If you had all your money stolen 15 months ago and they found the crooks, would you want it back?

If you lost a loved one in a violent crime and 15 months later, would you want the perpetrator arrested, prosecuted, and punished?

An honest analysis of the 2004 Exit Polls shows Kerry won by 7.0 million votes. It’s been just 15 months AND IT STILL MATTERS.

Exit Polls are highly regarded and good enough at CATCHING FRAUD to overturn elections in the Ukraine, the Republic of Georgia and other nations with the support of the U.S. Government, President Carter and many others. Exit polls are even endorsed by DU’s own Demopedia.. They are a scientific sampling of a large number of voters after leaving the polls on election day. The Exit Pollsters for the USA 2004 election have been doing them for decades.

When foreign elections are overturned by exit polls, the MSM covers this as a great victory for democracy. When the Exit Polls showed Kerry was clearly the winner in 2004, two things happened:

a) The corporate media failed to cover the story; more accurately, they tried to cover it up and
b) The final 12:22 a.m. exit polls (state and National) were revised to show George Bush the winner at 1:25 pm by matching to the recorded vote count. The pollsters were paid commissioned a consortium of major networks, The Washington Post, NY Times, etc.

This CNN link (scroll all the way down) was not intended for public viewing. It showed Kerry winning 51-48% (scroll to the very bottom).. Twelve hours later, the pollsters revised the results by changing the 12:22am exit poll weights and voting shares - and added just 660 additional respondents. This was no longer a poll; it became a capitulation and political statement.

With results like these in a foreign country, the U.S. Government and MSM would be howling—throw the bums out! But in our own country, the government and MSM ignore the issue. MSM, which commissioned the polls and owns the raw data, a real paper trail for 2004, refuses to release the information to Rep. Conyers or anybody.

What are they hiding and who are they hiding it for?

An objective, scientific examination of the 2004 National Exit Poll demonstrates that Kerry won the election by 7.0 million votes.

WHY WON’T THE MSM RELEASE THE RAW DATA?
WHEN WILL THE MSM COVER THE STORY?

TruthIsAll Analysis: Why Kerry Won!

INTRODUCTION

This analysis determines Kerry/Bush vote percentages required in all the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP) demographic categories to match the "How Voted in 2000" (V2k) demographic.

Assuming 98% turnout of Gore and Bush 2000 voters STILL ALIVE, the V2k weightings were changed from 41% Bush/ 39% Gore to 39.02% Bush/ 39.45% Gore. Using these revised weights, Kerry won the V2k demographic by 64-57 million while his vote share increased a full percentage point from 51.4% to 52.4%.

The goal was to derive Kerry vote shares so as to match the 64 million total by adjusting his 12:22am NEP vote shares. Note that ONLY V2k weights were revised; all others were left unchanged.

A 98% turnout was used, since the assumption is that virtually all 2000
voters returned to the polls. The key point: it's an equal percentage turnout of Gore and Bush voters. A lower turnout of 95% would mean there were 3% additional voters who did not vote (DNV) in 2000. The lower the turnout percentage, the higher the number of new voters - which increases Kerry's margin, since he got 57% of DNV, according to the 12:28am exit poll.

THE SMOKING GUN

Some argue that the exit polls had a pro-Kerry bias due to reluctant Bush voters, forgetful Gore voters or both. They fail to acknowledge one basic, irrefutable fact: historic 2000 voting data proves that the weights (43% Bush/ 37% Gore) used in the 1:25 p.m. Final National Exit poll are impossible. As a result, final NEP demographic categories, forced to match the recorded national vote, must be impossible, as well.

Not coincidentally, the final NEP (1:25 p.m. 11/03/04) is the only timeline which was matched to the recorded national vote. All earlier timelines show that Kerry won.

The skeptics who question the "assumptions" of those who seek to objectively analyze available polling data never question the impossible NEP (Bush/Gore 43/37%) “How Voted in 2000.” It’s argued that these weights represent some or all of the following: (a) sampling error; (b) "false recall" on the part of Gore 2000 voters; or (c) necessary weighting adjustments made to reconcile final "projections" with a late-incoming vote counts. Since virtually all votes were counted by midnight, this reconciliation with the actual vote must have been incorporated in the 12:22 a.m. exit poll of 13,047 respondents.

