Have you downloaded the Mitofsky Exit Poll files yet

[Sandy_0]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/pdfs/Mitofsky4zonedata/
RELEASED ON SCOOP.NZ
>
>
> Despite craven if not treasonous media attempts to
> suppress this crucial data, clearly proving John
> Kerry's victory on November 2nd, the Scoop.co.nz site
> has come up with the goodies.
>
> Don't waste time with anyone who says these are fakes.
> They were posted on CNN.com the night of the
> election, people know these reflect that information,
> so there's no question of authenticity.
>
> These pages are Exhibit One in the people's
> prosecution of 2004 vote fraud in the presidential
> election.
>
> Go to:
>
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/pdfs/Mitofsky4zonedata/
>
> and start dow! nloading. (or if you have gmail I'll
> forward as attachments)
>
> There's a lot of data here, but the presidential files
> are at the bottom.

[musette_sf]

1. YES! (eom)

[Sandy_0]

2. Thanks

That's a relief

[musette_sf]

34. many have, I am sure (eom)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

4. How about democracy?

Do you put much stock in that?

[New Earth]

7. lol

[tridim]

5. Well that's just super

What do you put stock in?

[Clark2008]

18. Judging from their (now removed) comment:

About the only thing the poster put stock in is CHICKEN noodle soup.

[TexasChick]

23. ROFL!!! n/t

[TexasChick]

8. WTF?

[Sandy_0]

6. please?

Please don't argue. Either download the files or don't download them. If many people have those files, they become general knowledge and can be used for the investigation of fraud.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Thanks, just did.

Gonna convert the data into Excel and see what it tells me.

[ccarter84]

10. wow...i'm really bad with pdf's

so is there a program that lets you export that stuff?...maybe the full version of acrobat for all I know...but yea is there?

[Old and In the Way]

20. Unfortunately, not for me.

If you have Acrobat, I think you can cut/paste or maybe export.

Otherwise it's type away....

[ccarter84]

11. vertical vs horizontal

whats the diff?

[americanwoman]

16. An example

HORIZONTAL looks at what % of a characteristic went to each candidate. eg:

Of male voters, a% went to candidate X and b% to candidate Y.
Of female voters, c% went to candidate X and d% went to candidate Y.

(Assuming there are only two candidates, a% + b% should = 100%, likewise c% + d%.)

VERTICAL breaks down a characteristic for a candidate. eg:

Candidate X's votes were made up of p% women and q% men.
Candidate Y's votes were made up of r% women and s% men.

(p% + q% should equal 100%, as should r% + s%.)

[ccarter84]

27. ahhh, so I should be looking at both then I suppose

thanks for that good explanation
Welcome to DU :)

[SicTransit]

12. There are two ways to check if the exit polls are

really faulty - and from glancing at the data provided in these links, the information to do that is missing.

1. The exit polls are done at certain precincts. Break the exit poll data by precinct and compare the results to the precincts' official results. If those do match closely, compare the official results of those precincts to the total official results. If those do not match, that means the exit polls did not pick the precincts correctly to match the general election, and are invalid.

2. The exit polls are done for the Presidential race and for other races at the same time (I think) - Senatorial for example. If true, see how good the prediction was for a particular Senate race *and* if it was good, then see how well the exit polls for that state matched the state's results in the Presidential race. If the Senate prediction of the exit poll matches the official results, so should the Presidential prediction for the state.

[Quakerfriend]

13. I believe this was posted 1/1 by althecat

It is missing the numbers from 12:43am. TIA has posted several threads re: analysis of this data.

[hangloose]

14. powerfull information!

[FreepFryer]

15. Note of Caution...

Just to be clear - there is no independent confirmation of these summaries as being what they claim to be, there is no underlying data, and they could be Ratherbait.

We simply don't know.

Beware Rovism. Don't overbelieve anything, except truth.

[americanwoman]

17. Seriously

if you've followed this issue since Nov 3, these numbers are in line with everything else we've seen. What about them raises a red flag for you? Why the caution?

[FreepFryer]

19. Because we don't know the basics.

Investigative Journo 101: Who leaked them, where they got them, and why, and what backing information (data) they are based on.

To avoid major problems with investigating this issue, one needs to be EXTRA-skeptical of one thing - the fact that they fit our 'case' (etc.) shouldn't make them any more likely to be credible in our eyes.

This kind of trap is exactly what disinformation campaigns are designed to exploit, and do with diabolical success.

Imagine if, instead of CBS running with the Bush National Guard memos, they had been traced back to the Swiftie who later confessed to intentionally misleading Rather's group... the story could have been powerfully pro-Democrat.

I'm not naysaying here, It's great to have this stuff - in perspective. If it helps us frame our investigations, etc., that's great. Please continue to examine. Just be cautious not to call this 'proof' of anything.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. The fellow who owns the site

claims he got them directly from Mitofsky. He has posted on DU for a long time and is an extremely credible and reliable source. There is no reason to doubt althecat's word. He has always been an honest broker in everything else that he has done.

