100% ABSOLUTE PROOF: FINAL NEP OVERSTATED BUSH VOTE BY AT LEAST 2 MIL.

Here is incontrovertible proof that the FINAL National Exit Poll (13660) overstated The Bush vote by a MINIMUM OF 2 MILLION VOTES.

After proving it was at least 2 million, a little common sense will reveal that it was probably overstated by more than 3 million.

In the FINAL NATIONAL EXIT POLL of 13660 RESPONDENTS, POSTED ON CNN at 2:05pm on 11/3, 43% of voters claimed to have voted for Bush in 2000 while only 37% said they voted for Gore.

The PRELIMINARY EXIT POLL (13047 RESPONDENTS, 12:22am on 11/3) had this demographic at 41% Bush/38% Gore. So the numbers were adjusted from 41% in the Preliminary poll to 43% in the FINAL, OFFICIAL EXIT POLL.

BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR 43% OF 122.26 million 2004 VOTERS TO HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000 BECAUSE 43% of 122.26 = 52.57 MILLION VOTERS.
AND THE BUSH 2000 VOTE WAS JUST 50.5 MILLION.

THAT'S AN OFFICIAL ERROR, NOT A THEORETICAL ONE.
IT'S A 4% ERROR IN FAVOR OF BUSH. BUT THE EXIT POLL MARGIN OF ERROR, ACCORDING TO MITOFSKY EDISON, WAS +/-1.0%

THE ODDS ARE NEAR ZERO THAT THE 1.0% MOE WOULD BE EXCEED BY 3.0%.
THEY ARE EXTREMELY LOW EVEN IF THE MOE WERE 2.0% (IT WOULD BE OFF BY ONE MILLION VOTES).

WHERE DID THESE 2 MILLION VOTERS COME FROM?

We KNOW that at least SOME fraction of Bush 2000 voters DIED.
Some were INCAPACITATED and did not vote.
Some decided to STAY HOME and did not vote.
And some, believe it or not, actually VOTED FOR KERRY.

SO COMMON SENSE TELLS US THAT FEWER BUSH 2000 VOTERS HAD TO HAVE VOTED FOR HIM IN 2004, NOT MORE.

ASSUMING THAT 1-2 MILLION FEWER 2000 BUSH VOTERS ACTUALLY VOTED FOR HIM THIS TIME, THEN HIS 2004 VOTE WAS OVERSTATED BY 3-4 MILLION VOTES. THAT'S A 6-8% DIFFERENCE.

One final thought. The 2000 vote is an historical fact. In the ONLY demographic for which the final exit poll is matched to an actual vote count (in 2000), it is found to be absolutely bogus.

SO HOW IS ANYONE TO BELIEVE ANY OF THE OTHER RESULTS IN THE FINAL EXIT POLL?

MAX% OF 2004 VOTERS WHO VOTED BUSH IN 2000 = 41.26%(IF NONE DIED)

Preliminary Exit poll of 13047 had 41%. PROBABILITY: NEAR ZERO.

Final Exit poll of 13660 RAISED IT TO 43%. Impossible.
PROBABILITY = ABSOLUTE ZERO

Max % = 50.45 mm Bush 2000 votes /122.6 mm 2004 total votes = 41.26%

According to the Final Exit Poll, Bush must have had 4.5 mm more 2000 votes.


Asssume the Exit Poll result is true:
43% of Bush 2000 voters voted in 2004.

Then working backwards
52.57 million Bush 2000 voters voted in 2004
1.84 million (3.5%) of Bush 2000 voters died
0.50 million (1%) of Bush 2000 voters did not vote

Summing up:
54.91 million voted for Bush in 2000
But his actual 2000 vote was 50.45 million.
A 4.46 million difference (8.84%).

The Exit Poll Margin of Error is 1.0%

Does your calculation take into account that some voted for them, and others, as well?

Its simple.

43% of 122.26 million voters said the voted for Bush in 2000 - not Nader, not Buchanan.

43% of 122.26 million is 52.57 million.

Bush, not Nader, not Buchanan, got 50.50 million votes in 2000.

The real question is: why was the weighting CHANGED from 41% in the Peliminary Poll (13047) to 43% in the Final (13660) WHEN 43% WAS OBVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE?

Thanks! Interesting...

DU Lounge????

I don't.

Thanks, TIA!

