CNN/Gallup/USA Today and ABC: Master Bushit whores, rigging the polls

[TruthIsAll]

They can't fool us. We know their game. They are preparing the way for Diebold to steal it for Bush. They will not get away with hijacking our democracy like they did in 2000/2002.

..Kerry Bush Spread
CNN
Mar 52 44 8
Apr 46 51 -5 Bushit! A 13% reversal to Bush?

ABC
Mar 53 44 9
Apr 43 48 -5 Bushit! A 14% reversal to Bush?

Are we to believe these bogus polls in a month when Bush was exposed by Clarke and Woodward for monumental pre and post 9/11 failures? In a month when over 100 American soldiers died in an illegal war?

Kerry is kicking Bush's ass every which way to Sunday and the mediawhores don't want you to know it!


12 POLL AVERAGE
.....Kerry Bush Spread
Jan 40.50 51.25 -10.75
Feb 47.50 45.13 2.38
Mar 46.82 45.09 1.73
Apr 47.00 45.00 2.00


1 IBD Apr 45 43 2
2 ABC Apr 43 48 -5 Bushit!
3 AP Apr 44 45 -1
4 NWK Apr 50 43 7
5 ARG Apr 50 44 6
6 NBC Mar 45 47 -2
7 FOX Apr 48 43 5
8 CBS Apr 48 43 5
9 CNN Apr 46 51 -5 Bushit!
10 PEW Mar 47 46 1
11 LAT Apr 49 46 3
12 Zog Apr 47 44 3

[still_one]

1. The only poll I follow is Zogby

Time and Time again Zogby polls have been shown to be quite accurate

[erformc]

13. Not necessarily true:

Zogby, who used to be the most accurate out there, does state by state polls, but his predictions in the 2002 Senate races were so bad I don't know if I want to trust him again. This is what he said in a day or so prior to the 2002 midterms. His prediction is on top, actual results on bottom.:

SD Senate- Thune (R) Over Johnson (D) 52-47
SD Senate- Johnson (D) Over Thune (R) 50-49


MN Senate- Mondale (D) Over Coleman (R) 51-45
MN Senate- Coleman (R) Over Mondale (D) 50-47
Pollster John Zogby: "Despite the President's best efforts, looks like Mondale holds on."

GA Senate- Cleland (D) Over Chambliss (R) 50-48
GA Senate- Chambliss (R) Over Cleland (D) 53-46

Pollster John Zogby: "A big surprise because this race was on the watch list, then off, then on again. This one is truly too close to call, but more voters think it is time for someone new than feel that Cleland deserves re-election. Here's another race where 401K-holders vote against the incumbent."

CO Senate- Strickland (D) Over Allard (R) 51-46
CO Senate- Allard (R) Over Strickland (D) 51-45

Pollster John Zogby: "Looks to me like Strickland will win this, though it has tightened again. Allard's re-elect numbers where never good and interestingly, while 401K-holders voted solidly Republican in 2000, the two candidates tied among this group - advantage Strickland."

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

25. yeah

but those "actual results" may be suspect

[TruthIsAll]

35. Correction: ABC has it 49 Bush, 48 Kerry if Nader is not included.

I presented the polls taken without Nader as a choice. But I missed this one.

[mac1000a]

2. I read on another thread

that CNN has been sampling a much higher rate of Republicans than Democrats. Any truth to this. How are we to know?

[TruthIsAll]

4. That's just it. You will never know. And that's why they do it.

TIA

[alcuno]

3. Could we start looking at right track/wrong track?

Last I saw, wrong track was in the mid to high 50's. I don't know why people say *. Maybe they're afraid of getting on some list of subversives.

[strategery blunder]

5. Even the Faux poll isn't whored by comparison

:wow:

[charliebrown]

6. Maybe It is cause Kerry is in hiding most of the time and

when he isn't, He is boring and condensending. I am not out for flames just pointing out that Kerry is not very endearing(well not at all). He also sounds like an elite. I also think the timing with which we have had all these books coming out is making it all look like an attack and the undecideds read it that way.

