SMOKING GUN? THE CNN NATIONAL EXIT POLL SITE PROVES THAT KERRY WON!

[TruthIsAll]

SMOKING GUN ? THE CNN NATIONAL EXIT POLLS PROVE KERRY WON!

Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 10:05 PM by TruthIsAll
http://www.exitpollz.org/CNN_national2.htm

Am I reading this correctly?
If I am, we have the SMOKING GUN:

1) 59% of the 17% who did NOT vote in 2000 but who did in 2004 voted for Kerry. Just 39% for Bush.

2) 65% of those who did NOT vote for Bush or Gore in 2000 voted for Kerry. Just 13% for Bush and 16% for Nader.

3) 91% of those who voted for Gore, voted for Kerry.
4) 90% of those who voted for Bush in 2000, voted for Bush in 2004.



PRESIDENTIAL VOTE IN 2000
........ BUSH KERRY NADER
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 2004

DidNotVte (17%) 39% n/a 59% 1%

Gore (38%) 8% n/a 91% 1%

Bush (41%) 90% n/a 9% 0%

Other (4%) 13% n/a 65% 16%

[IndyOp]

1. Help? (n/t)

[Bill219]

2. TIA..

It is great to see your posts again here on DU

[In Truth We Trust]

38. Ditto TIA! ...... Welcome back and thanks for your diligence!

You continue to confirm what we all know intuitively. George W FraWd!

[davidgmills]

3. TIA had you seen this before?

[TruthIsAll]

20. Just saw it a few minutes ago. Unbelievable. n/t

.

[MelissaB]

29. Where did this come from? nt

[davidgmills]

I tried to send it to you right before you put it up

It is odd that YOU of all people haven"t seen it before.

[buzzard]

50. Was this available all along or are you just now seeing this. n/t

[SicTransit]

4. Your post reminds me of this "Princess Bride" scene

Vizzini: Inconceivable.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Scout1071]

25. My name is Inigo Montoya...you kill my father, prepare to die!

[Patsy Stone]

115. Scout1071

:yourock:

[Scout1071]

127. Awww...shucks

Thanks Pats.

Cheers mate!

[BansheeDem]

192. Great Movie ... (n/t)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

219. I am looking for a man.....

with 6 fingers on his left hand....have you seen this man?

LOL!! my favorite movie of all time!:P

[IndyOp]

37. Mandy Patinkin came to perform in my little town (college circuit)...

I fell asleep until near the end when he did his 'Inigo Montoya' act, jousting and all --

"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!"
"HELLO, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to DIE!"
"HELLO, MY NAME IS INIGO MONTOYA, YOU KILLED MY FATHER, PREPARE TO DIE!"

:bounce:

[nashville_brook]

225. and * has commited one of the classic blunders

...land war in asia...

[DoBotherMe]

5. TIA could you simplify it

for me by using 100 as the total votes cast in 2000. Thanks! D ; )

[politicasista]

6. Too bad this is coming out before the inaguaration

:hurts:

[IndyOp]

7. Thanks DanaM - You asked the right question! (n/t)

[DoBotherMe]

14. Thanks...I know this is big, but

I'm lefthanded and rightbrained and math always gets the best of me. I need to visualize it to be able to comprehend it. D ; )

[genieroze]

33. I'm left handed and horrible with higher math.

You can say I'm higher mathematically challenged. I'm good with computers though. That and basic/business math.

[latteromden]

28. I simplified it quickly using the 100 example:

(PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong - I'm a little out of it right now)

17 new voters, total
10 for Kerry
7 for Bush (2004)

4 voters voted for a candidate other than Bush or Gore in 2000.
3 went for Kerry in 2004
1 went for Nader in 2004
An insignificant number went for Bush in 2004

38 voters voted for Gore in 2000
35 Gore 2000 voters voted for Kerry
3 Gore 2000 voters voted for Bush (2004)

41 voted for Bush in 2000
37 Bush 2000 voters voted for Bush 2004
4 Bush 2000 voters voted for Kerry

That leaves us with:
52 Kerry votes
47 Bush votes
1 Nader vote

Hope that cleared something up.

[IndyOp]

32. Thanks - I think this makes sense...

And in light of the following - I am glad I spent ALL of that time - pestering my Green, Independent, Libertarian, and Fed Up friends to VOTE KERRY:

4 voters voted for a candidate other than Bush or Gore in 2000.
3 went for Kerry in 2004
1 went for Nader in 2004
An insignificant number went for Bush in 2004

:bounce:

[TruthIsAll]

47. WE CONFIRM EACH OTHER EXACTLY ! TWO DIFFERENT METHODS.

SEE MY POST BELOW.

[Time for change]

66. What was the sample size for this? n/t

[TruthIsAll]

71. 13,047 sample size ; MOE = 0.86% .

See the Baiman/Simon paper/

[davidgmills]

132. Not right -- that 13,047 number is later in the evening

This is at 7:38 pm and the size at this time was 11,027 (see upper left)

That might change the MOE somewhat.

[TruthIsAll]

141. Right, My bad. MOE = 0.95% = 1/sqrt(11027) n/t

.

[davidgmills]

167. TIA what do you make of my posts at 128 and 163?

[m.standridge]

275. ok, but here are a couple of things to factor

in:
you have a .95% margin of error--almost 1%

91% of Gore voters, voted for Kerry;
90% of Bush voters, 2000, voted for Bush;

that's approximately 1% difference.

easily eaten up by the .95% margin for error.

Here's the other thing:

16% of those who didn't vote for either Bush or Gore last time, voted for Nader this time.

Nader got the lion's share, his biggest percentages and numbers, in the northeast.

So, it fits that Nader "contributed" most to Kerry, in the Northeast, the areas like Ohio and New Hampshire, and also in New Mexico and Nevada, two other states where Nader made among his largest showings. (Minnesota and Wisconsin were the two others.)

At the same time, because his percentages were smaller in other areas of the nation and in other states, it would fit that this 1% difference is best and most likely expressed and found in the northeast.

Again, what is the exit polling telling us when we break it down, state by state?
About the same the the pre-election polling was telling us in those very last few days:

Unclear who won the overall National Popular vote.

But relatively clear who won Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa... with a bit of play in Iowa:
Kerry.

Enough to put him over in the Electoral College.
Enough to give him healthier margins in PA, and NH, as well, than what he is credited with now.

In other words, Kerry was probably the first Democrat to win in the Electoral College only.

And we've seen pre-election polling indicating Kerry/Edwards was also getting it pretty close in FL and AR, as well as CO. Did he carry the latter three this time? Perhaps FL, since it was pretty clearly for Gore last time, once they were finally able to trace everything out.
If we take all these states, and all the number suggested by the various exit polls and pre-election polls, we find Kerry beating Bush in the Electoral College. There's more of a gray area as to whether he actually beat him in the overall Popular vote.
After all, Bush had the flag-waving, the bin Laden video, the incombency, and also less of a challenge from Kerry in the South than he'd had from Gore--who himself had had the advantage of the incumbency. Kerry also was painted as ultra-liberal and pro-gay marriage, etc. ("I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" Bush said repeatedly during the debates, when discussions were about the Iraq war, Enron, etc.)
Bush peaked in the Red states he'd carried before, and he probably got it really closer in a couple of the blue states. Maybe he got Florida, and maybe he got Iowa (pre-election polling WAS suggesting the either Iowa or Wisconsin was going to be a red state--remember those poll titles? AT the same time, those same polls were strongly suggesting that Ohio was "too close to call."
Well, isn't that exactly what happened? We are still looking at numbers in Ohio, and finding more, but it's coming in slowly.
It's hard to get the media interested in looking at this, because no Democrat has ever won in the Electoral only before. The failure to lead in the Popular vote, has put them off the scent. Historians have said this so often, how unlikely that a Dem. would win in the Electoral College only. And it IS unlikely. But over 200 years, it had to happen, sooner or later...

[ClintCooper2003]

147. around 11,000

[bunny planet]

114. Yes it's cleared up but where did it come from? If this was on CNN and it

can be proved it does really seem like a smoking gun.

[latteromden]

125. Well, looking at it, I think it most certainly was on CNN.com.

If you try to go to, for example, the Maine state exit polls, the address is /ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/ME, which, if it were uploaded on the CNN site, would point to the Maine exit polls page. All links still go to the CNN site, etc. It would be a whole lot to code, and pretty worthless, to make it look like a CNN production when it wasn't.

[davidgmills]

131. NO Dan Rather Forgeries , Please

[bunny planet]

136. oh no, I wasn't suggesting that, I hadn't scrolled down to see the screen

shots yet. I sometimes post too soon, before I've read the whole thread.

[roseBudd]

246. If you wanted to forge this page you would approximate the missing style

sheet and upload the missing images to a directory structure that mimics CNN's.

[roseBudd]

195. Don't want to rain on any parades but this is a saved HTML document

and the numbers can be manually changed by anyone who knows HTML or has Dreamweaver. A screenshot would have had more validity against naysayers IMHO

[ClintCooper2003]

239. I was watching CNN.com most of the afternoon and evening. You can...

rest assured that these numbers are exactly as I remember them.

[roseBudd]

266. The problem is that this file on CNN was being overwritten as the

night progressed. Therefore this file probably only exists in this form on the hard drive of the student who first saved it. View the source to see his name. Unless a CNN employee has a copy on their hard drive. I viewed the HTML source to try to dtermine how CNN updated this page. Any javascript experts want to look at it to see how it was updated?

[TruthIsAll]

34. Let's keep it simple. Assume 100 million voted in 2000.

1)Gore got 48.5 million, Bush 48 million, the rest to Nader et al.

