It's time for the academic community & congress to challenge MSM/Mitofsky

[TruthIsAll]

into releasing the FULL set of raw data upon which he reaches his faith-based rBr hypothesis. Along with his mathematical "proof".

And it's time for the academic community to stand behind the scientific methods used by USCV. That also goes for the spineless Democrats in Congress.

Let see the academics do a thorough peer-review and separate truth from fiction.

After all, it's only the future of our moribund democracy which is at stake.

[mike_c]

1. could you provide a link to some background information...?

I'm not familiar with the acronyms "rBr" or "CSCV."

Thanks!

[TruthIsAll]

13. rBr-Reluctant Bush Responder; USCV- U.S. Count Votes (.org)

.

[Bill Bored]

2. TIA, yeah, you might want to provide a couple of thousand links! :)

Anyway, aren't there supposed to be archives of the raw data at U. MI and some other U? What's up with that? Some DUers have already seen the ones for Ohio, so why is this an issue? (I know it still is, but please clarify.)

Thanks!

[eomer]

6. From what I remember, the data that DUers have seen

does not include the identity of the precincts. DUers have inferred the identity of a few precincts based on demographic characteristics, but only a few.

Bill, is that the data you are referring to? If so, it is not that usable without the ability to match the exit poll precincts with the official count precincts. In particular you would not be able to do the kind of analysis that ESI says they have done.

[Bill Bored]

19. I'm referring to this:

<http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf>

"In addition to the information included in this report, exit
poll data from this election is being archived at the Roper Center at the University of
Connecticut and at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan and is
available there for review and further analysis. This is the procedure that we have
followed for all previous exit polls, which are also available at the Roper Center and ISR.
The description of the methodology of the exit polls has already been posted on our Web
site – www.exit-poll.net - along with all questionnaires used on election day and the
completion rates nationally and by state."

[Melissa G]

3. TIA, have you not heard? Only requests from R's in comgress are

now addressed.. :mad: Such is the SAD STATE OF OUR UNION....
Wonder if **** will put that in the next SOTU address? :eyes:

[Sawyer]

4. Even some USCV members do not stand behind

the methods used by USCV - as you can see by people who signed the first paper not signing the second one. In fact, it is expected by some that some of the original paper's USCV members will come out with their own papers in rebuttal of the second one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369091

See post #24 - no response from Kathy. I guess she's speechless.

[TruthIsAll]

5. Really? Is that what your co-worker Febble told you? LOL

We shall see.
Meanwhile, I'll take Kathy Dopp's word over yours any day.

BTW, what are you going to write about in your next column?
How you recruited Febble into your network?

[Sawyer]

8. As you can see, Kathy Dopp could not

dispute what I said.

Watch for the rebuttal papers coming out. The complete bunk that USCV put out will be shown for what it is. Just like your "proofs" are not taken seriously by any competent scientist anywhere, the same will happen to theirs. That's what happens when you try to twist science to partisan goals - for "solidarity" purposes, I am sure.

[autorank]

16. Heeeeeee's back!

So have you asked yourself yet, "What have I done today to support the legitimacy of he 2004 Presidential election?" It's a very tough job, somebody has to do it!

:hi:

[Melissa G]

7. Sawyer before you go parroting misleading crap

Perhaps you should get some more authoritative sources to quote about why they may not have signed. Did you miss having Kathy Dopp explain how quickly the paper went out? I notice you were in that discussion. Cherry pickin' perhaps? Interesting choice of sides..USCV president or the someone who ditched with their data? You choosing the latter..Hmmm?

Updated to correct misinformation...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Melissa G]

10. Thank you for the clarification Sawyer.. I updated the post..

The rest stands...Do you two chat often?

[TruthIsAll]

11. And what "mob" do you represent? n/t

.

[autorank]

14. "The gang that couldn't count straight"

[Melissa G]

17. Sawyer now seems to represent the Banned mob..n/t

:hi: updated to wave BYE BYE :hi:....

[autorank]

12. A thorough investigation is called for!

Mitofsky is due a thorough investigation:

1) Present and past funding sources;
2) Contacts the day of the election (phone, in person);
3) New contracts since the election;
4) Contacts since the election;
5) Full disclosure of all data files;
6) Full vetting of all personnel who handled data files;
7) Confiscation of all computing equipment;
8) Full tracking of of all internet activity from all EM IEP's, etc. prior to, during and after the election;
9) Deposition under oath of all staff;
10) Testimony under oath.

Once this is concluded, the truth comes out and we have our country back, a final paean to us:

- A record of all DU activity by Mitiofsky and surrogates to include usernames, messages, etc.

[Peace Patriot]

15. Hear! Hear! Autorank! Enough of these slimey Bush Cartel games! n/t

[autorank]

18. An oldie but a "goodie" from May 3, 2005. But then I'm biased!

I was right about the Red Sox after Game 3 too!

[kster]

20. kick.nt

[AlwaysDemocrat]

21. Recommended (n/t)

[bleever]

22. I'm nominating not because I want the outcome to be different,

but because I want the process to be clearly fair, and open to everyone who wishes to look upon the votes in the box.

We've had many explanations, and some discourse that seemed more like excuses, and yet the question we haven't gotten past at this point involves the full set of empirical data from the E-M polling.

They have an explanation. They're cool.

Okay, that's great. We're excited to see the raw data and feel the confidence of knowing that, no matter what our numerical gyrations might suggest, the raw data supports any number of reasons why a multi-million dollar analysis of the voting turnout on November 2, 2004 was totally NUTS compared to Rove's bank of PCs set up in the White House dining room.

Please, rest our minds, and the minds of generations of Americans to come.

[vince3]

23. Those election results were NUTS.

Bush lost again. Great posts, everyone. You guys are getting things done.