THE FINAL EXIT POLL MYSTERY: THE IMPOSSIBLE 43% Bush / 37% Gore MIX...

[TruthIsAll]

I have presented different analyses on this topic, looking at
the Final Exit Poll category: How Voted in 2000. This is the
most important category of all, because it is the ONLY one in
which we can check the poll against ACTUAL numbers - the 2000
vote.

Follow the logic closely, even if you are mathematically lazy.
When you get right down to it, it's just simple arithmetic.

It's well worth the effort.

Assumption I: 
In the Voted 2000 category, the 17% NEW voters and 3% OTHER
voters stated in BOTH the PRELIMINARY EXIT POLL and FINAL EXIT
POLL are correct.

Assumption II:
NO Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election.

Assumption III:
100% of Bush 2000 voters (50.456 million) turned out to vote
in 2004. 
Thus, the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM percentage for Bush is
41.26%(50.456/122.26). 

Therefore, in order to equal 100%, the Gore percentage must be
38.74%.

Applying the ACTUAL 2000 Bush turnout, we will change the
IMPOSSIBLE FINAL EXIT POLL 43%/37% weighting mix to the
calculated mix.
We recalculate both PRELIMINARY and FINAL EXIT POLLS:

1) Bush LOSES by 3.68 million votes using the PRELIMINARY exit
poll statistics.

2) Bush LOSES by 0.23 million votes assuming the FINAL exit
poll statistics.

IN THE PRELIMINARY POLL, THE BUSH 41.26% WEIGHT EXACTLY
MATCHED THE PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED MAXIMUM WEIGHT (AFTER
ROUNDOFF) OF 41%/39%. 
VERY SUSPICIOUS INDEED.

IN THE FINAL POLL, BUSH AND GORE WEIGHTS WERE CHANGED TO AN
IMPOSSIBLE 43/37%.
THAT IS MORE THAN SUSPICIOUS.

Here are the calculated vote totals for both exit polls

1)PRELIMINARY exit poll
13047 respondents
12:22am 11/03

VOTED in 2000:
(Assumes 100% turnout of all Selection 2000 voters). 

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

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


2) Final Exit Poll
13660 respondents
2:05pm 11/03
 
Voted in 2000:
(Assumes 100% turnout of all Selection 2000 voters). 
2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17%	45%	54%	1%
Gore	38.74%	10%	90%	0%
Bush	41.26%	91%	9%	0%
Other	3%	21%	71%	8%

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

Kerry wins by 0.23 million votes.
And that assumes the ALL THE FINAL EXIT POLL STATS. 

Bush won the IMPOSSIBLE FINAL by 3.5 million votes.
WE NOW KNOW THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE, since it is based
on the ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE 43/37% mix.

But that's not all.
About 3.5% of Selection 2000 voters have since DIED.
And we have: 3.5% of 50.456 = 1.766 million

So the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM number of Bush 2000 voters who could
have turned out to vote in 2004 was 48.69 million: 
And we have: 50.456-1.766 = 48.69 

That brings the maximum possible Bush weighting down to
39.82%:
And we have: 48.69/122.26 = 39.82%

That means the GORE Voter and/or the NO Vote percentages are
TOO LOW.
That means Kerry did even BETTER than we have just calculated.

But that's not all.

The Bush turnout HAD TO BE LESS THAN 100%, since some Bush
2000 voters DID NOT VOTE in 2004.

So the 39.82% is STILL TOO HIGH...
That means the "GORE Voter" and/or the "NO
Vote" percentages are TOO LOW.
That means Kerry did even BETTER than we have just calculated.

THEREFORE, THE FINAL 13660 EXIT POLL, WHICH IS WEIGHTED TO
MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE, IS WRONG. 
THEREFORE, SO MUST THE RECORDED VOTE BE WRONG.
THEREFORE, THE PRELIMINARY EXIT POLL WAS MOST LIKELY CORRECT.
THEREFORE, KERRY WON.

 
 

[In Truth We Trust]

1. Truth is All; you're work is sound. Thank you for the effort and for

sharing it with us. It does not fall on deaf ears.