The numbers just don't add up. Election fraud by a fraudulent government.

an absolute squeaker of an election. There's a slim chance Fuckwit actually won by a hudredth of a percent. There's a bigger chance that Kerry won by as much as a percent. The process has been so completely corrupted by the right that we'll never really know for sure. Machines have been cleared and the data lost forever.

What I do know about NM is that to believe they won this state, you'd have to believe 17,000 people left their homes and TVs to stand in line to vote for a judge, but not vote in the national election. That was the discrepancy here. Apparently our ES&S machines simply deleted Democratic votes across the board, varying percentages in every county that used those damned machines, instead of flipping them the way the Diebold machines appeared to.

Do you have any data on the performance of those two companies? Did the ES&S machines delete votes nationwide, or were they clever enough to fiddle them differently in each state?

Thanks for these posts. They've been very enlightening, to say the least.

.

It's amazing how many people are still in denial -- that the election fraud could be so big and right in front of everyone's eyes.

UP is DOWN.

that is about 35 per 1000 over a four year period or 3.5%.

That means that approximately 3.5 million voters in 2000 died.

Assuming half voted for Bush in 2000, at least 1.75 million voters could not have voted this time. We know that 50.45 million voted for Bush in 2000.

The maximum number who could have voted for him in 2004 was therefore
50.45 - 1.75 = 48.7. And so 48.7/122.2 = 39.8% is the maximum percentage of 2004 voters who could have voted for Bush in 2000.
That assumes that nor a single Bush 2000 voter:
1) sat out the election,
2) voted for Kerry, or
3) was incapacitated and unable to get to the polls.

If you believe the final exit poll 43%, then you must also believe that 52.57 million voted for Bush. We have just shown that this is TOO HIGH BY 3.8 MILLION AT MINIMUM, WHEN THE DEATH RATE IS CONSIDERED AND PROBABLY 2-3 MILLION MORE WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE OTHER THREE POSSIBILITIES.

That's alot of voters who must have died, where did all their records get stored though?

Well one thing that you can't pass off on the author of the blog which you all found, he always makes a point of updating with all the facts someone can get.

http://rigged-aggregators.blogspot.com

Do not for now on ask me questions. Please mail the author directly or mail jamboi@yahoo.com to get in touch with him as he will answer every question like he is doing now.

Those figures are impossible, I can't even see who can swallow them

This is what they meant by 'that good old time rock 'n' roll.'

IOW

peace - but never give up the struggle

che

I've only just reached this forum. I read one of your massive battle-dialogues recently -- to be frank, I find this stuff addictive because it seems to me to be the central issue of our times. The 2000 election was a terrible blow to democracy, and the 2004 election has us on critical life-support. Jeez. Never been this bad, not even 1980.

Having no idea who you are makes it more difficult to fully trust, of course, so I need to ask probing questions. No offense intended. At all.

These statements -- where what how?:

'We KNOW that at least SOME fraction of Bush 2000 voters DIED.
Some were INCAPACITATED and did not vote.
Some decided to STAY HOME and did not vote.
And some, believe it or not, actually VOTED FOR KERRY.'

And where do you get most of your numbers? Is there a central research source you use?

Perhaps you just have a link to a compendium of your work on this matter. Or a compendium of links.

P.S. When's your book coming out? I call firsties.

My numbers (pre and post-election) are just those posted on the web from publicly available polls, or were downloaded on Election Day from the Net.

I am not writing a book.

I read that Dr. Freeman, who has written a number of papers on the topic, has one coming out in May.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=343088

otherwise, most people won't believe you. People listen less to facts and figures and more to authority sadly. Try Zogby, he seemed to be stumped about how wrong he got it on nov 2nd.

You can look it all up.
Check the web sites for the national exit poll:

CNN 11027 respondents at 7:38pm, 11/2
WP 13047 at 12:22am, 11/3
CNN 13660 at 2:05pm

Check the state exit poll data downloaded by Simon at 12:22am
Check the analysis done by Freeman and uscountvotes.org
Check the Baiman/Simon analysis.
Check out the Mitofsky report.
Check out the articles of various Math/Stat PhDs.
You want verification?

And Zogby was not stumped.
He knows he got it exactly right.
Just like he did in 2000 and 2002.

let it be

.

Hey Hey low ah

make sense at ALL.

Why are Americans so ASLEEP? Are we afraid to admit that something awful went down in 2000 and 2004, and that we really have lost control?

