THE STORY: FIRST 11,000 polled, PRISTINE; FINAL 2000, CONTAMINATED

[TruthIsAll]

Date Time Number Kerry Bush Kerry% Bush% 
11/02 4:00pm 1916 977 900 52.1% 47.9% 
11/02 7:30pm 2545 1295 1198 51.9% 48.1% 
11/03 1:24pm 3168 1536 1619 48.7% 51.3% <<??? 

The change from 7:30pm 11/02 to 1:24pm 11/03:
Num Kerry Bush Kerry% Bush% 
623 240 421 36.4% 63.6% <<????? 

How did Bush get 63.6% of the final 623 out of the 3168 total
who responded to the dual question of HOW or IF they voted in
2000? 
Bush only had 48.1% of the FIRST 2545 polled. 

Sound fishy to you?

The MOE is 1.78% for the 3168 polled of the 11,000 who
responded to the question: "Who did you vote for in
2000".
So the 3168 sample response to this question is a VERY
accurate one.

THAT'S THE STORY. MITOFSKY ET ALL ADMIT THAT VOTES WERE MIXED
WITH THE POLLS. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS IT BEGAN AROUND 1:00am
NOV.3.

WILL THE NAYSAYS SAY NAY ABOUT THAT? OF COURSE THEY WILL. 
THEY WOULD ALSO SAY THAT NEW YEAR'S DIDN'T HAPPEN, IF THAT WAS
A REQUIREMENT TO REFUTE.

This is how Kerry won:

1) Historically, more Dems vote for the Repuke than vice
versa.
They split 90-10 and 91-9, based on the INITIAL 11,000 POLL
RESULTS. 
So they effectively CANCELED each other.

2) There are more Dems than Repukes. 
That's a well known historical fact.

3) Independents/moderates went BIG for Kerry.

4) New voters and Nader 2000 voters (20% of the total) went
3-2 for Kerry. THAT'S BIG.

That's how ANY Dem wins.

How did Bush get 63.6% of the final 623 of the 3168 who
responded to the question of how they voted? 

Bush only had 48.1% of the FIRST 2545 polled.
He got 421 (63.6%) of the FINAL final 623 polled. WTF?
This brought him from 48.1% to 51.3% of the 3168 total.

What are the odds of Bush getting at least N of the final 663?
We assume 48.1% to be his true population mean.

Once again, use the EXCEL Binomial probability function, where
N is the number of those final 623 who said they voted for
Bush:

The Probability of this occurrence:
1-BINOMDIST(N,623,0.481,TRUE)

N Prob Odds = 1/Prob
300 47.3046924% 2
320 4.74269085% 21
340 0.05303931% 1,885
360 0.00005261% 1,900,953
380 0.00000000% 24,406,050,179
390 0.00000000% 6,429,121,523,727
395 0.00000000% 37,219,831,631,161
400 0.00000000% 47,657,138,913,974

We have to stop at N=400.

The probability for N= 421 cannot be calculated in Excel. It
gives an error. Too small. 

This always seems to be the case with Bush. The numbers become
as small as the size of an atomic particle.


.................................................

[k8conant]

1. Are your numbers for Ohio (or Midwest)??? Oh, I see:

Sorry, I see you said "3168 polled of the 11,000" which is a subset of the national then.

[Not a Sheep]

2. Where did you get your initial numbers? /eom

[TruthIsAll]

3. Right here.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/pdfs/Mitofsky4zonedata

[Not a Sheep]

4. And do we know FOR A FACT that is the correct data?....(more)

.... or are we assuming it its correct?

[TruthIsAll]

5. We know this is leaked data AND Mitofsky/MSM won't release it.

Please, don't bother to respond.

I won't get caught in a manufactured web of spin.

[Not a Sheep]

8. I asked how we know it's correct and you say "we know this is leaked" ?...

So, we know because we know?

So the real answer is we don't know for a fact that this is the correct data we are ASSUMING it is.

Why don't you simply say that and be honest?

[KnowerOfLogic]

65. Apparently the Bush camp thought the exit polls didn't look good

early since Karen Hughes had to break the news to bush that he was going to lose; and the kerry camp also thought the numbers were real, since kerry was working on his victory speech. Nobody would know better than campaign insiders what the exit poll number were. Where, pray tell, are these exit poll results that you apparently think are 'more real' than the ones we're looking at?

