CBS News exit polls for CT primary

[LSK]

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/ctexitpoll.pdf

DO YOU THINK OF YOUR LAMONT VOTE AS…?
(Among Lamont voters)
For Lamont 52%
Against Lieberman 48

DO YOU THINK OF YOUR LIEBERMAN VOTE AS…?
(Among Lieberman voters)
For Lieberman 92%
Against Lamont 8%

MAIN REASON YOU VOTED FOR LAMONT?
(Among Lamont voters)
Opposition to Iraq war 43%
He would oppose Bush 24
It's just time for a change 21
Issues other than Iraq 9
His personal qualities 3

MAIN REASON YOU VOTED FOR LIEBERMAN?
(Among Lieberman voters)
His experience 48%
His personal qualities 21
Issues other than Iraq 21
His support for Iraq 6
Works well with Bush 3

78% of Democratic voters disapproved of the decision to go to war with
Iraq, including 61% who said they strongly disapproved. Only 22%
approved of the decision. Six in ten of those who disapproved voted
for Lamont.
U.S. DECISION TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ
Approve 22%
Disapprove 78

VOTE CHOICE OF THOSE WHO DISAPPROVE OF IRAQ WAR
Lamont 60%
Lieberman 39

VOTE IN NOVEMBER IF LIEBERMAN RUNS AS AN IND.

Lamont 49%
Lieberman 36
Not sure 12

[JuniperLea]

1. "Works well with Bush"

Read: Plays well with other bullies; runs with scissors.

[jobycom]

Support for Lieberman is more solid than for Lamont.

92% of Lieberman voters voted for Lieberman, and on issues that won't change much (experience, personal qualities), whereas 48% of Lamont voters voted against Lamont, and on issues that are all about Lieberman (Opposition to war and Bush, time for a change).

Which means that Lamont's support is weaker than Lieberman's, at least going in to the primary. There's a lot of room there for Lieberman to define Lamont, to take away some of his votes. Lamont will have to be careful--Lieberman, once he quits acting like a spoiled brat and starts acting like Seantor Palpatine again, is quite crafty.

A friend of mine, who handles campaigns in Austin and supports people like Dean and Lamont, says he doesn't think Lamont has a chance. It was an odd discussion, since I haven't liked Lamont much, and he doesn't like Lieberman. I was telling him Lamont could win, he was telling me Lamont couldn't.

I hope Lamont has good handlers.

[bigwillq]

20. Ned shouldn't make the War the #1 issue.

It's a big issue and it reflects upon the failed policies of the repukes and of Joe, who voted for the IWR and continues to support the war.
But there are a lot of other issues he needs to bring up front.
It would be a mistake for Ned just to keep talking about the war.

[napi21]

2. I think this poll was taken way too soon after the vote!

People are going to have one opinion moments after they cast their vote than they are a few weeks from now.

How many will get upset with Joe for deciding to run as an Ind?

What effect is the decision by the other Dem Senators to support the winner of the primary going to ahve on their opinion of Joe?

Bill Clinton's visit to campaign for Joe was supposed to have helped him a lot in the last few days before the primary. Since BC said he will support the WINNER OF THE PRIMARY, how is THAT going to affect people's opinion of Joe?

I say wait a few weeks and then do another poll to get a better feel for real feelings of the Ct. voters.

[LSK]

3. well it is an exit poll, however I agree that feelings will change

Lamont now gets the funding and resources of the Democratic Party while Lieberman has to go on his own with no friends (besides Rove).

[jobycom]

4. The thing about exit polls

is that they are based on actual voter turnout, rather than expected turnout. People are polled, and then catagorized into their demographic groups. After the ballots are counted, the formulas can be constructed using exact demographic turnout, and the data can then be fit to that turnout (this is why they are worthless at predicting an outcome, as we've seen in the last few elections).

So it's a great snapshot. But you're right, it's a snapshot of a past situation, and one that changed immediately after it was taken. It doesn't say anything about the way people will lean in the general. It does show some interesting things, though, like why people voted for Lamont or Lieberman. That gives both candidates stuff to work with, as they try to steal votes from the other side.

As for Clinton's involvement, I wonder how much impact it had. Lieberman was trailing by 13 points in some polls when Clinton got involved, and he only lost by 3-4 points. It's hard to say whether that improvement was because of Clinton, or whether the polls were just inaccurate. So it's hard to say what CLinton backing Lamont will do to the race now.

[Peace Patriot]

6. "this is why (exit polls) are worthless at predicting an outcome, as we've

seen in the last few elections."

It would help, though, if the war profiteering corporate news monopolies didn't DOCTOR their exit polls--in ridiculous, absurd ways--to FORCE them to FIT the results of Diebold/ES&S's 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote tabulation formulae.

See www.TruthIsAll.net. Don't buy this crap that exit polls are inaccurate.

[jobycom]

9. You might as well say that orange sounds like air

as say that exit polls are accurate before the final results of an election are tabulated. Exit polls are just random numbers. The only way they have meaning is by applying them to the final results of the election. If the election is rigged, the polls will be flawed, but there is no other way to do them, by definition.