Maybe it's just to scary to contemplate. But it'll happen again unless we have verifiable voting - which they have in IRAQ for pete's sake, so....?

I wonder how he (or Blumenthal for that matter) would respond to this inconsistency.

The stolen election should be at the forefront everyday here on DU, but incredible as it seems, some still don't believe in it while others have moved on. I think you should write a book of your journey proving how the election was stolen. It might just end up on the best seller lists and in turn boot that asshole out of office! :bounce:

So how in the hell could the 2000 exit poll show him getting just 37% to Bush's 43%? The "actual" result was Gore 50,999,897 (48.38% of 105,405,100 total votes cast for all candidates), vs. Bush's popular vote count of 50,546,002 (47.87%). That's a 15% MOE in the Gore exit poll number. Your numbers can't be right--could you post a URL so we can look at the source?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

It's the FINAL 2004 exit poll, not the 2000 poll

The demographic in the 2004 exit poll refers to the percentage mix of those who voted in 2000 for Gore, Bush and Other (Nader et al) voters and who did not vote.

Did Not Vote (17%) 45% n/a 54% 1%

Gore (37%) 10% n/a 90% 0%

Bush (43%) 91% n/a 9% 0%

Other (3%) 21% n/a 71% 3%

When you say: "BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR 43% OF 122.26 million 2004 VOTERS TO HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000 BECAUSE 43% of 122.26 = 52.57 MILLION VOTERS.
AND THE BUSH 2000 VOTE WAS JUST 50.5 MILLION."

You assume that everyone told the truth about who they voted for in 2000. It's not altogether unlikely, IMO, that a lot of folks who leaned toward Bush in 2000 but didn't get out to vote would claim they voted for him in an exit poll four years later. I think your case is fairly weak here, and that the best arguments for massive vote fraud remain statistical (swing-state "red shift" is very convincing) and anecdotal--all those voting machines that registered Bush votes when the Kerry button was pushed.

Vote for winner desire would make more folks claim to have voted for Bush in 2000 than actually did.

But there is no way to measure.

TIA presumes truthtelling by the voter - and no one has a handle on theshift due to lying..

Indeed we measure the shift by assuming the "final" exit polls are correct, and then saying 3 million of Gore voters lied

But the problem with the 2004 exit polls is that there are too many such "lies" and they are too big relative to past exit polls and election results.

The election was stolen - but how to get the media to focus on this is beyond me. I look forward to the May release of the Freeman book.

"Vote for winner desire would make more folks claim to have voted for Bush in 2000 than actually did".

When they were exit polled (in the preliminary) they had no way of knowing who won.

But Mitofsky knew who "won" when he massaged the preliminary poll in matching the final.

"winner" percentages than did the exit polls taken at the time.

So I am taking the 2000 results as reflected in the 2004 questionnaire as an over estimate of what happened in 2000.

I agree with all you have said - but perhaps I do not follow exactly the argument being made.

I thought it was that the FINAL 2004 percentages as per 2004 questionnaire and Mitofsky weighting in 2004 do not reflect 2000 election history.

YOU:
"I agree with all you have said - but perhaps I do not follow exactly the argument being made"

The argument being made is this:
THE FINAL EXIT POLL DEMOGRAPHIC CATEGORY OF "HOW THEY VOTED IN 2000" WAS WEIGHTED USING AN IMPOSSIBLE NUMBERS (43%-37%) TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT BUSH WON, EVEN IF IT MEANT ONE HAD TO IGNORE THE FACTS OF HISTORY BY OVERSTATING THE BUSH 2000 VOTE BY OVER 2 MILLION (4%) IN ORDER TO FORCE THE FINAL 2004 EXIT POLL TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE.

IF THIS WAS DONE WITH A VERIFIABLE DATA SOURCE (THE 2000 VOTE), THEN WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT OTHER ARBITRARY ADJUSTMENTS HAD TO HAVE BEEN DONE TO ALL THE OTHER UNVERIFIABLE DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHTS, AS WELL.

YOU:
"I thought it was that the FINAL 2004 percentages as per 2004 questionnaire and Mitofsky weighting in 2004 do not reflect 2000 election history".

THE WEIGHTINGS DO NOT REFLECT 2000 HISTORY, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE.
SINCE MITOFSKY ADJUSTED THE WEIGHTINGS TO MATCH THE 2004 RECORDED VOTE WITHIN 14 HOURS AFTER THE POLLS CLOSED, THEN HE ALSO HAD TO MATCH TO THE 2000 VOTES FOR THIS CATEGORY.

THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE NUMBER, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO, AND IN FACT RAISED THE NUMBER FROM 41% TO 43% (WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE) WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE LOWERED IT.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR RAISING THE 41% NUMBER, WHICH IS ALSO OBVIOUSLY TOO HIGH TO BEGIN WITH, SINCE APPROXIMATELY 1.75 MILLION BUSH 2000 VOTERS DIED, BASED ON ANNUAL DEATH RATES - THAT MEANS THAT IT HAD TO BE UNDER 40%. THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BUSH 2000 VOTERS WHO COULD HAVE VOTED IN 2004.

BUT 40% MUST ALSO BE TOO HIGH, BECAUSE IT ASSUMES THAT NOT A SINGLE LIVING BUSH 2000 VOTER STAYED HOME IN 2004 AND DID NOT VOTE.

"AND IF THIS WAS DONE WITH A VERIFIABLE DATA SOURCE (THE 2000 VOTE), THEN WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT OTHER ARBITRARY ADJUSTMENTS HAD TO HAVE BEEN DONE TO ALL THE OTHER UNVERIFIABLE DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHTS, AS WELL."

We are on the same page here, except I do not see it as a given. However,the above was my conclusion also after my smell test of the adjustments. There is a real "say you voted for the winner" effect - so the percentage of folks claiming in 04 that they voted for Bush in 00 can be expected to be higher than the actual percentage of the vote that Bush got in 00. I'd expect the "error" - just not as large as the FINAL exit poll says it was

"1.75 MILLION BUSH 2000 VOTERS DIED" - the 50 million Bush voters, using 1994 GAR Proj. 2002 mortality, would if average age 50 have a .99122 chance of living 4 years, meaning about 500,000 Bush voters in 2000 would have died by 2004. It does not change your logic - but I'd revise the statement to "450,000 to 500,000 Bush voters were expected to die". No need to go beyond the data you have - which I agree implies that the race was won by Kerry - and that the exit poll adjustments are out of the range of reasonableness.

YOU SAY:
"1.75 MILLION BUSH 2000 VOTERS DIED" - the 50 million Bush voters, using 1994 GAR Proj. 2002 mortality, would if average age 50 have a .99122 chance of living 4 years, meaning about 500,000 Bush voters in 2000 would have died by 2004. It does not change your logic - but I'd revise the statement to "450,000 to 500,000 Bush voters were expected to die". No need to go beyond the data you have - which I agree implies that the race was won by Kerry - and that the exit poll adjustments are out of the range of reasonableness".

Why do you quote a mortality stat for an average age of 50+?
Why not apply the 8.5 per 1000 annual death rate across the board (3.5% over a four year period)?

What about voters who died from 20 on up?
There were 105 million voters in 2000.
Why would the annual death rate not apply here?

I'm not an actuary, by the way.

Why do you quote a mortality stat for an average age of 50+?

The death rate increases with age. Indeed if the average Bush voter was about 73 years old, a 3% death rate would be correct per year


Why not apply the 8.5 per 1000 annual death rate across the board (3.5% over a four year period)?

I do not know where the 3.5% death rate comes from that - it should not be 4 times the death rate in my post because that rate was for a 4 year period - the 8.5 per 1000 is the death rate for 4 years - about 2 per year per 1000.


What about voters who died from 20 on up?

- near zero death rates when you are young do not affect the mix that much - but I assume an average age of 50 - so a 20 year old and a 80 year old are 2 aver age 50 persons. They are all in the stat. To the extend older folks bias the death rate up - and vote more - we should use a weighted by number voting at a given age death rate rather than an average age. At age 80 220 out of a 1000 will die in 4 years, so an average would be 110 out of a 1000, at least - and not 8 per 1000 that the age 50 implies. We die fast when we get old! So I am not saying your numbers are unreasonable - just that they imply a lot of old folks voted for Bush.


There were 105 million voters in 2000. Why would the annual death rate not apply here?

It does.
==============================================
I am coming to the conclusion your 1.75 mil died is not so unreasonable - just that it assumes few young (under age 50) voters

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005131.html

Multiply the year 2000 annual rate (8.7 per 1000) by 4 to get a four year estimate = 34.8 per thousand or 3.48%.

Your assumption that people who said they voted for Bush in 2000 may be liars is a very weak one, easily refuted.