The 41% Bush weight used in the earlier, pristine 12:22am timeline (which Kerry won) was within the MoE of the absolute 39.8% Bush maximum. But that's a MOOT point, as it was still mathematically impossible.

Conversely, the final NEP Bush 43% weighting is far beyond the Margin of Error (MoE). So it's also MOOT - and even MORE impossible (infinity = infinity + infinity?). To accept the 43% weight as factual means that you must also believe Bush received 5 million MORE votes in 2000 than were actually recorded!

Supporters of a Bush victory and the revised “Final” NEP want you to believe that the 43% figure is neither MOOT nor impossible- just irrelevant. An inability to refute the facts leads to acrobatic contortions to spin the obvious, using smooth, semantic double-talk, much more sophisticated than those talking media heads who spin daily and fail to report the Al Gore speech. Like the talking heads, the credo is: if you can't spin it, don't even mention it.

Naysayers can't claim that the 43/37% split is due to the “Reluctant Bush Responder” theory (rBr), the very briefly famous "hypothesis" to explain the exit poll discrepancy. This has long since been debunked.

What is it about "inherent contradiction" that they don't understand?

FACTS YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW?

The following facts have been misrepresented, obfuscated or ignored:

1) The number of RETURNING 2000 election voters had to have been LESS THAN the number of those who ACTUALLY voted in 2000. Why? Because approximately 3.5% of 2000 voters have since died.

2) The MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE WEIGHTS of the 2004 vote (V2k) for "HOW VOTED IN 2000" is INVARIANT and INDEPENDENT of the Exit Poll. They are based on the 2000 vote and the estimated death rate since 2000.

3) The weights are obtained by SIMPLE DIVISION: GW (Gore weight) = GV/V2k and BW (Bush Weight) = BV/V2k, where GV and BV are the Gore and Bush 2000 votes.

4) The final NEP V2k weights indicate that 52.57 million Bush 2000 voters voted for Bush in 2004 (43% of the total). This is IMPOSSIBLE. Only 48.7 million Bush 2000 voters were still alive to vote in 2004.

THE ONLY RELEVANT QUESTIONS

The exit poll debate comes down to FOUR SIMPLE questions:

1) WHAT WAS KERRY'S SHARE OF THOSE WHO DID NOT VOTE IN 2000?
According to the 12:22am NEP, it was 57%; it was 54% in the 1:25pm FINAL.

2) WHAT WAS KERRY'S SHARE OF GORE 2000 VOTERS?
The 12:22 a.m. NEP said 91%; it was 90% in the FINAL.

3) WHAT WAS KERRY'S SHARE OF BUSH 2000 VOTERS?
The 12:22 a.m. NEP said 10%; it was 9% in the FINAL.

4) WHAT WAS KERRY'S SHARE OF NADER 2000 VOTERS?
The 12:22 a.m. NEP said 71%; it was 71% in the FINAL.

THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

Unless Kerry's vote shares were much LOWER than the FINAL NEP (and far beyond the margin of error) the only possible conclusion is that he won the election.

Using the revised weights and assuming the 12:22am vote shares, Kerry won by 7 million votes: 64-57 mm (52.4%-46.6%). According to the recorded vote, Bush won by 3 million votes: 62-59 mm (50.73%-48.28%).

The correct analysis adjusts the V2k weights to CONFORM to the actual number of Bush and Gore 2000 voters who were still alive in 2004. There were 122.3 million recorded votes in 2004. The revised weights are then calculated as follows:

Bush 2000 maximum turnout = 48.7 / 122.3 = 39.82%
Assuming 98% turnout BT = .98 * .3982 = 39.02%
Gore (GT) and Nader (NT) percentages are calculated the same way.

Having determined the above weights, we can calculate the percentage of
2004 voters (new and old) who did not vote (DNV) in 2000:

DNV% = 100% - BT - GT - NT
DNV% = 19.27% = 100%- 39.02- 39.45- 2.26
DNV = 23.56 mm = .1927 * 122.27mm

WHERE DID BUSH FIND 13 MILLION NEW VOTERS?

Since Bush started with a 48.7 million vote base from 2000, he needed to add over 13 million NEW voters in order to get his recorded 62 million vote in 2004.

This analysis shows that Bush added 6.5 million votes, net, to his 2000 vote
total of 50.5 million. But since 1.50-1.75 million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the election, he actually added 8 million new voters.