I know TIA's argument, I've seen them for years. He assumes there is some way to analyze exit poll data before the outcome of the election. You can't. It's like analyzing data from a computer program without even knowing how the program will use the data.

[Peace Patriot]

13. "Exit polls are just random numbers"??! Wrong! Exit polls are carefully-

nay, meticulously--designed, based on the demographics of previous elections and all sorts of other stats and factors--specifically TO PREDICT the election during the course of the day. That's how they are used in all other countries in the world with democratic elections, and that's how they've always been used here! And they have become highly accurate and reliable for that purpose. When there is a DIVERGENCE of the exit polls and the official results, this triggers a RECOUNT in some countries, or some kind of comparison with the actual ballots.

In THIS country, however, in 2004, when a big divergence occurred--Kerry won the exit polls by 3%--there was no recount, and no nationwide questioning of the result. Why?

1. They HID that result. The war profiteering corporate news monopoly consortium--using one pollster--put bizarrely "adjusted" numbers on the screen, HIDING THE FACT that Kerry won the exit polls, and changing the exit poll outcome to Bush. They have since refused to release their raw data to the Conyers election investigation committee and to reputable statisticians.

2. ONE THIRD of the country voted on Diebold/ES&S machines WITH NO PAPER TRAIL--Bushite corporations with TOTAL, SECRET CONTROL of the vote tabulation--and the rest voted in mostly electronic systems WITH NO AUDIT CONTROLS or extremely poor auditing, also using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code in the machines and the central tabulators. During 2002-2004, an election system was installed--with a $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle from the Anthrax Congress--that COULD NOT BE recounted or audited.

It was a fascist coup, and Edison-Mitofsky went along with it. THEY should have questioned TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote counting! And WHERE was the Democratic leadership? Clipping coupons from their Diebold and Halliburton stock?

It was the biggest betrayal of democracy that has ever occurred! It was the near death of our democracy. But we're fighting back now--with pressure groups and lawsuits all over the country, against these criminal e-voting corporations and the corrupted election officials who succumbed to their lavish lobbying, and purchased these crapass, extremely insecure, and extremely insider hackable election theft machines!

This election theft system, and its (s)election of Bush and the Diebold Congress, is a monumental national DISGRACE! And the exit polls--whose REAL result was caught by alert bloggers and statistical experts--was the first clue!

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. for once I agree with your first two sentences

Exit polls aren't just random numbers -- I regard jobycom's position as overstated.

Beyond that, well, it's the same old same old. Just to choose one point, could you please document the high accuracy and reliability of exit polls over, say, the last 20 years for our edification?

If you are actually prepared to defend particular arguments from TruthIsAll.net, please let me know. Otherwise, it's sort of wish-and-a-prayer territory, isn't it?

[Febble]

24. Peace Patriot, as I've said before,

I admire your passion, but I do not understand why do you keep repeating assertions that are demonstrably at odds with the facts.

I know you and I will probably always disagree at some level about what went on in 2004, but I'm quite happy to tolerate nuance - I disagree with myself, daily. But what I really fail to understand is your repeated assertion that the pollsters HID the results of their own exit polls.

They didn't hide them. The poll findings were put on CNN.com, and I, like millions of others saw them. They then openly discussed the discrepancy. We can disagree about the cause of the discrepancy but I cannot understand how we can disagree on whether it was hidden - it clearly wasn't. It wasn't hidden from me, and I don't even live in America. They then produced a 77 page document devoted entirely to an investigation into that discrepancy which you insist they hid. Not only is the discrepancy not "hidden" in that document, the document actually gives precise detail, in the form of multiple spreadsheets that can be readily re-analysed by other investigators, of the magnitude of those discrepancies as measured in various ways, namely in terms of raw data; in terms of raw data post-adjustment for sampling stratification; and in terms of precinct selection (the discrepancy there being minimal).

And despite your assertions to the contrary, they have released the raw data, again in enormous detail as they always do. So a huge amount of analysis is possible. What they have not done is to release precinct level data together with precinct-level counts for the simple reason that this would jeopardize the confidentiality of the respondents. However, they DID prepare a precinct-level dataset for Ohio in which those counts are statistically "blurred", and I understand further datasets may be in preparation for other states.

As someone once said somewhere about something else - you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Sure, the election might have been stolen, and sure, the exit poll discrepancy might have been due to fraud (though I would argue that the evidence suggests otherwise). But to contend that the discrepancy was hidden is simply false. The estimates were simply adjusted to the count as they always are, and from the magnitude of the adjustment required it was plain for all to see that there was a ruddy great discrepancy.

Love and a cough cannot be hid, nor can a discrepancy between an exit poll and a result, and this one wasn't.


edited for typos

[Peace Patriot]

25. When you make this argument, Febble, you really ought to disclose that

you have worked for the pollsters who did this (Edison-Mitofksy) for money.

They took down the real exit polls, which showed a Kerry win, and put up DOCTORED numbers, that had been polluted with the official results, and were skewed in impossible ways, to FORCE the exit polls to confirm the results of Diebold/ES&S's TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote tabulation formulae.

They tried to explain Bush's MYSTERIOUS, late-in-the-day win by a bunch of gobble-de-gook about "reluctant Republican responders," which turned out to be the opposite of the truth.