[TruthIsAll]

8. TOO LATE TO EDIT THIS WORDING CORRECTION..

"IN THE PRELIMINARY POLL, THE BUSH 41.26% WEIGHT EXACTLY
MATCHED THE PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED MAXIMUM WEIGHT (AFTER
ROUNDOFF) OF 41%/39%".

IT SHOULD READ:

AS DISPLAYED IN THE PRELIMINARY POLL, THE BUSH WEIGHT OF 41% EXACTLY MATCHES (AFTER ROUNDOFF) THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM BUSH WEIGHT (41.26%) REFERENCED ABOVE.

THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT IS JUST THE BUSH 2000 VOTE (50.456 MILLION) DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL 2004 VOTE (122.26 MILLION) OR 41.26%

IMPORTANT NOTE:
THE GORE 38.74% WEIGHT MATCHES THE PRELIMINARY POLL (AFTER ROUNDOFF) AS IT MUST, SINCE THE TOTAL MUST EQUAL 100%.

Gore% = 100% - Bush% - Nader% - Other%
Gore% = 100% - 41.26% - 3% - 17%
Gore% = 38.74%

[progressivejazz]

2. O.K. I followed the logic.

Are you saying the assumptions you number I, II and III are the only assumptions in your analysis? It sure looks to me like you've made other ones, like that the voters voted in 2004 for the same party they voted for in 2000. Yet you do not call it an assumption. That's bad logic.

[TruthIsAll]

3. You obviously do not understand the logic.

There is no need to make any other assumptions.
You are clouding up the main point with irrelevancies.

You fail to mention that the 43/37% was IMPOSSIBLE.
Why don't you question THAT assumption on the part of Edison/Mitofsky?

THAT IS THE CORE OF THE POST.
DON'T ATTEMPT TO SQUIRM AWAY FROM IT.

1) The FINAL exit poll purports to tell us how Selection 2000 voters voted in 2004.

2) I am using the FINAL EXIT POLL'S OWN NUMBERS, removing the impossible 43%/37% mix with a possible (though very unlikely) scenario - which gives the BEST POSSIBLE result for Bush.

3) And the FINAL exit poll had Bush winning.

The FINAL exit poll matched to the recorded vote:
Bush 62-59 million.

I suggest you take another look.

[progressivejazz]

4. Nope! I did worse than that.

Didn't really understand the meaning of the polls. Sorry.

[TruthIsAll]

10. OK, now analyze the logic. I welcome further discussion.

.

[Brotherjohn]

5. I agree with progressivejazz. You are making some very big assumptions...

... without stating them as such, assumptions which cannot be substantiated.

For starters, it seems you are assuming that no one who voted for Gore would vote for Bush. While a popular belief, I think that is dead wrong (and in any case, there is absolutely zero evidence for it). We forget that many Gore voters were not die-hard DU'ers. Many were moderates who were content with the Clinton years and didn't want to gamble on the new guy (Bush). It doesn't take much to sway a moderate to either side of the fence, especially someone who is relatively ambivalent and uninformed (there are millions of them)... and ESPECIALLY in a climate of terror and fear.

If there's one thing I got out of the 2004 elections, it was this: People were much more afraid (of terror) than I had anticipated. This fear was no doubt stoked and capitalized upon by Bush. But they were afraid, nonetheless. It had nothing to do with values, with gay marriage, etc... It had everything to do with terror, and also an unwillingness to buck the sitting government in a war at a time of supposed terror threats. The fact this many people could have voted for Bush (fraud or not, it was at least near half the voting electorate) told me that people were afraid. And I'm sure some of these afraid people were former Gore voters, believe it or not.

I may be wrong, but it also seems you are assuming that the maximum number of votes Bush could have gotten in 2004 is equal to the votes he got in 2000. But turnout was only 51.3% in 2000 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Yet turnout for 2004 was over 60% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10492-2005Jan14.html). Unless Bush got virtually none of the new votes, he likely received millions more votes than in 2000 (as did Kerry relative to Gore).

However, I appreciate your efforts and I, too, feel there was fraud and which likely tilted the election to Bush. I also feel the exit polls were tinkered with. I just haven't seen any iron-clad proof that fraud tilted the election for Bush.