[FreepFryer]

24. This is not

proof - and not personal.

'althecat' is not a legally identifiable individual, etc. It's not about someone's word at this point. The data underlying the summary remains missing, which makes this information difficult to independently verify.

I hope the attention and heat around the leak lead those involved to go 'on the record' with Conyers and Arnebeck. They are conducting this appropriately, imho, and their incorporation of this data will be important for my threshold of verifiability.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. Those of us who know althecat

know his real name and that he indeed is a real and reputable source.

I will put my trust in what he says and does, way before I would give any credibility to your half assed attempts to discredit him.

[FreepFryer]

28. Your attacks are completely misplaced

and I am not in any way attempting to discredit this information.

I am sure those of you 'in the know' have a higher confidence from knowing him, and hopefully you will provide this info to the investigators to provide context for this info.

I am however, knowledgeable in how these things are done. Unless the underlying data, the origin of the info, and the circumstances of the leak are verified, this is just another 'strong indication', not 'proof'.

I am very relieved that you express such confidence - but dismayed that you attacked me so unnecessarily and rudely. Consider a bit of respect, and try to assume others are acting in good faith. You'll see I'm no troll.

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. This wasn't a leak

He asked for the documents and Mitofsky gave them to him. I am willing to bet that atc will be more than willing to talk to investigators himself.

[FreepFryer]

30. Good to hear.

I read the Raw Story piece but the origins remain unclear. I'm glad you have such info! Any links you can recommend for more investigation?

A few more questions:

Was the recipient able to name his source?

Was the source named when he forwarded the information on to Congress?

Was the source a legal, original owner? iotw, Did the source receive this information as an independent client of Mitofsky, or while acting under the employ of a Mitofsky client (like a media group, etc.)?

Last - since the source is ostensibly the legal owner, was he (post-sale) contractually barred from sharing the information, or was he indemnified from violations of propriety? In other words, did his sharing break any contract (verbal or written) communicated prior or after the election with Mitofsky Intl. (relax, it doesn't throw suspicion but rather provides context and acceptable motive).

[DoYouEverWonder]

He got them from Mitofsky himself

This was right after the election, before there was a big brohaha about the exit polls.

I will look for the thread where atc explained all this.

[FreepFryer]

32. Good stuff! It is important to know...

for the purposes of bringing a case - if as the controversy deepened, Mitofsky attempted to prevent this specific data from being released by owners.

Mitofksy is allowed to withhold private data, as are individual private owners - but Mitofsky influencing others to do so is the rub. Doing so (informally changing or proposing contract terms after the fact) is extremely solid ground upon which to indemnify a 'whistle-blower' and validate the data by compelling the release of the originals by the source (in this case, Mitofsky).

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. dupe

oops

[Sandy_0]

33. I got it in an email

This is the beginning of that email. That's all I know except that it was from a member of Clark's Army.

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:42:08 -0800 (PST)
From: John Ervin <[e-mail]>
Subject: extra! 2004 ELECTION EXIT POLLS "LEAKED" TO NEW ZEALAND
WEBSITE:
X-Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
Leigh Saavedra <[e-mail]>, m j <[e-mail]>,
sanrus <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
Harmony Kieding <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
Nancy Eiring Kerry-Edwards 2004 <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], AlterNet <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], Alex Babcock <[e-mail]>,
"MoveOn.org" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
Disgruntled Democrats 4 Democracy <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], TrueMajority <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail]
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Delivered-to: mailing list [e-mail]
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=hxqLGe8QB+dYqOQHI1AbG/qIPX16LMxoJ0fWP6XJ3zp62Hg/A//M7koUitZn8VgeWgOoP/2uKXv2cOYtxT9/AkCJ+M32uvYkyuBT6EdYs79D+oDFFq2xumzfEKlJ1+dSxVZ4guagjbVmykrLcoe6YGEDPCEuFimdimgpep8esfI= ;
Mailing-List: list [e-mail]; contact
[e-mail]
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email
X-Apparently-To: [e-mail]
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 216.136.173.198
X-Yahoo-Profile: muservin
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]>
Original-recipient: rfc822;[e-mail]

<?xml:namespace prefix = mailto />This looks like the real thing, folks: after Mass Media outlets (all the Big T.V.'s) trotted out a single spokesman a week ago to say for them, collectively, that they would not release exit poll data, it would appear from the files at this New Zealand website that someone has turned the tables on "them" and released the complete exit poll results for our "elections." Apparently the author of the note below is stating that there is other corroborating evidence available to us that these figures are the real deal.......

Our suggestion? EVERYONE download them and pass them on to others before the website is gagged by some kind of injunction (Kiwi Supremes?). The more of us who have this primary information and continue to post and circulate it, the harder the CYA........

PAXXX (and Happy New Year!) -je

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. Yep

Got 'em all.

[genieroze]

25. I'm zipping this into one file and share it on p2p. eom