A Stolen Election Might Be The Spark For Civil War

simanonok

simanonok

Temporal Novice
NEWS FLASH
==========
It has been statistically proven that the Republicans stole the election, the odds being only one in 250 million that the election was NOT stolen. Although he doesn't come right out and say so (such restraint is the nature of scientists in their publications), that's what Dr. Freeman's analysis means at http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf. So if Dr. Freeman's work becomes public knowledge, I think that could be the spark that lights civil war. Very soon we should know if Titor was genuine or not.

As usual the mainstream media are sitting on this explosive story but the blogosphere is incubating it quite well. Try a Google search on "exit poll statistics Ohio Bush Kerry" at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=exit+poll+statistics+Ohio+Bush+Kerry&btnG=Search for more info. And please pass the link to http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf along to all your friends.
 
Re: A Stolen Election Might Be The Spark For Civil

By Nostradamuses saying in his written quatrains, is Hister, also Hitler and does Hister kill himself by shooting himself in the head and is reborn as G.W.B. in the new land?

I don't know, I haven't the slightest idea.
 
Re: A Stolen Election Might Be The Spark For Civil

Jenna Bush is special.There is something about her, that is out of the ordinary and special.

This is all I want to say and no I'm not a Jenna follower, or necessarily a Bush fan for that matter.
 
Copper Green was public knowledge thanks to Seymore Hersh.

Disenfranchiesed minorities in the 2000 election were public knowledge thanks to Greg Palast.

If I was walking out of a polling station in NY and I voted for Bush there is NO WAY I would say it outloud. Exit poll discrepencies are on a different scale than Copper Green and what Bush's did to black voters in Florida in 00.

Let's say it IS an issue though. What would happen? Someone would try to open a dialog in the senate, and the senate would simply vote down the discussion. Right? (yep - that already happened).
 
Criminy....there are so many problems with this, that I don't even know where to begin! Maybe we should just start with the obvious:

1) The LAW states that the president is elected by an actual tally of the votes themselves...NOT exit polls! Just because exit poll stats do not match the actual count does not mean one should immediately consider the actual count suspect, and favor the stats!
2) Statistics are predictive data that attempt to rationalize widely dispersed data by trying to fit it into a theoretical norm and "standard deviation". Counted votes are....well, accurate numbers of a measured result, NOT predictions!
3) For all of the whining by so many DEMS about how "every vote must be counted", I find it laughingly ironic that these same DEMS are now willing to use PREDICTIONS, rather than the ACTUAL vote counts, to try to convince people that their guy won! Hipocrisy at its silliest.

Now let's deal with some of the gems in Dr. Freeman's paper:
Caveats aside, the data appears to be good.
Click to expand...
4) Yes, appears to be good to someone who has analyzed it. The footnote (caveat?) to this quote hardly describes a rigorous, scientific method for determining the "goodness" of the data! Nowhere does anyone want to SPECIFICALLY and MATHEMATICALLY describe how they "adjust" the data. Without providing this clarity, they are applying nothing more than fudge factors.

In general, we have every reason to believe that exit polls are accurate survey instruments."
Click to expand...
5) "Every reason" and yet he does not even wish to share one, GOOD (scientific) reason? Egads, but this Ph.D. appears to be Piling it Higher and Deeper!


Exit polls are surveys taken of representative respondents from the overall voting population.
Click to expand...
6) Exactly, and as such, they are more prone to statistical errors than an actual count, especially if you are not certain that the survey set follows a normal distribution! (And I would never presume that voter sentiment is normative!)

Although exit polls have not been academically studied, both the logic behind them and experience suggest that we can use these surveys to predict overall results with very high degrees of certainty.
Click to expand...
7) This is RIDICULOUS! First, he admits they have not been studied, and then trys to convince us that, even though they have not been studied, they are still valid!? Someone ought to see what cereal box he got his Ph.D. from! And as far as predicting results with a high degree of certainty, there is a little quote that is used in the stock market that goes a little like this: "Past performance is not an indicator of future results."