ON EDIT:
All the above being said, i am still not entirely clear on the numbers/relevance of your entire original post, and i am digesting your subsequent post to progressivejazz. Please take my comments as discussion only... and not in a mean spirit at all. I know you have spent a LOT more time on this than I (or most of us) have.

[TruthIsAll]

6. You totally misinterpret the logic. And progressive now agrees.

There is NO ASSUMPTION ABOUT GORE VOTERS NOT VOTING FOR BUSH.

LOOK AT THE FINAL EXIT POLL NUMBERS: 10% VOTED FOR BUSH.

I WILL STOP RIGHT HERE. I WILL NOT RESPOND ANY FURTHER TO YOUR POST UNTIL YOU SHOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE BASIC FACTS PRESENTED.

I SUGGEST THAT YOU READ THE FULL ANALYSIS (INCLUDING THE CATGEGORY STATISTICS) SINCE YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT DONE SO.

[Brotherjohn]

7. Please read my Edited comment. Just trying to discuss and understand.

I apologize and see now that you did account for voters switching sides, and for the new voters (increased turnout... "NO" in 2000 category).

Perhaps I posted too quickly, but I view my posts as more a back and forth and none of them are intended to be my final opinion on anything.

Still not convinced. I am still digesting....

[Clark Bayh 2008]

9. What in the world is the difference?

The electors have already voted & Bush got over 270.

The real issue is the stupidity of the U.S. voter in 2000 who said that there really wasn't that much difference between Gore & Bush. So 100,000 idiots in Florida voted for Nader even though polls all showed the state was going to be very close. So don't come crying to us about the environment & corporate greed.

We're in this mess because of the unrealistic morons who threw their votes away on Nader to make a "statement".

[Brotherjohn]

11. I still think some of the assumptions/conclusions are problematic.

First, you say the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM percentage in the "MIX" (of how voted in 2000) for Bush is 41.26% based on the TOTAL number of Bush 2000 voters/Total 2004 votes.

But this is only the "absolute maximum" if the exit poll was a poll of all 122M people (and the 17% and 3% were right, Assumption I). But it is not. It is an exit poll of 13000 people. I guess this applies to Assumption I. In a poll of 13000 out of 122 Million, I don't know why you would assume that the 17% mix is an exact reflection of the actual numbers. Where were the samples taken, were they representative, were the people truthful, ....

I guess here is my point. You assume the 17% and 3% are correct, and that the 43/37% are wrong. Why would you trust one over the other? Only because they did not change? Your 41.26% calculation does not justify this, because again, the exit poll %s are not based on all 122M voters... it is based on 13000. It could have feasibly yielded 100% for Bush if the right (wrong) voters were polled. Admitedly impossible without severe tampering, but a divergence of a percentage point or two is feasible. You are talking about a sampling... not the absolute total numbers. There is no "absolute" maximum possible in an exit poll. And part of what you are basing your extrapolations (to the full results of the election) on are the results of an exit poll.

Also, you close by saying:
A) "THEREFORE, THE FINAL 13660 EXIT POLL, WHICH IS WEIGHTED TO
MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE, IS WRONG."
B) "THEREFORE, SO MUST THE RECORDED VOTE BE WRONG."
But why might not the exit poll be wrong? Or why might there not be merely evidence that their "weighting" is messed up. To me, Statement "B" does not logically follow from statement "A".

Please do not assume I am a Freeper because I am not convinced. I have seen your posts and I am trying to find rock solid evidence of fraud, but I am sorry, i just do not see it yet. Believe me, I wish I did. I see serious problems with the fact that the percentages changed so drastically with only 600 more voters polled. but the Exit polling is not just based on these raw numbers, apparently (or so they say) and always (even the first numbers) includes "weighting". This gives them all the room in the world to wiggle out of actually having to explain anything. I think it's highly suspicious, but it also makes it highly unlikely we'll ever prove fraud based on exit polling.

[TruthIsAll]

12. You will be convinced if you read and follow this.

You:
First, you say the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM percentage in the "MIX" (of how voted in 2000) for Bush is 41.26% based on the TOTAL number of Bush 2000 voters/Total 2004 votes.