2 Lets assume 20 million new voters, for a total of 120 million
Kerry gets 59%, Bush 39% (Kerry gets 3 out of 5) or Kerry gets 12 out of the 20 million. Bush gets 8 million.

Assume the rest of the voters did not vary from 2000.

That's a net Kerry gain of 4 million votes

3) Kerry gets 65% (2 million) of the 3 million who voted for Nader et all . Bush gets 13% or 0.5 million.

That's a net Kerry gain of 1.5 million votes

Total net Kerry gain: 4+ 1.5 = 5.5 million votes.

Add that to the .5 million Gore won by.
Then Kerry wins by 6 million votes

Assuming 120 million voted:
Kerry 63 million (52.5%, Bush 57 million (47.5%)
Take off .5% from each for third parties.

Final:
Kerry 52%
Bush 47%
Other 1%

Oh, man!

[Patsy Stone]

117. May I kiss you now? n/t

[davidgmills]

166. Math guys get all the love

[Goldeneye]

8. So

the new voters broke for Kerry by a big margin and the people who vote for 3rd parties in 2000 voted for Kerry this time, and we already know the undecideds went for Kerry. Plus, Kerry got a slightly larger percent of Al Gores Voters, than Bush got of his own 2000 voters.

how'd bush win?
security moms? is there any reason to believe the security moms bit?

[IndyOp]

15. Security Moms and all of the others - Nascar Dads...

had to fit in one of TIA's categories: did not vote in 2000, voted for 3rd party in 2000; voted for Gore in 2000; voted for Bush in 2000...

By the way, a favorite bit of info I ran into reading the Berkeley, California Student Newspaper a few weeks back: According to a study by Berkeley profs the Iraq war cost * millions of votes -- states with the highest casualties gave Bush less votes. Also, the gay marriage amendments did not help *. People who voted for them would have voted for Bush anyway.

The spin on this election was instant and so, so powerful and so very wrong!

:kick:

[Goldeneye]

27. I believe Bush cheated, and Kerry won

but whats with the exit polls in NH? The recount was legitimate and it didn't turn anything up. Was it because the recount was too small?

[spooked911]

83. they only recounted a few NH precincts where the vote was WAY off

that indicated real voter swings. They didn't recount the whole state, which would have been more interesting.

[Amaryllis]

121. NH recount not done properly. They did PRECINCTS. They need to do

entire counties to get an accurate count when dealing with e-voting. It has to do with the tabulators...I have talked to Kip at 51 Capital March about this a lot; he's one of the guys who has been working for months on crunching numbers. He is adamant you have to count counties and not precincts and feels they completely messed up NH. If they'd done counties it would have been a different picture.

[idiosyncratic]

19. How did bush win? FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD

Did you see the post about how many precincts there are in Ohio? For * to win Ohio, they only had to skim about 11 votes per precinct.

Rove and his minions added votes to the shrub column all over the country: CO, NM, WA, NH, NC, all over.

Those three-million popular votes belonged to Kerry, just like Ohio belongs to Kerry.

[Goldeneye]

24. I believe it. 11 votes per precinct should've been easy enough

with Blackwell in charge and the rest of the neocons right there holding his hand.

[spooked911]

85. I agree, but how do we prove it?

there's got to be a way, even if the media are in the tank for Bush

[Goldeneye]

95. hand recount the whole freaking state! I'll help pay

and I would consider driving there to volunteer.

[Amaryllis]

122. That's what Jesse Jackson wants to do. Would a hand recount do

it since so many ballots have possibly been destroyed or eliminated?
All those ballots left unsecured? Don't you think by now they have eliminated even more of the evidence?
And there are areas with no paper backup...
Sure wouldn't fix all those who didn't get to vote due to suppression.
Revote!

[Turn CO Blue]

143. Hand recount - but also look at the poll books! n/t

[bunny planet]

118. I don't know who these security moms could be. I am a security mom, I live

10 miles from ground zero and I voted for Kerry. Every mom I know in Jersey, especially moms that were actually in the Towers that day working voted for Kerry. None of the real security moms, whose security was affected big time, voted for *. I think it's hype, or the same bullshit as the values voters that they demographed with the same exit polls they said were flawed. I don't know where the so-called 'security moms' for * are hiding, but they aren't in any of the states that were directly affected by 9/11, not in any significant numbers that I've seen or heard of.

[EFerrari]

180. That's right, BP. Most of the moms I know are more afraid of

MendacityCentral than they ever could be of al Qaeda.

[IStriker]

9. Do you believe this?

I have serious doubts about these numbers. They do not sound right. 3) and 4) maybe, but not 1) and 2). Plus from what I know and observe, there is unfortunately a large number of people who probably couldn't tell you who they voted for 4 yrs. ago if their life depended on it. Sorry to have such a crummy impression of my fellow voter, but I do. I live in a Blue state where the registration (unlike rest of state) is predominately Democrat, but the actual voting is split almost 50/50. I know lots of people who voted Kerry and lots of people who voted Bush and these numbers do not sound correct to me.

[sepia_steel]

69. Seriously....

who doesn't know who they voted for in the last election??? Not trying to flame, but come on.

[Amaryllis]

124. Please explain flame to me? Is it not okay to disagree with someone?

[Streetdoc270]

81. I can tell you who I voted for 12 years ago in the Presidential race!

Its not that hard to remember

[Chimpanzee]

174. I can tell you who I voted for in every election since76 - my first

[IStriker]

226. I can tell you who I voted for since Johnson in 1964, but ...

I know people who could not tell you who the candidates were in 2000 even though they voted. Now, if you asked them, "Did you vote Democrat or Republican in 2000?" They could answer you correctly because they ONLY vote "D." I come from a part of the country where the old people would never notice on a voting machine if the Republican lever were missing because the've been voting straight Democratic since Roosevelt. Sorry to say they are not "thinkers" but they are good solid honest hard-working Democrats for life. A huge number of Democrats still run unopposed around here because the election is the primary. Those last two numbers (3 & 4) are suspect with me.

[Carolab]

103. These numbers match the predictions n/t

[IStriker]

227. What "predictions?" If you mean the polls before the election...

I'm not at all sure they match the polls taken in the days right before election day.

[bunny planet]

120. I find it hard to believe that people don't remember who they voted for in

2000. The election was held over for 30 some odd days, it made history when * was annointed by SCOTUS. Please, everybody who voted remembers who they voted for in that election.

[super simian]

183. Just to date myself....

My presidential voting history:

Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Michael Dukakis
Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
John Kerry

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[sickinohio]

187. Hey - those were my votes exactly!!!

:toast:

[SharonRB]

194. That matches mine exactly!

Of course, it's easy to remember when you always vote Democratic.

[super simian]

230. I know, Duh!

And on the list we're only 2 for 7!! Or will the history books tell a different story about how you can win an election and never get to be president of the United States?



:+ :mad: :eyes: :smoke: :think: :crazy: :grr: :shrug: :dem:

[georgia10]

10. "4) 90% of those who voted for Bush in 2000, voted for Bush in 2004. "

That is fucking disturbing.

Everywhere I've been researching, he's been up at 96% or so.

Oh, and TIA, can you please give me a synopsis of your credentials? I'm quoting a lot of your figures in something I'm working on, and I just want people to know that someone smart came up with the numbers :)

[IndyOp]

64. georgia10 - Is it possible that the data TIA has just found has

been 'adjusted' since the date(s) of the polls you have been looking at that showed * had gotten 96% or so?

The reason I ask is that the only announced change to the exit poll results was by MSNBC in regards to the Latino vote -- they admitted that the results they gave on Nov 3, 4, 5... were wrong because they had weighted rural Latinos (who are more likely to vote for *) too heavily. They wound up reporting that * had less support than they had initially reported.

The article was in the Houston Chronicle "Latino Numbers Don't Add Up" and the URL used to be <http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2886704>. It has been archived...

By the way, a few days ago Chorti wrote in a post that he was writing a paper that would show that the pre-election polls were very skewed toward * -- the possible implication being that even the early/uncontaminated election night poll results may have been skewed * for reasons relating to similar methodology.

:eyes:

[davidgmills]

11. So where did Bush get his 11 million new votes from?

This couldn't be that far off could it?

[Dancing_Dave]

16. Have you ever heard of "phantom votes"?

[IndyOp]

18. Althecat posted a statistical analysis of Bush's 8 million new votes...

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=19390&mesg_id=19390duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=19390&mesg_id=19390>

How did you get 11 million?

:kick:

[davidgmills]

35. Republican Inflation?

I thought he got 50 last time and 61 this time

[missouri dem 2]

12. Welcome back and thank you for all

of your work.

[johnaries]

13. How about Pie Charts?

I like Pie! :dunce:

[Wiley50]

17. TIA Great to have you back! But I need your help

I'm math challenged and flunked Algebra 1 Twice (regular school year and summer school too) After that, I just gave up. But I'm pretty "with it" on everything except numbers.
I realize by now what an incredible math whiz you are. And I stand in utter awe.
But, when you tell me you have the "Smoking Gun" and post the numbers, it makes perfect sense to you, totally self-explanitory.
But I'm lost.
Could you try to give just a little bit of commentary in plain english, so I can understand what the fuck you mean? Just a little will do. Just point me at what the numbers mean and I can follow.

Thanks

Wiley

[TruthIsAll]

55. See my post # 47 and latteromdem # 28.

.

