Proof the "Reweighted" CNN Exit Polls Are Wrong

[CAcyclist]

Thanks to the previous 2 threads for making me finally realize what has been staring us in the face.

The only quantifiable evidence to oppose the claims from the last, altered CNN exit poll is the 2000 election.

So the question that states that 17% of people polled didn't vote in 2000 proves that this exit poll is wrong.

Only 11% more people voted this year than in 2000.

117 million this year - 105.4 million in 2000 = 11.6 million


11.6 /105.4 = 11% increase

[IAMREALITY]

1. We Need Better Statisticians LOL, Though I know you all try

11% more people could've voted than 2000, but it would still be possible that 100% of all voters didn't vote in 2000 at all. For example:

Me and My wife vote in 2000. = 2 people

You, your mother, and your father vote this year. = 3 people

That would be a 50% better turnout than last year, but 100% new voters. (Layman assumptions of course being that Me and my Wife were the ONLY 2 people to vote in 2000, and You and your Family the only 3 to vote this year)

This is just to show that the two numbers aren't related in any way. New Voter Turnout Does not equal Difference in Voters from 2000 to 2004

[Blue in the face]

5. I don't see fire, but I see smoke

I think the more telling evidence that the election polls were rigged is the exit polls that show something like 50 more people polled between the 12:21am and 1:44am exit poll results, but something like 80 more people having said they voted for Bush in the last poll.

But I think the point that they tried to retroactively fit the supposed exit polls to meet election results is still valid. If they tried to take a representative sample and were wrong about the number of voters who didn't vote, wouldn't that skew the numbers? These poll numbers were the same all day. It's not like they started to change at noon or at 4. They only changed when the votes started to be counted.

I just don't buy that trained, professional statisticians who stake their livelihoods on being right on poll numbers would all make the same mistake at the same time in favor of Kerry.

This wasn't the pollsters first election.

[IAMREALITY]

8. Absolutely

I and I would think every credible DU'r are all in agreement when we say that some of the strongest, if not THE strongest, Fuel for our fraud tanks is the Exit Polls. They were definitely the catalyst that brought me here.

[CAcyclist]

7. Ok, I got ahead of myself

It's just that I can't imagine people not voting in 2004 if they voted in 2000.

[YBR31]

2. The proof isn't really proof

Some number of people who didn't vote in 2000, 17% according to the exit polls, voted in 2004. Some people who voted in 2000 didn't vote this year so you need to subtract that number from the 17%. For example, there are people who voted in 2000 who died since then or were too ill to vote or were out of town and didn't get absentee ballots.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. or who couldn't pay the 8 hour poll tax

[jsamuel]

3. Well maybe 6% who voted last time, didn't vote this time, hense 11%

[meatsack]

6. Dead?

The 6% are probably dead.
80 year average life span. 6% of 80 years = 4.8 years
4 years between elections, not much of a gap.

[gerrilea]

4. I think you might be forgetting the spoilage?

I thought I heared a figure of 2 million votes in 2000 weren't counted...what's the figure for spoilage for 2004? But...keep it up...made sense for awhile...I need all the facts to keep my faith intact...

[badc0der]

9. better statistical evidence of poll tampering

According to the CNN exit poll 53% of people who decided "more than a week ago" who to vote for president (In Ohio) voted for Bush. So If we look at October 25 polling data we should find Bush's numbers somewhere between 57% and 49%. What we find instead is that the October 25 polling data has Bush between 45% and 47%. We can conclude from this that either:

a) The exit poll numbers were altered by at least 2% and possibly as much as 10%
b) All of the pollsters had some systemic problem causing them to significantly underestimate Bush's popularity on October 25th.
c) A significant number of people lied either about whom they planed to vote for or who they actually voted for.

Evidence exists that A is in fact the case, so IMO that is the only option that makes sense.