A counter would be that Gore 2000 voters were ashamed to admit it.

And 43-37% is a rediculous spread.

WHAT ABOUT THE BUSH RELUCTANT RESPONDER THEORY PUT FORTH BY MITOFSKY AND TOTALLY REFUTED BY USCOUNTVOTES.ORG?

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE RBR - WHICH WAS MITOFSKY'S ONLY EXPLANATION TO EXPLAIN THE STATE EXIT POLLING DISCREPANCIES? HE CONTRADICTS HIS OWN NATIONAL EXIT POLL WHICH HAS THE TURNOUT AT 43-37%.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE RBR, THEN KERRY WON, BECAUSE MITOFSKY HAD NO OTHER EXPLANATION.

Got any evidence to refute me?

How do you explain it?

First you said:
"That's a 15% MOE in the Gore exit poll number. Your numbers can't be right--could you post a URL so we can look at the source?"

I just showed you that the numbers WERE right and gave you a link.
Then you immediately put up a straw man argument and question the voters veracity, rather than the final exit poll itself.

HOW DID IT CHANGE FROM 41% IN THE PRELIMINARY EXIT POLL OF 13047 TO 43% IN THE 13660 FINAL?

HOW DID 2% SUDDENLY BECOME LIARS?

WHY WAS IT ADJUSTED UPWARD?
WHO ADJUSTED IT?

NOT THE VOTERS, THAT'S FOR SURE.

But once you posted the link I figured out what you were saying. No fancy footwork here--just a minor reading comprehension problem.

I'm not arguing that--the degree of swing state "red shift" is so improbable that vote fraud is the only reasonable explanation. I'm saying that your assertion--that too many voters claimed to have voted for Bush in 2000, therefore vote fraud must have occurred--is weak in comparison. But whatever. It's obviously important to you, so have at it.

"I'm not arguing that--the degree of swing state "red shift" is so improbable that vote fraud is the only reasonable explanation. I'm saying that your assertion--that too many voters claimed to have voted for Bush in 2000, therefore vote fraud must have occurred--is weak in comparison. But whatever. It's obviously important to you, so have at it".

Fine. You agree on the conclusion.
But you disagree on the demonstrable proof that the exit poll was manipulated.

How can you call my argument "weak" when it is based on a mathematical fact?

How can you call my argument "weak" when it is the ONLY demographic which references ACTUAL historic vote data?

Sure there is much factual evidence of voting "glitches" which favored Bush 99.9% of the time. The exit poll discrepancies confirm that evidence.

but I would not use the word rigged for the exit poll.

The rules of the game required a final fit be made between the "real" votes and the exit poll.

It was the "real" votes that were rigged. The FINAL exit poll was messed up by that fraud.

The only exit poll rigging is the fact that our pollesters do not scream that the final fit violates the smell test - and that it therefore implies the election "real vote" numbers are a fraud.

In other countries we call for new elections IF - and only if - there are reports of observed fraud in the election. For some reason the 40,000 reports in the US Election are deemed not enough to trigger that response - so we are left with "fixing our exit poll procedure" -

crazy.... :-(

Why did they do this, knowing that at least one demographic was demonstrably false?

1-Why not leave well-enough alone and just say that the 13047 exit poll, which Kerry won by 51-48 with a 1.0% MOE, did not agree with the recorded vote?

2-Why not just say that there was no statistical explanation for it?

3-Why propose the Reluctant Bush Responder theory, while at the same time expecting us to believe the complete opposite (and impossible)43% Bush/37% Gore spread of those repondents who voted in the 2000 election?

4-Why raise the virtually impossible 41% Bush 2000 voter weight
to the absolutely impossible 43%?

The smell of rotting fish overwhelms the senses.

polls.

So "changes" that produce exit polls closer to real vote is standard operating procedure.

But they should have just noted that the 13047 preliminary exit poll did not agree with the recorded vote?

Since they - for a reason I do not know but which I suspect has to do with GOP lawyers and media threats - could not reference the 40,000 events indicating massive fraud, they could not say anything other than the model was way wrong - Leading to the Reluctant Bush Responder theory - while as you note they do not describe or discuss all the other implied "facts" of the exit model that are at odds with logic (such as percent of Bush 2000 voters voting and the hispanic split (other hispanic exit polls showed no change from 2000 - but this official one has a huge increase in GOP Hispanics).

We agree -The smell of rotting fish overwhelms the senses.