[unpossibles]

21. this is great

will make more sense if the number of votes (instead of percentages) were used to illustrate.

and this: "there is unfortunately a large number of people who probably couldn't tell you who they voted for 4 yrs. ago if their life depended on it."

Do you seriously believe people do not remember whom they voted for? Come on.

[mdb]

22. And if I'm reading this right.

9% of those who voted for Bush in 2000 went to Kerry.

8% of those who voted for Gore in 2000 went to Bush.

That's a 1% switch from Republican to Democrat.

[Dancing_Dave]

23. Just one piece of evidence among others....

We need to figure out something about what kind of fraud produces such deviations from exit polls and other irregularities. Ultimately, we need to find who did it and how.

This is just one piece of the puzzel. Keep at it!

[elare]

26. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade but ...

The time on that web page is just shortly before 8 p.m. Nov 2nd. Hasn't the MSM been reporting that those "early" exit polls were off and that the later exit polls changed quite a bit? They'll just claim the same damn thing if this is brought to their attention, won't they? Or do the later exit polls show similar numbers (in answer to the same question)?

[idiosyncratic]

40. The later exit "polls" were dressed up to match the final "vote" counts

There were posts about this earlier this week.

[bunny planet]

123. and do some people have screen shots of the original exit poll info.?

before they were messed with?

[Amaryllis]

126. someone at one time posted some. I can't remember who. But there

was a thread with that.

[You do not need that]

259. http://www.exitpollz.org/

http://www.exitpollz.org/

[You do not need that]

260. umm

The links on the page seem to be messed up right now.

[IndyOp]

42. The issue about "early" and "late" polls is why Conyers is trying

to get the media and/or Edison-Mitofsky and/or NEP to release all of the data now.

A few points to clarify:

None of the exit polls shown on CNN or reported elsewhere on the media are 'raw'. Raw data would not be released to the media. The polls results, even early ones, have already been adjusted as needed or are shown broken down into key voter categories.

The 'later' polls were contaminated with vote tabulation data -- never before in the history of US exit polls have exit poll results been 'integrated' with incoming tabulated vote results to get an 'accurate' prediction of election results. This action is pure sh*t -- it means that the late exit polls are not independent of incoming election results and so cannot be used to assess whether the tabulated votes were or were not accurate. I can't believe that respectable pollsters are not screaming bloody murder about this idiocy.

:grr:

[Old and In the Way]

44. You might find these of interest..........

The following are some screenshots saved by SoCal here the night of the elections....

At 12:21 AM based on 1,963 Respondents:
<>

When the exit polls were updated at 1:41AM with only 57 more samples to the population, see how the percentages suddenly change in Bush's favor.

{]


What time did Karl make the call to the networks? Did they simply replace their results with Karl's?


I think I know why they don't want torelease the exit poll data....

[elare]

48. Screenshots

Thanks for posting those ... I did see those once before, but didn't save them to my hard drive.

[fearnobush]

76. Here are those screen shots.

from SoCalDemocrat and EarlG

I ran CNN's own numbers. It's impossible. Between the two screen shots below, exactly 57 more persons were polled. If every single one of them were female, and every single one of them voted for Bush, that would account for a 2.3% increase in the exit polling results for female voters. However, CNN shows a 6% increase for Female voters supporting Bush.

CNN has altered other exit polling data since I began tracking it and compiling evidence against the EVoting machines.

Thanks to DU member EarlG for grabbing these screen shots!

<>

Kerry up 2 among men, up 6 among women.

At 1:41am they changed the results to favor Bush:

<>

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1290765&mesg_id=1295180&page=>

[1democracy]

238. Is my interpretation wrong or is the data wrong?

Data analysis

CNN Poll Data Early 1963 respondents
Percentages converted to actual numbers

Voters Bush Kerry
Female 923 (47%) 452 (49%) 471 (51%)
Males 1040 (53%) 489 (47%) 551 (53%)

Sum 1963 941 1022

Late CNN Poll Data 2020 Respondents
Percentages converted to actual numbers
Voters Bush Kerry
Female 949 (47%) 494 (52%) 446 (47%)
Male 1071(53%) 535.5 (50%) 535.5 (50%)

Sum 2020 (100%) 1029.5 981.5

IMPORTANT Question;
From the early poll to the late poll, 57 additional people were added. Therefore, the most any candidate could gain is 57 votes , if all 57 people voted for him, or a max of 998 for Bush if every person polled late voted for him; yet the numbers show 1029.5, 31.5 more votes than it was possible to him to gain!

Conversely, the number of people who voted for Kerry decreased by 41.5 votes, which is impossible, unless the second set of data is independent (not inclusive of) the first poll.

Am I misunderstanding how polls work???

[scottxyz]

284. CNN is fucked

"Big Time"

Thanks for grabbing those screen shots.

When will those idiots ever learn? Don't mess with the Internet!!!

[IndyOp]

54. Sorry I can't give you a link, but I would just about swear that I read

at the NEP election website (or maybe in a Jonathon Simon piece) that the NEP had direct feed from 1,000 precincts around the country. Their final 'exit poll' data reflected both exit poll data and tabulated votes. Rove and Co. only need to manipulate the tabulated votes around the country and the exit polls would be automatically 'pulled' to match the fraudulent election results.

:grr:

[me b zola]

104. uh, where did elare go??

eom

[elare]

198. At the time you posted that question ....

I had gone to bed! :)

[The Judged]

79. They selected alternative participants to the exit poll after the fact!

They removed a sizable portion of the exit poll participants originally reported and replaced them with new and politically correct exit poll participants that conformed to their desired results.

This is the only way that the number of participants could rise so negligibly while the percentages of each category changed so substantially!

Get my point?

The exit polls did change, but in ways that are so corrupt that they cannot be shared with the public or even Congress!

[rdmccur]

93. The top set of results are the ones Freeman used

[DoYouEverWonder]

185. How the heck did 60 more respondents

change the percentages that much? How do you increase you total response by 3% and have Kerry lose 4% in the female vote and 3% in the male vote. Something doesn't add up here?

[TexasChick]

267. Damn, OW, Kerry was kicking that Chimp's ass at 12:21 AM! n/t

[unpossibles]

30. numbers

Bush in 2000 got 50,456,002

Gore got 50,999,897

if 59% of non Gore or Bush voters (3,949,201) went for Kerry that is 2,330,028 new votes for Kerry, and 513,396 new votes for Bush.

In addition, if Bush recaptured 90% of his old votes, he got 45,410,401 votes from his old voters. Kerry got 46,409,906 from Gore voters.

so far, just from the previous voters, that is

48,739,934 votes for Kerry
45,923,797 votes for Bush

so if 59% of the new voters went for Kerry, how did Bush win?

Did I do the math right? I'm kinda tired.

[shraby]

31. Doesn't this right here

include pretty much ALL voters? If so, it shows a Kerry win also.

VOTE BY PARTY ID BUSH KERRY NADER
Democrat (38%) 9% -2 90% 1%

Republican (36%) 92% +1 7% 0%

Independent (26%) 45% -2 52% 2%

[IndyOp]

46. Wow -- TIA, what do you think?

More Dems showed up to vote than Repubs.

There are far more Independents voting for Kerry than *
(Though I would have expected this to be way more skewed toward Kerry).

Interesting!

:bounce:

[Old and In the Way]

36. Perhaps all this peripheral analysis is why corporate media refuses

to release the raw exit poll numbers. Simply check out the Male/Female percentages for Bush vs. Kerry. Kerry's got better than 3 points on Bush. If everyone got exit polled, 3.6MM people would have lied and said they voted for Kerry when they voted for Bush?

I don't think so.

[fooj]

53. You've got that right!!!

TIA-YOU ROCK!!! If I'm following this correctly, that lyin', cheatin' bandit LOST by more than 8.5-9 million votes? If true, Zogby's electoral showing a JK LANDSLIDE was right on the money! Stop me if I'm getting ahead of myself!


:bounce:

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING????:think:

[krag]

134. If a Smoking Gun Goes off at DU

Does it make a sound anywhere else?

[EuroObserver]

177. Use Indymedia

Start here.

[skids]

206. They weren't lying, but they did "lie"...

They really did think that they voted for Kerry. :wtf: :tinfoilhat:

[keepthemhonest]

39. this is incredible

i can't believe that they left that for us all to see. someone better print that whole thing out before they decide to delete it.

[davidgmills]

58. send an email to someone; your computer will save it

In the sent files

[keepthemhonest]

72. ok

thanks .I'll try that.

[MelissaB]

59. Get screen shots and print.

Holy cow!

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

41. Here is a more complete analysis of the same data.

00 VoterCateg 04 vote as % of 00 vote GWB '04 JFK '04 Nader '04 Row Totals
Not voted 17 39 59 1 99
Gore 38 8 91 1 100
Bush 41 90 9 0 99
Other 4 13 65 16 94

100 47.09 50.9 1.19 99.18


The bottom line represents the weighted totals of the candidate votes ==> Kerry was slated to get 50.9 % of the votes and Bush* 47.09 % !!!

[DoBotherMe]

49. So, when that screaming voice went off

in my head on election night "they're stealing it, they're stealing it!" I should have trusted my intuition? I'm going to cry with frustration again. D ; )

[me b zola]

110. You and me, both

For me, it was when I saw Democratic counties in Fl called for *.
No f*ing way!! I sat up all night, tear filled eyes, and watched as democracy was raped. I will not be silent until we take it back!

[k8conant]

43. Why doesn't anyone else see these smoking guns?

When the exit poll sample size went from 1963 to 2020, Kerry's total went down from 1022 to 982.

On edit: I'm referring to the pre- and post-massage Ohio exit polls.

