The analyst is the creator of models.
To reveal the truth and expose the myths is the analyst’s aim.
The analyst is one who can translate into a model his impression of the truth.

The highest, and lowest, form of criticism is a mode of analysis.
Those who find ugly meanings in the truth are corrupt without being charming.
This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in the truth are the cultivated.
For these there is hope.

There is no such thing as a moral or immoral analysis.
The assumptions are plausible and the math is correct or they aren’t.
That is all.

The 21st century dislike of Realism is the rage of seeing truth in the analysis.
The 21st century dislike of Romanticism is the rage of not seeing truth in the analysis.

The moral life of a man forms part of the subject matter of the analyst, but the morality of an analysis consists of the perfect use of an imperfect medium.

No analyst tries to prove anything.
Even things that are true can be proved.

No analyst has ethical sympathies.
An ethical sympathy in an analyst is an unpardonable mannerism of style.

No analyst is ever morbid.
The analyst can express everything.

Thought and logic are to the analyst instruments of an art.
Data and variables are to the analyst materials for analysis.

From the point of view of form, the mode of analysis is the model.
From the point of view of feeling, the analyst’s craft is honesty.

All analysis is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.

It is the system, not an individual, that an analyst models.
Diversity and opinion about a model shows that the work is new, complex and vital.
When critics disagree, the analyst is in accord with himself.

We can forgive an analyst for making a useful model as long as he does not admire it.
The only excuse for making a useless model is that one admires it intensely.

In every election, there must be fewer returning voters than those who voted in the previous election. Some of them died, others did not return to vote.

There are millions of uncounted votes in every election.
Therefore the recorded vote is never the same as the True Vote.
The Final National Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote.
Therefore the Final NEP does not represent the True Vote.
In the four elections in which Bush 1 and 2 was the incumbent, there were more returning Bush voters than were alive (voter turnout exceeded 100%).

An analysis which relies on a corrupted recorded vote to debunk pristine, unadjusted exit poll results debunks itself by the faulty premise that the recorded vote represents the true vote.

The swing vs. red-shift argument is that zero correlation between vote swing from 2000 to 2004 and 2004 red-shift means there was little or no fraud in 2004. But it uses the recorded vote to calculate swing. Using the true vote in each state based on total votes cast, there was a strong negative correlation between swing and red-shift.

The false-recall argument is that retrospective polls of 500-600 voters taken years after the election indicate that they misrepresented their past vote. This is bogus for several reasons. The first is that each poll had a 4-5% margin of error. We would expect there to be large individual deviations. The second is that the discrepancies were measured against the recorded vote - not the True vote. Using the True vote, the average deviation for the past 11 elections was less than 1%. The voters told the truth about their past vote.

The above arguments are corollaries to the standard procedure used by exit pollsters of forcing the final poll to match the recorded vote. This assumes that the recorded vote is the True Vote - a false assumption. We know that there are millions of uncounted votes and stuffed ballots.

The scientific method has been turned on its head over and over again - by the exit pollsters in their practice of matching the Final NEP to the recorded vote and by the naysayers in using a bogus recorded vote as the premise of their arguments to prove that the exit polls were wrong. Only the Final was wrong.

Instead of forcing the match, exit pollsters should just rely on the demographics of uncounted votes, mortality and voter turnout. That is the scientific approach: use the best data available.

The mathematics is straightforward.

Let V = total votes CAST in the prior election.
Let M = voter mortality rate
Let T = LIVING voter turnout
Let R = returning voters from the prior election

R = V * (1-M)* T

In the last 11 elections, Census statistics show that there have been approximately 90 million NET uncounted votes.
Let U = uncounted votes
Let S = stuffed ballots

NET = 90 = U - S
If S = 30 million stuffed ballots,
there must be U = 90 + 30 = 120 million uncounted votes.

"In every election, there must be fewer returning voters than those who voted in the previous election. Some of them died, others did not return to vote."
What about new voters or voters who voted in the election before last but not in the last? What about voters who only vote for the under ticket, but not the top? How do you know that there is always fewer voters this time than last time??

Are you OK? Just asking...

to mean only those people who voted for President in the last election. I suspect that TIA is using that measure disingenuously and impressionistically to make claims that his statistic doesn't justify.

But I've never wanted to delve into his "research" before

You say:
What about new voters or voters who voted in the election before last but not in the last?

I say:
What about them?
The statement is that there MUST be fewer RETURNING voters than the number who voted in the LAST election. That is a FACT.

You say:
What about voters who only vote for the under ticket, but not the top? How do you know that there is always fewer voters this time than last time??

