SALON "Lefty bastions like Democratic Underground..."

[JRob]

This piece is so indicative of Republican "one note" logic it makes me sick! On top of which I'd say the comment below is somewhat derogitory... someone's sippin' the Koolaid.

-SNIP-
"Lefty bastions like Democratic Underground are aflame with discussions purporting to prove how the exits show Bush didn't really win."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/15/exit_polls/index_np.html

Farhad Manjoo email: [e-mail]

Editor in Chief Joan Walsh email: [e-mail]

FULL PIECE:

No exit
A persuasive new theory explains why Kerry beat Bush in Election Day exit polls. Just don't expect those still crying "fraud" to believe it.

By Farhad Manjoo

June 15, 2005 | "May I be the first to say 'Mr. President'?" Bob Shrum, one of the John Kerry's chief campaign advisors, beamed to the senator shortly before the East Coast polls closed on Election Day 2004. Shrum's excitement, if premature, was understandable. Kerry's aides realized the race would be close, but during much of Election Day they were buoyed by positive exit poll results flowing out of key states -- Ohio, critically -- showing their man headed for a win. It wasn't only Kerry's people who were excited by the exits. The poll numbers, which weren't officially released during the vote, but which floated around online as freely as Paris Hilton's sex video, seduced just about everybody on the left into thinking a new day had dawned.

In the end, of course, Ohio went red and liberals were blue. But even before Kerry offered his concession, some on the left began pointing to the exit polls as proof that George W. Bush stole the election. To this day, they claim that the exit polls -- which are compiled through interviews with voters just after they've cast their ballots -- tell us that most Americans attempted to vote for John Kerry. What is off, they say, is the official vote count, corrupted by paperless electronic machines and other methods of chicanery.

Exit poll results were just one item in a long bill of election-fraud particulars that folks began passing around in the aftermath of the election. But over the past seven months, the exits have proved more enduring to the election-was-stolen movement than many of the other early indicators of fraud. Lefty bastions like Democratic Underground are aflame with discussions purporting to prove how the exits show Bush didn't really win.

But a clear consensus among experienced pollsters is finally emerging on what happened with the exits. Last month, at an annual conference of opinion pollsters in Miami Beach, Warren Mitofsky, the veteran pollster who conducted the exit poll for the networks, offered a detailed and convincing explanation of what went wrong with the polls. The reason the exits were off, Mitofsky said, is that interviewers assigned to talk to voters as they left the polls appeared to be slightly more inclined to seek out Kerry voters than Bush voters. Kerry voters were overrepresented in the poll by a small margin, which is why everyone thought that Kerry was going to win. The underlying error, Mitofsky's firm said in a report this January, is "likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters."

[JNelson6563]

1. "Lefty bastions like DU"

hahaha Good one.

Julie

[Melodybe]

2. Has salon gone over to the dark side?

or is this just one of their few repub pieces.

I hope it is the later, I used to like salon, hell we still pay for it.

[PDittie]

7. it's just Farhad Manjoo

who's supposed to offer 'balance'.

Farook him.

[Logansquare]

15. FarRight Manjoo

He's only slightly less slimy than David Horowitz.

[Mitt Chovick]

25. You mean we aren't a Lefty bastion?

perhaps I'm in the wrong place.... I was looking for a lefty bastion.

[MSgt213]

3. That detailed and convincing explanation sounds like BS to me

How long have we been doing exit polls? The veteran pollster and others didn't know to train their pollers not to this sort of thing because of the consequences? The interviewers were looking for the I voted for Kerry signs on everyone's forehead as they left the polls? Every other election held this in no matter what country, county or state were the election was held was able to rely on exit polls to predict the out come of their elections except the US President's election.

[JRob]

14. in 2000 the margin of error was just over 1%

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. I'd love to see Mikofsky's list of exit polling sites

because at least in Alachua County, FL which is a very liberal county they picked the most conservative precinct they could find to do their exit polling. According to my local SOE, they used the same precinct in 2002 and she couldn't understand why they like that particular precinct so much.