It thus appears that the Bush vote total was inflated by 5 million votes (from 57 to 62 mm) and Kerry's reduced by the same amount (from 64 to 59 mm).


The 12:22am NEP, which Kerry won by 51.4-47.6% (How Voted demographic), gave Bush 2000 voters an IMPOSSIBLE 41% share of the 122.3 million 2004 votes. The 1:25 p.m. final NEP proceeded to COMPOUND the IMPOSSIBILITY with its 43% Bush weighting of “How Voted in 2000. Very strange indeed.

IF THE FINAL V2K WEIGHTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE...

The Final NEP had to match the vote. Pollsters say that's standard operating procedure.. Well, it only makes sense when the actual votes are not miscounted. But there is OVERWHELMING evidence ON THE GROUND that the votes were grossly miscounted in favor of Bush, especially in Florida and Ohio - two states he HAD to win.

If the Final V2k weights were IMPOSSIBLE but NECESSARY in order to MATCH the recorded vote, then it stands to reason that in ALL of the other Final NEP demographics, the weights and/or vote shares required to match the vote MUST be WRONG even if individually they cannot be proven mathematically impossible like the V2k weights.

Unfortunately, weights for these demographics CANNOT be VERIFIED with corresponding HISTORICAL data as they can be with V2k. The weights CAN be checked against other data sources, however, such as the census (Gender), voter registration (Party ID), undecided voter statistics (When Decided), voter political preference (Ideology), geographic trends (Region), economic factors (Income), population growth (Age), and church-going frequency (Religion).

That's why the Final NEP V2k demographic, adjusted for actual, verifiable 2000 vote constraints, is a logical basis and starting point in estimating vote shares for all other demographics.

The 1:25pm Final NEP increased Bush's vote shares from the 12:22am timeline in ALL the demographic categories. This was necessary in order to match the vote Bush 62 million vote count. The WEIGHTS were incremented in categories where the increase in vote share was INSUFFICIENT to match the recorded national vote and further increasing the vote share would have raised RED flags.

THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION

The analysis indicates that Kerry did EXACTLY ONE PERCENT better than his oft-quoted NEP result. In fact, he would have exceeded 52.4%, since in 2004, as in every election, millions of voters, the great majority of whom are Democrats, are disenfranchised and never get to the polls.

A case in point: the 2004 Census (60,000 respondents) indicated 125.7 million citizens voted, yet the recorded vote was 122.3mm, a 3.4mm discrepancy. The Census has a 0.30% margin of error.

It is worth repeating that the Final 1:25pm NEP V2k demographic weights of 43% Bush/ 37% Gore are IMPOSSIBLE, since they are INCOMPATIBLE with the number of Bush 2000 voters who could have voted in 2004. Only 48.7 million Bush 2000 voters were still alive in 2004. But 43% of 122.3 million is 52.57 million, almost 4 million MORE.

It is IRREFUTABLE proof that the 43% Final NEP weighting, as well as the 41% weighting for the 12:22am timeline, are BOTH mathematically impossible, even if they matched the number of exit poll respondents. If that was the case, then Bush voters were greatly over sampled.

THE WEIGHTS WHICH HAD TO BE CHANGED IN THE FINAL

These are categories in which the weights were changed in the Final NEP.
(* indicates change was necessary and significant)

Party ID * Dem -1% / Rep +2% / Ind -1%
How Voted 2K * Gore -2% / Bush +2%
Region South +1% / West -1%
Education Some college +1% / Post Grad -1%
Income 0-15k -1% / 75-100k +1%
Ideology * Liberal -1% / Conservative +1%
When Decided Today -1% / Last 3days +1%

The focus of the analysis is the 12:22am NEP. Vote shares were adjusted to match Kerry's 64mm V2k total; 3rd party "Other" vote share was
set to 1%.

The Final 1:25pm NEP is displayed for comparison. In most categories, vote shares totals are less than 100%, primarily due to insufficient "Other".

THE COMPLETE TIA NUMBERS
________________________________________________________________________

A VISIT TO ALICE IN WONDERLAND

1) False recall: Gore voters forgot said they voted for Bush. Forget someone who robbed you blind in broad daylight four years ago?