I say:
ONCE AGAIN. THINK.

Assume there were Y voters in the LAST election and Z of them died prior to the CURRENT election.

Assuming 100% turnout of PRIOR election voters WHO ARE STILL ALIVE, there can be at most X = Y -Z returning voters.

X MUST be less than Y. Do you agree? Or do you believe in reincarnation?

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ALL THIS?

According to the Final National Exit poll, which is ALWAYS FORCED TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE, there had to be 6 million MORE returning Bush voters in 2004 from the 2000 election than were ALIVE.

IN EVERY ELECTION IN WHICH A BUSH WAS THE INCUMBENT (OR VP) THERE WERE MILLIONS OF PHANTOM VOTERS (I.E. OVER 100% TURNOUT)

As I will repeat over and over again in my upcoming book, this simple exercise in arithmetic is the ULTIMATE SMOKING GUN WHICH PROVES ELECTION FRAUD.

IT IS THE CLINCHER.
JUST ASK ANAXARCHOS.

But first you may want to read what he said here way back in 2005:

The Clincher
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x379573

The Game
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x390193

You say:
"Returning" is limitedly defined to mean only those people who voted for President in the last election. I suspect that TIA is using that measure disingenuously and impressionistically to make claims that his statistic doesn't justify.

I say:
For a smart guy, to call this "disingenuous" shows a surprising deficiency in analytical thought. There is absolutely nothing disingenuous about it.

Your flippant comment echos that of the exit poll naysayers. Anax and I destroyed them in 2005. Where have you been? Have you ever REALLY focused on my analysis?

You should discuss this with anax. He could teach you something here.

But first you may want to read what he said back in 2005:

The Clincher
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x379573

The Game
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x390193

His work is good on this.

"...there must be fewer returning voters than those who voted in the previous election."

Of those who voted in the last election, fewer of them will show up in subsequent elections. (It would be impossible for more of them to show up.) If an analysis of election results depend upon a higher number of returning voters than there were voters in the last election, the analysis is flawed and not legitimate.

Let's say there were ten voters in the last election, and twenty in this one. You cannot legitimately claim that Bush won this election because 12 returning Bush voters voted in this election, for example. There could not be more than ten returning voters of any kind.

Kid isn't debunking what you are saying he just isn't thinking about it.

or at least meddled with by the Republicans. Thats borderline conspiracy theory territory..

Kid, you are once again making statements that have no factual basis.

Where do you get your info from? Liberal websites? R/W sites, NY Times, MSNBC? They would all agree with your dismissal of TIA "conspiracy theories". What does THAT tell you?

Nothing turns me off more than perfunctory dismissal of "conspiracy" theories.
That's a worn out canard. It's a copout, a form of denial or just plane ignorance.
I would expect someone to say that on Free Republic, DU or by all of the MSM for that matter. But not on PI.

FACT:
In every election, there are millions of uncounted votes, and 70-80% are Democratic.

FACT:
In 1968, there were 6 million net uncounted votes.
That means Humphrey lost about 4 million.
He lost the election by 500,000 recorded votes.
Do the MATH.
Is that conspiratorial?

FACT:
There were 10.8 million net uncounted in 1988, according to the Census (0.30% MoE).
That means Dukakis lost about 8 million votes.
He lost the election by 7 million votes.
Do the MATH.
Is that conspiratorial?

FACT:
There were 5.4 million net uncounted in 2000
That means Gore lost about 4 million votes.
FACT: He won the recoded vote by 540,000?
Do the MATH.
Is that conspiratorial?

FACT:
There were 3.4 million net uncounted in 2004
Kerry lost about 2.5 million of them.
FACT: He lost the recorded vote by 3 million
But 2004 was the year of the machine.
Is that conspiratorial?

HAVA look at this:
FACT: Bush had 50.46 million recorded votes in 2000.
FACT: According to the FINAL National Exit Poll, there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters (43% of 122.3 million recorded).
FACT: Annual Voter mortality is very close to 1.2%
DO THE MATH:
Close to 2.5 million Bush voters died prior to the 2004 election.
48 million Bush (50.5-2.5)voters were still alive in 2004.
Is that conspiratorial?

ASSUME 46-47 million of the 48m voted.
THERE HAD TO BE 6.6 million PHANTOM BUSH VOTERS.
DO THE MATH: 6.6 = 52.6-46
Is that conspiratorial?

Have you had enough of my "conspiracy" theories?

Yes, you are


Have you had enough of my "conspiracy" theories?

Yes, I have

Facts sure are annoying things, aren't they?