[SicTransit]

60. Let's say you're preparing to go on a picnic -

you check the weather forecast, they say "it's going to be sunny all day tomorrow". You merrily go, spread out the blanket, take out the sandwiches, and it starts to rain.

Did it rain or not? The forecasts ("polls") said it would not. But you're still all wet.

Note: short-term weather forecasting is actually a lot more precise than political polling.

[Old and In the Way]

73. Sorry, in Bushworld-

It only rains on Democratic picnics.

Can you give us an analogy that explains how 16/16 of exit polls that skewed outside the margin of error, all in favor of Bush? The odds of that happening are: 1 in 57,007,590,219,880

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=213268&mesg_id=213268&page=

George was being modest when he said he won the Trifecta after 9/11. He's a whole hellava lot more lucky than that..........

[SicTransit]

77. The "odds" that you are calculating

are only true if some assumptions are true - and they are most probably completely wrong.

Educate yourself. Read some poll analysis by someone who is actually qualified to talk about it.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/so_if_exit_poll.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/so_why_were_the.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit_p.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_about_thos.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/exits_were_the_.html

and deeper in the archives.

[Old and In the Way]

91. And the essence of these assumptions you link to

Republicans are less likely to do exit polling. Republicans are less likely to trust media. Right. They'd have less interest in seeing Bush elected than Kerry. I heard the Republican actor-who-plays-a-Democrat, Ron Silver, make the same "analysis" on MSBBC the night after the election. Total conjecture.

Exit polls have historically been a proven technique to accurately predict vote results...they've only become unreliable as Republican voting machines and Republican SOS's have started to game the actual voter intent.

BTW, you still haven't explained how 13/13 polls skewed outside the MOE, all for Bush. Give us another picnic analogy...please!

But, hey, the Mickey Kaus's and Instapundit's likes the Mystery Pollster.....enjoy your stay here dude. Maybe you'll learn something while you're here.

[SicTransit]

139. Read who Mark Blumenthal is

he is a respected Democratic pollster.

http://mysterypollster.typepad.com/main/2004/09/in_medias_res.html

..."I have spent most of the last 18 years as an apprentice analyst, senior analyst and ultimately a partner in firms that conduct surveys for Democratic candidates, working with some of the most brilliant pollsters and political strategists in America. "

I think he is a little more qualified to speak about the polls than the self-styled "analysts" here. Don't you agree?

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

231. Yeah, a respected Democrat who supports the stolen election.

right. Why is it that Republicans keep trotting out "respected Democrats" to hide behind?

Hey, I'm still waiting for a picnic analogy on the odds of 1 in 500,000,000,000....

[Chasing Dreams]

145. All I can say is Prove it. Release the damn exit poll raw data rather than

keep it a mystery!! Ditto for the actual ballots, where they still exist/was a paper trail!!

SicTransit, if all of us are so wrong about the polls and our assumptions, why are you and those who agree with your point of view hiding the data? One more question: do you agree with the 1964 Warren Report that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting indendently, killed President Kennedy?

DUers: don't get spun by this spin. Remember, WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

[SicTransit]

154. Since I don't have the data, I can't be

"hiding it" can I? If I had it, I'd give it to you immediately.

Look, I gave you links to the exit polls analysis by a Democratic pollster. He is a professional, been in the field 18 years, and works for Democratic candidates. Here is his disclosure:

http://mysterypollster.typepad.com/about.html

Do you think he is a "freeper", like the poster below apparently thinks?

He is quite a bit more qualified to talk about/analyze exit polls than the self-styled savants with no polling background whatsoever, and what he says carries a bit more authority than what someone who refuses to disclose his/her credentials says.

What he says is that exit polls were flawed. Not only that, exit polls have been flawed in previous elections - before any electronic machines etc. Polling inherently is an art, not a science, and people get it wrong quite often, even experienced people.



Oh, and I have not researched the 1964 Warren report or Kennedy assassination possible theories at all - so, no comment.


(Edit: typo)

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[davidgmills]

156. Mystery Pollster's credibility is shot

I have posted on his board many times and asked many questions about design effect and his answers just get weirder and weirder. I've concluded he's nothing but a freeper plant.

The latest weird excuse he came up with for my argument that the networks wouldn't spend all that money to get 3.5% MOE's or more was that the networks really needed "news" to report for those states that were not swing states. Please! In other words they needed someone like Mykofsky to call those states so it would be "news." Jesus what crap!

There's no proof by anyone that the design effect should be applied to polling. It is just theory. Sure the design effect applies when you talk about marbles in a jar but extrapolating that to precinct polling is a real stretch.

One social scientist said that statisticians were some of the worst people you could have to make this link and said they had no business doing so.

So much for him.

[SicTransit]

158. Let's see - on one side we have

a professional pollster who actually gets paid for conducting and analyzing polls - paid by Democratic party candidates.

On the other side I see people with no credentials or expertise in the subject matter posted anywhere.

Whom to trust? It's a dillemma.

[davidgmills]

168. He just didn't stand up to the cross examination

Your expert didn't know what the design effect number was and sent Freeman off on a goose chase. He thought the number was 30% and told Freeman that. Freeman does his analysis based on 30. Then he discovers that he didn't know what he was talking about and has to get help and is told that the number is now between 50-80%. He is questioned why the number has increased so drastically since 1996 and he doesn't have a clue.

He's asked many questions by commentators and answers few.

He comes up with his own analysis using the 50 to 80% numbers and decides everything is within the MOE. Macdonald on DU, does his own analysis using the 50 - 80% numbers and he concludes something is amiss. I point it to Mystery Pollster and he does nothing.

One other major thing I pointed out to him is that TIA did an analysis that showed that the very last pre-election polls and the "uncorrupted" late exit polls were nearly identical. If there was a "design effect", there should have beeen a difference between the two numbers, which the design effect would have to correct. He had no answer for this either.

Another guy on this board proved that the late exit polls matched papper ballots very closely but not electronic ones. Did he have an answer for this? No.

So like I said, he just didn't stand up to cross exam.

[jkd]

173. MOE or Recounts

When one is considering pre-election polls with a MOE of plus or minus 3% and exit-polls with a +or- 4%, being right on is more of an accident than precision. Many of those pre-election polls varied considerably depending on the pollster. Zogby may have been rather close to the exit polls, but others weren't. I don't think there is conclusive proof in these MOE analyzes, even though they may raise some eyebrows. The proof lies in randomly done manual recounts

[ClintCooper2003]

241. You are wrong. The uncorrected exit polls and pre-election polls were...

actually different. TIA tends to select pre-election polls that are somewhat flattering to John Kerry (no offense, TIA). Most of the pre-election polls showed a dead heat in Ohio. The exit polls showed a clear victory for John Kerry. Most of the pre-election polls showed a clear victory for Bush in Virginia. The exit polls showed a very tight race there. I could go on and on, but it's extremely clear that the exit polls were very, very different from the pre-election polls.

[m.standridge]

277. there's also a questionable sample size in PA and OH

relatively speaking in Prof. Freeman's exit poll list.
The OH and PA sample sizes are smaller than much more lightly-populated states. But this isn't off enough, to throw them completely off.
But the polls I saved--the pre-election polls toward the end--were showing Kerry leading in OH more often than Bush.
Several pre-election polls were showing NH neck and neck.
And several were showing Bush carrying either IA or WI, sometimes both.
They were going to be close.
Same with Nevada, some pre-election polls showed Bush carrying Nevada, and if you look at the graphic for SurveyUSA's poll on 11/1 in NV, the Kerry graph is going rapidly downward, the Bush upward. That's the opposite, for example, of in AR, where Clinton had started campaigning for Kerry at the 11th hour. Also, CO was showing Kerry with a surge. But I doubt Kerry carried CO.
A lot of polls were showing Florida a real horse race, as with OH.

So, the question is, did Kerry win Ohio and Florida? We keep finding things in both places. Can we find enough in Ohio? They've found a lot, but it often seems that there's a way to go. They found 1100 votes in a couple of rural counties, 20,000 votes in Cuyahoga County, hundreds more in Columbus, Toledo, and into the hundreds in some southern Ohio counties--and that's all since the official corrections and the recount. There seems to be enough to knock Bush's lead in Ohio down to way less than 40,000 votes. If we can just keep finding things.

I've got this feeling, about Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada- I think Kerry carried Nevada, but it was very, very close, maybe 10, 20 votes.
New Mexico, I get the impression Kerry carried NM, but a close investigation could hurt the Dems there, too. Kerry's margin in NM was also very close, but not as close as NV. Maybe less than 500 votes. (How solid is Kerry's lead in PA, MI and WI?)
Insofar as Ohio--God, it got close there. I don't know how much of it had to do with the people who had to get out of line and not vote. I'd like to think they can find enough actual ballots, to get a lead for Kerry. But I'm not sure they can actually find that. Even if all the ideal things were to happen--the state cooperate, the Senator(s) cooperate. It's going to be very, very close in Ohio. But I'm a little bit optimistic that Kerry carried it, but there was a slightly larger number of pre-election polls indicating he was carrying OH than not carrying it. FL and CO, they have a lot of military people. In NV, they have that "none of the above" thing.

[Name removed]

228. Deleted message

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

[euler]

271. I've learned that most people on DU don't understand the point...

...you are trying to make. You may as well stop.

[SicTransit]

272. It's not "don't understand" - it is

"refuse to understand".

[TruthIsAll]

281. You guys make a good naysayer tag-team. But we see right thru. n/t

We don't refuse to understand.
We refuse to be diverted from the truth.
We determine the truth based on our independent analysis.