2) The rbr hypothesis: Bush voters did not want to be interviewed. Disproved by simulation, optimization and the exit poll data itself. So they had to come up with (1)

3) Large Exit Poll MoE: They're not accurate and effectively useless. They claimed the "Cluster/Design Effect" inflated the margin of error. But the formula gives a MoE of 0.86% for the National Exit Poll (13047). Adding a 30% cluster effect brings it up to 1.12%. Mitofsky said the MoE was 1.0% in the notes to the NEP.

The naysayers had to try to erase the 1 in 19 TRILLION probability that exit poll discrepancies would exceed the MoE in at least 16 states- all for Bush. Even with a 30% cluster effect, state MoE's remain in the 2-3% range. This brought the number of states with MoE exceeded down to 10. But the probability that 10 are exceeded is 1 in 4.5 BILLION.

They had to admit that the discrepancies could not be due to chance. It was either fraud or the exit polls were biased for Kerry. So they had to come up with (2).

4) Heavy early turnout of women. The gender mix was constant throughout the exit poll timeline. Moot point. The national vote shares are hardly changed by the mix. So they had to come up with (3).

NO END TO THE MADNESS

No, those dogs won't hunt.

So they keep throwing new stuff out there, denigrating solid, honest research while supporting propaganda which passes as research. They assume people won't see through their slick, convoluted nonsense. After all, it sounds CONVINCING.

Just like Fox News, they keep catapulting the propaganda. Even when the 43/37 issue is moot. Even if the 2000 vote is invariant. And so they frantically spin ridiculous, impossible scenarios with no end in sight.

...in a fascist state elections are decided before the votes are cast, and short of a revolution...we are F**ked. :banghead:

here.

Please feel validated in all your feelings of hopelessness, and anger, and then keep fighting.

That's what we're here for.

We'll have a "Velvet Revolution"--if the Ukriane can do it, why not us?

In the mean time, I share you sentiments, we are truly F**ked!

see February 6, 2004
Defense Dept. Shelves Online Voting
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3309471

because the voting couldn't be 'secure', then why oh why did state and local governments go ahead with hackable insecure systems ?

""An internal memo from Paul Wolfowitz, DoD deputy defense secretary, to David Chu, personnel and readiness undersecretary, earlier this week described the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE) as unable to insure legitimacy of votes.

The decision comes weeks after a panel of security experts, the Security Peer Review Group (SPRG), said the foundation of the Internet was fundamentally flawed -- open to hacks and denial of service attacks (define) -- not particularly the equipment used in the experiment.""

It was fine for the government to halt the DOD's "experiment" but perfectly fine to let the civilian vote go forward with a fundumentally flawed system ?

What gives ?

Why do they insist on conditions that make it impossible to prove that Bush won??


Why do they cling to a corrupted process? They defend it, they ridicule and defame those who question it, they protect it at all costs: a corrupted process.

Why?

Why do they need to hide? From us, the people?

All this nonsense about spreading democracy around the world is just a projection of their guilt about undermining and ruining democracy in the USA.

Why do we have the Help America Vote Act? (HAVA)...to buy rotten voting machines. This act was to address the Election 2000 problems, primarily in Florida. If they wanted to do that, they would have let the 50K legitimately registered voters vote; those who were disenfranchised by the "felon purge." They would have looked at massive disqualification of black Floridian votes through the shameful "spoilage" and other dirty tricks. These cost Gore tens of thousands of votes. These crimes had nothing to do with voting machines, chads, etc.

They're hiding the dirtiest secret of all, election fraud...two stolen elections.

Never.


NGU.

Now based in the Bahamas, through Global Information Group Ltd., a spinoff from US intelligence...offshored, privatized, outsourced. Oh, and sanitized to keep pesky blowback from true media investigators.

TruthIsAll was a longtime poster here. Sort of infamous, really. Relentless is the description I would use. Fearless with numbers too. Geez, is this sounding like hero worship? (NOT to be confused, or even mentioned in the same breath with Poindexter's Wall Street bid to offer terrorist futures to the markets.. WTF?)

Exterminators are used against cockroaches are they not? Is there an exterminators union? A hallowed call-out to exterminators of the world to unite is possible, eh?

Fuckin' filthy cockroaches--first the bugs, then the goddamn rats. I really hate rats..........