YOU
"I'm not arguing that--the degree of swing state "red shift" is so improbable that vote fraud is the only reasonable explanation. I'm saying that your assertion--that too many voters claimed to have voted for Bush in 2000, therefore vote fraud must have occurred--is weak in comparison. But whatever. It's obviously important to you, so have at it".

Not quite. I am saying that the final exit poll was bogus, because it replaced a very improbable weighting (41%) to an absolutely impossible one (43%) in order to match the recorded vote count.
It is a mathematically impossibilty, because it added phantom voters to Bush's 2000 vote total, rather than subtracting out the voters who actually passed on. This could not have been due to pure chance.

The Final Exit Poll was supposed to produce a more "accurate" result by matching to the recorded vote count by re-weighting the Preliminary Exit Poll of 13047. But in order to achieve this result,
it had to create 2 million phantom Bush 2000 voters. This produced a 4% discrepancy (2/50) in a poll which has a 1.0% margin of error. In actuality the error was 6-8% if you consider that based on mortality tables, 1.5 to 2 million Bush 2000 voters passed on before the election.

Now, since the 43% poll weighting is impossible for this demographic, so must the vote count be impossible - because use of the bogus 43% weight produced the same final Bush vote margin (51-48%) as do all the other category weightings.

THE VARIOUS CATEGORY WEIGHTINGS SHOULD ALL PRODUCE BUSH MARGINS WITHIN 1% OF EACH OTHER. THIS CATEGORY WEIGHTING IS IN ERROR BY 6-8%.
IF THIS CATEGORY IS THAT FAR OFF, THEN WE MUST ASSUME ALL THE OTHERS ARE AS WELL.

Here's what I am seeing from your analysis. The problem ISN'T whether there was a "bandwagon" effect to those polled in 2004 aabout whom they voted for in 2000, that is irrelevant. The PROBLEM is the data gleaaned from that question was very easily varified by the hard data of number of votes as recorded in the 2000 election.

To show my point let's pretend that EVERYONE who answered the question in 2004 said they voted for bush* in 2000. That would mean that 100 percent of 2004 voters would have voted for bush* in 2000. We can clearly see this is BAD DATA and in no way, shape, or form should we use this # to adjust our final exit polling data. That would mean we would have to say John Kerry got ZERO votes.

So what is a valid number? Easy, once the final number of votes are in simply divide the number of bush* votes in 2000 by the TOTAL number of votes recorded in 2004. So forgetting any of the factors of people changing from bush* votes in 2000 to nonbush* votes in 2004 the MAX percent the question should garner with the actual numbers you come up with a MAX of 42 percent. It doesn't matter then if 70 percent of the people answered due to the "bandwagon" effect because an upper limit is easily figured and any number above that should be thrown out as garbage.

The evidence of shenanigans is this number being above what it could possibly be. It appears the data was massaged by reverse engineering. That is they had the total number of votes received and in order for the result to be what it ended up being they had to fall back into the exit poll data and were stuck with an impossible result.

So how can any final poll be adjusted using a number that is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve? In my far fetched example of 100 percent we can see it leads to a crazy result, but in reality only a point or two is needed to produce the desired results, but the deception is the same.

AND THAT ASSUMES NONE DIED

when posting and used 120 million as the 2004 total so my 42% is rough. That's the number then that should have triggered a "WTF?" when any final number juggling resulted in that percentage being surpassed, unless fo course you're rigging the vote and can't cover it up any other way.

persistance is still inspiring. Seeing you still hard at work over 4 and 1/2 months after the evil deeds is quite reasuring that something has got to get throught to these numbskulls. People seem to be pushing legal battles all over the country in their prospective states about the nov 2004 election fraud and yet others are trying the legislative angle.

Please keep it coming. There is no election reform 2004 without you.

Bush was at 44%

SO Kerry should have gotten 56%--ok 1% for 3rd party votes--Kerry won 55% to 44%.

12 million votes got scrubbed

discussion by Univ. researchers & Media

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here:
Weren't most of the exit polls conducted in heavily contested areas. Areas which would have had a greater "Get out the Vote" campaigns by both sides over the last 2 Federal Elections; and therefore a higher than average turnout?

This would mean a greater number of voters compared to polling stations that did not have as good a turnout.
So yes, the numbers don't add up, but the error could easily be the pollsters fault for not taking into account 'slower'& 'average' polling stations and creating an average only from the busiest stations.