Me:
That is true.

You:
But this is only the "absolute maximum" if the exit poll was a poll of all 122M people (and the 17% and 3% were right, Assumption I). But it is not. It is an exit poll of 13000 people. I guess this applies to Assumption I. In a poll of 13000 out of 122 Million, I don't know why you would assume that the 17% mix is an exact reflection of the actual numbers. Where were the samples taken, were they representative, were the people truthful, ...

Me:
You fail to see that the 41.26% is not dependent on how many were polled. It is just the fraction of the total number of Bush 2000 voters (50.456) divided by total votes (122.26) in 2004.

So it is AN ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM.
IT IS IRREFUTABLE ARITHMETIC.
AND THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE ANALYSIS.

You show a complete lack of understanding regarding polling in general and exit polling in particular.

Must I resort to basics?

No one polls 122 million people.
They poll a representative sample.

The accuracy of a poll has nothing to do with how many are in the universe (here 122 million) to be polled. I'm sure you will disagree, but you would be wrong.

The accuracy of any poll is based on the NUMBER polled, assuming a random sample.

So for 10 million, or 50 million or 100 million - it makes no difference.

If 1,000 are polled. the margin of error (MOE) is 3.1%
If 10,000 are polled, the MOE is 1.0%
If 13,047 are polled, the MOE is 0.875%

How do I know? Pick up a statistics text.
MOE = 1/sqrt(N), where N is the sample size.

Edison/Mitofsky have been doing this for years.
They state that the National Exit Poll MOE is 1.0%
This agrees with the formula.

FOLLOW THIS LOGIC VERY CLOSELY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO PICK IT UP IN MY POST.

The BUSH 43% WAS IMPOSSIBLE.
His actual number had to be LOWER than 43%, because it is limited to the 50.456 million who voted for him (or 50.456/122.26).
So his Maximum is 41.26%

Therefore, AT LEAST ONE of the other groups (New voters, Gore Voter, Other Voters) MUST HAVE HAD A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THEN the number(s) presented in the poll. And the ORIGINAL numbers were 37%, 17 and 3%, respectively.

OK, let's continue:
The BUSH 41.26 WAS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE.
Some of his 2000 voters died.
The annual death rate is 8.7 per thousand.
That is 3.5% over a four year period.
So his MAXIMUM vote is REDUCED by 3.5%
And his NEW MAXIMUM becomes 39.82%

Therefore, AT LEAST ONE one of the other groups (New voters, Gore Voter, Other Voters) had to be have been HIGHER than the number presented.

And those numbers were 37%, 17% and 3%, respectively.

OK, let's continue:
The BUSH 39.82% WAS IMPOSSIBLE.
Some of his 2000 voters stayed home and did not vote.
We don't know how many.
Again, this means that AT LEAST ONE of the other groups (New voters, Gore Voter, Other Voters) had to be HIGHER than the number presented.

THAT is MY point.

Now, understand this: I assume that the 17% and 3% are correct to be CONSERVATIVE. We know that 3% is a MAXIMUM, because only 3% VOTED FOR NADER et al in 2000.

So the only way that the 17% (WHO DID NOT VOTE IN 2000) is incorrect is if the Gore vote WAS HIGHER THAN 39%. But let's assume that the 39% is correct.

THEN THE 17% WHO DID NOT VOTE MUST BE A MINIMUM NUMBER.
BUT 54 TO 57% OF THOSE WHO DID NOT VOTE IN 2000 VOTED FOR KERRY, DEPENDING ON WHICH POLL YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. SO THAT MAKES IT EVEN LESS LIKELY THAT BUSH COULD HAVE WON.

You:
I guess here is my point. You assume the 17% and 3% are correct, and that the 43/37% are wrong. Why would you trust one over the other? Only because they did not change? Your 41.26% calculation does not justify this, because again, the exit poll %s are not based on all 122M voters... it is based on 13000. It could have feasibly yielded 100% for Bush if the right (wrong) voters were polled. Admitedly impossible without severe tampering, but a divergence of a percentage point or two is feasible. You are talking about a sampling... not the absolute total numbers. There is no "absolute" maximum possible in an exit poll. And part of what you are basing your extrapolations (to the full results of the election) on are the results of an exit poll.

