JUST LET THE WHORE MEDIA TRY TO DEBUNK THIS.

THIS PROFESSOR AT THE UNIV. OF PENN. WRITES THAT THE ODDS ARE 250 MILLION TO ONE THAT THE ELECTION REEKS.

PLEASE READ THIS SCHOLARLY PAPER:
http://www.dakotatechnics.com/downloads/Steve_Freeman.zip

Here is the DU thread to the above link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x36855

I did a similar calculation. In mine, the odds are ONE out of 187 million that exit polls in 7 out of 18 Battleground states would ALL shift beyond the MoE to Bush in the actuals.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x38892


A million here, a million there, why quibble?

:silly:

tia

A million to one odds. Hmm.

They manipulated the vote counting in such a way that everybody knows there is something "fishy" about it. The problem thay have is that did it contradicting the numbers from negative to positive just in Ohio and Florida. They overplayed it and they lost.

Rove, "was mad because his spreadsheets were telling him something different...", or so the reporters say.

Well, he better release the data he had that day, then.

Jeb Bush was "calling" Florida for W at 4:00 PM that day. That was reported.

They're brazen. They get away with it. They probably will this time too.

But we HAVE to get this all exposed so that it can NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

If we don't do it now, this democracy is DEAD as a fucking rock.

I really think that they would let it go if they can.

They can't and they are going down "uncharted" territory for them.

(I've posted this to more than one thread because I'm too new to set up one of my own and I'd really like the answer...)

Can anyone tell me what the sources were for the Republicans’ assertion that the “morals issue” was the reason for Bush’s unexpected “mandate?” It seems odd that with all the pre-election scrutinizing of voter sentiments (poll after poll after yet another poll) that this issue never came up as a priority before? (And, if I’m not mistaken, current polls show that the issue has sunk again to being a non-priority.)

That means either (a) the “morals issue” spiked as an area of concern for a large segment of the voting population on Election Day only, or (b) the story was conceived and ready to be trotted out as an explanation for the unexpected election results. (And, of course, the sheep in the mainstream media picked it up without question and ran with it, as usual.)

As (a) seems unlikely to me, let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s (b). Look what the strategy has done for the GOP:

1) It offers a quick sop to their base, leading the group to believe that their strength is growing.

2) It demoralizes the opposition. Look at all the hand-wringing going on in the Democratic Party. “We need to focus on bridging the cultural divide.” “We need to talk values, values, values.” What better than to get the Democrats to expend energies and resources to fix a problem that been, if not entirely invented, certainly exaggerated?

3) It gave the ever-lazier (and ever more corporate-controlled) news media a reason not to investigate anomalous election results.

And, last but absolutely not least,

4) With all the attendant media attention on the topic (even NPR has devoted several hours this past week showcasing religious figures), it has planted the notion in the minds of a generally unquestioning public that Republicans are morally superior to Democrats. And this makes it all that harder for the allegations of vote fraud to be accepted; would such a “moral” group actually (gasp!) CHEAT to win an election?

Welcome to DU.

the same exit polls that showed the Kerry landslide were used to extract the moral values. Bill Schneider on CNN said on election night something like..."Further examination of the exit polling data reveals Americans may be voting with the convictions this time around"

The Moral 22% factor is very misleading in the polls.

I will need find the acutal results somewhere, but I have already read this.

They broke down the categories so that major issues were split.

I belive 1) Terrorism & 2) War in Iraq both got about 20% of the vote. If you combine them they lead to over 40%.

Also, 1) Economy & 2) Taxes were split but combined would have gotten around 35-38% if I remember correctly.

So if you reassess the final polling questions, it looks something like this:

1) Terrorism/War in Iraq: 42% (since Bush is so good at mixing the two)
2) Economy/Taxes: 38%
3) 'Moral Values': 22%
4) Other

People need to wake up and learn to think on their own.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

meak3cat,

The Moral 22% factor is very misleading in the polls.

I will need find the acutal results somewhere, but I have already read this.

They broke down the categories so that major issues were split.

I belive 1) Terrorism & 2) War in Iraq both got about 20% of the vote. If you combine them they lead to over 40%.

Also, 1) Economy & 2) Taxes were split but combined would have gotten around 35-38% if I remember correctly.

So if you reassess the final polling questions, it looks something like this:

1) Terrorism/War in Iraq: 42% (since Bush is so good at mixing the two)
2) Economy/Taxes: 38%
3) 'Moral Values': 22%
4) Other

People need to wake up and learn to think on their own.

a couple of months ago I read a news item that stated Rove was concerned about 4 million Evangelicals who didn't vote in 2000 because, or so the theory goes, they were turned off by the DUI story about Bush that broke in the week or two before the election. I thought the Evangelicals were being somewhat picky about holding something like a DUI against their candidate, so much so that they refused to go to the polls, but I shrugged it off as, well, the rantings of Evangelicals (I have also read that Bush lying about this incident had more to do with the Evangelicals disdain than the incident itself):

Mr. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, citing polling data, has often said that he believed the failure of four million conservative Christian voters to turn out in the 2000 presidential election almost kept President Bush out of the White House. Projecting another close race this year, Mr. Rove has worked hard to stay in regular contact with conservative Christian political leaders.
http://www.jrlago.com/?event=news&id=567

Now I think differently. I think Rove ran with that story in order to cover for the strange numbers coming out of this election. If there wasn't an "Evangelicals stayed home on Election2000 because they were turned off by Bush's DUI story and the lies he told the press" story, then it would be practically impossible to explain the election numbers for 2004. Directing attention to the haziness of the "morals issue" would give Rove and the GOP the cover they needed to pull off another coup...