Alert bloggers and others caught the exit poll reports before they changed them--took screen shots of them--and established that Kerry won the exit polls. Edison-Mitofsky LATER had to admit that this was true. E/M then DENIED access to the raw data to Conyers' committee, and to statistical experts, who requested it. And they still have not given it up!

And the upshot of all this DEVIOUS behavior was to DENY the American people vitally important evidence of a stolen election--the undoctored exit polls--that might have spurred effective protest. They took it off the TV screens that night (after a mysterious "glitch" in the computer reporting system); they said that the doctored polls were the real ones; they obscured the truth; they fuzzied the issue, and they lied about it and just made shit up. They acted just like Bushites and their war profiteering corporate news monopoly propaganda machine. And guess what? That's who was paying them! All the bastard so-called news organizations who lied to us about the war--some of them making direct profit off the war in their octopus of subsidiaries, and their five rightwing CEO billionaires making enormous profit off Bush tax cuts and deregulation. That's who paid for this exit poll collusion.

There is no excuse for this. Edison-Mitofsky should have cried foul BEFORE the election, and should have refused to participate in any election that was unauditable and unrecountable. It was a breach of ethics that they did not. And instead they did everything possible to make that election look legitimate.

Edison-Mitofsky and the corporate news monopolies they worked for colluded in COVERING UP major evidence of election fraud--the type of evidence that brought down a government in the Ukraine, and that is ROUTINELY USED throughout the world to verify elections and check for fraud.

It was HIDDEN from the American people. And it's STILL HIDDEN. E/M has done NOTHING to un-hide it! If people hadn't gotten screen shots before they took down the real exit poll numbers, we wouldn't know about it. And E/M has done nothing but obscure the matter since then--including keeping the tell-tale raw PRECINCT data secret. The argument about "confidentiality" is bullshit. Experts peer review confidential material all the time.

The attitude of Edison-Mitofsky toward the people of this country--the owners of this country, the sovereign voters of this country--is a replica of the attitude of our corrupt election officials, who have bought into a culture of secrecy and obscurantism, foisted upon us by the Bushite corporations who have gained control of our election system. I've seen this attitude in election officials who have become shills for Diebold, who respond to criticism of secret vote counting with lines like this: "She's not a professional." "He's not an expert."

As if you have to be a "professional" and an "expert" to recognize a goddamned scam when you see one. As if you have to be a "professional" and an "expert" to understand what should be a very simple matter: People vote, and you count the votes in public view. All tangled up now with the most esoteric claptrap ever inflicted by pettifogging "experts" on the rest of humankind.

There should be NO SECRETS, and NO OBSCURE SECRET DATA and NO OBSCURE SECRET FORMULAE, in ANY part of our election system--exit poll or vote tabulation. And this IS the heart of the problem--MONEYED interests, like Edison-Mitofsky and those who hired them, and like Diebold and ES&S--gaining PRIVATE control over election data and taking on QUASI-OFFICIAL functions, and acquiring QUASI-OFFICIAL status and authority, over matters that should be entirely in the public venue. They thus gain the power to MANIPULATE what should be public information for private gain.

That's what has happened here, and "experts" who have lent themselves to the disreputable enterprise of secret vote counting--which has very nearly destroyed our democracy, and has ultimately resulted in the deaths and torture of thousands of people, and the impoverishment and suffering of many others--are nothing more than fascists themselves.

[Febble]

26. It's in my sodding sig!

What more do you want?????!!!!!!

And your repeat of your assertion does nothing for its veracity.

If you want to know how the exit poll projections work, then find out. Alternatively, ask me, and I'll tell you. The projections are always made on the basis of additional information about the results, not on the exit poll data alone, unless the state is such a slam dunk there could be no possible error.

They've been done that way for years. They are done that way in the UK. Because you didn't happen to know that, doesn't mean it isn't true.

And the greater the discrepancy, the greater the adjustment that has to be made to the projections. It's the size of the adjustment that tells you the size of the discrepancy between the poll and the count. But IT IS ALWAYS BE ADJUSTED.

And the rest of your post (on the exit polls) isn't true either. You don't seem even to have read mine (that's perhaps why you didn't notice my sig).

For a start, non-response bias is not "gobbledygook". Google it:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=non-response+bias&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

And there WAS NO "exit poll collusion". Or, if there was, there is no evidence of it that I have seen. Nor do you provide any, you merely, as ever, assert it.

Have you even read the Edison-Mitofsky report?

Let me give you the link:

http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

and commend to you pages 21-24, pages 26-27, pages 29-30 and pages 32-33. WAY more information than in the downloaded web pages, which were not, as is generally believed, some "pristine" set of "undoctored" numbers, but a snapshot of the estimates before many vote returns had been incorporated.

Your narrative sounds terrific, PP, but it is largely fiction. Sure there is an important story to tell about the abuses of democracy in 2004. But fiction isn't the way to tell it. The facts tell it better.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. so, Peace Patriot is livid that E/M CONDUCTED the exit polls?

It seems to me that if she is going to take that line, she could at least have the sense of principle not to mention the exit polls, since they never should have been conducted in the first place.