Flame if you want but that is my take on it.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[charliebrown]

8. yes go back and look at em all.

Hmmmmmm....I have never been anything but honest. I am being honest now. Sorry if I am considered not equal cause of my post count. That seems elite also. Thanks

[alittlelark]

16. Hmmmmmm, 'elite' 'elitist' uh, isn't that what

the RIGHT WING MORONS call Kerry?

[Kool Kitty]

19. I think you left out the "fancy-pants" part.

[MoonRiver]

15. DU is infested. Time to fumigate.

Many of us are getting sick and tired of fighting freepers here. :mad:

[wtmusic]

9. My take on it is that Bush is getting his royal ass kicked

and the RW is throwing everything overboard to try to save the ship.

God, I love the smell of desperation! :D

[charliebrown]

10. I hope you are right WT!!!

I stated my idea and you did yours...thats great and like I said hope you are right.

I dont like being insulted cause my post count is low.

I know that wasnt you sorry...lol.

[qanda]

11. Welcome to DU CB

:hi: Sometimes the truth hurts and people don't want to hear it whether you have 30 posts or over 1500.

[charliebrown]

12. Thank you pbl!!!

n/t

[TruthIsAll]

14. Diebold,CNN,Gallup,ABC, J Bush, K Harris, Scalia, O'Dell, LePore...

Jim Baker, Cox, DeLay....

The list goes on and on...

[Skittles]

26. ELITE ????

RNC CODE WORD.

[Imajika]

18. Quite honestly, I think your analysis is nonsense....

...and it always has been.

"Are we to believe these bogus polls in a month when Bush was exposed by Clarke and Woodward for monumental pre and post 9/11 failures?" In a month when over 100 American soldiers died in an illegal war?"

Here you are assuming that you know how the American public will react to these stories. Yes, it is quite possible that the American public see a bunch of negative stories about Bush at the same time American troops are being killed in high numbers in Iraq and wind up rallying to Bush.

It is also quite possible that what we saw as a bizarre and embarassing Presidential press conference, was not what a majority of Americans got out of it. I know quite the number of people that thought the media were "mean" to Bush and wound up being quite sympathetic towards him afterwards.

Bush is simple and straightfoward, and he bumbles and mumbles in front of the media. Hate to break it to you, but many people find it endearing. Why? I don't know. But it does appear to be true.

"In a month when over 100 American soldiers died in an illegal war?"

Here again, you refer to Iraq as an illegal war. I don't even think most Democratic Congresspersons and Senators call it an "illegal war". Why would you believe that anything close to a majority of Americans would think it?

"Kerry is kicking Bush's ass every which way to Sunday and the mediawhores don't want you to know it!"

Sorry, I see absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. In my opinion, Kerry is an average candidate to date, with soundbites (which are all the public really sees) which are not particularly inspiring, and endless attacks on "this" administration that just won't win him an election.

"They are preparing the way for Diebold to steal it for Bush."

Sorry, I still don't buy your Diebold conspiracies. Did the Supreme Court wrongly hand the presidency to Bush? You bet. Did Diebold steal it? Nope.

"They will not get away with hijacking our democracy like they did in 2000/2002."

Your poll analysis of how Diebold stole the 2002 election is comical. It is a bunch of meaningness poll crunching that proves nothing - though you are determined to sell the idea.

Running around saying "Bush is toast" is one of the most foolish things you can do. I don't know how many times people need to point out to you that the election is a long way away - in politics 6 months is an eternity. And Bush can easily win without Diebold conspiracies or push polls (though I suspect the polls you declare are fake are likely a reasonably accurate snapshot of public sentiment at this moment in time).

Imajika

[TruthIsAll]

20. Imajika. You are full of gas. Always have been. Always will be.

You are entitled to spew your garbage anywhere you choose.

But don't you dare lecture me about the legitimacy of my analysis.