NoFederales

I guess he's got his own problems;)

"The incentive to convert from manual paper ballots or low tech voting procedures, e.g., punch cards, to optical scan and direct recording equipment, e.g., touch screens, comes from the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Passed in 2002 to correct the problems in Florida, HAVA has provided states and local election officials with several billion dollars to date. The two events described subsequently show the imperative the Bush administration places on conversion to electronic voting. The State of Louisiana was denied $24 million in funds for the Army Corps of engineers to conduct levee repairs in 2004. In that same year, Louisiana received $26 million from HAVA to fund the purchase of a statewide, uniform electronic voting and tabulation system."

Read it and weap:

Louisiana Secretary of State 2005-07 Biennium. http://170.94.58.9/data/agency_budgets/0063.htm
Editor & Publisher. Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen? W. Bunch. 08/22/2005. http://mtncommunity.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=2706&mesg_id=2715

Carter-Ford Commission noted the mounting body of evidence that documents the.
unreliability of exit polls.

http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/CFER_section7.pdf

And this was his opinion

Exit polling by any partisan group in any country is "quite unreliable," former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Atlanta-based Carter Center, explained in an interview. "People doing them are often highly subjective. . . . They may be more inclined to ask a question to someone wealthy than to someone in overalls."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2004/08/19/venezuela_opposition_refuses_to_admit_defeat?pg=2

considering the fact that polling hastened his own surrender to reagan losing us more seats in California- is untimely. I hate polling for several important reasons but all the moire alarming when they offer the sole bit of evidence in an election without lawful accountability.

Specifically though does one consider the exit polls favored Kerry and the Democrats? Mitovsky himself and the MSM have shown themselves pitiless put downs of critics of the Second Ascension of the Monarch.
After 200 they took quite a beating from the GOP noise machine for the same reason which I translate personally as not weighting the polls to legitimize GOP fraud.

There are several soft areas in the current hodge podge of "esteemed, scientific" MSM sponsored polls.
Taking this into account it si to OUR partisan advantage to seek tools that are dispassionately fair and distanced from our natural suspicions and expectations. It costs. It needs better rigor and tooling of questioners.

It can't be left in the hands of corrupt media and biased pollsters. For those of us uneasy with the wink and nod and satisfaction with the mess of "democracy" decades ago all our worst apprehensions are more than well grounded. Now democracy itself would be the novelty, and reform reclaimed for progress not tyranny would be new voice now not allowed to be heard by the many.

As I have said about the news media. It is a gold mine abandoned in a ditch. There is no real competition for fairness and truth. You can't be pure or 100% but you can come so damn close that all the goons in right field may well be left behind in the public surge for the real thing. There must be one major public radio and TV network to promulgate the results. There must be a reinvention of wheels squared into uselessness.

Explain it any way you will, but my point is that we're generating a great deal of outrage over a false premise.

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Venezuela's Voters Have Spoken
Hugo Chávez won fair and square.

BY JIMMY CARTER
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005518
"During the voting day, opposition leaders claimed to have exit-poll data showing the government losing by 20 percentage points, and this erroneous information was distributed widely. Results from each of the 20,000 machines were certified by poll workers and party observers and transmitted to central election headquarters in Caracas. As in all previous elections, paper ballots were retained under military guard. As predicted by most opinion polls and confirmed by our quick count, Mr. Chávez prevailed by a 59% to 41% margin."

"Bogus assertion" -- that's a total misread of the initial post so it's hard to take your comment seriously...and I won't, nor will I get into an extended back and forth with someone making this type of assertion.

I'll not be able to tell if you respond btw.

Show me where Carter has changed his published opinion on exit polls or concede that your initial post is fallacious. Simple as that, whether you choose to ignore me or not.

DUers, we won't make progress if we delude ourselves. I don't enjoy this, but adherence to the truth is necessary if we want to maintain credibility.

The key word in the Carter quote above is PARTISAN.

Leaders of the observer delegations, however, have cast doubt on the Sumate exit polls that are the basis of the opposition case that it must have won the elections. The observers have noted that Sumate's survey takers are not independent, trained pollsters.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2004/08/19/venezuela_opposition_refuses_to_admit_defeat?pg=2

Surely you're not suggesting that American pollsters are incompetent and fraudulent? That was Carter's beef in that instance, not that he doesn't think exit polls are useful.

He rocks!

I just wish the rest of the country knew!

Pls excuse, this has probably been explained somewhere already, but can someone pls clarify one thing . . .