Just a thought. It would also spare her the trouble of vaguely pretending to have read your posts.

[Febble]

29. And this stuff makes me so angry, I'm going to continue....

They tried to explain Bush's MYSTERIOUS, late-in-the-day win by a bunch of gobble-de-gook about "reluctant Republican responders,"

Far from being gobble-de-gook, they had actual evidence for it, non-response bias is a well-attested and well-researched phenomenon, and their subsequent detailed investigation supported it.

which turned out to be the opposite of the truth.

As you give no reference for this assertion I have no way of countering it except to repeat that there is excellent evidence in the data, and in past data, for the phenomenon.

Alert bloggers and others caught the exit poll reports before they changed them--took screen shots of them--and established that Kerry won the exit polls.

Bloggers and a few million others round the world, who hoped that the early exit poll estimates were going to turn out to be good.

Edison-Mitofsky LATER had to admit that this was true.

Yup, and they "admitted" BEFORE the election that the projections would be based on vote-returns as well as exit poll data, as they do every election. Not much opacity there.

E/M then DENIED access to the raw data to Conyers' committee, and to statistical experts, who requested it. And they still have not given it up!

They have made copious data available, including precinct-level data for Ohio, after blurring.

And the upshot of all this DEVIOUS behavior was to DENY the American people vitally important evidence of a stolen election--the undoctored exit polls--that might have spurred effective protest.

Well, I protested, and you protested, and Conyers protested, and everyone was talking about the exit poll discrepancy, and whether it might have been due to fraud, and some of us where hoping it did, but aware that non-sampling error might have been responsible, and Mitofsky was talking about what might have caused it. The point is that LOADS of people knew there was a discrepancy BECAUSE NO-ONE WAS SAYING THERE WASN'T ONE.

They took it off the TV screens that night (after a mysterious "glitch" in the computer reporting system);

Well, what they did is that they gradually updated the estimates, and there was a discontinuity during the glitch. But the numbers that you regard as the "real" exit polls weren't particularly real, any more than the height of a 12 year old is any more the "real" height of the 18 year old he will become than the height of the same child at 10. They were an early snapshot of the process.

they said that the doctored polls were the real ones;

No, they assumed their reweighted tabulations would be more accurate than the un-reweighted tabulations. And they projected the winners using vote returns. No-one claimed that any set of numbers, early or late, were "real".

they obscured the truth; they fuzzied the issue,

Well sure, the truth got obscured, and the issue got fuzzied, just as posts like yours continue to obscure and fuzzy the idea people have about how exit polls work. Whether that was the fault of E-M (who posted an extremely explicit and detailed account of exactly what they would do, BEFORE the election, so I'm not sure how much I blame E-M, though I do fault the networks for not making it clearer) or the fault of people like you, I don't know. But misunderstanding there certainly was, and is. And which I am trying to clear, NOT because I had a contract with Mitofsky (undertaken, as you well know, WELL after the election and BECAUSE I was critical of their analysis) but because I respect FACTS, and I don't like history being rewritten as FICTION.

and they lied about it and just made shit up.

Well, shit has certainly been made up.

They acted just like Bushites and their war profiteering corporate news monopoly propaganda machine. And guess what? That's who was paying them! All the bastard so-called news organizations who lied to us about the war--some of them making direct profit off the war in their octopus of subsidiaries, and their five rightwing CEO billionaires making enormous profit off Bush tax cuts and deregulation. That's who paid for this exit poll collusion.

Except that your initial premise is simply wrong.

There is no excuse for this.

There isn't an excuse for continuing to post these assertions, which are not only unsupported by evidence but actually contradicted by evidence that you could easily google.

Edison-Mitofsky should have cried foul BEFORE the election, and should have refused to participate in any election that was unauditable and unrecountable. It was a breach of ethics that they did not. And instead they did everything possible to make that election look legitimate.

Bullshit.

Edison-Mitofsky and the corporate news monopolies they worked for colluded in COVERING UP major evidence of election fraud--the type of evidence that brought down a government in the Ukraine, and that is ROUTINELY USED throughout the world to verify elections and check for fraud.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Exit poll evidence was NOT used to bring down a government in Ukraine - did you forget about the acid in the ballot boxes, and the fact that one candidate was poisoned and mutilated by the other side? And exit polls are NOT "routinely used throughout the world to verify elections and check for fraud." Name one election in which this has been done (I can, I wonder if you can).

It was HIDDEN from the American people.

Hidden in plain sight apparently.

And it's STILL HIDDEN. E/M has done NOTHING to un-hide it!

Sigh. Read my other post, check the links.

If people hadn't gotten screen shots before they took down the real exit poll numbers, we wouldn't know about it.

Well true, I suppose - if people hadn't watched TV they might not have known there was an election either. But no-one was stopping me watching - were they stopping you?

And E/M has done nothing but obscure the matter since then--including keeping the tell-tale raw PRECINCT data secret. The argument about "confidentiality" is bullshit. Experts peer review confidential material all the time.

