It's a bunch of hooey. The entire exercise rests on the flawed assumption that the polls were conducted correctly and that only chance occurrence created the skewed polling. A scientific theory built on a flawed assumption is in and of itself flawed.
You need to get over it. The smartest, toughest partisans in the Democratic Party- people like James Carville and Donna Brasile, have come out and said very clearly that Bush won and won handily. There was no conspiracy. >Gruss wrote: >There is a scientific study from the University of Pennsylvania that says: > >1.) Exit polls are so scientifically accurate that they're used to >audit elections around the world, and, >2.) The mathematical odds of 3 states' exit polls being off by such a >huge margin is 1 in 250,000,000. > >Essentially that says the results of the 2004 election have a 1 in 250 >million chance of being right. > >That should be enough to concern any democrat ( <- small 'd'). > >You can say we should check their math, and we should, but if the math >is right I'd say we better check our ballots. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:135835 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
