

Voted	2000
        	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
      No	17%	45%	54%	1%
	Gore	37%	10%	90%	0%
	Bush	43%	91%	9%	0%
	Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
	TOTAL	100%	51.11%	48.48%	0.41%
	Votes	122.26	62.49	59.27	0.50

Bush	Margin: 3.22			

The Final Exit Poll finally is matched to the final recorded
vote.				
But it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE,  since Bush received
50.456 million votes in 2000, which is 41.26% of the total
122.26 million who voted in 2004.					

[kiwi_expat]

21. I accept that the final exit poll demographics are impossible.

I'm sorry I only said they were "wrong". We are not in disagreement on this point.

Gotta go.

[TruthIsAll]

23. Assume No Bush 2000 voters died and 100% turned out to vote

Then he still loses by 3.68 million votes.

13047 prelim exit poll 12:22am				

VOTED
2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17.00%	41%	57%	2%
Gore	38.74%	8%	91%	1%
Bush	41.26%	90%	9%	1%
Other	3.00%	13%	65%	22%

	100%	47.59%	50.61%	1.80%
	122.26	58.19	61.87	2.20


13660 Final Exit Poll: 
Weights not adjusted for 3.5% death rate.
100% turnout of all 2000 voters. 

Voted
2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17%	45%	54%	1%
Gore	38.74%	10%	90%	0%
Bush	41.26%	91%	9%	0%
Other	3%	21%	71%	8%

	100%	49.70%	49.89%	0.41%
      122.26	60.76	60.99	0.50

Kerry wins by 0.23 million votes.

Even using the final exit poll stats which had Bush winning by
over 3 million votes - only accomplished by using the
impossible 43/37% mix.

And this is still not realistic.
About 3.5% of voters died.
The Bush turnout had to be less than 100%.

[Chi]

24. I actually started on the same side of the tracks...

Heya Kiwi
But every time I try and reason out a scenario that makes these poll numbers possible I hit a catch 22.
Take the last two anomalies TIA has posted about, party % and 'who you voted in 2000 for'.
One could say that the likely solution to either, is each group was accidentally oversampled.

Catch 22...Mitofsky could only rationalize his results by saying Dems were oversampled (as the main reason). If that were true there should be a larger overestimate of Dems in another category (or spread thru-out) that would compensate for the 51% (13047) Kerry number.
Eb & Flo doesn't seem to work in this universe, but it should.
(shrug)


PS..Cudos on your help/work with the Ohio precinct data.