Not true. I do a fair bit of peer-reviewing, but I never actually see the data, precisely because of confidentiality constraints, although sometimes peer-reviewers do ask to see data. But it is never made publicly available, and should not be, unless it is first "anonymised". Funnily enough I spent this morning "anonymising" data, and anonymised data was released, as always, to the Roper Centre and the University of Michigan.

OK, back to Lamont. I am immensely cheered that he won.

[Febble]

30. And finally, the "tell-tale precinct raw data":

here it is:




1250 precincts, with raw data: on the vertical axis is the swing to Bush (the amount by which he increased/decreased his share of the two-party vote) and on the horizontal axis is the RAW PRECINCT LEVEL EXIT POLL DISCREPANCY measured in z scores that represent how far from zero the discrepancy was relative to what would be expected if the only error was sampling error (see TIA's posts to find out what sampling error is, if you don't know). Roughly, anything with a z score of more than 2 or less than -2 shouldn't happen in more than 95% of precincts IF the only source of error is sampling error.

As you can see, there are a fair number of precincts with z scores lower than -2 (means that Kerry did better than the exit poll suggested) but a great many more precincts with z scores higher than 2 (means that Bush did better than the exit poll suggested). From this we can conclude that there was something other than sampling error going on (could be non-sampling error, could be fraud) and that more of it was going in Bush's direction than Kerry's.

But the point about this plot is that there is NO TENDENCY for Bush to DO BETTER RELATIVE TO 2000 where he DID BETTER RELATIVE TO THE EXIT POLL.

So the "tell-tale" precinct level RAW data (no weighting, no nothing) tells the tale that whatever was causing the exit poll discrepancy didn't seem to have much effect on Bush's vote. Which rather suggests to me that that something wasn't fraud (which would).

So there you have it, PP. Tell-tale precinct raw data. And the tale it tells. If it's telling anything else (and it could be, although I've interrogated it pretty thoroughly), then perhaps you'd like to suggest what.

[Impashund Ubique]

5. Kind of disturbing.

Only 6 in 10 of the voters who disapprove of this war voted for Lamont. And, apparently, 36% of the democratic primary voters will still vote for Lieberman in the general.

That picture is disturbing. I understand that Lieberman has been faithful and productive for many CT citizens during his public service career. But this is where I fault "loyalty." There is a time for loyalty and a time for competence. This is a time to demand competence and common sense.

This is one of the only two significant chances (the other being the 08 presidential election) the CT voters are going to get to have a powerful say on the most important issue of our time, and they are not ready to vote their hearts and minds on this critical matter. Which makes you wonder, "why so?" I don't think the answer is terribly complicated.

I don't support the draft, but no one can seriously contest that things would be the same if there was a draft in place right now. Lamont would have won in a landslide if people felt a stronger personal investment in this catastrophic war. They would have realized better that their vote means saving one more American life, preserving one more American family's happiness (to say nothing of what the Iraqis are going through). If there was a draft looming, people would have forgotten all about the little favors Joe might have done for them in the past or the pork he brought home.

Sometimes, you have to put personal bonds (that some in CT might feel toward old Joe) behind the greater good. Some folks have yet to understand that.

And all this from a primary in a state where only 16% of Democrats approve of Bush.

Lieberman will probably drop out though, and at this point, after watching Lamont on Hardball last night, I think he will probably be the next Senator from the state of Connecticut. This race is historic, and win or lose, Ned Lamont has already been placed in the annals of the 21st century.

[dolstein]

10. "There is a time for loyalty and a time for competence."

Hmmmmm . . . sounds like a good campaign slogan for Lieberman.

[ktlyon]

7. so did the exit polls match the final results?

Is this an example that can be held up to say "see exit poling is valid and accurate? Can it be used in the future to begin evaluating election results?

[Peace Patriot]

14. CBS has denied us the basic voting data/exit poll data by which to compare

the two. I'm trying to figure it out backwards right now--but it's very difficult. The base of the exit poll was 2,669 Democratic voters. How did they stack up, Lamont vs. Lieberman? CBS's pdf DOESN'T SAY. I also don't know what ADJUSTMENTS they made to the exit poll data, based on the official returns, and if they were reasonable--as the "adjustments" to the 2004 exit polls WERE NOT.

So, even if I could come up with a stat--exit poll totals for Lamont vs. Lieberman, vs official results for Lamont vs. Lieberman--I don't know if it would be valid. They likely have already done their tweak--making it fit the 4% Lamont win.

These jokers are being very stingy with their information--since we caught them at their goddamned game in 2004.

Lamont went into the election with a 10% lead in the polls, and all the momentum on his side. So, there could well have been a tweak either in the electronic tabulation (CT uses the old, reliable lever machines, but has a NEW central electronic tabulation system), or possibly fraud or fraudulent intent in that odd, last minute surge of "Democratic" voter registrations. It may be that CT didn't have enough of an e-voting system in place to make Lamont lose, and only succeeded in cutting his lead (or that phony registrations, or some combination of these and other fraud efforts, succeeded in cutting his lead). It is an UNKNOWN at the moment, with suspicious signs.

Wherever electronics controlled by private entities (especially corporations with very close ties to the Bush junta) are involved in elections IN ANY WAY, you must START with the presumption of fraud. There. Is. No. Other. Reason. For. SECRET. VOTE. COUNTING.