Now tell us a few of your facts that are relevant to this discussion.
Why not add content to the discourse?
I have an open mind. Do you?

Don't just dismiss my statements of FACT as those of a conspiracy nut.
Show us whatcha got. Readers of this thread haven't yet had the pleasure.

because I'm this close to booting your dumb ass

All of your "research" is about kissing the Democrats collective ass and/or proving how smart you are. Its a crock.

You want to talk about election fraud but yet you don't talk about the enormous amount of people who don't vote -- because they've been officially disenfranchised or because they've been de facto disenfranchised by voter intimidation tactics, administrative malfeasance, racist police tactics, incredibly sophisticated misinformation, and manipulative tricks at every level from precinct to state (which of course includes legal collusion).

And you think that the problem is that the votes aren't counted fairly? You think the Dems aren't equally complicit in that fact? What rock have you been living under? C'mon man, we can only take so much bullshit. Somehow you fail to take into account the "variable" of RACE entirely while making election theft out to be amongst the biggest problems we face.

Well, the "right" guy won this time..and it turns out he sucks worse than the last guy and also worse than the guy he beat out. What say you to that? In light of the FACTUAL EVIDENCE, are you really trying to convince me how much better off we'd be if motherfucking Al Gore or Michael Dukakis had won?

Same shit, different assholes

Boot my ass?

All I have been doing for years is to prove that the official results are bogus.
Somehow, that seems to bother you.
I see a disconnect there.

Of course the Dems are complicit. They never utter a peep.
It's a good thing that some of us not only talk about, we prove it.
By doing the hard work. What have you done to get the truth out?
I see a disconnect there.

Of course minorities are disenfranchised.
And they make up a large percentage of votes which are never counted.
But to you, that's conspiracy talk on my part. Makes you wonder.
I see a really big disconnect there.

I suppose you would call TA and anax conspiracy nuts.
They agree with my analysis.
Another disconnect.
They don't deserve to be booted, either.

Use your new power as a mod wisely.
Don't let your new found "power" go to your head.
Just respond to the content of the posts.

Don't question my motives or smear my analysis.
Many have tried.
All have failed.

DO NOT RESORT TO THREATS.
IT WON'T WORK. I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2005.
JUST PRESENT YOUR FACTS.

I HAVE AN OPEN MIND.
DO YOU?

The work is good, and has value. I don't agree with his politics, but that is a different matter than the work on the election numbers.

His "true vote" concept - the most speculative of his work - is good and does take into account and acknowledge the disenfranchising of poor and minority people.

He may be Dem partisan, but he doesn't give them a pass. In any case, the Democratic party politicians don't really matter in this, it is the people who happen to be voting Democratic and who are being screwed that matter (and yes, there is no surprise there, and yes there are bigger fish to fry, and yes this is a small part of a larger more comprehensive picture.)

The conspiracy theorists long since lost interest in TIA's work - I don't think they understood it.

While TIA may think that we would be better off if Al Gore or Michael Dukakis had won, that isn't really relevant to his analysis of the election results.

Someone (not Republicans) has been rigging the elections in the Empire for at least fifty years, ensuring that a preselected party wins or that the winner does not win too big. (The reason I say "not Republicans" is because that "party" has no more power or ability than the "other" one to affect these machinations; so someone else is doing this).

You have categorically proved your case. Where does that take you, now? What is the next step? Or is there a "next step"?

I think we all agree that elections are bought or stolen. TIA's analysis is that they are stolen, and I assume that his/her argument is that proving them to be stolen matters more than if they are bought. So, this is the first discussion. Can proving that elections are stolen lead to a more radical understanding of politics than proving they are bought?

The second point is who steals elections. If it is Republicans, does that tell us anything about Democrats? Or if it is Republicans that steal elections does that mean that the international working class would be better off if that theft could be stopped? If that is the case, it could be argued, we may be better off if Democrats could steal elections.

Finally, what does election fraud mean, beyond some notion of American exceptionalism? One must argue that the US electoral system has some potential for a positive outcome for the US working class, or else we're back to the first point, that proving elections to be stolen matters more than if they are bought.

We all know that the elections are devices for the ruling class to claim some kind of legitimacy. And the assumption that one ruling class party is better than the other - I have yet to see proved. On top of that, US elections are fraudulent from their very inception, so that "stealing" or "buying" is practically a "so what" question. That's why I asked, "what next". It seems to me that most citizens assume the elections are frauds, so if it is proved beyond doubt that they are, it just reinforces the idea that voting is a waste of time - which, of course, it is...

is to get people to learn the facts they won't get from the MSM.
But even it they learn, would it make a difference?
Who knows?
But it's worth a try.