[ima_sinnic]

5. pollsters were "slightly more inclined to seek out Kerry voters"

--and they knew someone was a "Kerry voter," how exactly?
so when the voter was asked how he or she voted, and said "Bush," the pollster didn't record his answer but instead kept asking until a Kerry voter was found? Kerry voters had a secret signal or something? how come nobody ever told me about it? there must have been a shirt color I was supposed to wear.

right. whatever. :eyes:

apparently the person who wrote this article believes this absurd nonsense and is therefore TSTL*



*Too Stupid To Live

[ConservativeDemocrat]

23. Kerry voters are younger, dressed better, smiling

Bush voters are, on average, older, hate filled, and smug.

You know how in anti-rape classes they tell you to "trust your instincts" because people can't help but emote the evil inside them?

Well it works with raping the country as well. And the poll takers picked up on that. Hence, fewer interviews.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[leveymg]

6. Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush vo

Could it be that's because Kerry voters also participated in voting at a higher rate than Bush voters? That's the simplest, and likely the best, explanation. -- :eyes: :freak: :dunce: :argh:

[FLSurfer]

8. That is the best answer

I could have imagined for such a stupid unverifiable statement.
thanks

[Carla in Ca]

19. I said the same thing earlier in another thread

Exactly
Doesn't that mean that perhaps there were more Kerry voters at the poles?

[oblivious]

9. He seems to be trying awfully hard to promote electronic voting.

The Case for Electronic Voting
Nov. 14, 2000 PT

If the U.S. State Department is looking for a way to restore America's good name after the recent election blunders in Florida, it ought to let the world know about Mischelle Townsend's bold experiment in Riverside County, California.

Some of her colleagues thought the touch-screen voting machines might be too complicated for voters, and that the whole upgrade might be too expensive.

Nobody is questioning Townsend's decision anymore.

The public liked it too, Townsend said. "For the city races, we had a 99 percent approval rating of the new systems. The comments were mostly, 'We've finally stepped into the 21st century,' and 'Why has it taken so long for this?'"

Everyone who tried the system in Arizona liked it, and more than 80 percent said they would prefer to vote using such electronic terminals.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40141,00.html

Why Bush won
It's pretty simple, really -- Kerry was a poor candidate.

By Farhad Manjoo

Nov. 4, 2004 |

Am I the only one who thinks the Bush victory isn't a fundamental realignment of the electorate (a rightward shift toward "values") and instead suggests something more simple -- that John Kerry was a pretty poor candidate with a not-exactly-great political team running against a pretty good candidate with a tested political team who, as the incumbent during a time of war, probably couldn't have lost against anyone anyway, no matter how badly he did in the debates?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/11/04/poor/index_np.html

Did e-voting fraud help Bush steal the election?
The Internets are abuzz with rumors that Bush won with the help of rigged electronic voting machines.

By Farhad Manjoo
Nov. 4, 2004 |

Lefty Web sites are buzzing with a supposed "statistical analysis" that they say proves that Republicans stole the election by rigging paperless touch screen machines. According to the analysis performed by a Democratic Underground regular who goes by the handle SoCalDemocrat, states that use electronic machines were all showing strong Kerry support in exit polls, but when the results came in, the states went to Bush. The polls (which are based on interviews with voters as they leave the polls) indicate that voters in the state really voted for Kerry, the lefties say; the machines distorted or changed their votes. "Maybe Dubayah believes God will see him through this, but it's going to take more than blind faith to pull the wool over the data and the facts," SoCalDemocrat writes.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/11/04/touch_screen/index_np.html

Was the election stolen?
Nov. 10, 2004
The system is clearly broken. But there is no evidence that Bush won because of voter fraud.

There's little question that the American election is a mess, and needs to be cleaned up. But even if this particular election wasn't perfect, it was still most likely good enough for us to have faith in the results. Salon has examined some of the most popular Kerry-actually-won theories currently making the rounds online, and none of them hold up under rigorous scrutiny.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/11/10/voting/index_np.html

Ballots Need an Upgrade -- Duh!
Nov. 10, 2000

Down in Rio, they're laughing at big, powerful America.

Thousands of Brazilians, who vote using ATM-style machines at their precincts, must be sending incredulous e-mails to their expat pals in Palm Beach County, Florida: "You fellas use punch cards?"

