Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama won by 20m votes? "That’s too big a mandate; he'd be compelled to enact a progressive agenda."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 08:10 PM
Original message
Obama won by 20m votes? "That’s too big a mandate; he'd be compelled to enact a progressive agenda."

...
The Final National Exit Poll anomalies should have been reported by the media.  But the NY Times,  CNN,  ABC,  the Washington Post commissioned the NEP.  The impossible results will remain official.  Otherwise, the public would know that Obama really won by more than 20 million votes.  That’s too big a mandate; he would be compelled to enact a progressive agenda.  More important, the Corporate Media does not want the public to know that Bushco stole both elections, and that the same Final NEP anomalies existed in 2004. -- TIA http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x134606


Did Obama actually win by 20 million votes?












 




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. No, he didn't.
"TIA" is nonsense, using flawed methodology. It was wrong in 2004, and just as wrong in 2008. The difference is that we won this time, but not by enough to meet TIA's predictions, so we're subjected to more conspiracy and "theft" stories to cover that up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Please explain how the 2008 Final Exit Poll -- matched to the recorded vote -- indicates impossible
numbers of returning Bush and third-party voters.

Given publicly available data for determining 4-yr mortality for the 2004 recorded...

62,040,610 voters for Bush

and

1,224,499 voters for third-parties


explain how the 2008 Final NEP's voter mix can indicate 60.3 million returning Bush voters and 5.2 million third party voters out of 131,370,793 recorded votes in 2008.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chemical Bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Sorry, I disagree.
TIA is not alone.

Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. Pabsungenis: Today's Official Electoral Vote Count: Obama 365 EV ... TIA Nov 3 Projection: 365 EV...
Edited on Thu Jan-08-09 02:50 PM by tiptoe


Your opening statement: '"TIA" is nonsense, using flawed methodology. It was wrong in 2004, and just as wrong in 2008. ...'

TIA's Nov 3 Projection: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4366707&mesg_id=4366707


You should read the post before commenting. He had the RECORDED EV exactly right at 365 and was within 0.2% of the popular vote (53.1%).

But TIA says he was wrong: Obama did much better than 53.1%, just like Kerry did better than his 2004 Election Model projection of 51.3%. The 2008 Election Model (EM) projection exactly matched the 365-173 electoral vote and was close to matching the current popular vote share (52.8-45.7%). The model projected that Obama would receive 365.3 expected electoral votes with a 53.1-44.9% share. But the landslide was denied. See 2008 Landslide Denied: Uncounted Votes and the Final National Exit Poll.


Do you believe that Bush's "win" in 2004 was legitimate, i.e. not based on a fraudulent vote count?

Which of these statements do you disagree with?
(from Some Election Facts the Media Does Not Want You to Know)

Uncomfortable election FACTS are never discussed in the media. The MSM will discuss non-existent "voter fraud" but not the FACT of on-going, pervasive election fraud. They never considered the FACT that undecided voters break for the challenger (Kerry and Obama) and did not factor this into the final pre-election polls. They never mention the FACT that (mostly Democratic) newly registered voters are not included in the final LV (likely voter) polls. They fail to discuss the FACT that millions of (mostly Democratic) votes are uncounted in every election. They never mentioned the FACT that the 2004/2008 Final National Exit Polls indicated that there were (millions) more returning Bush voters from the prior election than were still living. They never questioned the FACT that the Final National and State exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote. But they accept as a FACT the fiction that the recorded vote is the True Vote and therefore want us to believe there is no such thing as election fraud.

There are millions of uncounted votes in every election. The vast majority are Democratic.
Undecided voters almost always break heavily (70-80%) for the challenger.

Registered voter (RV) polls include new voters (favoring Democrats); likely-voter (LV) polls do not.
In general, only LV polls are posted during the final two weeks before the election (favoring Republicans).
Neither RV or LV polls allocate undecided voters, so the final average pre-election poll margin is misleading.

Democrats won new voters in every election from 1988-2004 by a 14% average margin; Obama won by 43% in 2008.

The Final National Exit Poll is always forced to match the official, recorded vote count.
The Final 2004 NEP closely matched the 50.7-48.3% Bush recorded margin.
The Final 2008 NEP closely matched the 52.9-45.6% Obama recorded margin.


The number of returning voters from the prior election must be less than the number who actually voted due to mortality and turnout.

To match the recorded vote, the 2004 and 2008 Final NEP both indicated that there were more returning Bush voters than were still alive.

In 2004, the Final NEP indicated 52.6 million returning Bush voters from 2000. But he only had 50.5 million recorded votes and approximately 2.5m died.
In 2004, Kerry won the unadjusted state exit polls by 52-47% and the preliminary National Exit Poll (12:22am, 13047 respondents) by 51-48%.

In 2008, the Final NEP indicated 60.3 million returning Bush voters from 2004. But he only had 62.0 million recorded votes and approximately 3.0m died.
In 2008, the Final NEP indicated 11 million more returning Bush voters than Kerry voters. Bush won by 3.0 million recorded votes.

