"More Kerry voters participated" DUH! There WERE more Kerry voters.

[TruthIsAll]

The pollsters have no reasonable explanation.
So...they have just convicted themselves.
And so did the media.

Of course more Kerry voters participated in the poll.
Could it be because, just maybe...there WERE more Kerry voters than Bush voters?

And they blame the weather?
Republicans afraid of catching cold?
Come on.

It's a sick, sick joke.
And America will fall for it.
Maybe.

Come on, Leno.
Come on, Letterman.

Don't let them get away with it.

[understandinglife]

1. They finally told the truth; though that was obviously not their intention

You're familiar with my stance on any info released by these dudes after ~ 1am 3 Nov 2004; so I'll not repeat it here.


ONWARD BUSH OPPOSITION

[TruthIsAll]

72. THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH..

NEP 11/04
13,047 respondents,
randomly selected,
1.0% MOE


               HORIZONTAL		WEIGHTED		
PARTY ID	
     MIX	Bush	Kerry	Nader	Bush	Kerry	Nader
Dem 	38%	9%	90%	1%	3.4%	34.2%	0.4%
Rep 	35%	92%	7%	0%	32.2%	2.5%	0.0%
Ind	27%	45%	52%	2%	12.2%	14.0%	0.5%
	100%				47.77%	50.69%	0.92%
				
Probability: Poll(47.77%) to vote (50.73%): 0.00000000329447

         ********* 1 in 303,538,508 ************

Prob = 1 - NORMDIST (.5073,.4777, .01/1.96, TRUE)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[barbaraann]

4. Yeah, right.

You know, we here at DU have fully functioning brains.

[TruthIsAll]

6. I don't believe you actually said that.

"Myself and a friend voted for Kerry but the other 22 voted for Bush. Exit pollers approached my friend and me but none of the 22 Bush voters".

Just how did they know who you voted for?

Come on.
Wake up.
You are in a stupor.

[greenmutha]

7. WWFD?

What Would Faye Do? :hi: (LOL!)

[New Earth]

12. lol WTF?

faye would say WTF? LOL! then she'd give them one of these :hi:

[rzemanfl]

77. Didn't the exit polls predict the results more accurately for down

ticket candidates? How could that be if Bush voters were underepresented? I believe you posted some things on this topic.

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. I'll bet you are, and hoping it won't be.

"Of course it should be investigated, but I'm certainly not holding my breath."

[Old and In the Way]

15. Are you sure?

The story should be that none of your 22 friends wanted to do exit polls. Lets try to stay on script here.

[understandinglife]

23. snooze.puke.bye (n/t)

ONWARD BUSH OPPOSITION

[New Earth]

26. LOL

yeah ok :eyes:

[seabeyond]

3. goes with ohio machines distributed evenly

long lines due to overwhelming increase in votes...........(in dem areas)

so overwhelming turnout for democrats, low turn out for republicans,

and bush wins?

[Chi]

57. Actually, the longer the lines...

Heya seabeyond
Actually, the longer the lines, the LOWER the turnout (I recently saw this in graph form), tis sickening.
Their plan worked well.

[euler]

5. Come on, Leno. Come on, Letterman....

...Come on, Dasher and Prancer and Vixen

Sorry. I live in Raleigh and it just started snowing here really hard. Coudn't resist.

[TruthIsAll]

8. Euler, you're quick. Have a drink. You'll need it to spin this one away.

.

[euler]

59. This your thread, so I won't even try.

I already know that you are CORRECT. Come on, Do the Math !

[Hugin]

9. I'm gonna hook my flag to this thread.

Cuz my thread seems headed for a lower circle of hell.

Yow.

:)

[New Earth]

10. lol

i'm just now seeing this....oh man.... "More Kerry voters participated" DUH! There WERE more Kerry voters."

like DUH!!! :hi:

[liam97]

11. how dumb do they think we are?

[TruthIsAll]

14. You should ask yourself: How smart do they think they are? n/t

.

[liam97]

17. agree TIA - this is really sick

its bad enough they can make such a claim but worse that they think people are going to buy it

[Hugin]

20. They will, alas, the people will...

With enough pumping from pundits.