Not saying you're wrong, just something that has to be looked into before this goes further. It definitely is evidence that something is wrong, I just think it's more likely to be a pollsters error.

YOU:
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here:
Weren't most of the exit polls conducted in heavily contested areas. Areas which would have had a greater "Get out the Vote" campaigns by both sides over the last 2 Federal Elections; and therefore a higher than average turnout?

ME: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT

This would mean a greater number of voters compared to polling stations that did not have as good a turnout.

ME: SEE ABOVE

So yes, the numbers don't add up, but the error could easily be the pollsters fault for not taking into account 'slower'& 'average' polling stations and creating an average only from the busiest stations.

ME: ARE YOU SUGGESTING MITOFSKY/EDISON, AFTER 25 YEARS IN THE BUSINESS, DON'T KNOW THE BUSINESS?

Not saying you're wrong, just something that has to be looked into before this goes further. It definitely is evidence that something is wrong, I just think it's more likely to be a pollsters error

ME: I JUST THINK IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT YOU ARE THROWING OUT TALKING POINTS BECAUSE YOU DON'T OR WON'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH..

In order for the percentages to go from 41 to 43 over the whole poll numbers, it seems that an extraordinary number of votes would have had to been listed in the bush late additions in order to make a 2% shift in the 13047 number.

IOW, there would have had to of been something like Gore 20% bush 80%, in the final 600+ poll.

I made a stab at the calcs, rattled me brain. But I think there is something there, eh?

Either way, 43% is an impossible number.
Even 41% is incorrect, since 41.26% is the absolute max.
And we know that more than 0.26% did not vote.
Either they died or stayed home.

There is no way the 41% is possible, much less the 43%.

The only way they could get from 41 to 43 in 613 is that of the 613 the b poll would have to be @80%, or 490 votes, and 123 for Kerry, and that is just another piece in the big pan of fudge Mitkosfsky cooked up.

And they thought we'd just eat it and go our merry way? Fools!

TIA, I am impressed with your efforts. You've hung in there and fought off the waves of BS thrown at you by the naysayers. Numbers don't lie, only people do, eh?

Kerry on!

I was convinced by this argument for about 2 hours yesterday.
I hate to say it, but having thought over it and worked on the figures I am now less convinced for 2 reasons.

1 /the calculations are based on the fixed (present CNN exit polls that have been fiddled. If you take the 12.20 exit polls which were "less fixed", the figures are much less convincing. (I agree that that serves them right for fiddling with all the figures)

2/The argument relies on the fact that respondents remember accurately how they voted 4 years ago. I remember reading somewhere else (a discussion on exit polls in the UK) that the question about how you voted in the last election (several years before) is the one to which the replies are the most unreliable. It is possible that quite a few (5% or more?) either think they voted differently or don't really remember.

OK you say that on average those errors would tend to cancel each other out (same number wrongly stating they voted for Gore as those wrongly stating they voted for Bush). But who knows maybe (some) people are more likely to incorrectly think they voted for the winner than the loser last time. You can be sure that the answer from NEP would go something like that.

As you know I have spent a lot of time like you on the exit polls, and would love the smoking gun to be found. I think this argument is interesting but I doubt it's the smoking gun. It needs more data like indications from other years about the accuracy of the "HOW I VOTED LAST TIME" replies.

But we should not give up, the smoking gun may be in all those figures, this could be it, or it could be something else. We may still be missing the obvious.

What is clear is that NEP either
1/ lied again in their report about what the exit polls were really stating. or
2/ deliberately sent out vote predictions that were not backed up by any of their data, neither their "best GEO survey indicator"
nor their so called "composite estimate" which is based partly on the exit polls and partly on the opinion polls of the previous week!

This became clear to for Colorado - simply because I have an original document with the Vote estimate on it. The vote estimates were confidential and in general not published, neither are they in the NEP report!
You can check out the data on www.exitpollz.org - (then Select Colorado from the CNN 02/11 interface.

I am still trying to figure out whether what they did in Colorado was typical or whether whether there is a particular reason why they would
pretend that their Colorado Presidential exit poll was spot on.
(You may remember that I pointed out way back in January that
it was strange that the Senatorial exit poll was spot on but not the presidential - especially as it was in reality the same respondents!

I'll try and spend more time on checking that out.
Keep up the good work.

Why even consider that possibility?

I agree with most of you other points, but to consider even the possibility that this would account for the discrepancy is an argument that I would expect from a naysayer.