Can't you guys see that you can't win?
We are too smart for you.

Go preach to your own choir.
The dittoheads will listen to you.
We won't.

Get over it.
You have no case.

[Shalom]

75. Your Analogy Is All Wet.....nt

[SicTransit]

78. Thank you for your in depth

critique of my post. Much obliged.

[Lerkfish]

99. LOL! only if during the picnic only one side of the blanket gets wet.

[Karenca]

112. OH, NO NON NO!

That comparison is all wrong.
You cannot compare a westher forecast with exit polling!!

[SicTransit]

140. I gave the links above - here they are again

this is written by a highly qualified Democratic pollster - more than you probably ever wanted to know about exit polls

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/so_if_exit_poll.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/so_why_were_the.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_about_thos.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/exits_were_the_.html

Warning: after you read the above you will probably be skipping TIA's posts. So if you want to have the warm fuzzy "exit polls were exactly right" feeling, do not read the above links.

[Karenca]

157. that's ONE 'highly qualified democratic pollster"

Magic word here is

ONE.

[SicTransit]

159. You're welcome to bring opinions of other

pollsters. So far I have not seen any. What I have seen so far is opinions by people with no credentials in the field whatsoever.

[Karenca]

161. Oh, you don't think Zogby is reputable?

I never even heard of your guy.

[SicTransit]

162. Zogby is reputable - show me where he says

that there was fraud based on exit poll data. Hell, show me where he says that the exit polls in 2004 were not flawed and should be trusted over the official election results.

[EFerrari]

171. You might go look at the 1st Conyers forum transcript . A rep

from his company testified in support of their polling and implicitly, against the faux election results.

[SicTransit]

172. Zogby did not conduct any exit polling

so I would doubt very much that a rep from Zogby would testify about Zogby's exit polls.

[EFerrari]

178. Right. But Mitofsky slandered Zogby and a Zogby rep showed

up at the hearings to testify. Don't believe. Read.

[SicTransit]

193. I have read - still have not seen anywhere

that Zogby said that there was fraud based on exit poll data or that the exit polls in 2004 were not flawed and should be trusted over the official election results. Care to show me?

[Karenca]

202. My brain exit polls tell me that if ONE pollster say your candidate won

and one DOZEN pollsters say my candidate won,
then,
MY CANDIDATE WON!!!!

KERRY WON!!!
THE ASSHOLE STOLE ANOTHER ELECTION---AND WE ARE GOING TO SEE HIM PAY!!!

[SicTransit]

204. I see - argument by assertion

as in "it is so because I say so".

Thanks for your contribution to this argument.

[Karenca]

250. I know two people who agree you you.

the 'mystery pollster" who you swear is the only one with the correct info.
and
you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

211. Google is a beautiful thing.

Welcome to DU. :eyes: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=26346

[SicTransit]

212. in your article

Zogby does not say there was fraud. He says there is "a problem, but I don't know where it is ... something's wrong here". Of course something is wrong - there is the discrepancy. I don't see anywhere that he suggests that the exit polls were correct and the election results were not.

Edit: and I am sorry, but it is hard to take seriously a "news" article that misspells "role" as "roll" twice in a row.

[ScreamingMeemie]

229. Kind of like it's hard to take....

Ah, forget it. Sorry, Zogby said fraud several times. Use Google instead of depending on others...why don't you.

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

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

[jimrod]

288. PBS

Charlie Rose's December interview with the Zogby brothers.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[bear425]

207. Zell Miller is a "Democrat", too. Thank you so much for

coming on board today and clearing all this up for us! Obviously, there is nothing to see here - we should all move along now...

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

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

[anaxarchos]

170. This analogy is wrong...

There is an underlying assumption that the vote count is the actual data while the forecast is an indicator. This is, in fact, a built-in bias of pollsters. But, in this case, it is precisely the vote count which is in question.

A better analogy would be yours except that you go on your picnic, you go to sleep, you wake up, and sitting next to you is Katherine Harris. She says, "Sadly, while you were asleep, it rained. But luckily, I was here and I dried you off. You owe me 50 bucks for services rendered." You look around and everything is dry. Do you pay up?

All of a sudden, the forecast is not "obviously wrong", it is significant.

[IndyOp]

74. The 'official' explanation (one of) is that the early polls

were 'raw' -- not adjusted for the fact that the polls were stratified (poll locations were chosen randomly, but voters who vote at that poll are a non-random sample) -- and the later polls were correctly adjusted.

The reasons the 'official' explanation blows chunks is that (1) the polls were reported for critical categories (male/female; white/non-white) separately and (2) the data reported in the media was not 'raw' -- it had already been adjusted and was ready for public consumption.

The 'massaging' was mixing in the fraudulent tabulated votes with the exit poll data.

:grr:

[davidgmills]

86. YOu got it

Kinda blows that clustering crap out of the water, doesn't it? How do you cluster men and women?

[euler]

270. You don't understand how exit polls are conducted.

There is nothing strange about the sample size remaining constant while the actual exit poll numbers change. Use google to familiarize yourself about why and how exit polls are conducted.

[idiosyncratic]

45. I am one of the 65%. My neighbors were part of the 10%.

I voted for Nader in 2000, voted for Kerry this time.

My neighbors voted for * in 2000 and voted for Kerry this time.


I knew too many people who crossed over like that to believe * won this election fair and square.

[unpossibles]

52. same here

I went from Nader to Kerry, my brother went from Bullsh to Kerry, and I know many more.

[ClintCooper2003]

151. My father voted Libertarian last time, and for Kerry this time. Also,

my mom voted for Bush last time and voted Libertarian this time. No one in my circle of friends voted for Bush this time.

Massive fraud happened!

[SammyWinstonJack]

199. I know two people who voted for the Chimp in 2000

and voted for Kerry this time.

[PaIndependent]

218. Repub father

My father has been a Republican for his entire life. Imagine my surprise when I casually ask him who he was going to vote for and he said Kerry! I personally don't know of a single person who voted for Gore in 2000 that voted for Bush in 2004 but know lots that went the other direction.

[davidgmills]

51. REally odd thing

If you go to exitpollz.org, you can't pull up any of the links

[fooj]

62. Zogby was right!!!! We were ALL right? TIA- post #53 is for you!

CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER...CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER...CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER!!!B-)

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???:think: I KNOW...

THE TRUTH THE TRUTH THE TRUTH THE TRUTH THE TRUTH THE TRUTH THE TRUTH...:spank:

[bunny planet]

133. Isn't there a request out there somewhere for the networks to turn over

the raw exit data. Isn't it illegal for them to withhold it if fraud is suspected. Or have they destroyed it somehow already. Surely, there must be people in the Kerry camp that already have these screen shots too.

[genieroze]

65. I can. eom

[EuroObserver]

181. Yeah, be careful.

Specific links at exitpollz.org (provisional) home page point to someone's (french-speaking) local hard drive (broken, of course).

Sources?

[TrustingDog]

56. hey TIA, good to read you again. There was a terrible rumour...

that you were tombstoned/banned, whatever they call it here.

[genieroze]

57. ????

VOTE BY INCOME

TOTAL


Less Than $100,000 (82%)

BUSH KERRY NADER
2000 2004 2004 2004
n/a 46% 53% 1% 7 points difference for 82% of pop


$100,000 or More (18%)

n/a 54% 44% 1% 10 points difference for 18% of pop

This doesn't make any sense either and what about other third party candidates?

[roseBudd]

265. It does make sense because the over $100K people did vote for

their tax cut. And because of the tax cuts there were more of them. I definitely read this analysis somewhere. It was also suggested that these people were not so crass as to mention this as their motivation for voting Bush and instead moral values became the flawed mantra.

[buddysmellgood]

61. At what point in the day were these stats collected? I see the site says

7:42 p.m. and some 11,000 sampled. Is this the deal where the pukes say all the Republicans voted late?

[Bill219]

63. TIA..

once again an awesome analysis

Have you forwarded this info to Conyers or anyone else that can put this to use?

[Melissa G]

67. Kick for truth!

[AmerDem]

68. credit goes to ClintCooper2003 for this info

It was ClintCooper2003 that first made this info available through his post here,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x212730

[ClintCooper2003]

152. Hey thanks, AmerDem. But I should have yelled it loud and stuff. lol

[AmerDem]

240. no problem

This was great info you came up with and you deserve all the credit for bringing to everyones attention.

[mamalone]

70. YAAAAY!! You're back!

So nice to see your name again:hug:

[rdmccur]

80. Glad to see see you back!

[althecat]

82. Go TIA... tis surprising this hasn't been noticed before.

As you say.

1. It confirms the exit poll results which are allegedly wrong.
2. It makes sense in terms of all the anecdotal and other evidence.
3. It is internally inconsistent with the final result... as you say it cannot make any sense alongside the result and raises a HUGE RED LIGHT.

Well done.

al

[L. Coyote]

84. Let's not forget your assumptions

Here is another one you fail to mention: Assume the same people are voting,

The exit polls did not ask questions of people who did not vote in 2004 but did vote in 2000.

[whistle]

88. That is irrelevant to the projection of valid votes that the exit...

...poll should predict. If someone did vote in 2000 but did not vote in this year's election, that statistic would not apply. This is a good predictor as long as the numbers are accuracy from the exit poll. I have looked for statistics which describe what these say. The numbers are now projective, but because they are based on a sample, the margin of error has to be factored in.