When we say, "- The number of RETURNING 2000 election voters had to have been LESS THAN the number of those who ACTUALLY voted in 2000. Why? Because approximately 3.5% of 2000 voters have since died." -- isn't the loss of voters due to death more or less offset by a gain of voters who became old enough to vote during the same period? I realize the number probably wouldn't be the same (e.g., among new voters, perhaps a smaller percentage would vote Repub.), but you get my drift.

I'm in agreement that the election was probably stolen; it's just that that bullet point always raises that question for me.

The issue is, are the Exit Polls weighted realistically in terms of the number of voters assigned to the category, "How (you) Voted in 2000." Those who voted in for Bush/Gore in 2000 are reduced in number for 2004 by morality figures. Therefore, any claim (as in the Final adjusted Exit Poll 1:25 p.m. the day after the election) that Bush 2000 voters actually increased in number by 2004 is wrong and the 1:25 p.m. poll, which we have so much trouble with, is suspect. In that poll, there were adjustments made, big time, to switch from the election eve final, Kerry 51%-Bush 48% - to the exact opposite.

We have the right to know the process.

We have the right to examine the process.

We have the right to know that our elected officials are actually elected honestly.

If they fail to prove the honesty of their elections, our elected officials are ILLEGITIMATE!

WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE FRAUD, THEY HAVE TO PROVE HONESTY.

THEY'VE FAILED!!!

Excellent!!

Jimmy Carter found the election to be valid, he disregarded the exit poll data.

Any comparison to what Carter said about Venezuela must ignore a whole range of facts that are different about that election and this election. The exit polls that were once used here to prove Bush won are now trying to be discredited by the same people who produced them for that purpose. Do you see the deception?

Disclaimer – this poster is not a mathematician, and I don’t claim to be – I do know the repercussions of drawing to an inside-straight though – and hence I consider myself difficult to fool – the following words are my own thoughts, and if proved wrong I will answer for them.

There are many arguments being made about the exit poll results. People wonder who to believe. “Believe the numbers” would be my counsel.

“But the numbers can be messed with” is a common refrain. If numbers can be manipulated so easily, why not take a trip to Las Vegas and manipulate the odds to be in your favor? The answer is simple; you can’t change reality through some “new” theory of statistical analysis. Yet many people would have you believe that this is not true.

There are mathematical “proofs” that the weightings used by the Edison/Mitofsky team to reconcile the exit-polls with the vote count were impossible. Initially, there was a lot of denial of this fact. It is rare to find anyone to dispute it now. So what is the real significance of using impossible weightings?

To answer this question completely, it is necessary to take a closer look at the motive for performing an exit-poll in the first place. An argument is now put forward that the exit-poll information was not gathered in an attempt to project the actual vote. Instead they now calim a slightly different purpose. The argument is being made that the exit-polling was merely done as a tool to allow the pollsters to make early calls on election night for the media outlets.

That viewpoint is not very sound, IMHO. The pollsters could just as easily have used an entirely different data source for that purpose, for example they could have used the actual vote returns from the previous election to accomplish that exercise. It would have yielded the same results as gathering exit-poll data and then assigning impossible weights to it.

Here is a simple example:

Team 1 takes actual vote returns from the 2000 election.

Team 2 uses M/E exit-poll data.

Both teams get the 2004 actual counts at the same time and weight their data to forecast a winner.

Who calls the election first, assuming they both use the same threshold of probability to make the call?

I'm saying Team 2 has no advantage over Team 1. I think my point of view is proved out by the fact that Team 2 was required to wait until there were enough actual counts to allow them to assign weighting that was impossible. That would not be required by Team 1.
Their weightings would have been realistic. They could have made the calls much earlier.

See what I mean? It's just math. Why not simplify the equation? If that was the question that they were trying to answer, why not do it the easy way?



So now, we are to believe that the eminent mathematicians behind the Edison/Mitofsky team wouldn’t realize this. They didn’t know that all their exit-poll information was completely unnecessary. It defies reason to believe this.

Which raises the question again of why did they perform the exit-polls. The simple answer seems to make the most sense. They did their exit-polls for the same reasons that everyone else has ever done them for, most importantly, to get an accurate snapshot of the election. Why should we believe anything different?

So there is the snapshot they took. Analysis shows how all the NEP demographic percentages were biased against Kerry - even at the 12:22am timeline which he won 51-48%.

