Well, the house at least, but based on the current 90% probability on 
tradesports I'm going for the scoop.

This of course says nothing about whether Republicans cheated.	I liked 
this comment by a blogger in New Zealand (not to endorse their 4.5M 
number):

"Add it all up -- all those Democratic-leaning votes rejected, barred, and 
spoiled -- and the Republican Party begins Election Day with a 4.5 
million-vote thumb on the vote-tally scale.

"So, what are you going to do about it? May I suggest you ... steal back 
your vote.

"It's true you can't win with 51% of the vote anymore. So just get over 
it. The regime's sneak attack via vote suppression will only net them 4.5 
million votes, about 5% of the total. You should be able to beat that 
blindfolded. If you can't get 55%, then you're just a bunch of crybaby 
pussycats who don't deserve to win back America."


ps, congratulations on this overnight improvement to the world!


--- \/	 FROM Daniel Reeves AT 06.11.07 21:05 (Yesterday)   \/ ---

> But it's only been in recent elections that the bias has shown up (according 
> to the GOP website -- I haven't researched this myself).
>
> In any case, those are hypotheses to test, as you say.  The conspiracy theory

> is plausible enough that it's important we get a scientifically rigorous 
> answer to this.  Reliable sources solicited!
>
> And the conspiracy doesn't have to be vast and across the board -- if there's

> an exit poll bias then there should be a measurable exit poll skew factor 
> that can be adjusted for to detect instances of fraud.
>
> Actually, just checking if the exit poll skew is universal should reveal a 
> lot.	As Matt notes, a vast across-the-board conspiracy is implausible.
>
>
> --- \/   FROM Matt Rudary AT 06.11.07 20:47 (Today)	\/ ---
>
>> What makes 1 more plausible than a vast, right-wing conspiracy that changes 
>> vote counts across the board in every district without detection? 
>> Seriously?
>> 
>> OK, here are a couple hypotheses to test:
>> 
>> 1) Young people are more likely to vote Democratic and are also more likely 
>> to answer exit polls than older people.
>> 
>> 2) People who work 60+ hours a week are more likely to vote Republican and 
>> are less likely to answer exit polls than people who work fewer than 60 
>> hours per week.
>> 
>> 3) People without jobs are more likely to vote Democratic and are more 
>> likely to answer exit polls than people with jobs.
>> 
>> There are all sorts of reasons opt-out surveys are less accurate than 
>> mandatory surveys. These hypotheses may have explanatory power.
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>> and 6% chance that republicans keep both.
>>> 
>>> ... according to the prediction market at tradesports.com.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Question: What do you all think of allegations that Republicans are 
>>> cheating?
>>> 
>>> Here's some damning evidence from the GOP itself:
>>>   http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID 18
>>>
>>>  From that page:
>>>   "For reasons that remain unclear, Democratic voters are more likely than 
>>> Republicans to agree to interview requests from pollsters."
>>> 
>>> (Just to spell it out:  If the exit polls favor democrats and the real 
>>> polls favor republicans, there are two explanations:
>>>   1. a democratic bias in exit polls.
>>>   2. a republican bias in the real polls.
>>> What makes 1 more plausible?  Seriously, how do Republicans answer that? 
>>> This is scary!)
>>> 
>> 
>
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"If you're smoking here, you'd better be on fire."