It's easy to get a statistically valid representative sample; and there is no problem with figuring out who is going to actually vote -- or how they will vote.
Click to expand...
I guess I am just supposed to believe the Ph.D. here, huh!? NOT! If it is so "easy" and there is "no problem", then I wonder why we don't just throw out the actual counting of votes, and elect our president from exit polls? Hmmmm.... that might work, except for the fact that once we had an election where the exit polls favored a REPUB presidential candidate, then all these liberals would come out crying about how ya gotta count every vote!

It's time for some people to grow-up a little, and understand that "you can't always get what you want." I would have been a LOT more convinced if I had seen actual statistics from past presidential elections in this paper with regard to distributions of actual votes with respect to exit polls. However, with the "science" presented in this paper, I am left terribly disappointed and unconvinced!

RMT
 
The LAW states that the president is elected by an actual tally of the votes themselves...NOT exit polls! Just because exit poll stats do not match the actual count does not mean one should immediately consider the actual count suspect, and favor the stats!
Click to expand...
Nobody but you has suggested that election results should be declared on the basis of exit polls, nice attempt to sidetrack the discussion though. The POINT is that when exit polls don't come anywhere near reported election results, clearly something's fishy. This fundamental principle was recently applied to the Ukraine election when ironically even the Bush White House stood up to say the election couldn't have been fair because the exit polls were so far off the reported results. The Ukrainians DID THE RIGHT THING and had a REVOTE under more closely-watched circumstances, and (surprise surprise) the second time around when the fraud was eliminated, there was no longer a great disparity between the exit polls and the reported results, so everyone realized the second vote was a fair one.

There's no point in responding to every one of Rainman's emotionally reactive ramblings here, he can wallow in his ignorance all he wants (although personally I think he's more likely deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue). However visitors to this forum should be aware that exit polling is a mature discipline and Freeman's statistical analyses are good. There are some minor questions about the data because of the way they were gathered (see his paper for details) but there is no reason to believe that the data were slanted in any way, regardless of what anyone tries to tell you. Freeman himself points out the data issues and explains that he would like to redo his analysis with the original data from the sources, but for SOME STRANGE REASON the sources aren't making that data available. Hmmm, why could that be? Apparently they are thinking about releasing a report about the data (see http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050118/ts_usatoday/exitpollsterstoreleaseelectionreporttomedia ) but they may even suppress the report, and the original data will almost certainly never see the light of day. Somebody's obviously got something to hide: a stolen election.

The fraud stands exposed, the only question is whether or not a complacent public is going to accept a stolen election. The media are obviously complicit in the coverup but they can't stop the truth from spreading on the Web. If you don't understand the science of statistics sufficiently for this to be obvious to you from Freeman's paper (see http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf ), take it to anyone who's had an introductory statistics course, or better, someone who teaches statistics, and ask them what they make of it. They will tell you too the inescapable bottom line:

the odds are ONE in 250 MILLION that the election was NOT fraudulent!


<font color="red"> Tell your friends. [/COLOR]
 
Re: A Stolen Election Might Be The Spark For Civil

The LAW states that the president is elected by an actual tally of the votes themselves...NOT exit polls!
Click to expand...

Actually I think the law states the President is elected by the Electoral College, who's votes are influenced by the actual tally of the votes in each district. And now some states have laws that allow them to split their electoral college votes.
 
Re: A Stolen Election Might Be The Spark For Civil

Please... anyone who doesn't think Bush stole the elction the FIRST time is an idiot, and he went ahead and stole it the second time too. Nixon did it, Bush sr. did it... a lot of presidents have done it.
 
The POINT is that when exit polls don't come anywhere near reported election results, clearly something's fishy.
Click to expand...

What I find fishy is the bias of exit poll takers. Did you know that most of the poll takers only asked people that are most likely to vote democrat (IE: Blacks, Latinos, immigrants)? It is BS from the DEMS yet again.
 
The POINT is that when exit polls don't come anywhere near reported election results, clearly something's fishy.
Click to expand...
Fine. But why do you think this means we must suspect the actual count, rather than the exit polls? It makes no logical sense, not only because, as another respondent said, there can be bias in the pollsters as to who they ask, but the obvious problem: The pollee can lie, and what does THAT do to your stats?

The only thing you've convinced me of is that you are a left-wing wacko, who hates Bush and would rather see ANY democrat in office.

RMT
 
Back
Top