If you don't believe the 2002 Senate was stolen by the Repukes, you live on a different planet. Bev Harris proved it was stolen in Georgia. And probability analysis shows the odds are better than 40,000 to 1 that 4 senate elections were stolen in Georgia and at least three other states in which the Dems all led in final polling beyond the Margin of Error (+/-3%).

My analysis is the circumstantial proof.I dare you to refute it. I am calling you on this. Right now. Put up or shut up. Tell us all exactly what you find wrong with the mathemmatics.

If you can not refute it, by tommorrow, you're opinions are exposed and you are toast - just like Bush.

[Imajika]

21. No TruthIsAll

"Bev Harris proved it was stolen in Georgia."

Bev Harris has absolutely not proven that an election was stolen in Georgia. I don't even recall her asserting such a thing. Pointing out a possibility is not proving anything.

"And probability analysis shows it was at least 40,000 to 1 that it was stolen in at least three other states."

Your probability analysis is bunk. It shows that the polls you cite aren't entirely accurate and don't factor in late shifts one way or the other. If the odds were so clearly 40,000:1 that the Senate elections were really stolen in not 1, but 3 other states, someone, somewhere would have recognized the same thing. The reason you can't get the DNC or any other clear thinking person to take your analysis seriously is because it is fantasy.

"I am calling you on this. Right now. Put up or shut up. Tell us all exactly what you find wrong with the mathemmatics."

I've looked at your number crunching before and rather quickly saw that the polls you cite can not be used in the way you attempt to use them to show the odds that elections were "stolen" by Diebold.

"If you can not refute it, tonight, you are toast - just like Bush is."

Your setting yourself up to sound like a raving lunatic if Bush wins. You've allowed yourself no ability to factor in the dynamics, nuances and unknowables of a general election and all that goes along with it. You can not just look at a story in a static sort of way, determine on your own or amongst your friends that it is bad for Bush, and then extrapolate that his polls numbers must go down some certain percent because of it. Politics just don't work that way. All the bad news in the world could come Bush's way, 500 more books portraying Bush in a negative light could be released, a thousand more soldiers could die in Iraq on Bush's watch this year, etc, etc and if a majority of the American public just doesn't like Kerry then Bush could win on that alone.

I know you don't like it, but every so often I am going to respond to your Diebold conspiracy theory and "Bush is toast" threads. If you don't want to hear criticizm from time to time, fine, you can ignore me. Sorry, but claiming you KNOW that Diebold stole elections and declaring that you KNOW that Bush is toast is just plain silly. This is a message forum, and from time to time someone should point that out.

Imajika

[TruthIsAll]

22. As I predicted, you did not dispute the mathematical analysis.

Is it because it is beyond your math level of maturity? I was very specific. I said you must refute the math.

So I will help you get started. Let's see where you can take it.

It is a given that any standard, fair poll (and Zogby has a great track record- see Selection 2000), is correct 95% of the time (the results are within the +/- 3% Margin of Error). This means they are wrong (outside the MOE) 5% of time (1 out of 20).

Then what are the chances that 4 out of 10 critical, hard fought, senate elections in which the Dems were leading in final polling way BEYOND the MOE, would ALL fall for the Repukes?

I calculated the probabilty as 1 out of 43,000. And that's a conservative result. Now it is your job to refute the math, the assumptions, or both.

In 2002, Zogby was so far off he was dumbfounded. You can bet he knows why.

Now, would you please answer THAT question. And don't give me a strawman about last minute changes in the voter opinion. That is pure Bushit!

[Imajika]

24. Has it occured to you that the polls..

...you cite were missing a nationwide trend - a late surge going towards the Republicans and Bush?

You talk about separate statewide polls, yet miss the liklihood that a trend towards the Republicans was moving across much of the nation.

"It is a given that any standard, fair poll (and Zogby has a great track record- see Selection 2000), is correct 95% of the time (the results are within the +/- 3% Margin of Error). This means they are wrong (outside the MOE) 5% of time (1 out of 20)."

