Reply #92: TruthTeller Alert! Nailing "the point as usual!" [View All]

"You can't stand the truth!"  Jack Nicholson

TruthIsAll..

OTOH,
This is the COMPLETE RESPONSE that you were looking for.
Just in case you forgot..
_____________________________________________________________

OnTheOtherHand (889 posts) 
 Fri Dec-02-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #58

63. ah, TIA seems to be channeling himself elsewhere on the
Net
 Edited on Fri Dec-02-05 07:12 PM by OnTheOtherHand

but I have no idea what the DU protocol is for responding to
someone who
Isn't There. 

(EDIT: "but I have idea" could've been some weird
meta pun, but wasn't)
Anyway, the line seems to be: pay no attention to what anyone
else --
including the pollsters themselves -- say their polls
indicate. Sure, those
darn MSM analysts at Pew said "Slight Bush Margin in
Final Days of
Campaign", but the illuminati know that it shoulda been
Kerry +1. 
pollingreport.com, shmollingreport.com -- WeGo YouGov. 

All those poli sci models that called the election for Bush --
best not to
mention those, much less refute them. 

The goofuses over at "Polly's Page", well, who wants
to listen to
parrots, anyway? Might as well argue with a stone.
...................................................

Act I:
OTOH, REGARDING THE ILLUMINATI AT PEW, THANKS FOR THE LINKS:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=232

http://people-press.org/reports/images/232-1.gif

Slight Bush Margin in Final Days of Campaign 
No Impact Detected from bin Laden Tape

Released: October 31, 2004
Summary of Findings

President George W. Bush holds a slight edge over Senator John
Kerry in the
final days of Campaign 2004. The Pew Research Center's final
pre-election
poll of 1,925 likely voters, conducted Oct. 27-30, finds Bush
with a
three-point edge (48% to 45% for Kerry); Ralph Nader draws 1%,
and 6% are
undecided. 

The poll finds indications that turnout will be significantly
higher than
in the two previous presidential elections, especially among
younger
people. Yet Bush gets the boost Republican candidates
typically receive
when the sample is narrowed from the base of 2,408 registered
voters to
those most likely to vote. (Among all registered voters, Kerry
and Bush are
in a virtual tie: 46% Kerry, 45% Bush). 

HERE'S THE  TREND in the RV poll:
Kerry came from 7 points down to lead by a point.
Not too shabby, eh?

Oct      3 19 30
Bush    48 45 45
Kerry   41 45 46

_______________________________________________________

Act II:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3403224

He said, she said, nobody knew
Nov 18th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

The first of two pieces looking back at the mechanics of the
election assesses the pollsters' performance

FOUR years ago, misled by the exit polls, America's television
networks predicted and unpredicted the result half a dozen
times. In 2004, after spending millions on a new system, the
exit polls were wrong again, in a brand new way. Early on
polling day, they showed John Kerry with a commanding lead. To
misquote Lady Bracknell, to mess up one election may be
considered a misfortune. To muck up two looks like
carelessness.

Polling is in trouble, and not just exit polling. More voters
are refusing to answer pollsters' questions. Representative
samples of the population are harder to come by. Pollsters
cannot properly survey the increasing numbers of people who
use mobile phones or the internet. “Some pundits”, says John
Zogby, a pollster, “are ready to declare that polls are dead.”
more....

OTOH, YouGov called it right for Kerry, but these guys just
didn't know it.
I'm sure they are having second thoughts. 
The article was written just two weeks after the election.
We've learned a great deal since then, haven't we?

OTOH, do you agree that the authors were WRONG about the 2000
election?
Do you agree that the exit polls showing Gore winning FL were
right and the networks were also when they originally called
it for Gore?
And then, because of that infamous Volusia Diebold
"glich", they reversed and called it for Bush.

You remember, don't you, that 16,022 votes were  mysteriously
dropped from the Gore total? 
And John Ellis at Fox (Bush's cousin) was the first to call it
for Bush.

Now, OTOH, don't you dare call that a conspiracy.
It was just a coincidence, no doubt.

Now, back to your article: 
So the polls weren't "mucked up" as the authors
claimed.
Kerry won Florida and the RECORDED national popular vote by
540,000. 
And you just KNOW his TRUE vote had to be better than that.

The authors say exit polling is in "trouble".
They call it "carelessness" on the part of the
pollsters.
They were clueless when they wrote the article.
Based on what they said about Florida, they probably still
are.

Yet they quoted Zogby who called the last two elections
exactly right.
And Zogby knows it.
He's hoping the next election will finally be a clean one.
Right now, he's feeling unwashed by the last two.

Hey OTOH,
Wanna know a dirty little secret?
Yes, they really do rig elections.
Shh...


_______________________________________________

Act III:

Now about those polly parrots, take a look at this graph of
the Iowa Electronic Markets. 
Let's see who was ahead in the markets on Election Day. 

http://morris.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast/Political/PDFs/pollygraph1.pdf

See the Blue line? That's Bush. 
See where he was on the morning of Nov.2? 
At 49%, trending down...just like the Pew pollsters had it
(see above). 