[keepthemhonest]

14. Let the spinning

begin:freak:

[Not a Sheep]

98. THE ABOVE POST (#5) IS WHERE - YOU - "ASSUMED" TIA .......

==============================================================

"We know this is leaked data AND Mitofsky/MSM won't release it."

==============================================================

Those were your words when I simply tried to ask if we knew we had the real data. Sure the data may turn out to be confirmed as legit but you did not know that when you wrote the above statement.

All that you had to say was "we think it is but we don't know, Misofsky won't release the actual data". Instead you said it was leaked data, which we simply do not know. You were wrong and misleading- I'm not going to assume deliberately so tell me.... WHY?

WHY DID I have to keep asking to try and get a straight answer and have everyone attack me when in fact you were telling me something that was wrong and you refused to acknowledge it?

WHY DID you go on a triade below (#80) saying I assume you're biased to Kerry when I never said ANYTHING like that?

WHY DID you say below (#80) that I was the one "jumping to conclusions and making assumptions concerning the data's legitmacy" when I was the one asking if we knew the data was legit? THAT MAKES NO SENSE. It appears you were the one jumping to conclusions and assuming it was legit because you said "We know this is leaked data".

And you called me a bit hypocritical?

You simply refused to acknowledg you were wrong in what you said.. and still do. Instead you attack me. Nice.

[goclark]

10. It is as much of a "fact" as the MSM numbers that

I saw on my screen and told to believe.

Why do we always question the numbers that we calculate and roll over and accept any damn number that is put out by the BULLYCONS?


My bottom line is Kerry was winning on Nov.1st and winning on Nov.2nd in the morning and the afternoon. Then Bingo! Bush wins.

Any six year old can understand, even without the numbers, that they F I X E D the election.


Stay steady at it TIA, your numbers are good enough for me.

[Straight Shooter]

9. This is the same information which althecat posted that he got from you.

It was on a thread yesterday, IIRC. But no one seems to know where you got the info. Are you at liberty to refer even vaguely to your source? Leaked from a Mitofsky worker? Mitofsky has already scoffed at that, which of course is SOP for him, but we have to be able to counter his position with a stronger position.

Welcome back, TIA :thumbsup:

[Not a Sheep]

11. So no one really knows where this data came from or if it's legit? /eom

[Straight Shooter]

I don't know if it's legit. I know the election wasn't legit.

What I don't know is where these referenced numbers originate, and IMO it's very important to be able to substantiate them with a confirmed and reputable source; otherwise, every conclusion which draws therefrom is suspect.

[Not a Sheep]

19. I absolutely agree. /eom

[Old and In the Way]

49. Maybe these screen shots will help you understand the data

While these results are from Ohio only, I assume the scenario holds up for the rest of the country.

It's obvious to me that they had to correct the exit polling after the fact to match the reported results.

<>



<>

Looks like Republican math to me.

TIA, is there a complete set of before/after CNN exit polls for all states that show us the same sigificant sample changes on the last update?

[Straight Shooter]

71. No one seems to know where you got the info. Are you at liberty to refer

even vaguely to your source?

That was the question I posed at 8:08 this morning. It is now 4:58 p.m. and I still haven't received an answer.

I am aware of the screen shots; I just want to know where TIA got these numbers. A specific identity is not required; a vague reference will be adequate, if someone needs to be protected.

I cannot refer people to information which comes out of the clear blue sky and lands in Democratic Underground.

There is too much at stake to trust any exit poll numbers without verification. If we are going to hold Mitofsky to that standard, then we must be held to that standard, also.

[TruthIsAll]

74. OR, BETTER STILL, HERE:

http://www.exitpollz.org/CNN_national2.htm

[keepthemhonest]

6. As always TIA

keep up the good work.People who undertstand math know that fraud took place or they are in denial.

[nodictators]

7. Yes, this is the portrait of a stolen election

Kerry was leading in the exit polls at 7:30 pm, Nov 2, as shown above.

In the dark of the night, at about 1 am, Nov 3, CNN and others changed the exit poll data to show Bush leading.