So what is a fair poll? Most polling firms look back at 2000 and readily admit that they missed a late surge towards Gore. Gallup, CBS, Battleground, Rasmussen, among many others showed Bush leading by around 5%, yet he lost the popular vote. As I recall Zogby's methodology (and I believe the Fox poll as well) was most accurate on a nationwide level - but not so much on a State level. Infact, didn't Zogby have Bush fairly close in California in 2000? Wasn't his polling showing Bush down to Gore by only a couple of points? Didn't Gore wind up winning CA by a margin so large it made all the talk of Bush being competative in the state look idiotic.

How to explain the VA election for Governor back in 80's that had polls showing Wilder troucing Coleman (I think it was Coleman). The polls were all consistantly wrong. They missed the fact that many Virginians were either lying to pollsters, or huge numbers of Wilder voters just changed their minds at the last moment. Either way, Wilder won by only a few thousand votes, and the polls never detected it being such a close race.

How to explain the year Christie Whitman nearly beat Bradley for the New Jersey Senate seat? No poll showed such a close race. All the polls were wrong.

In 2002 it appears far more likely that most races were fairly close, but Bush and the Republicans got a late surge and polling just didn't catch it.

"I calculated the probabilty as 1 out of 43,000. And that's a conservative result. Now it is your job to refute the math, the assumptions, or both."

No, it is not my job. You consistantly fall back on your math without addressing any of the points I've previously made. Your trying to use polls, or at least the ones you chose to cite, to show elections were rigged. You can't do that. You don't know how accurate the polls were in this particular election cycle. You don't know what trends they were missing - not just on a statewide level but also nationwide. You don't know if the methodology the pollsters were using just simply did not apply in these election cycles. You do not have enough information to extrapolate that because the polls you cite were wrong that elections therefore must have been stolen (or at least likely by the odds of 43,000:1).

I have cited quite a few reasons why I think your math and statistics are nonsense. Ever hear the saying, "garbage in, garbage out"? That is what your doing.

"In 2002, Zogby was so far off he was dumbfounded. You can bet he knows why."

No, I don't bet he knows why. I've seen not a peep from Zogby that suggests he believes elections were stolen by Diebold. Infact, I believe I remember reading Zogby just flat out admitting that he missed late trends.

By the way, you've still not cited where Bev has "proven" that the Georgia election was stolen. Please show me where she has said she has proven this. Suggesting a possibility is not anything close to "proving" something did happen. But since you say Bev has "proven" Georgia elections were stolen, could you please show me were she declares this?

If Bev has really "proven" the Georgia elections were stolen her research really would be bigger than the Pentagon Papers.

Imajika

[ParanoidPat]

28. Imajika won't and can't 'prove' anything.

Anyone who thinks that the BBV people are all 'conspiracy theorists' in light of all that's been proven really can't have any grasp on reality.
Imajika, do you realize what 'exit polls' were used for prior to the 2000 election? They were used, in part, to detect election fraud! If the results of an election fell outside of the statistical margin of error of the exit polls that VNS conducted, there was legal cause to challenge the outcome of an election. Many election outcomes were changed over the years due to those challenges. Without the release of the VNS exit poll data, no challenges were possible due to the 'lack of evidence' of an anomaly despite what the public polls conducted by various other press entities showed.

In 2000, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, the results of the exit polls were deemed to be 'excessively in error' and were not released! A change in the software used to tabulate the exit polling data was blamed. The logical thing to do would have been to re-run the raw data through the old software that had been used in previous elections. That never happened, instead, the polling results were withheld until after the election was certified! And to make matters worse, not all of the raw exit polling data was ultimately released by VNS. A simple examination of what wasn't released and how it correlated to races that had statistically improbable outcomes should convince anyone of the probability of foul play. Add to the aforementioned the fact that VNS was SOLD TO THE SAUDI's (the same people who supplied 15 of the 19 9/11 hi-jackers!) after even worse 'anomaly's' were disclosed in the 2002 elections and you have enough evidence to em panel a Grand Jury to investigate massive election fraud and worse.