Me:
HERE YOU TOTALLY MISS THE MOST BASIC POINT OF THE ARGUMENT:
THE 41.26% HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION, IT IS BASED ON TWO FACTUAL NUMBERS.
1) HOW MANY VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000: 50.456 MILLION
2) HOW MANY VOTED IN TOTAL IN 2004: 122.6 MILLION.

THESE ARE HARD NUMBERS.
ONLY A HARD-HEAD WOULD DISPUTE THAT 50.456 MILLION IS PRECISELY 41.26% OF 122.6 MILLION.

You:
Also, you close by saying:
A) "THEREFORE, THE FINAL 13660 EXIT POLL, WHICH IS WEIGHTED TO
MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE, IS WRONG."
B) "THEREFORE, SO MUST THE RECORDED VOTE BE WRONG."
But why might not the exit poll be wrong? Or why might there not be merely evidence that their "weighting" is messed up. To me, Statement "B" does not logically follow from statement "A".

Me:
You fail once again to see the obvious.
I will repeat.
Follow closely.

THE FINAL EXIT POLL IS WRONG - WE JUST PROVED IT.
THE FINAL EXIT POLL MATCHED TO THE RECORDED VOTE - WHICH BUSH WON.
IF THE FINAL EXIT POLL IS WRONG, AND IT WAS MATCHED TO ANOTHER NUMBER (THE RECORDED VOTE) THEN....

THE RECORDED VOTE MUST ALSO BE WRONG.

You:
Please do not assume I am a Freeper because I am not convinced. I have seen your posts and I am trying to find rock solid evidence of fraud, but I am sorry, i just do not see it yet. Believe me, I wish I did. I see serious problems with the fact that the percentages changed so drastically with only 600 more voters polled. but the Exit polling is not just based on these raw numbers, apparently (or so they say) and always (even the first numbers) includes "weighting". This gives them all the room in the world to wiggle out of actually having to explain anything. I think it's highly suspicious, but it also makes it highly unlikely we'll ever prove fraud based on exit polling

Me:
That's OK if you are not yet convinced.
I am sure that as you come to understand the logic, you will become convinced.

[Brotherjohn]

13. One more go. You proved one of their numbers had to be innaccurate.

The question, and dispute, is then "does this prove the entire election results are wrong?"

You:
You fail to see that the 41.26% is not dependent on how many were polled. It is just the fraction of the total number of Bush 2000 voters (50.456) divided by total votes (122.26) in 2004.

Me:
I do in fact see that the 41.26% is not dependent on how many were polled. That is exactly my point. You are using a total known number to question the results of a limited sample of the exit poll. You prove the maximum possible in reality. I accept that part. But exit polling is not reality. The exit poll isn't necessarily going to match it. It only proves that that individual exit poll number cannot be accurate. Our dispute is then in what THAT can further prove.

You:
So it is AN ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM.
IT IS IRREFUTABLE ARITHMETIC.
AND THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE ANALYSIS.

Me:
It is the absolute maximum of the universe. It is not the absolute maximum this poll can yield. The poll should yield no more than 1% greater than 41.26% IF the sample is indeed random (based on MOE). But you are assuming the sample is random.

You:
Must I resort to basics?
No one polls 122 million people.
They poll a representative sample.

Me:
Duh. That's my point... except I didn't say "representative". They're not polling the entire 122M, so you can't say 41.26% is the absolute maximum possible. A poll sample can yield a higher, perhaps MUCH higher, number if there are problems with the sampling and methodology. If we knew for SURE they polled a perfectly representative sample (something easier said than done) you might be onto something.

You:
The accuracy of a poll has nothing to do with how many are in the universe (here 122 million) to be polled. I'm sure you will disagree, but you would be wrong.

Me:
Duh again. I didn't get all A's in them, but I took a number of statistics courses in grad school, have a doctorate, and use statistics in my everyday work. I know the basics.
My point was precisely the the one you subsequently make: that the accuracy depends on the sample polled (and that the sample has to be random). But you are using what is an unquestionably accurate calculation based on total numbers (some from 2000, some from 2004) to question a percentage in the exit poll. But the exit poll could very well be inaccurate.