Twelve hours later at 1 pm Nov 3, the exit pollster provides newly augmented data which agrees with the CNN, et al, changes the night before.

In other words, the networks called the shots in the election, and the pollster provided cover for them.

In fact, the late-arriving data on the day after the election favored Bush with more than 60% of the new "votes."

Where did this data come from? Why did the exit pollster continue polling after the the polls had closed?

Are they going to claim these were absentee ballots? If so, then the absentee voters polled may have known the outcome of the election, and been biased in their responses to the pollsters. Why did it take until Wednesday afternoon for the pollsters to publish their new, questionable data?

This crap exit poll stinks!

[keepthemhonest]

33. good summation n/t

[Old and In the Way]

47. Not only that, but remember how we were told that the exit polls were

unreliable because Bush voters were less likely to tell the pollsters they voted for Bush?

So, if I understand the methodology, the pollsters controlled the sample based on "who did you vote for in 2000?". The data suggests that the base split as expected and new voters/year 2000 3rd Patty voters broke significantly in Kerry's favor. Until the last reported data set came in.

I assume this sample set would have been substantially West Coast voters....all BLUE States voting for Kerry, correct?

So, are we supposed to believe that the last sampling data had a whole bunch of West Coast Gore voters who changed their votes to Bush and, unlike all those earlier sampled pollees were quite willing to admit that they voted for Bush, in spite of the fact that Kerry won the West Coast?????

[emcguffie]

12. when the exits were changed

I'm sorry I haven't kept up with these numbers. But the night of the election -- and I'm sure most everyone noticed this at the time -- there was an update, and the way they did it was impossible. So many votes were added, but the percentages and totals changed much more than the number of votes added could have caused.

Does anyone have those numbers?

[notadmblnd]

20. I believe I posted a screen shot of CNN that night or the next day

I'll search and see if I can find the thread.

[emcguffie]

25. was just about to ask

Someone posted screenshots of the late CNN exit polls. So someone must still have that. And that was when the numbers changed in a way that was obviously impossible. The change from those numbers to the next set of numbers.

I hope you can find it. If so, I would want to see it again.

[notadmblnd]

26. It is just for the state of texas but shows the screen shot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=2353

[emcguffie]

34. That's about the same time, I guess

The same thing happened for the country. Someone had a screen shot that night, or the next day. It was the same anomaly. So someone on DU has it somewhere.

I think that is what Simon is looking for, isn't it?

[notadmblnd]

78. I think I found it, happy happy joy joy

is this what you were looking for. you wont believe how I found dit. I was reading the archives over at WWW.whatreallyhappened.com and the thread was linked back here to DU. this was posted by SOCalDemocrat in Nov 3 at 2:44 am



also link to original thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1290765

[euler]

45. Beleive it or not, percentages and totals can change....

....in a exit poll with no change in the sample size at all. Use google to find out what a exit poll is and how they are conducted.

[euler]

46. This may be helpful

See here: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_differe...

"Once the polls close, NEP gathers actual results for the precincts sampled in the exit polls gradually combines the exit poll results and the actual vote counts into an evolving hybrid of projections and estimates that gradually improves over the course of the evening...

Once the actual results have been counted in the wee hours of election night, NEP re-weights the results of each exit poll so that the vote preference on the exit poll matches the actual count."

The primary purpose of exit polls is not for the media to be able to call the vote early, project a winner, or prove/disprove fraud. If it was, then it wouldn't make sense to conduct exit polls as they are.

The primary purpose for the exit poll is for demographic research and breakdowns of how different groups voted. For this purpose it makes complete sense to recalculate the exit poll based on actual votes.

Mitofsky was doing the job he was paid to do and he did the same way it's always been done. No deception here.

People keep conflating the term "exit poll" with "exit poll raw numbers." They aren't the same thing.

[IndyOp]

62. I own a bunch of nice homes in Florida that'd be a great deal for you

to purchase at inflated prices! Okay, so they have been built over a sinkhole, but that's the way it has always been done in Florida!

Mitofsky was doing the job...the same way it's always been done.

LOL! LOL! ROFL! ROFL!

:kick:

[keepthemhonest]

66. ROFLMAO Indyop

go get um.