I will try to estimate just how far off the 43% (52.57 million votes) is from reality:

Absolute maximum number who could have voted for Bush in 2000: 50.45/122.26= 41.26%

Four year death rate:
= 3.5% (0.87% annual * 4)

Apply to the Bush 2000 voter:
.035* 41.26% = 1.44%

Live Bush 2000 voter:
= 41.26 -1.44= 39.82%

How many Bush 2000 voters stayed home?
We know anaecdotally that many traditional, true conservative Repubs were thoroughly disgusted with Bush.
Let's assume 1% stayed home rather than vote for Kerry.

How many were incapacitated from illness, injury, infirm, other?
Say 0.5%

NEP: 43% was impossible
Maximum = 41.26%
Less:
Died = 1.44%
Did not vote: 1.0%
Other = 0.5%

Net 2000 Bush voters who voted in 2004:
38.32% or 46.85 million

compare to the exit poll:
43% = 52.57 million

Diff = 4.68% or 5.72 million.

Considering the 1% MOE, the odds are 1 in the trillions that this deviation could have been due to chance.

Bush won by 62-59 million
Take 5.72 (round to 6 million) away.

Add 5 million to Kerry:
Kerry 64 mm (53%)
Bush 56 (46%)

truthisall - nice work.

i wanted to highlight an issue in case it affects some of your analysis. it doesnt affect your primary point about the maximum number of bush votes, but it might be significant wrt some of your subsequent thinking/analysis.

the NEP didnt conduct 13660 interviews (or 13047, or any of those numbers) - despite what cnn (and others) are *still* reporting on their site. they actually only conducted 11719 interviews on election, and 500 pre-election day interviews, for a total of 12,219.

i first noticed the discrepancy here and see the first comment http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/01/more_fun_with_e.html">here

with some help from mysterypollster we were able to *almost* http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/01/fun_with_unweig.html">resolve the issue.

mysterypollster explains it best, so go visit there, but basically the 500 early (phone) interviews were counted 4 times, before being reweighted down by a factor of 0.25, but they forgot to change the total number - therefore the 13660 is too high by approx 1500.

note also that all 3 sets of exit poll data have this same error - basically, before election day started, there were already 2000 (or 500) entries in the system.

it isnt obvious whether MER has told cnn et al about the error, and if not, why not. similarly, its still not obvious why there is a discrepancy between the 13660 and the 13047.

hope this helps

It only confirms the tons of exit poll anomalies.

I have compared the 11027 (7:38pm) numbers on CNN to the 13047 (12:22am) - virtually no change. Kerry wins by 3.

Out of curiousity...
How many respondents would have to be oversampled in order to overstate the repeat Bush voter category by 4 million votes?
(I guess we would use the 13660 for this)

Would it be..
122.26m / 100 = 1.2226m
4 / 1.2226 = 3.2717%
13660 * 3.2717% = 447?

To pick up 4 million votes (from 48% to 51.27%), he needed 741 additional respondents.
Close to 613.

To match his actual 50.73% vote, he needed 667.
Closer.

3.2717% of 122.26= 4.0 million votes
48.00% of 122.26= 58.68 million votes
51.27% of 122.26= 62.68 "

Bush share:
Prel: 13047 * 48.00% = 6263
Final:13660 * 51.27% = 7004

Diff: 613 3.27% 741
...............................

But since Bush ended up with 50.73%

Prel: 13047 48.00% 6263
Final:13660 50.73% 6930
Diff 613 2.73% 667

Ever have one of those situations where 2 equations come to different conclusions, but both look right. I'm having one right now.

I must be simplifying too much....but to me, 3.27% of 13660 is 447.

I was looking for how many respondents would need to be oversampled (or give a wrong answer) in order to make the poll 4 million off.
I wasn't looking for a comparison to the 13047 number (but I certainly understand what you are saying about the final 613).

I'm not questioning your math, I'm trying to find my error.

Feel free to say 'I'm not here to teach you basic math, ya dumbass' 8)

"I must be simplifying too much....but to me, 3.27% of 13660 is 447".

Fist consider the popular vote percentage, then apply it to the 13660.

Bush ended up with 50.73%. To match this, he needed 667 of the final 613 (WTF?). He already had 48% (6263) of the first 13047.
IOW, to gain 2.73% in the popular vote, he needed 109% (667) of the remaining respondents (613).

.