Rather than continue to address every point, let me just say that I follow the logic throughout the rest of your post. But it seems what you have done is found a solid device/calculation to prove that the exit polling is faulty. YES, the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE percent of the 2004 voting electorate that voted for Bush in 2000 is 41.26%, based on your correct calculation. But this is only a part of the equation. It proves that this number in the exit polling is wrong.

But here I think is your major logical flaw: just because that number in (or even the entire results of) the exit polling is wrong, and just because the exit polling numbers match the final official results, that doesn't logically make the final official results wrong! The source of the problem with the exit polling numbers is their percentage of voters who voted for Bush in 2000, which you have shown is an impossibility.

But the official tally has nothing to do with this calculation. The official tally was not based on the exit polling. Who KNOWS what the hell kind of tinkering Edison-Mitofsky did to make their polls look like the final ones (to avoid embarrassment, to facilitate fraud, whatever...).

To answer a few final points in closing:

You:
You fail once again to see the obvious.
I will repeat.
Follow closely.
THE FINAL EXIT POLL IS WRONG - WE JUST PROVED IT.

Me:
You didn't prove the total numbers in the final poll were wrong. You proved that one of the numbers they used in calculating their total numbers was wrong. Other numbers could have been equally skewed to opposite effect to yield the final accurate result.

You:
THE FINAL EXIT POLL MATCHED TO THE RECORDED VOTE - WHICH BUSH WON.
IF THE FINAL EXIT POLL IS WRONG, AND IT WAS MATCHED TO ANOTHER NUMBER (THE RECORDED VOTE) THEN....
THE RECORDED VOTE MUST ALSO BE WRONG.

Me:
Correlation does not prove causation.

You:
I am sure that as you come to understand the logic, you will become convinced.

Me:
Sorry. I think your logic is flawed. You may have proven that one of the numbers within the exit polling is mathematically impossible. But that only proves anything from their sampling being non-random to their entire polling being intentionally skewed. It proves a problem with their polling, and perhaps their attempts to make it match the final results. But the fact that it matches the final results does not prove that the final results are likewise problematic.

NOW... IT VERY WELL COULD BE that their final exit poll numbers are flawed because they changed them (and you have caught an error in their changes) to reflect the "official" (doctored) tally which showed Bush winning, and that their initial exit poll numbers were more representative of the ACTUAL voting going on, and that massive fraud DID indeed occur. I just don't think this proves it.

[TruthIsAll]

14. Thanks for the response. I will respond further. But for now focus on this

If in the FINAL Exit Poll, the 43% is obviously incorrect, why was it changed from the 41% of the preliminary poll, which was obviously closer to the truth?

Let's cut to the core here.

Could it be that if it was left at 41%, then the FINAL 13660 EXIT POLL WOULD BE CLOSE TO MATCHING THE 13047 POLL - WHICH KERRY WON?

I thought the whole point of "re-weighting" the Preliminary Poll of 13047 was to more accurately reflect the electorate by matching the votes.

They sure as hell did match the votes, didn't they?
The bogus votes, that is.

IN THE ONE INSTANCE WHEN THEY HAD ACTUAL NUMBERS AVAILABLE TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE ELECTORATE (THE 2000 VOTE), THEY DID JUST THE OPPOSITE. IN FACT, THEY TOOK THE NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE 41% NUMBER AND ADDED 2% FOR BUSH.

SO THEY HAD TO DEDUCT THE 2% FROM GORE.

AND THAT GAVE BUSH MOST OF WHAT HE NEEDED TO REVERSE THE 13047 PRELIMINARY POLL AND MATCH THE VOTE.

AS YOU SAY: Duh...

THEREFORE, ANY REASONABLE ANALYST WOULD CONCLUDE THAT EVERY OTHER FINAL EXIT POLL WEIGHTING AND STATISTIC IS MORE THAN SUSPECT, BECAUSE THEY ALL HAD TO CONFIRM THE BASIC, PRE-ORDAINED RESULT -THAT BUSH WON BY 3 MILLION VOTES.