"One hundred percent of the people who voted said they liked it," Gerck said of the more than 300 people who tried the system. He said that all of the darts that have traditionally been thrown at e-voting -- that it isn't secure, for example, or that it will fool people who aren't familiar with computers -- were refuted by the Contra Costa vote.
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40078,00.html

And then there's his promotion of right-wing media:

Newsmax Knows Its Audience
Dec. 08, 2000

It has a stable of conservative columnists who report such delicacies as the latest goings-on in the independent counsel investigation of Bill Clinton, or how democratic judges in Florida are conspiring to give Gore the White House.

And it's this kind of stuff, Ruddy says, that's attracting people to Newsmax. "There's tremendous antipathy in the middle of the country," he says. "People feel that they're being ignored by the traditional media. So they come to our site for something different."

When Ruddy talks about the "traditional media," he's alluding to the famous "liberal media bias" that the right has always pinned on mainstream news and TV media.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,40375,00.html

[rman]

10. Except that Salon isn't exactly republican,

and DU is in fact a lefty bastion.
I mean, it's not like there's anything wrong with being left, nor with being a bastion, is there?

[JRob]

17. true, however in the context of the piece it seemed derogatory, even

snotty.

[underpants]

11. Uh-oh what if relevant news sources start reporting on us like this?

:rofl:

[quaoar]

12. Did you miss this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1856720

[JRob]

18. nope

[Politicub]

13. Typical Farhad Manjoo

I don't even know why Salon hired him. A large number of his stories seem to be Democrat hit pieces.

Perhaps Salon is going for balance, but the clue phone is ringing and the person on the other end is saying, "The right will always hate you and say you are biased. Give up on providing the reich wing version of 'balance.'"

The word 'balance' has lost its meaning in the age of Faux anyway.

With that being said, I love Salon and I've been a regular reader since 1997. I typically don't read Manjoo's articles, because they are too predictable.

[XemaSab]

16. Agreed

Any liberal attempt at "balance" is going to wind up just like compromise and triangulation always do for us.

Balance is agreeing to only get kicked in the pants on odd days of the month.

[JRob]

20. I don't get the "balance" concept...

There are angles on an issue that the parties push and then there are facts. Report the facts and explain the positions of the opponents. Once a "news organization" skews the facts and contributes to an agenda it's not news it's propaganda

[XemaSab]

24. The problem is

that too often "facts" are complicated, so the news organizations cherry pick the facts they like and ignore the rest.

Try to explain something like the DSM in 5 minutes between MJ and the missing blonde in Aruba, giving a full coverage of the facts and, in the interests of fairness, listening to what both the American and British administrations and their accusers have to say,

[Atman]

21. So, the guy who effed up the whole mess gets to vindicate himself

with nothing but a remark to Salon? That "seek out Kerry voters" notion is ABSURD at its face, because afaik, NO CAMPAIGN LITERATURE OR BUTTONS OR ANY OTHER PARTY OR CANDIDATE GEAR is allowed in the polling place. I am a poll worker, I know this for a fact here in Connecticut. So, how on earth did Mitofsky determine Kerry voters were Kerry voters? They were the hippies, the obviously gay, that hybrid drivers? What possible criteria was used to arrive at this ridiculous conclusion?

And why did Salon swallow such a lame explanation so readily?

[CJCRANE]

22. "detailed and convincing explanation" ?!

"Kerry voters were overrepresented in the poll by a small margin, which is why everyone thought that Kerry was going to win".

It's like they're trying to explain it to a five-year old who doesn't know anything about elections or exit polls.

[Norquist Nemesis]

27. Insane, isn't it?

Of course the simplest and most probable explanation of why there were more Kerry voters is because THERE ACTUALLY WERE MORE PEOPLE VOTING FOR KERRY!!!!!

(sorry...not shouting at you, just venting.)

[BenDavid]

26. Hey, at least we are "Bastions"

[CJCRANE]

28. Hey!

Don't you go calling me a BASTION!

;)

[markus]

29. The "errors" found by professional pollsters

who'd all have to find other jobs if they didn't get their biennial cash infusion from the very careerists in *both* parties who want this just to go away.

Fair warning to right wing toadies. The next Velvet Revolution will take place on the National Mall, not some distant hard-ro-pronounce capitol most Americans think was the scene of a Marx Brother's movie.

This nation cannot survive another rigged election.