It's further proof the election was stolen late in the
evening,
when the odds suddenly changed TO BUSH as the fraud kicked in.

I remember it well. 
Do you?

________________________________________________________________________

Act IV:

OTOH, since you are too lazy (or embarrassed) to show the poli
sci 
model projections, I'll do it for you.

http://www.apsanet.org/content_13000.cfm

All the models presented  were not even close to the corrupt
recorded vote, much less the TRUE vote. Except for Beck/Tien,
that is.

Author          Pick 2-pty  Date   Win Probability
Abramowitz      Bush 53.7%  7/31/04 -
Campbell        Bush 53.8%  9/06/04 97%
Wlezien/Ericson Bush 52.9%  7/27/04 75%
Holbrook        Bush 54.5%  8/30/04 92%
Beck/Tien       Kerry 50.1% 8/27/04 50%
Lockabie        Bush 57.6%  5/21/04 92%
Norpoth         Bush 54.7%  1/29/04 95%


First of all, look at the model final prediction dates.
The latest was 9/6/04.
These guys should know that things change every day in a
horserace.

The electorate is a dynamic organism.
Couldn't they have run their models on Nov.1 like I did?
As I did every day for four months leading up to the election?

Maybe next time they'll get it right, but I doubt it.
They are by nature too conservative to change their approach.

The combined Bush 2-party average 54% projection isn't even
close
to the recorded vote, much less the true vote. 
It's off by more than 5%, if Bush got 48.5% of the two-party
vote.
Well, that's if you believe my election model.
And the exit polls. 

The only model which was even close was Beck/Tien.
They had it 49.9% for Bush. Not bad. 
As for the others? Fuggedabout it.

One other thing.

There's no way Lockabie's 57.6% Bush popular vote equates to
anything less
than a 100% EV and/or popular vote win probability.
His 92% Bush win probability doesn't say too much for his
model.
At a one-tail (97.5%) level of confidence, it implies an
equivalent 
MoE of +/-7.6% based on the 57.6% projection. 

Not good, especially when winning 52% of the popular vote 
means a virtual 100% probability of winning the electoral
vote. 

The same goes for the rest of the models. 
Only Beck-Tien's 50% probability made sense, 
since they projected a virtual dead heat.

Gee, OTOH, I sure teach you a lot, don't I?
And you're the political science professor. 
Yet you say I'm irrelevant to your colleagues.

Does MP also consider me irrelevant?
He learned a little math from my postings also.
What about Ruy Texeira?
At least he questioned the Hispanic vote.

Now, with all due respect to the poly scientists above:
Have these guys ever used Monte Carlo simulation?
Did they ever consider projecting individual states to,
you know, calculate the Bush probability of winning the
electoral vote?

From what I could tell in my admittedly cursory review of the
PDFs, 
they essentially all used the same factor analysis regression
method, 
based on macro-economic/financial data. Polling was mentioned,
but
not much. They should check out the Election Model for the
next election 
(assuming it's relatively clean) and consider a Monte Carlo
simulation.

IN MY OPINION, REGRESSION-BASED ELECTION FORECASTING MODELS
ARE AN 
EXERCISE IN ACADEMIC ONE-UPSMANSHIP: "MY MODEL IS BETTER
THAN
YOURS".
SORT OF A MASTURBATORY CIRCLE-JERK APPROACH.

REGRESSION FACTOR-ANALYSIS IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO FORECAST
ELECTIONS!
JUST LOOK AT THE (IN)FAMOUS FAIR MODEL.

ANALYZING SELECTED STATE AND NATIONAL POLLING RESULTS IS FAR
SUPERIOR.
IT MAY BE MUNDANE AND NOT AS SEXY AS FACTOR ANALYSIS, 
BUT IT'S MORE ACCURATE. AND THAT'S THE NAME OF THE GAME, ISN'T
IT?

BUT... ALL FORECASTS ASSUMED AN HONEST ELECTION.
I DID NOT SEE ANY FRAUD VARIABLES, OR SPOILED VOTE FACTORS, 
OR DISENFRANCHISEMENT PARAMETERS, OR VOTER INTIMIDATION 
FACTORED INTO THE MODELS. NOT A WORD ABOUT POTENTIAL FRAUD.
JUST ECONOMIC AND/OR FINANCIAL FACTORS.

WITHOUT A PAPER TRAIL, LOUSY FORECAST MODELS MAY CORRECTLY
PROJECT THE "WINNER" IF HE STEALS THE ELECTION.
SOMETHING LIKE THE FINAL 1:25PM NATIONAL EXIT POLL.

So what does it all prove?
Which model was right?
Well, if you believe the election was stolen, mine was.
OTOH, do you believe the election was stolen?

ONLY MY PRE-ELECTION STATE AND NATIONAL ELECTION MODEL 
MATCHED THE EXITS.

BY THE WAY, OTOH.
WHERE IS YOUR MODEL?

Ah, what's the use?
Talking to you is like talking to a stone.
________________________________________


OTOH, that's four out of four.
Quere mas?

________________________________________