TRADE SECRETS in the election system make it a fraud going in. It is invalid. It is illegitimate. It is non-transparent. And it is a NO-BRAINER that this should NEVER have been allowed!

[ktlyon]

22. I think Joe was making a come back on election day

that would explain the 10 points to 4. The big dog still carries some wait.

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. and the pre-election polls TEND to support that

contrary to the statement above that Lamont had all the momentum, the sequence of the last 3 polls possibly showed the race narrowing
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/08/ct-sen-final-polls-show-lamont-by-6.html
although it was all within the "fuzz" of the polls.

BTW on your previous question, there is no way that a single exit poll that appears unbiased can be used as warrant to assume the accuracy of all future exit polls. It just couldn't work that way. (I say "appears unbiased" because there is simply no way to know whether a poll was really unbiased, or whether sampling error cancelled out whatever bias there was -- sort of a nitpick.) CT had a very large exit poll discrepancy in 2004 -- and I personally really doubt it was because Bush was stealing votes to make the state a bit closer -- but who is to say what it would mean if the CBS/NYT 2006 Dem Senate primary poll happened to be spot on?

[Febble]

27. Talking of levers and exit poll accuracy

do you have any explanation, PP, why New York (all levers) and CT should have had two of the LARGEST exit poll discrepancies in 2004? Larger than Ohio (mostly punchcards) and way larger than Florida (all electronic).

[LSK]

16. CT had no diebold and nobody is claiming fraud

Besides that, I dont know.

[Peace Patriot]

18. Yes, they have the old-fashioned lever machines for VOTING--BUT they

have a new electronic system for TABULATING. I don't know who manufactures it, but if it contains ANY trade secret programming, then the system is vulnerable to tampering, and, unless they check every lever machine and its tapes (or adequately audit the system), no one can know if the electronic tabulation is accurate.

Mexico is similar. They have an insecure paper ballot system (CT's levers are nearly un-riggable by contrast*), AND a central electronic tabulation system (that Calderon's brother had a hand in), and the combo was lethal.

As for claiming fraud, it doesn't at all surprise me that Lamont's camp isn't. They won! And we can't even get the Democratic losers in highly suspicious circumstances to challenge the result. We need a couple of Lopez Obrador's here in the U.S.! (--and a couple of million INVOLVED citizens!)

I'm not saying there was fraud in CT. I don't know. But when was the last time Bushites faced such high stakes and DIDN'T commit fraud?


-----------------

*(That's why the Bushites are trying to force New York to give them up! They are nearly un-riggable. The new Bushite-corporate controlled electronic systems, on the other hand, are WIDE OPEN TO RIGGING, especially by insiders. E-voting has been a deliberate, criminal, fascist destruction of the integrity of our voting system. With 70% of the people against an unjust war, in order to HAVE the unjust war ANYWAY, you MUST fiddle the elections. That's what the new e-voting systems were FOR. And that's what they're doing with them. There is NO OTHER REASON to have NON-TRANSPARENT elections in which you CAN'T COUNT THE VOTES IN PUBLIC VIEW.)

[Peace Patriot]

8. Thesis: Lamont's best chance is if Lieberman STAYS IN-splitting the Bush

vote (a minority). Hear me out. First, a look at some of the CBS stats... (p. 4-5)

"LOOKING AHEAD TO NOVEMBER

Most Democratic primary voters would not support an Independent run for U.S. Senate by Lieberman this fall, even though the majority said they approve of the way in which he is doing his job.

61% of those who voted in the Democratic primary in Connecticut do not believe Lieberman should run as an Independent, and only 39% said he should. Three out of four of those who voted for Lieberman said he should run, but a quarter said he should not.

"SHOULD LIEBERMAN RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT?

All: Yes 39%. No 61%.
Lieberman voters: Yes 73%. No 27%.

"If Lieberman does decide to run as an Independent against Lamont and Schlesinger in November, he may find that many Democratic voters will choose their party’s candidate instead of him. In a hypothetical three-way race against Lamont and Schlesinger, Lamont would earn 49% of the votes of these Democratic primary voters, and Lieberman would receive 36%.

"Among Lieberman voters, three out of four say they will support Lieberman again under those circumstances; 16% are not sure, and 6% say they will vote for Lamont. Lamont retains more of his voters; 88% of them say they would vote for him in November.

(*DEMOCRATIC*) "VOTE IN NOVEMBER IF LIEBERMAN RUNS AS AN IND.

All, for Lamont: 49%. All, for Lieberman: 36%. Not sure: 12%.

Lieberman voters for Lamont: 6%
Lieberman voters for Lieberman: 75%
Lieberman voters not sure: 16%

Lamont voters for Lamont: 88%
Lamont voters for Lieberman: 1% (!)
Lamont voters not sure: 8%"

(end of quoted CBS stats and text)

-----------------------------------------------

Although these exit poll numbers (among Democrats) have some worrisome aspects (as to a Lamont victory in a 3-way race), they do show some hopeful signs that are kind of buried. For instance, Lieberman voters contain a group that is TWICE as unsure (16%) about who they will vote for if Lieberman runs, as Lamont voters are (8%). Also, there is undeniable fervor in the Lamont numbers: 88% will stick with Lamont, and only 1% (!) will switch; whereas Lieberman's vote solidity is 75% and the switch to Lamont is 6% (with a big 16% unsure).