[L. Coyote]

142. You missed my point. n/t

[whistle]

87. Let's put actual vote counts to the poll numbers and see...

...what results:

PRESIDENTIAL VOTE IN 2004
BUSH KERRY NADER Other Check
TOTAL 2004 2004 2004 2004 Sum

Did not vote 0.170 0.390 0.590 0.010 0.010 1.000

Gore 0.380 0.080 0.910 0.010 1.000

Bush 0.410 0.902 0.092 0.006 1.000

Other 0.040 0.130 0.650 0.160 0.060 1.000

Total 1.000

Did not vote 20051500 7820085 11830385 200515 200515 20051500

Gore 44821000 3585680 40787110 448210 0 44821000

Bush 48359500 43620269 4449074 290157 0 48359500

Other 4718000 613340 3066700 754880 283080 4718000

Total 117950000 55639374 60133269 1693762 483595 117950000

check sum 117950000

plus 3.0% 57308555 61937267 1744575 498103

minus 3.0% 53970193 58329271 1642949 469087



Sorry, it's a little hard to read but:

Bush = 55,639,374
Kerry= 60,133,269
Nader= 1,693,762
Other= 483,595

Even on the plus and minus 3.0% sample error Kerry takes the majority vote. So why isn't the vote declared invalid?

[althecat]

90. WE NEED TO DO THIS ANALYSIS ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS

Then we will locate where the fraud took place....

These questions were asked in each of the states. Again we need to complete state by state exit poll data!!!!

FUCK THE NEP.

pillocks of the highest order.

[whistle]

96. That would be nice, but the predictability of the results....

...would be next to useless for state outcomes unless the samples were at least 1,300 per state and preferably much larger.

[althecat]

119. They are that big...

[KaliTracy]

89. I looked at Ohio and Nader got 1% in a lot of the tallies -- Nader

wasn't on our ballot.

[sickinohio]

188. Nader was on the ballot here - it's just that if you voted for him your

vote DIDN'T COUNT!!! Imagine that!!! Most counties refused to re-print the ballots after Nader was disqualified. Here in my county we fought to have the ballots reprinted, whch they did (but of course they bitched because it cost $13,000 to do). That was their fault. They shouldn't have printed the ballots in the first place until all candidates were finalized. Another problem with that is that the absentee ballots had already been sent out with Nader's name on it. At that point, how many people actually knew that Nader was disqualified? I'd say not many because the "little slip of paper" with the note that Nader doesn't count was not in with those absentees. ALL the ballots in EVERY county should have been reprinted - but, Blackwell didn't order it done. Wonder why????

[davidgmills]

92. PROBLEM ???? Too many women 54%?

[Old and In the Way]

94. I don't think so......

I'll bet the % of women vs. men are pretty consistant with historical trends....would be interesting to see the last 2-3 Presidential election to validate it, though.

[davidgmills]

101. I thought 52 - 48 was the norm

And everyone was saying that the early exits were wrong because they had too high of a percentage of women

[ClintCooper2003]

153. That's not a real problem. If you scale back the amount of women to...

52%, you still get Kerry with about 50.6% and the Shrub with 47.9.

It doesn't change anything really.

[davidgmills]

164. That's what I figured but I wanted somebody else to do the math

[davidgmills]

169. What effect would my abberation at post 163 have you think?

[ClintCooper2003]

221. Yeah I caught that as well. It proves convincingly that...

there is simply no way in hell that these 2004 exit polls were "biased" towards Kerry. They clearly took on more Bush voters than Gore voters. So maybe Kerry won by a much bigger landslide than we originally thought.

[mzmolly]

97. Welcome back TIA!

:toast:

[KaliTracy]

98. I have some blocking on this site (graphics, etc.)

that I don't have on the CNN site, and the database doesn't work (which is why I can see Nader).

Also have this at the top of my page:

Not Found
The requested URL /CNN_national2_fichiers/aol.htm was not found on this server.

On this computer popups and Ad graphics etc. are blocked, so it could just be software related, though if it's a mirror of the original CNN stuff, not sure why it's not coming through

[WritersBlock]

179. I got the same thing on mine with no blocking.

I just assumed that the ad & banner links had expired? The main frame with the CNN data loaded fine.

BTW... Welcome back, TIA! :)

[Machiavelli05]

100. the problem here is..

many MORE people voted in 2004 than in 2000... not all of them are new voters from the Dem and 527's efforts of registration...
These people are the ones that made up the difference.

[davidgmills]

102. That's covered

Here's what it said when asked if people had voted before:


Bush Kerry

No (11%) 43% 56%

Yes (89%) 48% 50%


So of the new voters, Kerry beat Bush by 13%

[buzzard]

109. Is this information that has just become available ? n/t

[davidgmills]

111. apparently

Nobody on DU has seem to have known about it.

[Machiavelli05]

273. I didnt see that, but...

I would be very aprehensive at trusting that statistic.

When polling - it is assumed that people who lie will lie an equal ammount with each reponse.

However, with this question I believe that more people will lie and say "yes" than will lie and say "no"


Also, was the question "have you voted before?" or was it "did you vote in the presidential election of 2000?" those are 2 totally different questions and will probably give 2 totally different answers.


Im just giving some alternative hypotheses... there are plenty more Im sure. Im just pointing out that this is not a "smoking gun".

Smoking gun = video tape, memo (that wasnt forged...), or audio tape, etc.

[Old and In the Way]

106. About 20MM more.

The exit polling suggests they broke 60/40 to Kerry. Sounds about right to me.

[dlaliberte]

105. Need sound byte to summarize this

Is this a fair summary statement?:

Those who voted for Bush and Gore in 2000 voted about the same for Bush and Kerry in 2004, but 6 out of 10 new voters in 2004 voted for Kerry. Since Gore won the popular vote in 2000, Kerry won the popular vote in 2004 by an even wider margin.

[Old and In the Way]

108. That's what I read from the exit polling data and summations here.

I still find it hard to believe that close to 50MM Americans could vote Bush, given his performance in office the past 4 years. I figured he max out at about 40MM, tops.

[bleever]

107. Okay, maybe this is too obvious,

but as the old joke goes: "We lose a little bit on every sale! So how do we make it up? In volume!"

Alas, some people don't get it.

[loudsue]

113. Welcome back, TIA!!!

:bounce: :loveya: I'm SOOOOO glad you're back!! :loveya: :bounce:

This whole thread kicks ass!! Somebody get some University to stick their name on it, and TESTIFY!!!

And EVERYBODY needs to call all the Dem Senators and tell them ALL to stand up with the Dems in the House contesting the votes.

And tell them it's NOT JUST OHIO!!!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[SnoopDog]

116. TIA, help me to understand...

The CNN exit poll..

On Nov 2 at 'Updated: 7:38 p.m.' with 11,027 Respondents the break down was
bush kerry
male 51 47
female 45 54


Given all this, sorry, what does this tell us? I understand the 50/47 percent calc, but why is this the smoking gun?

Is it the fact that exit polls are 99.999999999% always correct?

thanks

[davidgmills]

128. One more confirmation -- Latino Vote

Originally the word was that Bush had gotten 44% of the Latino vote.

Ruy Teixeira on The Emerging Democratic Majority website states that NEP revised Latino votes for Bush downward from 44% to 40%.

The CNN exit polls show Latinos to be 41% for Bush. Bingo!

See: http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000972.php

[rdmccur]

130. Good check!

[EMunster]

129. Is it a "smoking gun" if we're the only ones that call it that? n/t

[bunny planet]

135. good question.

[davidgmills]

137. If a tree falls in the forest.....

[Not a Sheep]

200. It seems we're being a bit liberal with "smoking gun" and "proves" /eom

[Chasing Dreams]

138. I have seen these data before, and you are right that they constitute a

smoking gun that can be added to the HUNDREDS/THOUSANDS of smoking guns we have found in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and more than a dozen other states where the machine count was hacked and voters were kept from the polls. I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel like I was in Dealey Plaza, saw the smoke rising from the Grassy Knoll, and not a single reporter will listen to me.

The evidence of electoral mischief and fraud is now OVERWHELMING, and like 1963-64, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and other Senate Democrats are mysteriously silent. In deference to those who think that Kerry is undercover rather than AWOL, I continue to hold out a sliver of hope that a few Senate Dems will be courageous enough to join John Conyer's Contest. The reality at this point is that the future of the US Democracy depends on it. For if they fail to challenge * and his cronies now, you can bet that the neo-con artists will "win" elections as far as the eye can see.

Oh, one more thing - next time we won't have TIA's outstanding exit poll analyses to go on. RoveCo is already making plans to eliminate the release of "non-sanitized" exit poll data in the United States of America.

[Bill Bored]

144. A Few Stupid Questions

Personally, I hate spending so much time on these damn exit polls when there is so much other evidence to consider, but TIA makes it interesting.

So tell me, why does CNN's final poll of 13,660 respondents say it was updated at 2:04 PM when the earlier one that showed Kerry ahead was updated at 7:38 PM? Is the 2:08 PM supposed to be the following day (Nov 3) and if so, isn't it supposed to be 2:08 AM instead of PM?

And why did the number of respondents only increase by 2633 after so many additional hours of polling?

Also, are the state polls a subset of the national poll? Do they add up to 13660? And if so, why are there no unemployment questions/answers in the state polls when there are in the national poll?

The whole thing stinks. There is no consistency in the reporting. I'm trying to find out if unemployed voters voted earlier (and for Kerry) in the swing states, and based on this crap they put out, it's impossible.

[ClintCooper2003]

146. Look at the gay marriage issue.... it clearly shows that...

63% of people polled favor either marriage or civil unions for gays. And this is the exact same exit poll which shows moral values as the top issue for voters.