Why do we still, constantly, believe what the media tells us?

We know they simply repeat what the Bush admin tells them.

It's been shown over and over and over ..

Yet everybody STILL takes the bait!

It drives me nuts.

I believe nothing the media tells me, and I believe nothing Bushco tells me. Because it's the same thing.

We have to do our own homework, and make our own decisions on what's really going on.

I'll take door B please. And yes, that is my final answer.:thumbsup:


They had to concoct some plausible explanation for all the * votes.

I really think the reason was the exit poll mix-up itself that lead to this. When they're trying to figure out how their polls can be so far off, they guess that they must have weighted the demographics wrong (and after all these year of them being accurate too, hmmm). They exaggerate the weights until they get closer to the actual results...

Afterwards they look at that demographic, which must be waaay bigger than they originally thought, and come up with these two items ("moral issues" and "national security").

I was so sick of hearing about how morally superior the Rep were that I would have answered moral values (against the unjust war, against the increase in abortions,against the death penalty, for the environment, healthcare and raising the minimum wage for the poor)to explain why I voted for Kerry, whom I feel is morally superior to Bush. Maybe there were other people who felt the same way. Anyone know what the exact Moral question was?

to divulge who they voted for? If this analysis hinges in part on this sampling issue, seems that could be checked out/dismissed.

I haven't checked the figures, but others have reported that the Senate and House races had exit poles that were close to the actual. If so, the explanation that the sample was bad does not hold water. It took too long to download the study so I am not sure if the statistical study talked about that or not. New Hampshire exit poles are markedly different from the actual vote, and apparently there are optical scanning machines there (that is, scanning a paper ballot) so a recount there could answer some questions. At least that is the way I understand it.

the repukes were doing would only help in the states that * was expected to win. That is when the whores on tv started talking about the fact that * COULD WIN THE POPULAR VOTE AND LOSE THE ELECTORAL VOTE.

of the media, accustomed to having their own way with comforting statistics, this is pathetically vulnerable to simply being blown off even if a hundred scientists backed him up.

Magnitude of the truth can be countered by a slight increase in the volume in denial in our pea-brained national forums.

has silence as their best weapon. Or they could show the average 'Murcan all the charts and graphs and photos and studies there are or will be that PROVE fraud beyond a doubt till the cows come home, and everybody says: 'it's too confusing, my head hurts, please let me go back to sleep.' Both techniques worked last time and in the intervening four years.

Why is it that exit polls were always very accurate until the BFEE got involved with vote counting?

We are just trying to keep some faith around here.

When I go from top to bottom of what people seems to have accepted from BFEE it does not amaze me a bit about how they are trying to spin this election.

How does it match up with your analysis?

http://vote.caltech.edu/Reports/VotingMachines3.pdf

It is a slow server, getting a log of hits.

Steve Freeman sent me an update this am. He said:
---Quote--
(no major changes, just an appropriate disclaimer and removal of some partisan and accusatory phrasing towards the end)
---End Quote---

Also uploaded some work on Ohio voting info from Mike Lewis - they are in a different zip.

Get them both at:
http://www.dakotatechnics.com/downloads/Steve_Freeman.zip
http://www.dakotatechnics.com/downloads/Mike_Lewis.zip

Mike keeps sending more data as he puts it together and I keep updating that zip.

Can't edit original message here anymore - but to keep people from having to redownload files they have all the time, I created a downloads page with links when Mike Lewis sent a new PDF tonight:
http://www.dakotatechnics.com/downloads/

Info in the above links is available there.

it belongs to a friend of mine.

http://www.electionfraud.us/default.cfm?Hit=RecordIt

Can't edit original message here anymore - but to keep people from having to redownload files they have all the time, I created a downloads page with links when Mike Lewis sent a new PDF tonight:
http://www.dakotatechnics.com/downloads/

Info in links I provided before is available there.

n/t

Dr. Steve Freeman sent me a minor update this morning. He is working on another that will take a bit longer and says those additions will be more significant.

Latest version is: The unexplained exit poll discrepancy v00l.pdf
(replaces v00h and v00k)

Please keep checking for updates at:
http://www.dakotatechnics.com/downloads/

I will continue to upload updates as soon as he sends them to me and my hosting service puts up with the demands.

This is all over this board and the net now. Please help me make sure others referring to this document by Dr. Freeman are aware of this update.

Dr Freeman told me this am that he is getting a lot of email from this (including some not so nice ones), so please do not email him unless you have something to contribute to his analysis.

I originally sent the paper to BuzzFlash and have notified them of the update.

Note the server at this site is a bit slow, so if you get an error, just try back in a bit. Getting a lot of traffic.

I also find some of the work Mike Lewis is sending me re Ohio is very interesting. It is also downloadable from the above page.

Thank You!