DUer CHI has looked up the definition of "proof". See the DU Poll on this topic. He agrees that this analysis meets the definition of "proof".

I suggest you do the same.

[Brotherjohn]

15. Just posted, and lost a post, agreeing with you. I'll retype some...

I think we're just at odds on what "proof" means. In any case, it would have to mean "the Republican Congress and media have to believe it" for anything to happen.

A question, though.

If they changed the results of the final exit polling to match the actual "official" tally, why change numbers that could be checked? Why not change the 17% new voters, or the % breakdowns by candidate within any of the groups? Could it be theye were just operating on the fly and didn't see the error?

I think the whole "weighting" thing throws it all out the window anyway. What does a polling of X number of people really mean if you are going to then weight the results based on expected outcome? Doesn't that render the whole exercise pointless?

[TruthIsAll]

16. OK, progress is being made here.

You:
I think we're just at odds on what "proof" means. In any case, it would have to mean "the Republican Congress and media have to believe it" for anything to happen.

Me:
I'm not a lawyer, But I believe that this far exceeds the definition of proof required in a civil case, which is what, 50%.

I have calculated probabilities for all categories, based on the deviations from the Preliminary Poll to the recorded vote.
From one in the millions to one in the billions, depending on the category.
Uscountvotes.org is too conservative when they say it's 1 in a million.

You:
A question, though.

If they changed the results of the final exit polling to match the actual "official" tally, why change numbers that could be checked? Why not change the 17% new voters, or the % breakdowns by candidate within any of the groups? Could it be they were just operating on the fly and didn't see the error?

Me:
Good question. I believe they could not do it because the deviations would not have been enough and would have been more obvious.
Did you see my sensitivity analysis post from yesterday, based on voter turnout and Kerry share of new voters? That will tell you a lot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x350526

They tried. They took Kerry from 59% to 57% to 54% of new voters in the final poll. If they took him to 50% and left the 41/39% intact, he would still have lost.

Maybe they were just operating on the fly.

You:
I think the whole "weighting" thing throws it all out the window anyway. What does a polling of X number of people really mean if you are going to then weight the results based on expected outcome? Doesn't that render the whole exercise pointless?

Me:
EXACTLY!!I have posted on this as well.
It is all major bullshit perpetrated by the MSN, Mitofsky and those so-called liberal bloggers who fall for it.

When I first heard (CNN?) that they used the votes to match the poll it was a major WTF?. A Poll should stand by itself.

Let me know what you think about the sensitivity analysis thread.

[Brotherjohn]

17. Regarding "proof" however...

... if you're bringing up civil cases, and such specifics, I'd think you'd have to agree the only specifics that would matter here would be what could be done about it. And I think the only way anything would get done is if Congress, and the media were convinced (even if Congress were democratically controlled, i think they'd still need a groundswell of support from the media and the people).

The first definition of "proof" in Webster's Online is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact". I don't think this would compel acceptance of the 2004 fraudulent election as fact in all but the most progressive minds (unfortunately). The reality is, they need a lot more to be convinced, and likely will never be.

[Brotherjohn]

18. Sensitivity analysis compelling.

I still think, however, what it mainly PROVES (by what I consider to be useful definitions of the word here) that the exit polling is highly suspect... and likely that it was changed to match the official tally. But haven't they basically admitted that's what they did with their "weighting"?

I don't think it says anything directly about the validity of the official tally.

But indirect question posed then is, WHY would the exit polling be changed to match the official tally? That is problematic for Bush et al, and for Edison-Mitofsky.

BUT, if Edison-Mitofsky were so deeply in Bush's pocket to completely change their final exit-polling results to match the "official" results, then why wouldn't they have tinkered with earlier results to not favor Kerry so much?

[TruthIsAll]

19. Four interesting New Voter scenarios..

Each scenario is IDENTICAL to the FINAL EXIT POLL (13660
respondents) which had Bush the winner by 3 miilion votes,
except for:

1) the Kerry/Bush New voter split 
(Kerry won 54%/45% in the FINAL Exit Poll)

2) the IMPOSSIBLE Bush/Gore 43%/37% Mix is replaced by
39.82%/40.18% to account for:
a) the Bush vote (50.456) 
b) the Gore vote (50.999)
c) 3.5% deaths since 2000

We will assume that 100% of Bush and Gore voters voted in
2004.