[Der Blaue Engel]

184. This is probably a "DUH" for everybody else, but...

...the moral values part of the exit polls has been disturbing me ever since it came out. My immediate reaction was that it was bullshit, and especially ironic given that we were supposed to believe the polls about this, but not about Kerry winning. (Right. I know this was everyone's reaction.)

But what was disturbing me was that if I threw out the moral values part of the poll because it was clearly bullshit...then how could I still stand by the Kerry winning part of the poll? I would be just as much of a hypocrite as the other side.

And I JUST NOW GOT IT. Voters DID vote on moral values....THAT IS WHY THEY ELECTED KERRY.

Okay, everyone scream DUH at me. Get it out of your systems. :)



"FRAUD is not a MORAL VALUE." ~ Me

[bear425]

210. Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner! My thoughts exactly. n/t

[ClintCooper2003]

222. Yes, except that 79% of people who picked moral values voted

for Bush. But it doesn't really matter. So he got the tards to the polls. We still got more people out to vote. We won, and there's nothing anyone can say that will make me change my mind.

[bear425]

232. I didn't know that. But, I agree with you. Kerry won and

I won't change my mind, ever.

[ClintCooper2003]

255. Thanks for agreeing with me, bear. :)

[roseBudd]

254. Actually the moral values voters were probably the over $100K

income people who voted for their own personal tax cut, but thought it uncouth to say so.

[redacted]

148. This regime has ZERO legitimacy to govern

Sure looks like a "smoking gun" to me. Whatever the label, what's becoming clear is that the snowballing effect of the mounting evidence means that we have a regime in Washington that has ZERO legitimacy to govern because we, the governed, did not legitimately give this cabal our consent.

We've known for some days now that they lost Ohio, the key to winning the Electoral College. Now, thanks to TIA's brilliant analysis, we have proof that they lost the national popular vote. What's next? Would anybody be surprised to learn that many of the Republican wins in the House and Senate are because of the same fraudulent tactics that have Bush planning an inauguration? Of course not!

[ClintCooper2003]

149. Important! After they "adjusted" the data to fit *'s apparent victory...

they didn't call it an "exit poll" anymore. They called it a "survey."

[Dolphyn]

155. We've known about this since Day 1.

For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=201&topic_id=1144&mesg_id=1144

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=11874

I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything new in today's thread.
What am I missing?

[Bill Bored]

165. I've been asking myself the same question.

Could it be that there were no screen shots of the National one until now?

[Chili]

160. welcome back, TIA...!

We need all the voices!

:hi:

[nolabels]

205. I will kick to that one

How about a some NEW YEARS Cheers for our TIA :toast:

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:::kick::kick::kick:

[davidgmills]

163. Here's another oddity in our favor

Of the people polled in 2004, only 38% voted for Gore in 2000 yet 41% voted for Bush in 2000. If that number were even or 1% in favor of Gore, the margins would have been even more in Kerry's favor maybe by 3% or more.

It seems like they intentionally chose precincts that favored Bush in 2000.

[EuroObserver]

182. Is this data for real or a trick?

Specific links at http://exitpollz.org (provisional) home page point to someone's (french-speaking) local hard drive (broken, of course).

Sources?

[berniew1]

186. Are statisitics like this available for the swing states? For Florida?

Does anyone know these stats for Florida?

[Not a Sheep]

189. QUESTION: So we have the smoking gun and proof? .... (more)

I said in my "2 questions for everyone" post that I'd love to see a smoking gun but think people are fooling themselves and each other that the outcome of the election is going to chnage.

TruthIsAll says above that if he's reading the stats correctly,"we have the SMOKING GUN" and "THE CNN NATIONAL EXIT POLL SITE PROVES THAT KERRY WON!"

The definition of a "smoking gun" is "indisputable evidence of a crime". So, is that what this is? I think we're playing a little fast and loose with the words "smoking gun" and "proves" here.

[Not a Sheep]

208. No answers huh? /eom

[catnhatnh]

257. Got a reply....

....but posting here to people like you got a far finer person than myself tombstoned....Glad you're back TIA...

[Not a Sheep]

262. So the answer is NO, it's NOT A SMOKING GUN OR PROOF AS FALSELY STATED...

I try and look at things rationally and see what happens? I guess you can't point out that you believe someone is using inflated or false language. Well, you can.... as long as it's not "one of us".

I've come to the conclusion that if you don't fall in line on this Forum and cheer everytime someone screams "smoking gun" and "proof", you're going to get put down. That is pretty damn sad.

[SicTransit]

268. Of course it is not

TIA has no idea what the "smoking gun" expression means.

[justice4all]

286. Yup, it's sad that you have

nothing better to do than to tell us how to be rational. Check this link out -

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0412/S00167.htm

and give us explanations for all the items. Thanks in advance!

[Not a Sheep]

289. I think you've missed my point......

"Smoking gun": indisputable evidence (especially of a crime)

Is that what the main post is?

It proves Kerry won?

So yeah, I guess I feel comfortable speaking up and saying we should be rational because it isn't a smoking gun that proves Kerry won. I wish it were but it's not.

[The Gigmeister]

190. Is there a 99.95% chance this is really Proof??

[Truman01]

191. I FOUND THE FRAUD!!!!!!

It's in the source of the data. This isn't CNN at all, it is a hi-jack site that purports to be CNN. You guys want this data so badly that you will accept anything that supports what you want to be true.

TIA you are better than this. Check your sources or your data extrapolation is worthless even if it is good.

TC

http://www.exitpollz.org

Lets all go to the root site and see if it looks like CNN.

[roseBudd]

196. This is a saved HTML document that is missing the style sheets that CNN

uses. This is why there are broken links and images that were relatively rather than absolutely pathed to the CNN server. View the HTML source. The link to the style sheets in the head of the document is the reason the top navigation looks so bad.

[Truman01]

209. What?

I didn't understand any of that. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

TC

[roseBudd]

214. Disagreeing with you. It is a page that existed at a certain time on the

CNN server. This page was saved and then uploaded to a different server that does not have crucial things needed for it to display properly. CNN uses linked style sheets for the display of certain parts like the navigation. The server this page now resides on does not have the CNN style sheet, or the images that reside on the CNN server. That is why the images are broken and the top navigation looks like crap. The style sheet is needed for the page to display properly. Because the style sheet is missing this will never look like CNN's web site.

[Truman01]

215. Fake CNN pages are common. nt

[roseBudd]

217. If one were faking they would aproximate the missing style sheet

and download the missing images so they could be uploaded to the appropriate directory on the new server. This is not someone trying to fake a CNN page, just someone who saved the CNN page at a particular point in time before the page was either overwritten, or before CNN linked to a subsequent updated page on Nov. 2.

Does anyone remember whether CNN overwrote their pages on Nov. 2, or whether they linked to new versions? My guess would be they overwrote because people would be hitting refresh.

[Truman01]

220. The burden of proof falls on the person presenting the evidence

Besides, this would mean the exit polls shown are simply the ones that your "expert" has said needed adjusting. So who are you going to put up to support your evidence?

John

[roseBudd]

244. It's not my evidence, I'm not the one who saved it. I am simply explaining

why it looks like it does since you obviously don't know HTML.

[Truman01]

248. My ignorance of html is a fact, but my point is that this stuff

isn't evidence, or even anything new to get excited about. It certainly isn't anything Conyer's would need to get soon before Jan 6th.

Thank you for your explanation.


TC

[ClintCooper2003]

223. Excuse me. Stop being a moron. This IS the original exit poll from CNN,

After 1 a.m. on Nov. 3rd, they changed the exit poll on CNN.com to fit the "results." In fact, they weren't calling it "exit poll" at that point. They were calling it "survey." The exit poll on exitpollz.org is from the 8 p.m. sweep on election day. I know, because I remember reading it on election day.

Learn.

[Truman01]

234. I'm not being a MORON idiot. This isn't the raw data.

This is nothing new and it's being presented as if it is. The "expert" that took these numbers says they aren't right. So which is it? Is he an expert or an idiot? Either way you are barking up a dead tree.

God I'll be glad when this crap is over so we can get to something real.

TC

[Carolab]

236. And your purpose here is>>>>

?????????

[Truman01]

247. The TRUTH and for some reason people are having a hard time with it.

When I warned that Bev was a Con, I got flamed.

When I warned that the first Arnebeck suit was premature, I got flamed.

When I warned that the second Arnebeck suit would be split and the Cheif Justice wasn't going to recuse, I got flamed.

When I warned that the third Arnebeck suit had faults in it, I got flammed.

All of those things have been right on target. They have been the truth, yet no one hear wants to hear the truth.

What we want is for someone to tell us what we want to hear, that we really didn't lose that the exit polls, which were disavowed by the man who took them, are more accurate by 1.5 million votes than the actual vote totals.

What am I doing here? Looking for Democrats to ditch the fantasy and face reality: We have work to do and it isn't turning out fraud, it's learning how to not call everyone idiots and morons like little kids and learning how to bring people together to win elections.

So far, there are few takers on the truth. When I say something that is true, I get venom. Carolab, what are you here for? The truth or to have your ears tickled with fancy stats that explain away the election?

TC

[Visioneer]

261. I am standing up

I will stand up and be counted as another citizen who wants to ditch the fantasy in favor of fighting the GOPper trash with the truth instead of following these scraps. We have so much in the positive realm without having to resort to franticly grasping at straws.