You, just as our friend Jacques did a while back, say that the object is to "get people to learn the facts they won't get from the MSM" without any idea as to whether or not this would have any impact on anything. You, like Jacques, are merely laying out "facts" you say, and don't know or much care (or don't say) what the political value of that might be, and are resistant to any questions about your own politics or prejudices that may be involved in your conspiracy theories. I am not using "conspiracy theory" in a pejorative sense, necessarily. Yours is good and well thought through and documented. Jacques was presenting facts that show that Jews are influencing US foreign policy and are involved in Hollywood and Wall Street. You are presenting facts to show that Republicans stole elections. His facts are as true as yours. Obviously, we need a context. Jacques is promoting anti-Semitism, you are promoting anti-Republicanism, so of course his agenda is more odious and offensive.

The Kennedy assassination theories are a really good example of what is wrong with ct's in general. That is a very successful ct - most of the people in the country are convinced that the assassination was a conspiracy, which is what the ct-ers always said was the goal. Yet the political impact of that success is just about zero - actually, less than zero since things are much worse now. The theorizing has taken the place of political analysis, discouraged and collapsed all efforts to think about the assassination in any other terms than as a detective story. At the time of the assassination, the average person on the street had the initial reaction that the assassination served the extreme right wing, and that this was what was important not the details. Then, the extreme right wing was a very small fringe. After decades of people obsessing over the details and ignoring the politics, that extreme right wing fringe has gained in power and is no longer a fringe, but represents mainstream thinking.

Conspiracy theories play an important role in shifting the general public over to supporting an extreme right wing political point of view by divorcing the actions of the government from any serious political analysis. Many people think there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy yet hold very conservative political views. Back at the time of the assassination, the general public was much more able and likely to apply political analysis to these situations first, and hold any theories about events within that context.

The underlying assumption of all of the modern conspiracy theories is that things would be fine "if only..." - if only these abberations had not occurred - and they think that if we can crack these cases things will go back to being good again. That sends people on wild goose chases and precludes even rudimentary political analysis, the type of analysis that at one time the average person did routinely when looking at these things. Nothing could possibly serve the interests of the ruling class better than that does.

Take all of your facts, and see how different they look depending upon context in which you hold them -

1. - "Here are some symptoms of a system that is will inevitably cause and does cause these problems, many more problems, and far worse problems."

2. - "We are on the trail of cracking the case on these crimes, it is these crimes that are the problem, and if we can bring the perpetrators to justice, we can restore the wonderful system back to its original form."

The context makes all of the difference in the world. The first context supports the working class. The second supports the ruling class.

Most conspiracy theorists are deeply resistant to answering any questions about political context. They want to merely claim to be presenting "facts" and "seeking the truth." They want to keep their political agenda hidden and unexamined and have us all ignore context.

That is the purpose of the conspiracy theories - to obscure the political context and befuddle and confuse people about that and to covertly promote and support the interests of the ruling class.

This thread couldn't be a more transparent case of what you're diagnosing if it tried

"the analyst reveals the truth and exposes myth"

Hes thinking of those crime scene television shows..

the analyst conceals truth and creates myth. And that is also true...

(and Mike has implied that I'm mistaken about this, but I don't see it) is the fact that voter suppression is much more violent and antagonistic than only ballot box fixing (and that is what we're discussing here, regardless of if its gone digital)

And voter suppression is a big point of departure, because in many cases the Dems are MORE complicit in that suppression than the Republicans. Which is a *fact* TripeIsAll doesn't wanna talk about..

putting the "anal" in analyst..

"That is the purpose of the conspiracy theories - to obscure the political context and befuddle and confuse people about that and to covertly promote and support the interests of the ruling class".

Not quite.

The ultimate conspiracy theory is to denigrate them by calling them conspiracies
I provide some numbers to show the ultimate conspiracy.

According to the Kid, that's anal.
But to criticize the work is banal.

No need to compare me to someone who you just banned.
Irrelevant.

You agree with my work.
You have helped to educate the Kid.
Good.

Use the work as part of your tool-set for further action.
Change the system.
See, I can play the same game.


I gave you some tools for thought.
You have once again turned simple numerical facts into fodder for confrontation.

Apply your acumen on what to do with those facts.
You may be well aware of them, but millions are not.
So use your persuasive intellectual acumen on others.

You are just telling me what I have already told you.
You gain nothing by debating me.
There is nothing to debate.
I already know what you are saying.
Tell me something I don't know.

...