It is then estimated that Kerry won by seven million votes (64-57) based on the How Voted 2000 absolute maximum weight constraints. Percentages in all the other demographics are adjusted to match his 64-57 million win. All the data aligns perfectly, in both Ohio state and the national returns. How could the numbers be manipulated to make this mathematical analysis possible? They couldn't be. It is not possible.

This is not intended to be presented as anything other than what can be observed by looking at their own snapshot. Some might make an argument that their lens was out of focus or something. But ask them how it could possibly get that out of focus and they have no idea, even though the most obvious reason is staring them in the face. The vote was miscounted in favor of Bush. That brings everything back into perfect focus. Why?

Which raises the question again of why did they perform the exit-polls. The simple answer seems to make the most sense. They did their exit-polls for the same reasons that everyone else has ever done them for, most importantly, to get an accurate snapshot of the election. Why should we believe anything different?

Your "simple" answer is wrong.

The real reason exit polling is done is to produce data not available by looking at the actual vote counts. The actual vote only tells you one thing: who won. Exit polling however, provides a wealth of information that political consultants and media organizations crave. How people voted by gender, how people voted by income, how people voted by race, how people voted by age, how people voted by previous votes, etc. None of this information can be gleaned without an exit poll, and so that is the real reason they are conducted.

My simple phrase "to get an accurate snapshot" was meant to convey just what you are saying.

I must have misunderestimated your post :)

Even though some things seem clear as a bell to me, I'm not always on anyone elses wavelenth, if you know what I mean. I thank you for helping to make it more clearer. :)

Thanks for posting this, Autorank!

:blush:

Keep It SImple Stupid terms - get those numbers into a sound bite the public can understand - and won't let go of.

superb post autorank!

:kick:

It is really disheartening to KNOW that this past election was so horribly stolen, and see the proof, and also know that we are so very far from having legitimate elections in this country again.

Let's just keep nibbling away at the mess they've made, and eventually, people WILL know what we all know to be true; Elections in the U.S. are predetermined by the republicans, using varied and multiple crimes to steal elections. The easiest and most sinister of those crimes is the control of the electronic vote counting and tabulating machines.

If it's going to require another revolution, so be it!

:kick::kick::kick:

Washington State no longer has touch screens thanks in part to Land Sharks efforts.

People are listening. MSM may not have it's eyes open yet but that's OK, they are becoming an artifact of history.

Keep rocking!

:patriot:

:yourock:

Peace.

I distinctly recall a Kerry advisor stating that he knew the exit polls were wrong when they showed Kerry carrying South Carolina-never forget that the polls showed Dewey defeating Truman-Further our system elects presidents and vice presidents not by popular vote-much to Al Gore's and my regret-but by the elctorial college-twist and turn as we may the shrub carried the electorial college which the Congress certified-Stop the crazy conspiracy theories and start to improve the ways to get out the vote and educate the populace that Republicans are not their friends

The Republicans certainly are not the friends of the people.

Bush won the electoral vote in 2000 not because he took Florida. He took Florida due to tossed ballots all over the state from "spoilage", predominantly minority voters, black precincts and because many blacks who should have voted were denied that right by wrongful purging of the registration databased PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. They showed up and were sent home. The same purge was tried in 2004 but uncovered.

There's no "delusion" here, just facts. Can't win the electoral college, a disgrace and Jim Crow law extraordinaire, without having fair elections.

The spoilage you point to has occurred in every election ever held-in fact the spoilage from Cook County Illinois exceeded 250,000 in the last election-While we search for ghosts we ignore the reasons for our defeat-I hope you listened to to NBC yesterday and heard listened to Paul Begala explain why we lost and how to stop it. Talking about Jim Crow laws and the fact that states routinely purge their voter lists of convicted felons and dead people and like all people make mistakes-does not alter the fundamental reason for the loses-people did not vote democratic because they felt the democratic party was too wishy wash;y on the issues-so people decided to stick with the horse's ass they already knew. Once again, you can not blame the ghosts for destroying democratic ballots in democratic precincts when the county election official conducting the count is a democrat-we need to face reality and campaign to win and stop campaigning not to lose-that's my two cents worth

:hi: and good bye.

