SLATE's article on what went wrong / right on exit polls.

[bones_7672]

http://slate.com/id/2110860/

"Let's Go to the Audiotape
Who nailed the election results? Automated pollsters.
By David Kenner and William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Dec. 9, 2004, at 2:46 PM PT


A week before the election, Slate published a consumer's guide in which we disclosed each pollster's methods and how they might affect that survey's numbers relative to the election returns. Now the returns are in, for pollsters as well as the public. Which polls nailed the results, which blew it, and why? Our review suggests three factors were crucial..."

[thanatonautos]

1. Isn't this article all about how good the standard (non-exit) polls were?

It seems that the gist of the article is that some
pre-election polling firms got things right with respect
to Republican vs Democratic turnout, while others
got it wrong as measured by exit polls.

The big revelation is supposed to be that
maybe robo-polling, ie, using recorded voices
rather than humans is a better technique for
doing political polls, since the robo-polling
firms supposedly did better???

Since there is still a considerable controversy
surrounding what happened with the exit polls
this year, why should anyone take such nonsense
seriously at this point, or any point?