Imajika can believe what he wants, but after spending over a year actually looking at the source code for the machines, building my own machines and hacking* (*editing the results) them only to marvel at how easy it really is to do without leaving any evidence, and examining the actual facts surrounding how vulnerable our elections really are, I have to vehemently disagree with Imajika's assessment of the BBV problem. :)

TRUTH IS ALL! :evilgrin:

Sorry to post my answer to Imajika's post here TIA, All I can say to you is, "I hear what you're sayin"! ;-)

[TruthIsAll]

30. Pat, you are spot-on except : Exit polls were used in 2000, but not 2002.

At the last minute, on election day, VNS pulled the Exit Polls.

Why? Because they would have proved Repuke/Diebold fraud in at least a few key states - especially Georgia.

[Selwynn]

29. What the fuck man?

Jesus Christ...so she/he disagreed with you? Why act like an asshole about it?

The truth is, we don't know - the polls could be bullshit, or the public could be reacting differently than expected.

I remember when Clinton was in the midst of his scandal. My conservative parents were completely blow away that for a while he went UP, not down, in the polls. It was beyond their comprehension. Here all this mass scandal came out (not saying it was right or whatever) and yet his numbers went up. Maybe those polls were rigged too? Or maybe polls are always just wildly inaccurate? Or maybe people felt sorry for Clinton being attacked and rallied behind him? Who knows... but Imajika's points are not wholly without merit..

[West Coast Democrat]

33. There are some posters who hate Kerry so much.....

they sound like visiting freepers....I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with them.

[0007]

36. Especially that Toyko coco, that women can spin both way

at the same time, and have 'ya believing she's a hard core dem.

[West Coast Democrat]

32. Even according to Gallup, Bush isn't doing well in the swing states.....

An analysis of vote preferences by how people voted in 2000 shows that Bush leads 62% to 33% in the "red" states (where he won in 2000 by more than five percentage points), but trails 57% to 41% in the "blue" states (won by former Vice President Al Gore by more than five percentage points). In the "purple" or competitive states (where the margins of victory were five percentage points or less), Bush and Kerry are tied at 49% of the vote each.

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11419

[TruthIsAll]

37. Concerning Diebold, I have some news for you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1458148

Yes, Imajika, Diebold is corrupt.

And they will be prosecuted in California.

Can Ohio and Georgia be far behind?

[Kathleen04]

23. I don't know...

I'm concerned that we may be burying our heads in the sand, but it's also incomprehensible to me that he is leading in the polls. I also could readily believe that CNN et al would fabricate polls.

Which begs the question, what are we going to do about it? How do we turn it around if we really are behind? and what kind of action can be taken if they really are putting out phoney polls?

[oasis]

27. The polls are obviously making an attempt to prop up Bush. The creation

of a "horserace" may be the motive for their dishonesty. Not so sure that the pollsters are working in concert with Bushco. That said, there is no question in my mind that "election 2002" was stolen by Diebold.

[West Coast Democrat]

31. From Gallup's own website, Kerry & Bush are tied in toss-up states

Gallups calls them "purple states":

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11419
An analysis of vote preferences by how people voted in 2000 shows that Bush leads 62% to 33% in the "red" states (where he won in 2000 by more than five percentage points), but trails 57% to 41% in the "blue" states (won by former Vice President Al Gore by more than five percentage points). In the "purple" or competitive states (where the margins of victory were five percentage points or less), Bush and Kerry are tied at 49% of the vote each.

[BabsSong]

34. I think these polls are showing a very accurate trend because you

have to look at what is being thrown now constantly at the public by the media. It's WAR/TERROR and simply by this being the subject matter rather than economy/jobs that have been blown off of page one, means that it really doesn't matter much whether the stories are pro or con Bush. Unfortunately, it really doesn't. It would have to be something very big, like Bush hired Osama to to the deed on 9/11, for people to look at this same subject matter and turn against Bush. Unfortunately, these bastards are not going to let other subjects take over the news...not now and not until after November. This is exactly what Rove has wanted and they gave it to him. So remember "it's the subject line, not the message" that does the trick". If jobs fall off and that takes over the news, you will see Bush fall and Kerry soar.