Iran/Contra was a crazy conspiracy theory. But, hey, why would anyone invent vapor voting in the first place if they weren't honest and to be trusted? Why would they insist on counting the vote without anyone knowing how they do it? Of course only an honest person would come up with a scheme that isn't verifiable. That's just the way all the honest people I know behave. NOT!!

"first principles", Usrename; how swiftly and brutally it exposes the emptiness of their excuses, however endlessly they trot them out. A one-stop, catch-all demolition. Fraud is proved by the minutiae of the context, the enormous edifice of circumstantial evidence, all tending in the one direction.

The everyday commonsense of men and women, from professors to those who can't read or write, tells them, loud and clear, that the only imaginable reason for the Republicans politicos and their minions preventing checks being made on the numbers of the votes cast, is fraud.

Next question, Sejanus? No, on second thoughts, go back to sleep, there's a good chap.

PS: I'm not one for picking on people's spelling, but I can't imagine there'd be many prosecutor's who'd misspell, "asinine", or have a lion rampant as their logo in their profile. That's a kind of redneck signature, isn't it?

I probably will go starkers raving mad. I only referred to Iran/Contra as a crazy theory because that whole thing was insane, and you would have to be nuts to do what they did in the first place. It defines crazy conspiracy. Stealing elections may be ugly and all, but I don't think it would qualify someone as being crazy. Doesn't rule it out for these meglomanics either (being crazy I mean) but you know what I mean. These are some of the same folks as it turns out. Just saying, if anyone wants to have a serious discussion about crazy, well then, let's have at it.

"The everyday commonsense of men and women, from professors to those who can't read or write, tells them, loud and clear, that the only imaginable reason for the Republicans politicos and their minions preventing checks being made on the numbers of the votes cast, is fraud."

I'm keeping this one. Ahoy! KCDMIII!!!

Hopefully CUBA! Tee hee! That should give them a touch of the vapours...! The virtual warriors aka chickenhawks.

on my trip to the mystery island, I'll revise the old tradition of Keel Hauling for the blatantly absurd.

:hi:

According to what my wife tells me, they must be like very young children you can't leave out of your sight. If you do, and all of a sudden it's very quiet and you can't hear them, you can be sure that they're up to some sort of mischief.

Only with the neocons, it's now at the stage where the kid says, "But I didn't ask you, Mummy, because I knew you wouldn't let me!"

Re: http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifwhrtptpstrphsnp.shtml

It ill behoves me to make a typological error (being able to distinguish between a genitive and a hole in the ground), when I'm pulling someone else up for a spelling mistake.

able to distinguish between a genital and a hole in the ground
:rofl:

:rofl:

Thank you.

Nothing more can be said about that!

:applause:





:kick:

Anyone have an argument with that? Didn't think so;)

He's a wingnut freak who linked to this string to try to poke fun at DU.

Observer: Avete sia una faccia ugly che una mente ugly

Roberts, TruthIsAll and I all agree on one thing: Bush is a disaster. You don't need any label other than American to make that statement.

Paul Craig Roberts, former Reagan Treasury official and economic guru, impeccable conservative credentials on election fraud:

Evidence of a Stolen Election

by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts140.html

The pre-election statement by Diebold’s CEO that he would work to deliver the election to Bush was apparently no idle boast. In five states where the new "foolproof" electronic voting machines were used, the vote tallies differed substantially from the exit polls. Such a disparity is unusual. The chances of exit polls in five states being wrong are no more than one in one million.

<snip>

The outcome of the 2004 presidential election has always struck me as strange. Although Kerry was a poor candidate and evaded the issue most on the public’s mind, by November of 2004 a majority of Americans were aware that Bush had led the country into a gratuitous war on the basis either of incompetence or deception. By November 2004 it was completely clear that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and that Bush had rushed to war. People were concerned by the changing rationales that Bush was offering for going to war. Moreover, the needless war was going badly and the results bore no relationship to the rosy scenario painted at the time of the invasion. It seems contrary to American common sense for voters to have reelected a president who had failed in such a dramatic way.

Miller directs our attention to Bush’s high-handed treatment of dissenters. If electronic voting machines programmed by private Republican firms remain in our future, dissent will become pointless unless it boils over into revolution. Power-mad Republicans need to consider the result when democracy loses its legitimacy and only the rich have anything to lose.

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Thanks!

:kick:

I feel stupid trying to undertand all that.