Lamont has a good chance to solidify much of the Democratic vote--and, in CT, that means he wins.

I also think that Lieberman and Scheslinger will split the pro-war, pro-Bush vote, which stands at about 35% nationwide, and is no doubt much smaller in CT. Be generous and say 30%. That means 15% for Schlesinger and 15% for Lieberman plus Lieberman loyalists for Lieberman. Even if the latter is as much as 20%, that still gives Lieberman only 35% of the vote, and Lamont wins. Joe can't win with Schlesinger in the race. And Schlesinger can't win in CT.

Red Alerts aside--and people are getting REALLY, REALLY tired of these phony "terrorist" alerts leading up to elections--it's difficult to see how Lamont can lose. Always possible, of course--but look at the reality: WHO votes for a pro-Bush candidate? A minority! And that MINORITY will be SPLIT!

The biggest threat to Lamont is a Lieberman-Schlesinger coalition. Lieberman drops out and backs Schlesinger, for instance. But a full break with the Democratic Party, by Lieberman? Not too likely. And Democratic CT going for it? Not at all likely.

Am I not looking at this right? Lamont's best chance at victory is if Lieberman STAYS IN! Lieberman carries with him a trail of SOME loyalist voters, but these are pro-war, pro-Bush voters, who would likely vote for Schlesinger against antiwar candidate Lamont--no? So they are no (or little) loss to Lamont, either way. And Lamont picks up the Republican antiwar, anti-Bush voters, to compensate. And if Lieberman STAYS IN, the pro-war, pro-Bush vote is SPLIT between Lieberman and Schlesinger--and Lamont wins even bigger.

Somebody attack this! Am I right or wrong (or somewhere in the middle)?

[Awsi Dooger]

11. No need to look at exit polls if Lieberman is out

Very basic at that point, Lamont in a rout over Schlesinger. A 65-35 type rout. It's one-on-one against an incredibly weak GOP nominee.

I'll put a numerical perspective on it for you. Lamont is 99%+ to win if Lieberman drops out. With Lieberman in, Lamont is maybe 40%. Right now it's 50/50 on the betting sites, but part of that number is speculation Lieberman might leave the race. If he was in for sure, Lieberman is the favorite.

If Lieberman stays in, he benefits from all the Republicans who will not consider Schlesinger to be senate material, and think he has no chance to win. At that point they prefer Lieberman to Lamont. You really don't have to analyze much further than that. Republicans and independents will decide this race if Lieberman stays in. Their numbers are many times the margin Lamont will enjoy over Lieberman among the Democratic vote.

[Peace Patriot]

17. But SOME Repubs will vote for Schlesinger, right? Even if only say 10%

vote for Schlesinger, won't that give it to Lamont?

The Repubs are distinctly in the minority in CT, right? And not all Repubs are pro-Bush. (Nor were they in 2004, if the truth were known.)

Also--surely Lamont will cut into some of the Lieberman Dem support by November--with Lamont being the Party-endorsed candidate, and feeling against Bush and Bush's war being so high (85% among CT Dems). And look at the waiveriness in the CBS Lieberman stats, aside from the Lieberman loyalists. 16% of Lieberman voters unsure what they will do if Lieberman runs as an Ind. They had just voted for Lieberman--and that many are unsure?! (compared to 8% Lamont unsure). And look at the solidity of Lamont's vote. Only 1% of Lamont voters would vote for Lieberman in a 3-way race, and a whopping 88% are solid for Lamont (compared to Lieberman's 75% of a smaller number of voters).

The CBS stat about hostility to Lieberman is also interesting. 52% of Lamont voters were voting more FOR Lamont than against Lieberman, and 48% were voting (for Lamont) more against Lieberman than for Lamont; whereas, 92% of Lieberman voters were voting FOR Lieberman, and ONLY 8% say they were voting for Lieberman as a vote AGAINST Lamont. This leaves a lot of room for Lamont to gain votes.

There seems to be a lot of hostility toward Lieberman, and almost none against Lamont. So that 16% who (just after voting for Lieberman) said they are unsure about voting for him in November are very good candidates for switching to Lamont, and I would say a lot of others are as well, as soon as it sinks in that Lamont is the Party-endorsed candidate.

I still can't see how Lamont could lose in a Dem state, with the rightwing vote split. Your thesis seems to posit a massive defection of Dems--who are 85% anti-Bush--to pro-Bush candidate Lieberman, running as a maverick, who STARTS with a handicap of Schlesinger drawing SOME rightwing votes away from him. Why would that happen--a Dem vote for Lieberman (Ind.--associated with Bush) that could deny Lamont (Dem--in tune with the great Dem antiwar, anti-Bush majority) the election?