I've already seen three puff articles which refer
to this report. (Yet, somehow forget to mention
who exactly did the report.)

Ah, I'm proud of what my dollars have done in
the College of the Americas.

[Mistwell]

16. OR the exit polls ALWAYS overstate Democratic Votes

Every single prior exit poll from prior years...EVERY SINGLE ONE...overstates the Democratic vote before it is weighted.

Now, either EVERY SINGLE ELECTION SINCE 1988 WAS RIGGED BY THE REPUBLICANS, or EXIT POLLS ALWAYS OVERSTATE THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE. It's one of those two answers. At some point, it really would be helpful if you addressed this issue of UNWEIGHTED polls from prior years.

[helderheid]

18. really?

From what I've heared, exit polls were always really accurate until 2000... hmmmmmmm....

[euler]

60. Yes. It's a cosmic conundrum

Gone wild.

[liam97]

19. overstating is not the problem

the problem is deviation in 16 states
Kerry could have won by a narrower victory than exist polls suggest, but that does not explain the deviation

[helderheid]

22. this is incredible

http://www.exitpollz.org/

[TruthIsAll]

21. Oh, so it's one OR the other? Since when are they mutually exclusive?

And what gives you the magical insight to assume they are?

Well, you missed it, Mistwell.
Once again.

[Mistwell]

44. They ARE mutually exlusive

Either you can use this data to prove fraud this year...which also would have to prove fraud in all prior years, OR the data is not reliable. You cannot claim the data is both unreliable AND proof of fraud. They are mutually exclusive positions.

[davidgmills]

66. Come off it jerk

When will you stop assuming the past counts have been "correct" and the polls have always been "wrong?"

I am so sick of this stupid argument.

And you never respond to me you just attack TIA.

[Mistwell]

70. Past polls are fraud too?

So let me see if I get this straight.

Between these two options:

1) The past actual vote count from 1988 to 1996 was accurate, and the early unweighted exit polls were wrong, or

2) All Presidential elections since the creation of exit polls (1988) were fixed by the Republicans. In every one the Republicans committed fraud such that they stole fully over 8% of the vote in 1988, and a similar amount in other years, despite there being no full electronic voting at the time (1988), and nobody ever coming forward to talk about it. And despite this monumental effort by Republicans to steal the vote every year, they lost three out of the four times, and the one time they won the popular vote they would have won the election anyway even without the fraud, showing that all this monumental effort that risked felony jail counts had no impact at all beyond showing in 2004 that all exit polls deviated from the actual results.

You choose #2?

Are you serious?

Because that IS what you have to believe to think that the past actual vote counts were incorrect and the past exit polls were correct. It's truly an insane position. Real tin foil hat stuff, none of which has any evidence at all beyond pure speculation of a massive, nearly two decade long failed conspiracy to apparently steal votes in all past elections to no end and at great personal risk.

[justice4all]

75. Or how about this possibility?

There were irregularities/mistakes (whatever you want to call them) in both the vote tabulations and the exit polls between 1988 and 1996?

It would be interesting to know what these were, but I believe that would be impossible to determine. It would also be interesting to know what the pollsters learned that enabled them to do better in 2000. Why didn't that work in 2004?

The 2004 polls appear very suspicious but without the nitty gritty detail about how the sampling and analyses were done, I would find it difficult to argue that they constitute proof of fraud.

I remain suspicious because I wonder why these organizations bother with exit polls on election night if they are going to be so far off anyway. If they are only doing it in order to determine who voted and why, then why not just report that information and forget about data that is untrustworthy anyway?

I do strongly suspect that fraud was committed because it would have been so easy to do and the motivation was there.

[Hugin]

24. Hmm...

Could it be heavy in Dems because more of them voted?

I thought that's how elections were won.

I'm of the impression the grand-daddy of all thorns
in the side of the RWers is that some poor homeless
person's vote counts exactly as much as theirs.

Is there a name for this affliction?

[Peace Patriot]

31. Prag: "Homeless Vet Freezes to Death Under Bridge...

Just thought it was apropos, talking about homeless voters being equivalent to billionaire cowards and shirkers...

http://www.wtvq.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WTVQ/MGArticle/TVQ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031780316578&path=

Action News 36
Jan 18, 14:21 PM EST

A Vietnam veteran who froze to death alone beneath a railroad bridge on Christmas Eve is remembered in Covington. Joe Young died in single-digit cold a few blocks from a shelter where he had previously stayed and a few days before he was to move into an apartment that had been arranged for him. The Reverend Gregg Anderson of Highland Heights says friends and strangers contributed a total of $2,100 to make sure Young had a decent burial. Joe Young was 57-years old.

[Hugin]

32. Thanks Peace Patriot...

Indeed it is... Indeed it is...

[euler]

61. Did more Dems vote ?

Where has that been proven ?

[Hugin]

63. Well...

I guess since there was so much SUPPRESSION and FRAUD
we'll never know... Now. Will we?

[KaliTracy]

25. so-- "Moral Values" was the overriding reason they said

* won (evengelicals, and all that jazz), yet More Kerry people were polled... really does that make any sense?

Am I missing something?

[helderheid]

54. Exactly - weren't they polled to come to that conclusion?

2+2 = diebold.

[anaxarchos]

27. The spin is as expected...

...the report ain't so bad.

If nothing else, NEP specifically rejects a whole lot of right-wing spin (including some here) on "what was wrong with the exit polls".

The explanations are lame but NEP doesn't really try to reinforce them.

We have to do a little crunching.

Every time they try to put out a fire, they light two new ones...

[fooj]

28. What can we do? They get away with everything! We work...

and work and work and work to spread the truth and it falls on deaf ears. TIA- you have worked tirelessly as our #1 statistician and you have come up with SO MUCH INFO! You are a true patriot in a society that seems to be sorely lacking in real leadership! You are right. This is a sick, sick joke! On another note...how about e-mailing your findings to Jon Stewart? Do you think they would pay attention? Is it worth a shot?

[understandinglife]

30. Efforts here do matter and our support for Conyers, Boxer, ...

....Kerry and others is having impact.

We're in a period of awakening. Most of our fellow citizens have been snoozing; have just failed to realize that 'democracy' is not a spectator activity.

We can and will prevail.

Difficult struggle -- indeed; worth every ounce of courage and stamina we have -- IN_DEED!

ONWARD BUSH OPPOSITION

[fooj]

33. Thanks...I needed that!

Just didn't expect these next few days to be so difficult!

[understandinglife]

37. What we've all been learning since 3 Nov 2004....

....is just how much our Constitution and "America" mean to each of us and to many others.

Tomorrow is a colossal and obvious farcical display of weakness and gluttony for Bush and the neocons.

Regimes that lame and pompous always collapse.

We just need to focus on making it happen quickly -- before they slaughter many more innocents; before they do any further damage to our Constitution; before they trash any more of our endangered planet.

Peace.

ONWARD BUSH OPPOSITION

[fooj]

40. Where do I sign?

I'm in for the haul...B-) Peace right back at ya...

[mdb]

29. The unweighted

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000940.php

The unweighted--completely unweighted--data from the last four presidential elections before this year are as follows:

1988: Dukakis, 50.3; Bush, 49.7

1992: Clinton, 46; Bush, 33.2

1996: Clinton, 52.2; Dole, 37.5

2000: Gore, 48.5; Bush, 46.2

[TruthIsAll]

39. Hmm... what does THAT tell you? That the votes were accurate?

It doesn't tell me that.

The exit poll results are very consistent.

And in the LAST 3 elections, the FINAL Party ID weights were (trusting my memory here, may be off slightly):

38 Dem/ 35 Rep (this time)
or
39 Dem / 35 Rep
or
40 Dem / 35 Rep


IN 2004, they were 38 Dem /35 Rep based on the 13,047 randomly selected 1.0% MOE National Exit Poll.

And KERRY won by 51-48.

The odds were 303 million to 1 against Bush getting his 50.73%, and that is based on the VERY CONSISTENT 38/35 PARTY ID WEIGHTS WE HAVE COME TO KNOW AND EXPECT.

How do YOU explain THAT?

[Al-CIAda]

34. It is as though a contortionist act must be performed to make

'sense' of their excuses.

[anaxarchos]

38. Absolutely, but that's true across the board.

"No Child Left Behind" means forget about children.
"Save Social Security" means wreck it.
"Patriot Act" means un-American laws.

etc. etc. etc.

I think they should just be called "the Liars".

"The Liars said this, the liars said that".

Everyone will know who you are talking about.

[Mistwell]

35. Here it is guys

This is the link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

The data comes from the Century Foundation, which is a relatively progressive foundation. The data could also be verified from newspapers from those earlier years, if people care to check for the UNWEIGHTED numbers (since the FINAL exit poll data is always weighted to match the election results - just like this time).

Year 1988: Unweighted exit poll Dukakis: 50.3%, Bush: 49.7%. Actual vote deviation 7.7%.

Year 1992: Unweighted exit poll Clinton: 46%, Bush: 33.2%. Actual vote deviation 5.6%.

Year 1996: Unweighted exit poll Clinton: 52.2%, Dole: 37.5%. Actual vote deviation 8.5%.

Year 2000: Unweighted exit poll Gore: 48.5%, Bush: 46.2%. Actual vopte deviation 0.5%.

In each year, the unweighted exit poll results always overstated the Democratic vote, sometimes by MUCH more than 2004.

If people are going to continue to claim that this year the unweighted exit poll proves fraud, then they must also show fraud for every single Presidential election since exit polls started (in 1988). They have to show that such fraud took place 1) at a time when there were no electronic voting machines, 2) in a manner which didn't actually get the Republicans the win twice against Clinton and once against Gore (since Gore DID win the popular vote), and in one of the remaining years in a manner which helped them not at all - since they would have won anyway.

The most logical explanation for all of this is that exit polls tend to favor Democratic voters until they are weighted, and the unweighted data is not helpful in calling a close election.

Again - my usual caveat. I believe there was election fraud - I just don't believe exit poll analysis is in any way helpful in showing that fraud. In fact, it's harmful because it is so easily refuted.

[mdb]

41. The unweighted data from past years do not...

correspond to where we were in the weighting process on election night this year when the +3 Kerry poll hit the internet.

[Mistwell]

43. How do you know that

Given we have no idea WHERE we were in the weighting process this year, relative to that prior data.

You know that you don't know...but yet you used a certain term like "do not correspond" as opposed to "maybe they didn't correspond".

Why?

[Chi]

51. So you agree, TIA's numbers might be weighted? N/T

[Mistwell]

55. TIA's numbers are partially weighted

But not fully weighted. The final numbers are fully weighted. The final exit polls always weight for the actual vote. The unweighted and partially weighted exit polls do not.

The "raw" data from the prior years is very likely at the same level of weighting as TIA's data. We have no way to know without further research, but it is an awful big coincidence that the data is so consistent over all the years, including this one, in overstating the Democratic vote.

Are you so closed minded that you won't even consider the possibility that Democrats are ALWAYS more willing to speak with pollsters than Republicans (particularly since many poll takers are young college students)? Seems like a very plausible thing to me, and the data shows that consistently happens.

[Chi]

58. Your last link....

Your last link used numbers that were "completely unweighted", yet you have no problem using them to contradict weighted numbers, curious.

At what time were this years exit polls 'fully weighted'?
Unless you know that you can't be sure that TIA's numbers aren't fully weighted.

"Are you so closed minded that you won't even consider the possibility that Democrats are ALWAYS more willing to speak with pollsters than Republicans (particularly since many poll takers are young college students)? Seems like a very plausible thing to me, and the data shows that consistently happens."

Sure, I'll consider anything. Where the data that reflects that conclusion.
It's my experience, that BushBots have absolutely no problem being outspoken, or getting polled.
Hell, go to FreeperLand and search "freep that poll", tell me how many polls you find they targeted.
Second test, next large gathering you go to, bring up the name Micheal Moore, and see how many negative reactions you get vs. positive ones.

But if you have other data that clarifies that position, I'm more than willing to look at it.
Just as long as it isn't an email response from some guy name Jim G (or whatever) like you have done previously (and thanx for getting back to me on that one).
That isn't proof, it's hearsay.

[Mistwell]

68. I disagree

"Your last link used numbers that were "completely unweighted", yet you have no problem using them to contradict weighted numbers, curious."

I disagree. You are reading the article with the link, and not the link itself. We do not know if the data is partially weighted or truly raw. We don't have anything to go on one way or the other, as we have no idea what was meant by "raw" in the comment. It's not that I have "no problem" comparing them, it's that they are closer to being a direct analogy than comparing TIA's partially weighted numbers to FINAL numbers from prior years, and him claiming that the FINAL numbers from prior years always matched the election results (duh) which proves exit polls are accurate. It's an inane claim he makes over and over and over again.

"At what time were this years exit polls 'fully weighted'? Unless you know that you can't be sure that TIA's numbers aren't fully weighted."

The final numbers are fully weighted. We know that for sure, as final weighting INCLUDES THE FINAL DATA TO ADJUST THE POLL BY THE ACTUAL VOTE. Yes, we know TIA's numbers are not fully weighted...he will tell you that himself, as he himself went to great lengths to explain to everyone that final weighting adjusts the numbers BY THE ACTUAL VOTE.

"Sure, I'll consider anything. Where the data that reflects that conclusion."

So, given that prior data from prior elections, of a nature that might be totally raw or might be partially weighted, shows that Democrats ALWAYS appear more willing to speak with the pollsters, why do you not draw the conclusion that the same thing happened this year? Any way you look at it, whether the prior numbers have weighting or raw, they show the FACT that the Democratic vote is exagerated by the exit poll prior to the final exit poll adjustment for the actual vote.

"It's my experience, that BushBots have absolutely no problem being outspoken, or getting polled."

Sure, someone who can be considered a "BushBot" might be that way, but I think it is safe to conclude that most Bush voters are not outspoken, just as most PEOPLE are not outspoken.

"Hell, go to FreeperLand and search "freep that poll", tell me how many polls you find they targeted."

So you seriously think ALL Republicans are as radical and outspoken as Free Republic? Come on man, are you not the one chastising me to compare apples to apples?

"Second test, next large gathering you go to, bring up the name Micheal Moore, and see how many negative reactions you get vs. positive ones."

Again...comparing apples to oranges. This is a simple question to voters as they exit the poll of who they voted for. It isn't as controversial as Michael Moore or Free Republic. And, given the example we are working with and not the exageted extremes you are working with, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect Democratic voters to be a bit more open with their opinion. And, again, it's no question that the prior data bares that out - no matter whether it is raw or partially weighted...it shows without question that they got more answers from Democrats.

"But if you have other data that clarifies that position, I'm more than willing to look at it."

Hey that part is just my guess. Maybe it is them polling in urban areas more than rural. Maybe the earlier the poll, the more it skews to the east coast. Maybe pollsters like to speak with women more than men. Maybe Republicans lie to pollsters about who they voted for. Maybe Democrats lie out of embarassment as to who they voted for. I don't honestly know WHY the polls deviate to Democrats, but the data bares it out that they DO deviate that way, every single time.

"Just as long as it isn't an email response from some guy name Jim G (or whatever) like you have done previously (and thanx for getting back to me on that one).
That isn't proof, it's hearsay."

Huh? I have NO idea what you are talking about. Email response? Getting back to you on what? I think you have me confused with someone else.

[Chi]

73. I disagree, with your disagreeing 8)

"I disagree. You are reading the article with the link, and not the link itself. We do not know if the data is partially weighted or truly raw. We don't have anything to go on one way or the other, as we have no idea what was meant by "raw" in the comment."

Here is the link to the source info....
"http://www.tcf.org/publications/pow/nov17_2004.pdf"

Here is the quote
"Consider this. The unweighted—completely unweighted—data from the last four presidential
elections before this year are as follows:
1988: Dukakis, 50.3; Bush, 49.7
1992: Clinton, 46; Bush, 33.2
1996: Clinton, 52.2; Dole, 37.5
2000: Gore, 48.5; Bush, 46.2"

Does he, or does he not, clearly state, 'completely unweighted'?

"At what time were this years exit polls 'fully weighted'? Unless you know that you can't be sure that TIA's numbers aren't fully weighted."

IMO it sounded as if you were speaking with knowledge of when the 2004 exit poll numbers were weighted, since that hasn't been released, I was trying to make that point. It was a poor point, and doesn't get anyone closer to the truth, consider it withdrawn.

"Sure, I'll consider anything. Where the data that reflects that conclusion."
This was said in context of showing me evidence that would show a reluctance by Bush voters to poll. You brought this scenario up, I was just asking for some information on it (I remember something about me being close-minded).

"So, given that prior data from prior elections, of a nature that might be totally raw or might be partially weighted, shows that Democrats ALWAYS appear more willing to speak with the pollsters, why do you not draw the conclusion that the same thing happened this year? Any way you look at it, whether the prior numbers have weighting or raw, they show the FACT that the Democratic vote is exaggerated by the exit poll prior to the final exit poll adjustment for the actual vote."

The most convincing evidence I have seen is the number of state exit polls that exceed their MOE. If you would like to convince me 'there is nothing to see here', then go find the next worst election, and tell me how many states exceeded their MOE in that one.
There ya go thats the end-all-be-all of counter proof you can get (for me).
I promise to change my mind if you can find another election that exceeds the MOE's in HALF of the number of states it did in this election (all for the same candidate of coarse).


"Sure, someone who can be considered a "BushBot""
Fine, change 'Bot' to 'voter', I'll still stand by it


"So you seriously think ALL Republicans are as radical and outspoken as Free Republic?"
Nope, didn't say that. But I do believe the vast majority of Bush voters are proud of their choice, and would have no problem doing an exit poll.


"I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect Democratic voters to be a bit more open with their opinion. And, again, it's no question that the prior data bares that out - no matter whether it is raw or partially weighted...it shows without question that they got more answers from Democrats."

I wouldn't expect either Dem's or Repub's to be more likely to exit poll, I would simply look at the data. If data is unavailable I would not draw any conclusion.


"But if you have other data that clarifies that position, I'm more than willing to look at it."
Should I assume you don't have data to support the 'Bush supporters don't exit poll' theory?
(which does not mean I'm insinuating your wrong)


"Hey that part is just my guess. Maybe it is them polling in urban areas more than rural. Maybe the earlier the poll, the more it skews to the east coast. Maybe pollsters like to speak with women more than men. Maybe Republicans lie to pollsters about who they voted for. Maybe Democrats lie out of embarrassment as to who they voted for."

If you find something along the way which enlightens you on this topic, I would be interested in it. Till then, thats a whole lot of maybes. Certainly nothing to use to disqualify other evidence.


"I don't honestly know WHY the polls deviate to Democrats, but the data bares it out that they DO deviate that way, every single time."

(These are not rhetorical, I ask cause I don't know)
Are exit polls weighted during the day to overcome this problem?

Does this show up in only raw numbers, or does it show up all the way till the final weighting?

"Just as long as it isn't an email response from some guy name Jim G (or whatever) like you have done previously (and thanx for getting back to me on that one).
That isn't proof, it's hearsay."

Since I can't search for it, I'll take your word and say..
'My apologies'.

[TruthIsAll]

74. Mistwell, you misrepresenting. I firmly believe the WP 13,047 numbers

I believe the WP 13,047 numbers are the TRUE numbers.
As well as the concurrent state exit polls.
They were too TRUE.

That's why they had to be "weighted" a third time.
Weighted to a corrupted vote.

[mdb]

53. Because it makes no sense to publish unweighted data to anyone.

Pollsters want to get it right. Customers are depending on this. Voter News Service, warns in bold letters in its 2000 Methodology statement never to use unweighted data. Your right though... I'll rephrase that to "probably," unless someone can come up with a certainty they were weighted. Maybe the media itself?

[k8conant]

36. TIA, you took the words out of my mouth...

How the heck do they know it was biased towards Kerry voters? I missed whatever lame excuse he offered--my son was talking to me. Was it because the vote "count" said otherwise. I'm going to look for a transcript--is there one?

[Peace Patriot]

42. It is utter B.S.! In fact, I've never read such garbage...

...from "the experts" in my life, and I do read a lot of their garbage (I'm an environmental activist and paralegal).

1) Mitofsky has yet to release his raw data. He can say anything he wants about it, but if it cannot be peer reviewed in its original form and reviewed by the public, so what? He is in the pay of the networks, who have screwed over the public on every issue from 9/11 to the war in Iraq to this second stolen election. And he has every reason to lie now--and put out an absurd report on why his exit poll was "wrong"--to save his ass with the BushCons and their lapdog press.

2) The BushCon lapdog press has NOT reported on the various independent expert analyses of the exit poll discrepancy, and have hardly mentioned the matter at all, until now--now that the debunking has begun--despite major papers on this matter from leading statisticians throughout the country. (See below.)

3) The TV lapdog networks not only have NOT reported on this matter--on Election Night, they and Mitofsky ALTERED the Exit Polls, "adjusting" them to fit the "official results," so that Americans were DENIED THE INFORMATION OF A CONFLICTING RESULT--exit polls (Kerry won) vs. "official results" (Bush won). That's WHY we didn't have a Ukraine here. The Ukrainians could see the conflicting results and knew something was wrong.

4) The TV BushCon lapdog press are almost all WAR PROFITEERS!

5) Everyone involved--the lapdog TV networks, Mitofsky, AP (who handled the "official results"), the newspapers, the radio conglomerates, and the political parties all KNEW DAMN WELL that the US was testing out a new and highly controversial electronic voting system nationwide for the first time, with, among other things, the source code that counts all our votes held as SECRET proprietary information by BushCon voting machine companies (major Bush donors), and that the computers had been proven to be extremely insecure, unreliable and hackable. The situation CRIED OUT for an Exit Poll designed specifically to verify the election and check for fraud (as they do elsewhere in the world). Instead they did a voter choice/demographic exit poll which MUDDIED THE WATERS and gave BushCons an easy "talking point" to try to debunk the result that Kerry won, the easy "talking point" being that the poll was demographic--an absurd criticism! --there is no reason a poll can't be both demographic AND predictive.

5) And now this...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/exit.polls/index.html

"Why Kerry ‘won’ the exit polls
"The main impetus for the report was the perception that the NEP exit polls were flawed because they consistently found more support for Kerry than was reflected in the final voting tallies.

"Not true, said the report, which found that no 'systematic problem in how the exit poll data were collected and processed' explained the inaccuracies.

"Instead, the report’s authors said, a variety of anomalies, some of them outside the pollsters’ control, added up to create a nationwide overstatement of Democratic support, especially in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Those factors differed from precinct to precinct, combining in various permutations to create 'a sizeable overstatement of the estimated percentage of the vote for John Kerry.'”

--------

"...Those factors differed from precinct to precinct, combining in various permutations to create 'a sizeable overstatement of the estimated percentage of the vote for John Kerry..."

That is gobble-de-gook. "...combining in various permutations...". Come on!

On the one hand, there is "no systematic problem" in the polls; on the other, "a variety of anomalies SOME OF THEM outside the pollsters' control, ADDED UP TO...."????

And: "...those factors DIFFERED from precinct to precinct COMBINING IN VARIOUS PERMUTATIONS..." ????

Read this article carefully and try to make sense of it. It reminds me of the 'Wizard of Oz" who tries to project himself as a scientific know-it-all and a powerful figure, while fiddling with knobs behind the curtain.

What a disgusting performance!

For a REAL analysis of the Mitofsky data (from screen shots that alert citizens did of the early CNN exit poll results, and the "leaks" that NBC et al are now going to suppress), see:

Dr. Steven Freeman 1st study: http://www.truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf
(also at: http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Expldiscrpv00oPt1... )
Dr. Steven Freeman 2nd study: http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
Dr. Ron Baiman: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/99...
Dr. Webb Mealy: http://www.selftest.net/redshift.htm
Jonathan Simon:http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm

Also of interest: 130,000 to 230,000 phantom votes for Bush in FLA (paper vs. electronic voting)
Dr. Michael Haut & UC Berkeley stats team: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu

Ohio vote suppression: http://www.bpac.info

Also see TruthIsAll's analysis, here at DU:
"To believe Bush won, you have to believe…"

Part 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Part 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

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

One final point about this garbage from Mitofksy:

Re: "The main impetus for the report was the perception that the NEP exit polls were flawed because they consistently found more support for Kerry than was reflected in the final voting tallies."

Dr. Freeman addresses this point in his 2nd paper--the PRESUMPTION by those trying to justify the Bush election that the official results MUST BE RIGHT and the Exit Polls MUST BE WRONG. There is no reason to make this presumption--especially given what we know about who manufactures the voting equipment and owns and controls the secret source code that runs it all. Our election system is NOT NON-PARTISAN, whereas Mitofsky presumably IS. This is WHY they use Exit Polls in other countries to verify elections--because the presumption is just the opposite--that those in power have both access and motive to fiddle elections, and therefore the "official results" are held in suspicion and are VERIFIED by Exit Polls.

[Hugin]

45. Wow Peace Patriot...

Did you just type all that in?

If so... I'm impressed.

[Chi]

47. Hehe...I second that. 8) N/T

[Hugin]

62. Hey Chi...

BTW... It turns out we can't say that word we were
discussing yesterday here on DU.

CENSORSHIP! OPPRESSION!

okay... I feel better now. :)

[Chi]

64. Heya Prag

<Chi hold both fists up shaking vigorously (ala Jon Stewart) and screams
"Damn you Big Brother"!>

That does work, I feel better now too. 8)

[Hugin]

65. I guess...

... if I'm ever to achieve my life long ambition of learning
to cuss I'll have to go back to watching CSPAN.

Thank goodness it wasn't a wardrobe malfunction.

;)

[TruthIsAll]

48. Great Post, PeacePatriot ! Here are links to the 3 threads..

Yours don't work.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1358806

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1316010

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=170352

[anaxarchos]

49. Maybe I'm jaded but I thought they just agreed with TIA ...

....on a whole bunch of points.

"Mitofsky knows where to poll..." - Yep, that's what they say.
"Clustering doesn't explain the deviation" - yep.
lot's of others....

Remember the stuff they were claiming just a month ago?

You are right that they reflect the hand that feeds them...

[k8conant]

46. The Exit Poll report presumes that the vote counts are right--

http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf
(Page 35) Italics mine
In precincts with an interviewing rate of “1” (every exiting voter is approached), there was still a WPE (Within Precinct Error)
in the Kerry direction of almost 4 points. Again, this indicates that a portion of the WPE is coming from differential nonresponse.

Why in the world do they presume the polls are across-the-board incorrect when they actually approached every voter in the above example?

[Igel]

76. So you're saying every voter approached

was magically compelled to answer?

Gee ... pollsters the world over would like to know your formula.

[genieroze]

50. Ah yes, foot in mouth disease. eom

[NationalEnquirer]

52. Exactly what my brother told me.

Him a rabid conservative.
He says that conservatives don't trust the media, and consider exit polling to be a part of the media, so they are less likely to allow themselves to be polled.
On the other hand, the Hate Bush crowd did their best to get exit polled.
I don't know, sounds a bit far fetched that it would have that great of an effect.

So which to believe, the fraud, or the asshole theory (republican assholes dont want to talk to pollsters..).

Quite frankly, no one knows. Best thing we can do is make voting so secure that we wont need exit polls to tell us the winner.

[davidgmills]

71. Tell your brother that since 911 and the Iraq war

that statistics are that liberals and conservatives hate the press equally. Last stat I saw gave only a four or five point spread.

This notion that we like liberal journalists is more than offset by our mistrust of the corporate media moguls who control these journalists and hold them in fear of their jobs.

[BigBearJohn]

56. LET'S ALL EMAIL LENO AND LETTERMAN!!!!!!#$!!!

[Imagevision]

67. Look! ..They ripped us off again -- end of story!

[Hugin]

69. Kick

Too much good stuff here to let it sink.

[MichaelTheCat]

78. First post

I've cruised through DU for a few weeks, but seeing the bullshit on the inauguration drove me to join.

Jesus, the next 24 hours are going to be depressing.