There is a systematic shift against me? It can’t be bad data, it must be fraud!

Why Do All Election Forecasters, Political Scientists, Academics and Media Pundits Avoid the Systemic Fraud Factor? Was a big heaping bowl full of infuriating inability to understand modeling.

Alaska excluded, a general rule of thumb is that rural areas tend to be more Republican and urban areas tend to be more Democratic. Another general rule of thumb is that an exit pollster is worth more in an urban area, where he or she can collect more data, than they are in a rural area. A pollster at a precinct that gets 2000 voters in a day collects more data than a pollster in a precinct that gets 40 votes on election day. But the whole premise of the above mentioned piece is that all the raw votes collected from the small and biased sample ought to be counted as equally, and that any attempt to correct for the known bias in collection methods is really just an attempt to cover for fraud.

It just goes to show that even a degree in Math doesn’t mean that you understand numbers at all. 


About opcnup

Emerson White is a biology student working on post grad while doing private research on the side.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to There is a systematic shift against me? It can’t be bad data, it must be fraud!

  1. And just what are your credentials?
    Let’s see your models.

    The pollsters match to the RECORDED VOTE? And you believe them?
    You must also believe there is no such thing as systemic election fraud.
    And also that the recorded vote is accurate.

    But the exit pollsters force the FINAL exit polls to match to the recorded vote.
    I see you are a biology student. How many presidential elections have you lived through?

    You apparently believe that Bush won a fair election.
    Because you believe the pre-election LV polls and FINAL exit polls.
    Do you force your adjust the results of your biology experiments like they do?

    My True Vote Model has matched the unadjusted exit polls.
    Go ahead. Refute the Logic and the Math. Line by Line.
    If you dare.

    You appear to be in a state of near panic.
    Was it my post on DU?

  2. One question..
    Which do you believe? The unadjusted preliminary exit polls or the final exits which are ALWAYS forced to match the recorded votes?

    Its very simple. Let me show you the light. There are two possibilities:
    1) If you believe that Bush won fairly (i.e. the recorded vote was correct), then you must also believe the final exit polls since they were FORCED TO MATCH the recorded vote which you believe were correct. And that means you believe there was ZERO fraud in 2004.

    2) On the other hand, if you believe that John Kerry was the true winner (i.e., the election was STOLEN) then you MUSTalso believe that the unadjusted exit polls were CORRECT since they indicated that Kerry won by 52-47%. And you MUST also agree that my True Vote Model was correct (Kerry had 53.5%) since it closely matched the unadjusted exit polls.

    So which is it?
    If its 1) YOU BELIEVE THERE WAS ZERO FRAUD are you prepared to engage in debate – point by point?
    If its 2) then you must TAKE BACK YOUR initial ad hominems – because that means that you now agree with the results of my analysis – Kerry won, the exit polls and my True Vote Model were correct..

    The same argument applies to 2000 and 2008. Gore won by 5-7 million votes and Obama by 22 million True Votes. You see, young man, election fraud is SYSTEMIC.

    Now, if you have done any analysis similar to mine, please enlighten us by showing it.


  3. Mary Walkman s says:

    In fact, the eligibility argument only arose because Obama raised it by calling himself a “native” citizen and not “natural born.

  4. opcnup says:

    I don’t need any credentials to point out that your argument is silly and unfounded.

    Quite simply You are chomping at the change and assuming the most contentious part of your argument. You are begging the question. All the math in the world will not excuse a failure to take the primary logical steps to build a valid argument, those steps that you sklipped because they were an inconvenience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s