The returning voter anomalies had the effect of decreasing the Kerry and Obama vote shares by 3-4%.

If the Final NEP indicates an impossible number of returning voters, then simple logic dictates that the Final is impossible.
If the Final NEP is impossible, since it is matched to the official vote count, then the official vote count must also be impossible.
If the Final NEP is impossible, then all of the demographic cross tabs are impossible.


Since the 2004 and 2008 Final NEP were both impossible and matched to the recorded vote, the recorded vote counts were impossible.









 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. What is that makes these historically incorrect exit polls, whose main purpose
is to give the talking heads something to babble about before they can release the returns, more valid than an aggregate of scientific polls that turned out to be correct?

Why assume that all these polls were wrong instead of the exit poll?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. The very statement is logically flawed....
Edited on Thu Jan-08-09 04:03 PM by Cid_B
Imagine the bell curve of the US politics. 20 million votes digs into right side too much to "demand" a progressive agenda. For whatever reason that right side percentage voted for Obama it was less likely for a progressive agenda and more for something else entirely that changes from person to person.

The bell curve didnt just magically shift and become skewed. Balance and statistics show the folly of this whole thing.

edit: One more witty thought
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. The political bell-curve may be distorted to the right & center by "election fraud realities". nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
8. Sorry; the result was very, very close to the average of pre-election polls.
Your argument is that hundreds of pre-election polls, all of which got around the same result, AND the actual result, are all wrong, due to one TIA poll that says otherwise.

If the pre-election polls forcasted a win of 15% and Obama only won by 7%, that might be cause for greater concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Nope, the fraudulent result was only close to pre-election *LV* polls, not to four final *RV* polls:
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 03:55 PM by tiptoe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. All the pre-election polls had Obama up by an average 7 points.
And Obama won by 7 points! Imagine that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. "All"? You're not even close
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 05:44 PM by tiptoe

These 4 Pre-election final RV polls had Obama up by an average 13.00% (and after allocating undecided voters, 16.00%!):

Poll
Date
O – M
Spread

53–40
+13

11/02
54–41
+13

10/26
52–36
+16

10/20
52–42
+10


Imagine that.
 

Those four RV polls are not listed on RCP.  They show Obama with a commanding lead.  RCP does not show a single one of these RV polls in their average.

Imagine that. (...and see this)


The Final National Exit Poll   (which was 'http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/Presidential-Election-2004.pdf#page=2">forced' to match the recorded vote)   indicated an impossible number of returning Bush and third-party voters.

Imagine that.


Only Likely Voter (LV) pre-election polls were "close" to the recorded vote, but...

    LV polls do not include newly registered voters.

    RV (Registered Voter) polls do.

Obama won 71% of new voters, according to the 'forced' Final National Exit Poll. Imagine that.


Bush stole the last 2 elections. Imagine that.


The system in place continues to steal votes from Democrats, just like it did in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006.

Imagine that.


See   The 2008 Obama win-margin was close only to pre-election *LV* polls, not to four final *RV* polls






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
12. Oh the horrors of a progressive agenda!
-Universal health care
-Worker's rights
-End to the illegal occupation of Iraq

Yeah, that is bad for America. :yoiks:

Oh and the necessary :sarcasm: tag for good measure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. Again?
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 06:10 PM by ProfessorGAC
Poor methodology is poor methodology. Unfounded assumptions upon which the analysis is based are still unfounded assumptions.

Repeating a flawed approach doesn't make it true merely because you keep repeating it.
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yes, again.
Could you please be specific in describing your objections to the "flawed approach"?

Is there more than issue with "unfounded assumptions" re mortality (info that's publicly available through NCHS pubs) and turnout (not even a factor needed to falsify the Final NEP's returning-voter-mix, assume 100% if you like)?

Do you know about sensitivity analysis?
Have you done a sensitivity analysis of the following factors on Obama's vote share?
   Mortality?
   Prior election returning voter turnout?
   Undecided voters?
   Obama's share of returning Kerry and Bush voters?
   Obama's share of new voters?
   Bush voter turnout vs. Kerry voter turnout?

TIA's already done such in the link below.

If you've done your own analysis, please let's see it.

If not, care to come back with some specifics on TIA's analysis?

Consider it an assignment, Professor.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionSensitivityAnalysis.htm









 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Consider Me Disinterested
I've been telling TIA for several years that he uses too much exttapolation and uses broad, unsupportable assumptions as the basis for the extrapolations.

Yes, i've been telling him. BECAUSE HE ASKED ME FOR MY OPINION OF HIS WORK ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS!

So, you try to catch up and dont' challenge me again. You don't have the slightest idea on how good mathematical analysis is performed. You asked me if i know what senstivity analysis is. So, i'll ask you: Do you have any idea of what constitutes good science or good mathematics?

Your assignment is to look up the scientific method.
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC