Media Accused of Ignoring Election Irregularities

[cyn2]

Media Accused of Ignoring Election Irregularities
by Mark Jurkowitz

Two weeks after Election Day, explosive allegations about a media coverup are percolating.

There's the widely circulated e-mail about a CBS producer who complained that a news industry "lock-down" has prevented journalists from investigating voting problems that cropped up on Nov 2. There's the rumor that MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, who has devoted serious air time to discussing Election Day irregularities, was fired for broaching the topic. There's the assertion by Bev Harris, executive director of Black Box Voting Inc., that she had received calls from network employees saying they had been told to lay off the sensitive subject of voting fraud.

In the days after Nov. 2, the Internet was abuzz with charges from partisans that voting irregularities might have cost John F. Kerry the White House.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1117-01.htm

[Cha]

1. Accusing the "media of ignoring

voting irregularities" is like accusing the media of not reporting President Al Gore's true vote count in Florida..after the fucking fact!

As I was saying before the election and will continue the say..

IT'S THE FUCKING MEDIA, STUPID"


Disclaimer~ This is not directed to anyone in particular but as a rallying cry! :grr:

[patricia92243]

2. Olberman has been fired? I don't get MSNBC.

[slestak]

4. olbermann

I believe he's "on vacation".

[burn the bush]

6. he is on a regularly scheduled vacation and will be back next week

this guy is reporting on all of our musings about what happened to Keith. We never said he had been fired or anything else, we just wanted to make sure that he hadn't been. But of course they want to try to focus on the things that are not true so as to make us look like idiots.

[ailsagirl]

65. I hope to God you're right--

I hope he's just on vacation. Guess we'll find out soon enough.

If he was fired, then perhaps he'll use his name to really further the cause.

But, to be honest, I worry about the safety of some of our more high-profile people. As I've said many times, I don't put anything past these repug creeps.

[rodeodance]

3. thank the Boston Globe for the story

.....With some media outlets moving swiftly to debunk the notion that the election had been stolen by the Republicans, the press itself has come under scrutiny, accused of everything from a conspiracy of silence to a collective passivity about pursuing voting irregularities.

"The mainstream media is not treating this as an important story overall," said Steve Rendall, senior analyst at the liberal media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. "The mainstream media has largely treated the story as some crazy Internet story." At the same time, Rendall acknowledged: "There has been excess in the way stuff has flown around the Internet and e-mail lists.".....

[joeunderdog]

7. FWIW, I just sent this to the Globe last night...

Like most major new sources, The Globe’s silence regarding the alleged voter fraud of this year’s Presidential election is itself a story. Now that we’ve convicted Lacy Peterson’s killer, Globe readers are indeed safer. Unfortunately, our elections don’t appear to be. Readers just won’t learn about it here.

The Globe simply “dismissed” the so-called Internet conspiracies that referenced the F-word (fraud.). Dismissing is easy. Anyone can do that. It would have been better journalism if they took the time to actually discredit these conspiracies with facts and figures.

It’s hard to imagine how a story as sensational as the dramatic speculation of a stolen US Presidential election wouldn’t sell newspapers. O.J. did, and sales were brisk debating the judicial process there. Maybe someone has to die for this story to get legs. (For what it’s worth, the inventor of a verifiable computer voting system did die in a car crash, but that might be too tabloid.) Maybe the Globe just has no more election ink to give after spilling it all on the hot rumors on the candidates’ 30-year-old war records.

Am I disappointed in all of this? Sure, but not as much as those people whose votes are missing. In North Carolina, Official Voter Records acknowledge that Craven County “lost” 4500 votes to a computer (ehem) “glitch." A nearby NC county reported another 11,000 vote “glitch.” In Florida and Ohio, literally dozens counties actually reported more votes than voters. To date, not one of these so-called glitches has favored Senator Kerry. What exactly is it about these very official election numbers that conjures up the notion that Internet paranoia is based on wild speculation?

Exit polling has historically been very accurate, but was off in 8-plus swing states this year by up to an unprecedented 15%, and all in favor of President Bush. More fodder for the Conspiracy Theorists--the probability of this is less than one percent, according to statisticians. In not one state did Kerry outperform exit polls by more than the margin of error. Interestingly, these kinds of extreme irregularities occurred this year in not a single state with a paper trail.

Looking for a motive in this mystery? The companies who produce the computer voting machines are owned and operated by Republicans to the exclusion of Democrats, and business is booming. Walden O'Dell, chief executive of computer voting’s Diebold Inc. is a proud Bush activist and a successful Republican fundraiser. Fox, meet henhouse. Walden said on record that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president (this) year." He just may have. As Stalin said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything."

Unfortunately, the copyright concerns for the compu-voting companies take precedence over the preservation of a fair and transparent democratic process for America. This means no voter verification by impartial parties. In the meantime, Diebold and leading Republicans consider questions about election results to be offensive and objectionable despite flatly refusing to implement a verifiable voting system. Similarly, the Globe has not found Diebold’s symbiotic financial relationship with President Bush to be important enough to investigate corresponding anomalies across e-states during the election.

No, vote theft is not “news.” Both Democrats and Republicans have historically tried to further their personal and political agendas by beating the election system and its technology since before George Washington took office. This year, what’s different is that because of computer voting, large numbers of have been moved or lost without a receipt or a trace. And our own Official Election Results indicate that it is in fact happening. They are not “glitches.” They are an indication of a bigger problem that is being swept under the mats of the Globe and major new sources like it. Even if it’s only to dispel the rumors, shouldn’t the Globe be looking into it?

Look, O.J. was ultimately exonerated, but it still made for a great news story for the Globe.

[Eloriel]

8. Absolutely superb!

Thanks for sharing it.

[troubleinwinter]

16. GRRRRREAT letter!!!

[juajen]

31. There is one thing that you left out that I think is vital

Nowhere am I seeing the absolute horror of diebold hiring felons as executives in their company, one of whose crimes was computer rigging and back-door computer embezzeling, I believe, 24 counts of fraud because of computer crimes. This should be out there in spades. Anybody know why we can't spread this further? Me thinks we need our own felon to catch a felon.

[noonriser]

70. Fantastic letter,

and I love the Stalin quote! Mind if I use it in my signature line?

:thumbsup:

[imenja]

5. Olbermann has not been fired

He is on vacation. His blog says so.

[mdb]

9. I find this upsetting.

The media had no problem throwing lies out there about Kerry. Yet now with over 55 million people who have voted and want to know what is going on in Ohio and such are having to dig for news.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

10. the globe might be a good place to start

they are the ones who broke the story about *'s so called national guard service - and they're from liberal massachusetts. Here's keeping fingers crossed.

[no1hedberg]

14. hmmmm

It seems to me that it's easy to label this an "internet conspiracy theory" if the only place to find information, and the only people reporting any facts, or questioning the anomalies is on the internet!

[noonriser]

69. Internets

don't ya know?!

:bounce: :bounce:

[cyn2]

28. good comparison

I think your comparison deserves to be put in a letter to the media. Perhaps tweety (Chris Matthews) should be at the top of your list. He gave more time to the swiftie liars than anyone else.

[Magically_Delicious]

11. I cannot get over this conspiracy hurdle, please help me

OK, I love a conspiracy just like the next guy. But I cannot get over this hurdle.

Every poll in the country that I'm aware of had Bush winning by between 1-6% of the vote going into the election. These numbers were consistent ever since the GOP Convention. Even going into the day before the election he had 1-4% lead depending on the poll.

Yet everyone wants to only look at exit polls. Are we as Americans supposed to throw out the months of other polls that say something completely different.

Help me understand.

Much appreciated.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

12. those polls are totally unreliable

they target people - call them on the phone at home, many people refuse to answer, etc. They also are unable to contact large parts of the population who only have cell phones. They target "likely voters" i.e. people who have voted consistently for the last four elections. There are so many factors in those polls that negate their validity. (sorry for my spelling)

[Magically_Delicious]

18. I'm confused

OK, but don't Republicans have cell phones too?

I guess I don't see how an exit poll is "more reliable" than these other polls especially considering the way the election ended up. Those polls matched the outcome, the exit polls did not. You bring up good points about the fallacies of the regular polls, but exit polls have fallacies too. Is the sample correct, based on the time of day did they have more Kerry supporters than Bush supporters, did people lie to the Exit Pollsters, etc, etc.

I appreciate your comments. That hurdle is still there for me, however.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

20. another reason why exit polls are much more reliable than

the others - exit polls rely on people when they have just recently voted. The other polls - people may answer the questions, but do they really go vote? Those polls are slanted much more to an older crowd - a lot of young people only have cells. A lot of young people haven't voted in the last four elections. The exit polls are used in third world countries to prevent situations like what just happened.

[Magically_Delicious]

22. Disagree for this reason

But you're still relying on someone to tell the truth. If you were a female Bush supporter would you feel more inclined to tell someone on the phone you were voting for Bush in the privacy of your living room, or would you answer a pollster in open public with a MoveOn.org person a few feet away?

I think you are giving way too much credence to these Exit Polls and we know they weren't very good in 2000 either.

Besides, did I not read that the Exit Polls were corrected as the day went on? I knew when I saw Bush down by 18% in Pennslyvania that these exit polls had a major problem to them.

[CAcyclist]

26. Lying should be equal on both sides

and thus cancel each other out.

You would have to come up with a better argument for why only Bush supporters would lie when Kerry supporters would tell the truth than conjecture.

You are implying that somehow admitting being a Bush supporter would put that person in danger and that speaks more for your presence of mind than evidence for your argument.

[Magically_Delicious]

33. Perhaps

Again, do you think that Pennsylvania showing an 18 point lead in the exit polls made any sense? There was something drastically wrong with the exit polling.

I find more comfort in the regular polls and really believe this conspiracy conjecture makes many look like poor sports. Just my two cents.

The consipiracy arguments simply do not add up.

[CAcyclist]

36. Penn exit poll showed an 8 point lead

You can choose to put more faith in less reliable pre-election polls (although you are ignoring the polls that favored Kerry just prior to the election) if you want. You are obviously only interested in spinning the facts to support your own opinions and not in finding out the real truth.

[Magically_Delicious]

45. Actually it was a 16 point lead, not 18...but certainly not 8

This one showed Kerry with a 16 point lead, 58 to 42

http://www.talkabouttravelling.com/group/rec.travel.asia/messages/202445.html


I'm sorry, but no way Kerry ever in his or our wildest dreams had a 16 point lead. Let's face it, the exit polls were WRONG!

Look at New Hampshire at 58 to 41...that is totally ridiculous.

These polls were just dead wrong and quite frankly this continued push at conspiracy makes a lot of us look like sore losers.

[CAcyclist]

55. Actually,it was an 8 point (ok 8.7 point) lead

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x56674

[Magically_Delicious]

59. Sir, I gave you links directly to the reports...here are all of them!!!

Here are some more all showing Kerry with HUGE double digit leads in the exit polling in PA, NH and elsewhere.

They were just wrong. This cause is only going to make us look sillier and like sore losers in my opinion.

Here was the early reporting at 1:57pm EST via National Election Pool on November 2nd.

AZ CO LA PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
45 48 42 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57 Kerry
55 51 57 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41 Bush

Just look at PA, MN and NH! They are way, way, way wrong! Wisconsin the same thing.

Here is wave two from SLATE at 5:03pm EST on November 2nd

FL: 50/49 - KERRY
OH: 52/47 - KERRY
MI: 51/48 - KERRY
PA: 58/42 - KERRY
IA: 50/48 - KERRY
WI: 53/47 - KERRY
MN: 57/42 - KERRY
NH: 58/41 - KERRY
ME: 55/44 - KERRY
NM: 49/49 - TIE

NV: 48/49 - BUSH
CO: 49/50 - BUSH
AR: 45/54 - BUSH
NC: 47/53 - BUSH

Again, PA, MN and NH are just horribly, horribly wrong. DOUBLE DIGITS AGAIN. Now way Bush and the GOP would have spent one nickle or one second of their time in these states if they were that huge of leads, which we all know by the final election results they were not.

Is it at all possible that 1500 randomly assigned pollsters could have gotten this wrong the day of the election, and the major pollsters that predicted a Bush win for 2 months got it right? Is that possible?

Buy into this theory if you wish, I simply cannot get over the hurdle. All information you have provided I have provided equal information that differs from it. I want to believe and I have no doubt that some media type would love to blow this out of the water if they could, but I think they are not because there just isn't any data to support it.

[kristndem]

42. Historically

Exit polls have been dead on - well within the margin of error.

It was only in 2000 that they went askew. In Florida. And every election since then.

Now let's think about this.............. What do the last three elections have in common??????????????????

[BlueDog2u]

51. Exactly

But the poster we're responding to seems to have the Henry Ford mentality that "history is bunk." No, in this case history is the only sure guide to understanding what is happening in the present.

[Magically_Delicious]

52. History changes my friends

As for what do the last three elections have in common? I have no idea. Bill won in 1996, Bush in 2000 and Bush in 2004. What am I missing?


I need a little more to go on then "well it happened the last three times therefore".

If you want to use history as a marker, there was a time when African Americans voted for GOP for President (Eisenhower received more than 50%). History changes guys. I need a lot more than "history" shows they were dead on in the past. We all know they aren't using the same techniques, etc to do the exit polling today. We also know that 2000 did not go well in exit polling. And we also know that any polling is 100% reliant on the person giving correct information, interviewing the right mix of people, etc.

The fact that the exit polls got PA with a 16 point lead and New Hampshire with a 17 point lead is strong enough evidence for me to know that whomever was doing the polling was very poor at their job.

[proud_Kucitizen]

78. Just wanted to clarify

what I think BlueDog2u meant by the last three elections and what you are missing is the House and Senate races in 2002.

[BlueDog2u]

86. There was a time....

Before the civil rights act, when Southern Democrats voted Democratic. And Lyndon Johnson foretold when he signed the act that he was "giving the South" to the Republicans. What's your analysis of that piece of history? What does it tell you about today's Republican party in the south? Uhu.

[shelley806]

61. The MOE for polls is different from the MOE of exit polls;

MOE for most pre-election polls is up to +/- 5 points. For exit polls, much less; usually 0.1-0.2%.

[Magically_Delicious]

63. Not true

It's actually 3 MOE +/- for most pre-election polls, not 5.

[shelley806]

66. up to 5; and the sample size is much less than the exit poll size...

[Magically_Delicious]

68. Not one of the major polls I gave you had more than +3

I'm sure there are some out there that are +5, but I wouldn't trust them.

At the end of the day, the pre-election polls got it right almost across the board. The Exit Polls that show JFK with 20 point leads in PA, double digit leads in Minnesota and New Hampshire, etc were terribly, terribly wrong.

Time to move on to 2006.

[shelley806]

71. Well, we simply disagree. The exit polls were right. The election was

fraudulent. Diebold and B*'s relatives and Rove tactics blew this election clear out of the playing field. Exit polls are used to insure that there is no election fraud, which there clearly was in 2000 and 2004. you move on to 2006 and 2008.

[Magically_Delicious]

81. I hope it works out for you

You are obviously passioned in your beliefs.

When I was in my 20's I was like that too...I suspect you are in your 20's.

I've become much more pragmatic as I've aged. Not all of the world is evil or about conspiracies. Sometimes things in the world go a direction that we don't like and it's hard for us to understand how all of them could be so wrong.

[BlueDog2u]

50. Hey Magic

You say: "I think you are giving way too much credence to these Exit Polls and we know they weren't very good in 2000 either."

I suggest you do some research. Until 2000, exit polls were considered by just about everyone to be incredibly potent predictors of the outcomes of elections. There is some good research available on just how accurate they were which you can find if you bother to actually take some responsibility for your own education. Most of us who have been around the block, even for a week or two, on these boards, are quite aware that exit polls have been dramatically less reliable starting in around 2000, when electronic black box voting schemes started to be implemented. Try googling "Georgia 2002 election Cleland Diebold" and see what you find.

Sure, the exit polls were off by something like ten points in Georgia 2002. Pre-election polling put Cleland ahead, 49-44, but he lost 53-46. That's a twelve point error in the polls. No one could fathom what had happened, but really its pretty simple. A whole state full of brand spanking clean new Diebold DREs had arrived to save the day for a failing Chambliss bid for the US Senate. Isn't technology a wondeful thing?

[Magically_Delicious]

53. Again, your information seems not to be consistent

Here was the poll taken by Zogby on November 4th, 2002 (the day before the election). Cleland was already in trouble before the vote.

The trouble with any polling, be it exit or pre-election polling is that you are relying on people to tell you the truth. In my humble opinion, people are going to be more honest doing an online poll (Zogby) or phone poll then an exit poll.



Monday, Nov. 4

Georgia 'Shocker': Cleland in Trouble

Democrat Sen. Max Cleland "should have coasted to an easy re-election,” UPI noted Monday, but his votes against the popular Bush administration have hurt him. The latest poll, released Sunday by Zogby International, indicated Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss "had a slight edge,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution admitted Monday. A previous poll by the J-C showed Cleland with "a slim lead.” Says UPI: "This race could be the shocker of 2002 and is now on the watch list.”

[BlueDog2u]

75. I don't know what you mean by "seems not to be consistent"

but thanks for the additional perspective.

[masshole1979]

64. do most people have no idea what exit polls are, like md?

Are you encountering this a lot where people don't know what an exit poll is and why it has a better chance of being accurate than the ballot tallies?

An exit poll involves randomly sampling people who JUST VOTED. The questioner knows they just voted because HE JUST SAW them walking out of the polling place.

The respondent is not afraid to tell the truth, because she or he (even if she's a republican girl), fills out the survey on paper, just like the ballot. Besides, there's no reason to think that people would be more likely to lie and say they voted kerry rather than bush. Hell, it's the bush supporters who are so well-armed.

Meanwhile, the best minds that $10,000,000 can buy go about making sure the exit polling process is running smoothly.

Meanwhile, a bunch of octagenarians are manning the polling places and dealing with malfunctioning touch-screen voting or 40-year old punch-card machines, while patronage-appointees oversee the security of the ballots at the local level, while a repub. sec. of state who co-chaired bush's campaign will have final say over which votes count and which don't, and whether or not irregularities are occuring while people wait 8 hours in the rain to vote, and he'll say everything's going ok.

Sorry, I trust the exit polls.

And yes, I was in NH that night, and yes, I believe that Kerry should have won by a landslide. It is impossible to imagine a more concerted get-out-the-vote effort. Individuals who were leaning Kerry canvassed at least twice in person, then got mail drops on the morning of the election, then got a phone call (and often, an in-person visit from a canvasser) to remind them to vote. If there was a Kerry voter we found them, and the Repubs had nothing comparable.

[Magically_Delicious]

67. I understand them just fine

Depending on where you take them "which precinct", time of day (more women than men), the sample you actually survey, and the participant's honesty are all in question.

At the end of the day, that voter can tell you any damn thing they want. The only thing that truly counts is for whom they pulled that lever for in the booth.

Even the network executives yesterday said the $10,000,000 they spent on this exit polling firm was a waste! They were duped.

[bobbieinok]

85. EXIT POLLS ARE USED AROUND THE WORLD TO CHECK

ACCURACY OF VOTE

see yahoo story where W admin (ironically) asks Ukraine to secure their election......the second election was forced because the results of the first CONTRADICTED THE EXIT POLLS....and exit polls were/are seen to be the valid check

[mdb]

13. One thing I keep in mind is how these polls were weighted.

They use a previous election turnout which in this case would be the 2000 election. As we all know this election was going to have a greater turnout for the Democratic party. The Gallop poll was all over the place but the weights they used were low for the Dems and higher for the Repubs (you can look this up). So taken that I was expecting a closer if not better result on election day. And what better poll is there than an exit poll? An exit poll being more accurate is the best of polls.

[no1hedberg]

21. Exit polls

Exit polls are much more accurate than the Gallup polls. Largely due to the fact that they are polling people who actually have voted, not people "likely" to vote. Fact is a lot of people in this country don't vote, even with this years turnout, which was incredibly high. However when asked if they are a likely voter, nearly everyone will say yes. Even when asked if they voted previously, they will say yes. It is also important to note that Gallup polls never reach first time voter, which despite a lot of criticism really did make a difference in the election I think.

There isn't to my knowledge, a smoking gun in anyone's hand that screams this election was rigged, but common sense has to take over at some point. Especially when you consider, that every anomaly occured on electronic voting machines, and all of them favored Bush. Most of the anomalies are explainable when enough conjecture, and theory are applied. At some point though common sense tells you that the apparent cause is so much more likely than the theory, that it just has to be true. The most important thing In my opinion is, we have to get to the bottom of this NOW! If we don't this will continue, and no election will ever be safe.

[Magically_Delicious]

24. I agree on one point

I agree that actual voters vs "likely" voters is more important. However, you are relying on the honesty of that person leaving the polling booth.

I can tell you that many people aren't honest about that.

Did you not find the early Exit Polls that showed JFK up 18% in Pennslyvania very odd? As soon as I saw that, I knew something was terribly wrong with the Exit Polls.

[CAcyclist]

27. You are also relying on the honesty in every poll everytime

Not a sufficient argument. Why single one type of poll out for this argument when its an equal probability every time a question is asked and on all sides.

[Magically_Delicious]

32. EXIT POLLS HORRIBLE - Article from today

From the Hill


Dr. David Hill

More Mitofsky mischief

In May 2003, I suggested in this space that the exit polls would need more than a makeover. I also questioned the wisdom of putting veteran exit pollster Warren Mitofsky in charge.

Shortly thereafter, I received a telephone call from Mitofsky, who, naturally, expressed his disagreement with my opinions. Later in the year, I heard from Mitofsky again when I criticized his exit polls in the California gubernatorial recall election.

I’ll say this for him: Mitofsky is a great flack. And he must be a great salesman.

Anyone who can talk the networks into giving him $10 million for the mess he produced is a charmer.

But let’s be clear on one point. Despite Mitofsky’s great reputation, it is becoming clearer every election that he’s not very good at what he purports to do well: namely, running exit-polling operations.

Even John Zogby, whose record for polling accuracy took another solid blow in 2004, was quoted as saying that “the exit polls were terrible.” Neal Shapiro of NBC News said after a recent network forum that the exit polls “should have been better.” The Washington Post’s managing editor said the exit polling “wasn’t worth what we paid for it.”

To his credit, Mitofsky hasn’t gone into hiding. He’s been out there flacking. And he’s running a tag-team operation with his associate Joe Lenski.

Lenski is the young, angry “bad cop” who attacks critics, while Mitofsky plays the role of the older, friendlier “good cop.” Lenski attacks bloggers, while Mitofsky soothes Jim Lehrer. Lenski savages the early release of numbers by his clients, while Mitofsky promises an explanatory report.

These two charlatans have doubtless met and decided to bully and sweet-talk their way into a $20 million budget for 2008. But in the meanwhile, the two cops are being called upon to explain where the 10 million doughnuts went this time.

The excuses have trickled out over time. One early excuse involved computer server problems. For $10 million, one would think that redundancy would have been part of the package.

Subsequently, Mitofsky and others have acknowledged potential sampling problems.

Perhaps Kerry voters were more willing to be interviewed than Bush voters. Perhaps the exit-pollster interviewers were forced to do their work too far from the polling place to get to a random sample of voters. Perhaps there were different voting patterns at different times of day that the exit pollster could not pick up.

All of those problems, however, pale in comparison to the ethical issue I raised last year — the leaking of exit polls early in the day before the closing of the polls. During a phone conversation, Mitofsky expressed concern to me on this issue but said that he had no control over it. I suggested that as a professional, he might summon the courage to refuse to release the early results. He demurred.

Mitofsky knows that those exit-poll results are the crack cocaine of Election Day talking heads. And as their dealer, Mitofsky needs the money that the crack heads will pay to satisfy their habits. Professional ethics and standards be damned.

Warren says, “Show me the money.” Let’s hope he wasn’t playing the stock market Nov. 2 when his selfishness roiled Wall Street.

Whatever happens in the future, the most serious consequence of Mitofsky’s 2004 mischief is still unfolding. Suspicious Americans are being led to believe that Mitofsky’s exit polls are a reason for questioning the legitimacy of this election. The exit polls were correct, paranoid types reason, but Republicans rigged voting devices to steal the election. There are more than a few people who firmly believe this. And the fact that Mitofsky supposedly won’t release his “raw data” reaffirms the suspicions of the paranoid.

Before his legacy is totally besmirched, Mitofsky should take retirement and watch the election results with the rest of us next time.

Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for GOP candidates and causes since 1988.

[CAcyclist]

37. Quoting a Right-Wing Flack

Right, whatever.

[Magically_Delicious]

57. OK, how about this from the Associated Press

Bloggers picked out different numbers to use for their purposes, said Joseph Lenski, who ran the poll with partner Warren Mitofsky for the NEP. As the day wore on, later waves of exit polling showed the race tightening.

''Doing an early poll is like reporting the results of the game at halftime,'' Lenski said. ''You only have about a third of the information. No other survey research is held to that level of accuracy.''

The NEP had enough concerns that its early exit polls were skewing too heavily toward Kerry that it held a conference call with news organizations mid-afternoon urging caution in how that information was used. Early polls in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Connecticut were then showing a heavier Kerry vote than anticipated.

Pollsters anticipate a postmortem to find out why that happened. Some possibilities: Democrats were more eager to speak to pollsters than Republicans, or Kerry supporters tended to go to the polls earlier in the day.

''The exit poll is one of several tools that AP uses to call races,'' said Kathleen Carroll, the news agency's senior vice president and executive editor. ''After every election, we look back at how all our tools worked. We'll be doing that in the next few days with our election experts and our colleagues at the National Election Pool, and expect to be able to address any concerns in that process.''

[no1hedberg]

76. Actually

I think most people who would lie to an exit pollster about who they voted for, would say they voted for the highly religious, incumbent, who "supports the troops" Insted of the pinko, liberal who "shot himself in vietnam" to get a purple heart.

[Magically_Delicious]

23. Again, I disagree

I don't think you can say this election was going to have a greater turnout for Democrats. I know many Republicans at work that had not voted in years voted in this election. They were very concerned about the Supreme Court selections coming up and believed in a time of war not to switch presidents.

In fact, when Chief Rehnquist announced he had cancer (a completely political announcement / move in my opinion), that energized a lot on the GOP side.

[CAcyclist]

29. That's your opinion, not mine

Everyone I know (with one exception) that voted for Bush in 2000, switched their vote to Kerry in this election - wealthy businesspeople, ex-military, you name it.

The Supreme court selections have been this close for a number of elections - that's not a sufficient explanation. And how do explain my mom, who is anti-abortion, voting for Kerry anyway? Only a few fanatics on the right will come out to vote on this single issue and they already are for Bush.

[Magically_Delicious]

34. The reverse on my side

Mom and sister from Colorado both voted for Bush and they were Gore supporters in 2000.

I live in California and work with many hispanic-Americans. Nearly all of them went for Bush.

Again, every poll leading up to the election said Bush was going to win (not by a lot, but that he would win), so I don't understand when that actually happens why everyone has this conspiracy theory going. I just don't get it. If the polls had all shown Kerry up 1 or 2 points for several months, then I would totally agree. But they all showed Bush up.

[CAcyclist]

35. Funny, I know lots of hispanics here

and NONE of them went for Bush.

The last polls before the election showed Kerry ahead.The ones showing Bush ahead were overweighted for Republicans.

Your side is definitely not the side represented here. What are you doing here?

[Magically_Delicious]

48. ?

What am I doing here? I'm engaging in debate. I'm trying to understand why I should get on the conspiracy bandwagon. I'm not there yet because I see a ton of holes in the arguments relying on exit polls that look very wrong.

I believe in the overall Hispanic voting, Bush did better than expected and many linked that back to the abortion and gay marriage issues (many Hispanics are Catholic). I work in Los Angeles in the beach communities and the folks that are at my job that are hispanic tended to be Bush supporters. What can I say.

[lthuedk]

73. I'd suggest you examine Bev Harris' results so far and stick to the facts.

You can talk exit polling discrepancies forever: Its a circular argumentat this point.

However, there will be no argument if fraud is shown to have been committed on a large scale that might explain these data.

Be patient and wait for the data that is meaningful.

[Magically_Delicious]

79. I will wait for it

At this point, however, I see nothing that suggests anything goofy is going on.

The fact that folks are only focusing on Ohio and Florida and not on states Kerry won by even closer margins (i.e. PA, WI, MI, NH) suggests to me that folks are searching hard to find a conclusion to an agenda rather than actually searching for the truth.

Just my two cents.

[unpossibles]

30. I think it's obvious that this can be said for both sides

"I don't think you can say this election was going to have a greater turnout for Democrats. I know many Republicans at work that had not voted in years voted in this election. They were very concerned about the Supreme Court selections coming up and believed in a time of war not to switch presidents."

I know a lot of people who went out and collected a ton of new registrations as well as a lot of people who switched for this election because of a lack of trust for Bush. The precinct I vote in was swarming with young and old faces, and while I do not discuss specifics in line (I consider it rude), most people were humming with the idea that they could change something, that they could affect, that their votes count.

Conservatives are not the only ones concerned about the Supreme Court. Actually, I would say the number of women and men I talked to the past few months were greatly concerned about a conservative lock-down in the court, including the overturning of many decisions.

What can be said is new voters came out in droves. I personally expected the number to be higher than it was to be honest, based on the city-wide lines of people waiting compared to past elections.

This is why when the results first started showing signs of being fishy, it truly upset me - not as a liberal but as an American. If I cannot have faith in the voting process, it is hard to have faith in the country as a whole, and it is even harder to feel represented at any level.

[LisaLynne]

15. Another point, off the top of my head is ...

why would you believe those polls and not the exit polls, which I believe are considered even more reliable?

[Magically_Delicious]

19. Simple really

Simple, there are MONTHS of data from those polls. There are also 7 or 8 different major polls (Gallup, Zogby, Washington Post, Rasmussen, etc, etc).

I guess I find a lot more solace that all of them got it close and consistent vs only one polling company that was hired by network consortium to do their exit polling.

In other words, it seems more believable to me that 7 or 8 major polling companies polling for months have a better chance of getting it right than ONE polling company doing exit polls. Especially in light of 2000 and the flawed exit polling that was done there.

Just my two cents.

[CAcyclist]

40. You can't increase reliability

in probability by looking at lots of the same type of tests. If one test is less reliable than another type of test, then merely looking at lots of the less reliable tests doesn't magically increase reliability - it actually decreases it.

But you aren't interested in coming at the truth. You want to beat us with your opinion.

[Magically_Delicious]

46. Actually no

I just want someone to explain this to me in a logical way and no one has been able to do that for me.

I'm sorry if I ruffled some feathers. The exit polls to me look very poor in PA, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and elsewhere. Oh well.

[CAcyclist]

58. As I Said, You Are Not Interested In The Truth

so we can't help you. Whatever.

Your definition of logic is obviously much different than mine, so I am tuning out now.

[Magically_Delicious]

60. My definition employs logic

I've given you the data, I've given you the exit poll data directly from NEP. You've chosen to ignore it.

We've talked about the final polling numbers from Zogby, Gallup, Post, ABC, CBS, FOX, Rasmussen, all showing Bush would win a close race. You ignore it.

It seems to me this isn't a discussion at all about logic. It's a discussion that you have determined there is only one outcome and you will use only that data which supports that hypothesis. To each their own.

I just think you and others on this wavelength are doing more harm than good to our cause. At any rate, good day.

[no1hedberg]

77. It's not totally

about exit polls. When you look at all the anomalies in context with each other, it's very unreasonable not to at least question the results. The simple facts that nearly every electoral anomaly occurred on electronic machines that don't allow recounts, every reported anomaly occurred in a "battleground" state, and all of them broke in King George's favor, would make any reasonable person question the results. You add in the exit polls, (whether you like it or not they have historically been much more accurate) and it skews the results even more. It's not all about Kerry winning. It's about catching these scumbags before they improve on their craft and don't leave us the clues next time they left this time.

[Magically_Delicious]

80. I'm all for it

I'm all for anything that keeps elections honest. Absolutely. That cuts both ways to both parties, however. Including double voting snowbirds, etc, etc.

You made a comment about the electronic voting machines, however, which I don't understand. In Ohio alone, less than 35% of all votes were taken on electronic voting machines.

At the end of the day, the final results match almost to the tee all of the pre-election polls by major networks, newspaper, independent pollsters that were going on since the conventions.

I also believe to pull off a fraud of the magnitude some in this community are wanting to believe is just not humanly possible. Imagine the number of people and the fact it would take just one person to come out and spill the beans. I think a lot of dreaming going on quite frankly.

What is sad is that this election could have been won, but Kerry was a poor candidate that was too far to the left for the average mainstream voters. In order to win, a selection of Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, etc is required. Unfortunately those types of selections irk the left wing of the base...but that's the nature of the beast. Conservatives would love a DeLay type but they have realized they can't win with that extreme. Liberals have to equally understand that choosing a NE liberal Senator is going to automatically turn off 45% of the vote. Must go more in the middle if power is to be had. It really cannot get more simple than that.

[no1hedberg]

82. The problem isn't the candidate.

Those scumbag Republicans could put Adolph Hitler on their ticket, and these inbred, southern, morons that have more guns than IQ points, would vote for him. The majority of the people in this country aren't intelligent or sophisticated enough to see through the NRA propaganda, and Georie's yosemite sam, bring em' on, I'm a tough cowboy nevermind I'm a draft dodger, bull crap. You add in the White church's rubber stamp approval, and almost no Democrat has a chance anywhere in the south moderate or not. Until these poor and middle class people get smart enough to stop letting the wealthy people manipulate them so easily, we are going to have a tough time forever. And if we let them get away with tampering with the vote we can count on...It'll be impossible to elect a president or congressman for that matter that isn't going to pour government subsidies into the wealthy's pockets and hand the bill to the same poor bastards they tricked into voting for them.

[Magically_Delicious]

83. It's that kind of attitude why we CONTINUE to lose

When you call people scumbags, etc you are gaining little leverage on your side of the argument.

When are we going to learn that HATE and BLAME and PUTTING DOWN members of our country (the voters) does nothing but alienate them.


SIGH

[no1hedberg]

87. Well

King George and his court are scumbags, along with anyone that helped him change votes, or suppress voters. Poor people who allow wealthy to use their hot buttons so that they can take their money aren't' displaying a great deal of intelligence. voting for a presidential candidate because the NRA, their pastor, corporate entity, or some group hell bent on butchering our constitution, without taking into account how that affects the country, people, or constitution of this country, not to mention the 1150 Americans who have died, and the thousands that will die to line the pockets of that scumbag's base??? Yeah I think that qualifies you as a scumbag. You know this feely, touchy, whining, PC, bull is exactly what cost us this election. I hate to tell you but I'm not going to apologize to anyone who allowed this criminal to desecrate the highest office in this country. What he has done is nothing less than treason. That qualifies him as a scumbag.

[m berst]

38. the exit polls are not uniformly wrong

If you are confused, help us find a way to phrase this that makes it easier to comprehend.

Here is an analogy -

You and I are both clerks in the bank. Any customer that comes in is as likely to come to my window as to yours. The bank keeps a set of statisically derived predictors - the average cashier should take in X dollars per cusomer on average. This is such a good predictor that it is always within 1% of being accurate. Yet, day after day, your actual figures match the prediction, while mine are way off. And, I take in less cash then you do, so the error is always in my favor and not the bank's. Then, my record keeping is sloppier, and I give evasive answers when I am questioned. Then we find out that dozens of my friends in other branches are showing the same results, but that people who are not my friends are not.

Does this "prove" that I am a crook? No. Does it "prove" a "conspiracy"? No.

Should it be ignored by the bank manager? Is it the validity of statistical predictor that should be questioned?

[Magically_Delicious]

49. OK, interesting analogy

Interesting analogy, though I'm not sure that it holds up because going to a bank you are there to make a transaction, not divulge confidential information about how you voted (which bothers many people).

Say you're right, do you not think the exit polls showing Kerry with a 16 point lead in Pennsylvania and a 17 point lead in New Hampshire are extremely out of whack?

[m berst]

72. doesn't matter

They may have been. But we need an explanation. Exit polls can be out of whack in theory, although historically they have been phenomenally consistent, but they shouldn't be out of whack one place and not another.

Another thing - you have to turn every bit of politcal wisdom from the last 50 years upside down to accept these results, and the evidence for this kind of massive shift in the electorate for Bush just isn't there. HUGE turnout in the African American communities. That means a Democratic victory, always has. Huge number of new registrations. That should mean a Dem win, and always has. Pre-4 pm exit polls favor Kerry, yet Republicans win? Can't happen. Dems tend to be working class and the later in the day the heavier the Dem turnout. Always. Massive GOTV effort by the Dems. That always means a Dem win. Pre-election polls - undecided always have broken for the challenger in the past, but not this time? Approval polls - no incumbent has ever been re-elected with approval ratings as low as Bush's were. The supposed "fundy" turnout for Bush - no evidence for that, in fact the numbers say the opposite in terms of Evangelkical church membership and voter registrations.

A few of those indicators could be off, but for all of them to defy years of experience, and then add in the thousands of on the ground reports of suppression and irregularities, the vulnerability of the computers, and most damningly - the inconsistent exit polls that all erred one direction and only where they needed to be off to tip the election and only in districts controlled by Republicans ....

If this wasn't a stolen election there has never been one, or someone re-wrote the laws of the universe and repealed common sense.

The only way to get the Florida results to match the pre-election polls and the exit polls, you have to throw out ALL the votes by women to get the right margin of victory for Bush. NO women voted? tens of thousands changed their minds at the last second and no woman voted differently than her husband? Didn't happen. Just didn't.

[Magically_Delicious]

84. I'm sorry, but just about everything you said is tough to believe

Just because you have massive Democratic turnout does not mean massive Republican turnout cannot happen as well. Conventional Wisdom says Notre Dame should win the title every year...doesn't happen anymore.

Things CHANGE.

The GOP has changed and we have not.

I was in Wisconsin for much of this summer and their grass roots effort there was PHENOMENAL. I mean PHENOMENAL. Knocking on every door in site, Brett Favre phone calls to voters, Bart Starr phone calls, Tommy Thompson phone calls, etc, etc. I've never seen anything like it.

You are relying on conventional wisdom and stereotypes. So Dems tend to be working class and vote late? I know a ton of GOP folks at my office that get in a 6:30am and don't leave until 7:00pm...when do you suppose they voted? LATE

And on and on.

[newyawker99]

43. Hi Magically_Delicious!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Magically_Delicious]

47. Thank you

Thank you very kindly.

[liquiduniverse]

54. You obviously didn't see every poll in the country

The polls were showing mixed results. And typically undecided voters favor the challenger which should have given Kerry a bit of a boost.

From November 1 -

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?day=20041101

Salon:

The latest battleground numbers

The latest polls from the key states continue a theme of incoherence.

Gallup's numbers suggest Kerry is up in Florida by 4, Ohio by 7, and Minnesota by 8, and now Bush suddenly leads in Pennsylvania by 4, and in Wisconsin by 8. Gallup has him up in Iowa by 2.

Equally strange is Quinnipiac's new Florida poll, which puts Bush ahead by 8. That's 8 points better than in Quinnipiac's last poll, which called the race a tie just four days ago, on October 28. Quinnipiac also released new Pennsylvania numbers, showing the race dead even at 47, with 6 percent undecided.

Zogby's battleground tracking polls are more friendly to the Dems -- and a little more consistent with recent polls. In Pennsylvania, Kerry is up 50-45. In Wisconsin, Bush is getting trounced by a margin of 51-44, and in Michigan, 52-45. In Minnesota, Kerry leads 49-47, and in Iowa, Kerry is ahead 50-44. Zogby calls the race tied at 49 in New Mexico, while giving Bush solid leads of 4 points in Ohio and 6 in Nevada.

Were all of Zogby's numbers to prove accurate on election day, that would mean that the race would come down to -- you guessed it -- Florida. Zogby gives Kerry a slight 48-47 lead in the state.

Finally, New Jersey still does not qualify for a battleground state. Eagleton-Rutgers, Quinnipiac and Rasmussen all have released polls in the last 24 hours that put Kerry ahead by 4, 5 and 12 respectively.

[Magically_Delicious]

62. Well, here were the polls leading up to the election

Yes, typically they break to the challenger for undecideds. However, this is also a war time presidency in which case there are volumes of data from the USA and Europe that show this trend doesn't happen during wars (see Winston Churchill, LBJ, FDR, etc. polling data / articles).

AS for the polls going into the last week of the campaigns.

Bush won by 2.9. Below are the final national polls

CNN USA Today October 31 Bush +2.
Rasmussen October 31 Bush +1.7.
TIPP November 1 Bush +2.6.
CBS/NY Times October 30 Bush +3
Newsweek October 29 Bush +6
GW/Battleground Nov 1st Bush +4
REuters / Zogby October 31 Bush +1
NBC / WSJ October 31 Bush +1
PEW October 30 Bush +3
ABC / Washington Post October 31 Bush +1
Harris November 1 Bush +1
ARG October 30 TIE


Only two polls didn't have it that way

FOX News October 31 Kerry +2
Marist November 1 Kerry +1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html


The state polls all show the same things

Florida

Bush predicted to win by the aggregate polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/fl_polls.html


Wisconsin

Bush predicted to win by the aggregate polls but he LOST. Here is a state that if Ohio gets challenged, the GOP will go crazy in there. I lived in Wisconsin for 10 years and possibility of voter fraud there is truly unbelievable.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/wi_polls.html


Ohio

Bush predicted to win by the aggregate polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/oh_polls.html


Iowa

Bush predicted to win by the aggregate polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/ia_polls.html

And on and on

[John Q. Citizen]

17. This is the letter I sent the editor of the Globe

Dear Editor,

As an American who uses the Internet as a major source of news, I have been surprised at the reluctance of the media, particularly big media, to investigate and report on the many problems experienced in the last election. The attitude of he mainstream media has been, by and large, if you find us a story and provide us with the evidence, we might take a look at it.

I have seen local news reporting on many local instances of machine glitches, the 9 hour poll tax (less machines this election in many precincts than there were in previous elections,) the fact that North Carolina may well have a state wide re-vote due to widespread counting failures, the fact that people have reported thousands of problems at the polls, ballots lost, ballots found, ballots counted twice, and ballots not counted at all.

I have yet to see anyone tell the American people how the overseas vote went, or how the US military in Iraq voted. The big media prefers to view these stories as "local" and refuses to place them in any sort of national context. They also refuse to do any investigative journalism on real stories.

The almost 4000 vote glitch in Ohio that somehow gave George Bush 4000 more votes than voters is a case in point. It was discovered by a private citizen looking at precinct numbers, yet we still don't know why only Bush's totals were corrupted by that glitch yet Kerry's numbers and "others" were apparently not corrupted. Usually all data would have been either lost or changed Also, a glitch usually produces a "garbage" number one that is so far outside the realm of believability as to be caught. In this case, incredibly, only one candidates numbers changed, and the magnitude of the change was tiny.

Then we get to the exit polls. We still have no credible explanation as to how they would only be "wrong" in the swing states but right everywhere else. And the Warren Co. lockout. Who ordered it and why? Still no credible information on that and why not?

Big media blames the "bloggers" because big media are failing to do their jobs.

Sincerely,

[prairierose]

25. Another great letter

Thanks for being a voice of reason in a sea of chaos. The MSM is too invested in profits to worry about their reason for being. It is past time that we hold their feet to the fire on this and many issues.

[Wordie]

39. Coverage about the lack of coverage...LOL

[shakerbaker]

41. Chet Huntley, David Brinlkey....

Edward Murrow,Harry Reasoner..............are rolling over in their graves!! Not to mention our Forefathers.:scared:

[Hobbes199]

44. Walter Cronkite... Dan Rather...

[shakerbaker]

56. Howard K Smith

And what was the name of the anchor from ABC who died from
aids after a blood transfusion?

[The Minus World]

74. Ad infinauseum.

A media coverup about a media coverup about a media coverup about a media coverup...

Our primary channels of information are only concerned with vetting, cherry-picking and selective omission; and our alternative sources of media are categorized as "fringe, leftist lunatics."

If liberal reporters report on the mainstream media's unwillingness to report on itself, they're blasted for being partisan. What a frustrating world we live in.