I guess I'm not understanding the dynamics in CT. There is one pool of voters, which is already tilted toward Dems. A rightwing Dem switches to Ind., to defend an extremely unpopular REPUB president and his extremely unpopular war. He splits the voters who support that stance with a rightwing Repub candidate, but keeps some of his loyalist and/or rightwing Dem voters--voters who wouldn't likely vote for Lamont anyway. He has the bulk of the Democratic Party plus any defecting Repub voters--against a DIVIDED opposition which is staunchly defending a distinctly MINORITY view on the most hot button issue: Bush and the war.

Is there something I don't know about CT Democrats? Is the rank and file there more pro-Bush and his terrible war than the rank and file elsewhere? And even it is--which I haven't seen any evidence for--would they vote for an Ind. pro-Busher out of NOSTALGIA, or because of military contracts, or some other thing I'm not getting?

If the primary numbers are true--and that's a big "if" these days--and Lamont won by only 4% (as opposed to his 10% lead going in), it's still a Dem PRIMARY. There has hardly been time for a "closing of ranks" along political lines, and a solid re-think by Lieberman voters, solid or waivering. What happens when their kids (who are so big for Lamont) start working on their stodgy parents and grandparents who voted for what they knew--a familiar face--and who have voted Democratic all their lives? Do they suddenly bolt the Dem Party to vote for someone who is on the outs--and who likes Bush?

I'm thinking Lamont is going to win handily, and if Lieberman stays in, he's going to win by a landslide--on the sheer fact that there are not enough pro-Bush voters in CT to overcome their own split, and there are not enough Dems in CT who would abandon their Party's choice to vote for a pro-Bush candidate. I mean, who is there left who is ENTHUSIASTIC about Bush and his disastrous war? --and so enthusiastic that they would vote for a pro-war Dem/Ind., if they were a pro-war Repub, or would vote against their Party, if they were a (rare bird) pro-war Dem?

On fiscal responsibility alone, I think Lamont will win, drawing many votes from both Lieberman and Schlesinger. The war is half about carnage and foreign policy mismanagement, and half about fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility will be the core reason why Lieberman-leaning Dems will vote for Lamont, and many Repubs will as well.

I WELCOME more attacks on this thesis. I'm don't know that much about CT. I'm looking at it from the outside. And, God knows, I don't want to misread things in the positive. I often PREACH realism, practicality and strategy.

But if people are COLORING their analysis--either out of gloominess, or out of a motive of trying to push Lamont to the right (out of his MAINSTREAM position--that of most of the American people)--then I think we need to know that, too. Insurgents are ALWAYS advised to "tone it down," go for the "uncommitted voter," move to the "center," etc., etc., or you will surely lose. I tend to think that would be very bad advice in this case, or in any case where the insurgent represents the overwhelming will of the people. LEAD--don't follow! PULL the "uncommitted" IN! Don't pander to this mythical "center"!

On the other hand, if Lieberman actually has a chance of being re-installed--in defiance of the overwhelming American revulsion at this war--then I would say that a candidate like Lamont should pay some attention to the numbers and the polls, and find the ways to prevent that from happening. For instance, he might have to find creative ways of dealing with an issue such as military-related jobs. He may need to defeat an entrenched and corrupt establishment with NEW IDEAS.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. don't forget the independents

Granted, it's been 16 years since Lowell Weicker was elected governor on the "A Connecticut Party" line, but still, these folks will vote their own minds.

It simply isn't factually accurate to characterize Lieberman as a "right-wing Democrat" in general. His posturing on Iraq gives me heartburn, but he has a solid to strong record (at least comparatively) on environmental issues, civil rights issues, labor issues, abortion rights -- he isn't exactly a mislocated Dixiecrat. He will pick up quite a few votes from independents who see him as a better choice than either Schlesinger or the "untested" Lamont.

It's way too soon to tell how this is going to go. I think Lieberman is hurting, but then, I was never a big fan to begin with. Lamont is going to be playing on a bigger stage than he is used to. It will be Interesting.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Footnote: Some DUers said black voters didn't vote for Lamont, but,

according to this CBS data, they did.

White for Lamont: 50%. White for Lieberman: 49%.
Black for Lamont: 55%. Black for Lieberman: 41%.

That's not as big as the Dem/Repub split among black voters generally (average about 70% Dem, I think). But this was a DEMOCRATIC primary. Black DEMOCRATS outvoted whites for Lamont, and gave Lieberman a drubbing (only 41%).

Faced with a renegade, pro-Bush candidate--Lieberman as an Independent--I'm about as sure as I can be that black Democrats will vote for the anti-war, pro-universal health care (and other progressve programs), and Party-endorsed candidate, Lamont, in even bigger numbers. Remember, Lamont came out of nowhere. He was an unknown only a short time ago. This will affect MANY votes (black, white and other)--voters getting to know him NOW--especially those in big Democratic strongholds. Lamont is now a national figure. His anti-Iraq war stance is now being touted everywhere. His other policies are becoming better known. He gives people a REASON to vote.

Another interesting stat from CBS: The younger the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Lamont. 18 to 29 year olds: 63% for Lamont. And at "60 and over," it switches: 48% for Lamont, 51% for Lieberman. (Lamont beats Lieberman in all Dem age groups but the oldest group.)

[bigwillq]

19. Thanks for the link.

It's interesting to look at exit polls.
How come I never get asked??? :(

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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