Scenario 1: 
Assume Bush and Kerry split New Voters 50/50

Kerry still wins by 1% (1.2 million votes)

2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17%	50%	50%	0%
Gore	40.18%	10%	90%	0%
Bush	39.82%	91%	9%	0%
Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
TOTAL	100%	49.38%	50.38%	0.24%
Votes	122.26	60.38	61.59	0.29

Scenario 2: 
Assume Bush wins New Voters by 51/49

Kerry still wins by 800,000 votes

2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17%	51%	49%	0%
Gore	40.18%	10%	90%	0%
Bush	39.82%	91%	9%	0%
Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
TOTAL	100%	49.55%	50.21%	0.24%
Votes	122.26	60.58	61.38	0.29

Scenario 3: 
Assume Bush wins New Voters by 52/48

Kerry still wins by 380,000 votes

2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17%	52%	48%	0%
Gore	40.18%	10%	90%	0%
Bush	39.82%	91%	9%	0%
Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
TOTAL	100%	49.72%	50.04%	0.24%
Votes	122.26	60.79	61.17	0.29

Scenario 4: 
Assume Bush wins New Voters by 53/47

Bush wins by 30,000 votes.

2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17%	53%	47%	0%
Gore	40.18%	10%	90%	0%
Bush	39.82%	91%	9%	0%
Other	3%	21%	71%	8%
TOTAL	100%	49.89%	49.87%	0.24%
Votes	122.26	61.00	60.97	0.29

[TruthIsAll]

20. The 17% No Vote is a solid number and leaves no wiggle room for Bush

Because we know precisely the difference between the number
who voted in 2004 and 2000. It's FIXED at 17.482 million.

The only weights which can be adjusted are those of Bush, Gore
and Other (Nader et al). But Other is a very small 3.323
million, so there is not much you can do with that.

There is no choice but to try to adjust the Bush/Gore weights,
even if it means going from an impossible 41% (the Bush
maximum was 39.82%) to an even MOTE impossible 43%.


	Vote	Total	Alive (less)	Max	
2000 vote	2000	% 2004 	3.50%	Turnout	
Bush	50.456	41.27%	48.69	39.82%	max
Gore	50.999	41.71%	49.21	40.25%	max
Other	3.323	2.72%	3.21	2.62%	max
Total 104.778 85.70%	101.111	82.70%	max
					
Total 2004 vote 
	122.26				
New vote (min)
	17.482	14.30%	21.149	17.30%	min
					
We must have:					
New Voters = 17.482 = 122.26 - Bush 2000 - Gore2000 -
Other2000 
NEW VOTERS =  17.482 = 122.26 - 104.778				

	Prel  Final			
     13047	13660		
2000 vote	     Possible? Reason
Bush	41%	43%	no/no	Exceeds max
Gore	39%	37%	yes/yes	Below max
Other	3%	3%	No/no	Exceeds max
Total	83%	83%	No/no	Exceeds max
New	17%	17%	No/no	Below min
				

[TruthIsAll]

24. I proved AT LEAST TWO of the numbers are not accurate. The 43% and...

ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING

NOVOTE: 17% < 17.3% is minimum
GORE: 37% <<< WE CAN BE 99.999% THIS IS TOO LOW (BY 3%?)
OTHER: 3% << close

[Nederland]

21. Assumption IV

The exit poll sample was representative of the total voting population.

Funny how you always forget that one TIA. You'd think you'd remember it after being told hundreds of times.

[TruthIsAll]

22. I thought you were gone? Give it up, already.

You are not demeaning the vast majority of DUers who have commented positively on the analysis.
You are just demeaning yourself.

You have no clue.
I have thoroughly demolished your fallacious, amateurish arguments.

You now have the dubious honor of being the FIRST on my IGNORE list.

[Nederland]

23. Answer a simple question

Isn't it true that you are assuming that the exit poll sample was representative of the total voting population?