This angle here on this thread in particular is just bad news if we are to follow it blindly. Jack the concrete technical truth up a notch, or ditch it altogether before we are branded forever with onus.... or worse. I have been hoping for a miracle, but Truman is spot on with this one.

[Mojorabbit]

233. Is this a screen shot?

See second link.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109053/

http://jdshepler.iweb.bsu.edu/epolls.0.html

[Mojorabbit]

235. delete

[Truman01]

249. I am being sarcastic, the point is that...

These numbers are not reliable as evidence. Just because they were hastily reported by CNN or anyone else, what makes them more reliable than the actual count????

TC

[DoYouEverWonder]

263. Of course there wasn't any fraud

and the US doesn't torture prisioners either.

You sure do seem to like to defend BushCo. Maybe you need to rethink whose side you are on?

[Truman01]

264. I'm supporting * ? How? I simply said that these "poll number"

are not what they are purported to be. People here can't stand it when I stand up and say silly things like: Those poll numbers aren't the raw data like you are saying.

Silly me, I should just shut up and let the fantasy roll or I'm a bush supporter.

People who don't have a point, attack their opponet personally it's called ad hominem argument.

TC

[skids]

197. How many Bush 2000 voters were there?

By the original "adjusted" numbers, more people who "voted for Bush in 2000" showed up than actually voted for Bush in 2000 (impossible):

how many people voted for President this year?

122188645

What's 43% of that?

122188645 * 0.43 = 52541117

OK, then how many people voted for Bush in 2000? What's that, you say? 50456002? My, my, now. So, where did those extra 2 million people who voted for GW in 2000 come from? And that doesn't even count the millions that died in the last four years.

Now let's use the new numbers and see what we get:

What's 41% of 122188645?

50097344

...which is still a little high since only 48M or so Bush2000 voters should still be alive and kicking. But at least it is closer to reality, and is closer to the MOE.

(EDIT: clarification)

[Kansas Wyatt]

201. And there were many 2000 Bush voters who....

Were not going to repeat that mistake again, and vote for him again.

[skids]

203. Beside the point.

The above figures include both Bush2k->Bush voters and Bush2k->Kerry voters. It doesn't matter in this case how many people crossed over, the number of voters is wrong in any scenario.

Of course, people could have lied to exit pollers. But how many, realistically, would lie? Are we a nation of fibbers?

I should note, the Gore2000 numbers are believable in either set of results.

[smartvoter]

213. Hey, Great to See a TIA Post!!! nt

[peacetalksforall]

216. We citizens MUST OWN OUR VOTE. This means IT'S OVER.

The days of trusting corporate networks to hire their own polling companies and calling the elections for the country is over.

The days of allowing print media to act dumb is over.

The days of trusting little old and young innocent and gullible people to watch the polls is over.

The days of allowing corporations to manufacture voting machines uninspected, unmonitored, unvetted, and in secret is over.

The days of our leaders doing nothing and saying nothing about vote obstruction and theft is over.

I don't know who is more stupid - we citizens or our leaders. Clearly, we have allowed the corporations to steal us blind and steal our rights.

[nashville_brook]

224. right ON! it's so simple and self-evident! nt

[The Judged]

237. Don't be silly! These results were before Triad recalibrated the machines

[1democracy]

243. CNN Screens yield strange numbers

I ran some numbers from the pictures of the polls on the screens on election night (given in messages above- one early with 1,963 voters and one later with 2,020 voters), converting % to number of votes. Although the number of voters went up between the time the two polls were posted (57 more voters) the actual number of people who voted for Kerry WENT DOWN and Bush's increased MORE THAN 57. Is this possible? Don't pollsters continue to add to the data they have as the evening goes on? Or would they poll an entirely new group and give that data?

[The Judged]

253. Exit poll participants were substituted after the fact to fix the poll!

It had to be fixed, because when it was random, Kerry was ahead by far!

also, * had to win, so they had to justify the victory by manipulating the poll data until it could no longer be said to be an exit poll.

[bleever]

245. Note to self: check if screen name SelfStyledSavant still available.

:)

[pixelthief]

251. kick n/t

[StephanieMarie]

252. I love your posts, TIA. n/t

[Bill Bored]

258. Here's the problem with this one

other than the fact that there are too many threads about it of course. (See the one's by Althecat.)

In the national poll only 23% of the sample actually answered this question. So you have 77%, or a bit less, of the 2000 voters sitting on the sidelines. They could have changed the percentages a lot, but they didn't answer the question.

I know we have to go with the data we get, but you can't say there are unaccounted for votes from Y2K if most of them are sitting right there and not bothering to answer the question.

Happy New Year though!

[Bill Bored]

269. kick n/t

[euler]

274. When the other side puts Mitofsky on the stand to testify...

...about the 2004 exit poll and the early release raw numbers, Mitofsky will testify that the exit poll raw numbers are unsuited for any type of valid statistical analysis. Indeed, he and those who work for him are already on record saying this very thing several times since the election.

Many of you are now rolling your eyes at my post - "after all", you may reply to my post, "Mitofsky is just a partisan hack with an agenda" or "He is being deliberately untruthful so he can cover up the shortcomings his ability to conduct exit polls" or something similar to that. Amateurs on DU can get away with this vacant way of "defending" their analysis against other DU members, but if won't work in Congress or in a Court of law.

Warren Mitofsky is the preeminent exit poll expert on the planet, and everywhere except right here on DU, he is so recognized. Don't believe me ? Take a look at paragraphs 66-72 of Arnebeck case number 04-2088. Here's one quote. You can read the rest for yourself.

<snip>

Credit for INVENTING the exit poll is generally given to Warren Mitofsky a world recognized expert in exit polling...Mitofsky has directed exit polls since 1967 for almost 3000 electoral contests. he has the distinction of conducting the first presidential exit polls in the United States, Russia, Mexico and the Philippines.

</snip>

From here, Arnebeck goes on and on with praise after praise for Warren Mitofsky.

To sum up, Mitofsky is the INVENTOR exit polling and has been conducting exit polls for 38 years. If he says (and he already has) that exit poll raw numbers are useless for anything including fraud analysis, then that's what will be accepted by the Courts, Congress and MSM. We may be able to find experts willing to challenge Mitofsky, but only Mitofsky can say that he conducted the 2004 presidential exit poll. No one knows the numbers like he does.

Dozens of DU members have been fairly persistent in their criticism of any analysis here on DU that relies on the accuracy of exit polls. However, we are always shouted at when we do. Folks, the real world is not like DU. If this goes before Court or Congress, the other side will trot Mitofsky out and he will crush the exit-poll/actual-vote discrepancy fraud theory. If we don't drop the exit poll idiocy, then we will probably start to get that long sought after MSM coverage - but it will sound like mockery.

[Bill Bored]

276. I wouldn't call it idiocy, but in general, I agree with you

I think we all want a nice simple way to prove that Shrub stole this election and this is one way, while ignoring a number of other facts, to do so.

Some of us see those smoking guns and others try to debunk them. There are hundreds of atta-boys for the smoking gun enthusiasts while the debunkers go mostly unanswered. Fortunately this isn't a popularity contest.

The fact is that the election _could_ have been stolen because the vote is unverifiable. That's a fact and that's bad enough.

We know that Florida is a failed state and Ohio is acting like one. There are 48 others that could go the same way if we don't start getting laws in place to make the vote verifiable again. That's the problem and no amount of exit polling is going to fix it.

That said, it begs the question of why no one DOES conduct exit polls here to detect fraud, as was done in Ukraine. If Mitofsky says his polls cannot be used for this purpose, then can his raw data be used to do so, and do we in fact have it yet? He wants $10,000 for all 50 states, but is that the raw data or what is it?

There may be enough in these polls to find some proof of fraud, but without knowing more of the facts about them, we should probably direct more of our efforts elsewhere.

And that said, I've got to go read Dr. Freeman's latest analysis because I just can't get enough of this stuff! :)

[1democracy]

278. Data explains why suppress the black vote...

There's great info in the exit info about the African American vote . It says that for the 11,027 polled voters, 11% were African American and 90% voted for Kerry and 10% for Bush. So suppressing this group suppresses the Kerry vote 9 fold relative to Bush votes. It would be interesting to run the numbers for Ohio to see how many Kerry votes were lost in those precincts with too few voting machines.
Are there any other calculations to be done with this data?

[Bill Bored]

279. Welcome to DU 1dem.

You can go to <www.freepress.org> and read all about it!
This is edited by one of the lawyers working on the case in OH, Bob Fitrakis.

[conwalko]

280. has anyone even noticed the 2000 vote for the exit polls

41% of voters voted for bush
38% voted for gore

which means that more republicans were surveyed for the poll. And they said that corrections were made because of over sampling democrats

[flaminbats]

285. holes large enough to drive an election through..

strange that 17% of voters surveyed, didn't vote in 2000..while only 4% of them supported other candidates.

The flaw is obvious...Gore and Nader voters from 2000 are underpolled, those who didn't vote in 2000 were overpolled.

[justice4all]

287. Good post!

meaning that we all want a nice simple way to prove the theft, but there are so many bases that BFEE tried to cover that it's challenge to decide where to concentrate.

The nagging question about exit polls is that if they're so useless, why do they get used as a barometer for the fairness of elections in other countries? Why is it possible to rely on them in the Ukraine but not here?

[RBHam]

282. Hey, where do you think you live?

In a free country? Like the Ukraine?

Deluded fools everywhere...

[bj2110]

283. I think I've de-bunked this theory. Follow link:

See my post here. I hope I'm wrong. My conclusion seems a little unlikely, but not at all unreasonble.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=228510&mesg_id=229864&page=