I like your posts,keep up the good work.

[IndyOp]

75. Gosh, thanks! What does the MAO stand for? (n/t)

[euler]

103. Does this reply mean something ?

I can't tell.

[Peace Patriot]

79. The "evolving hybrid of projections"...

"Once the polls close, NEP gathers actual results for the precincts sampled in the exit polls gradually combines the exit poll results and the actual vote counts into an evolving hybrid of projections and estimates that gradually improves over the course of the evening."

Freeman in his latest paper on the election points out that Mitofsky has ALSO said that, just because the Exit Polls were designed for demographic information, DOESN'T MEAN they CAN'T be used for election verification.

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm

And this only makes sense. (Is their demographic information WRONG?)

Questions:

IS this true, that this is the way it has "aways been done"? (What is the date of this explanation, and can it be verified that it has "always been done" this way?)

Why (whether it's the first time, or "always") is it designed this way--different from the way Exit Polls are designed worldwide, specifically for election verification and the detection of fraud? (See Freeman on how they do it in Germany and other countries.)

And whether or not it's true, why was it done this way THIS time?

With BushCons owning the source code that tabulates all our votes as SECRET, proprietary information--and no paper trail for a third of the electronic voting machines in the country--why DIDN'T Mitofsky DESIGN the Exit Poll IN ORDER TO verify the election?

Seems like a no-brainer--that is, IF the networks, their pollster consultants and AP are really interested in providing the public with accurate information, and fulfilling their duty to use our public airwaves in the public interest.

Here we had a NEW election system--over which there was much controversy in Congress and the country--after the fraud of 2000. F.i., Tom Delay preventing a paper trail requirement from getting out of committee. Suspicious owners of the election system (Bush campaign chairs, Bush "Pioneers" etc.). Secret source code. No paper trail. Non-transparency. Highly insecure, hackable computers. THE THING CRIES OUT FOR VERIFICATION.

So, why didn't they SEEK TO verify it? And why wouldn't Republicans be particularly interested in a completely transparent, spotless election, to prove Bush legitimacy--instead of blockading transparency at every opportunity?

It's my opinion that the alteration of the Exit Poll data on everybody's TV screens-- "adjusting" it to match the BushCon controlled "results" --is THE most serious journalistic crime of our era, bar none.

Why DIDN'T they give us two separate and conflicting sets of data to contemplate (as the Ukrainians had)? Hm?

[euler]

104. You're looking at an old version....

...of his paper. The new on was released 12/29/2004. Paragraph 3 now reads:

"The pollsters have taken great pains to argue that their polls
were not designed to verify election results, but rather to provide election coverage support to subscribers"

He changed to paragraph in light of what Mitofsky & Lenski ACTUALLY said. He was called on it, and since he's trying to patch the holes in his paper, he had to make the correction.

*************************************************************

"IS this true, that this is the way it has 'aways been done'"

Yes, it is true. I don't know what to say beyond this. If you know how to use Google, do it. The way exit polls are conducted is not a secret. ON EDIT: Go Here:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_difference_.html

*************************************************************

"Why (whether it's the first time, or "always") is it designed this way...why DIDN'T Mitofsky DESIGN the Exit Poll IN ORDER TO verify the election"

This is an easy one. Mitofsky's customer (mainly MSM) tells him what they want from the exit poll, and Mitofsky designs a exit poll that meets their criteria. Europeans decide what *they* want an exit poll to do for them and *they* design a exit poll to meet *their* criteria. MSM likes exit polls that tell them who voted for which candidate and why. Europeans like exit polls that help them verify the integrity of the election. Two differing designs, for two different priority's.

Mitofsky can't simply add other criteria to the ones desired by the customer because the cost of adding criteria to the exit poll would have to come out of his pocket. MSM certainly isn't going to pay Mitofsky for additions to the exit poll they didn't ask for.

Germany, likes to use their exit poll to monitor and verify the election. So, they design a exit poll that guarantees a truly random sample of respondents. What MSM wants from an exit poll does not require a true random sample of respondents and that's what they got. This means that the types of analysis being done by TIA and others, is meaningless. Sorry, but there was a lot of time and effort that was simply wasted by TIA and those who took the time to read most of his posts.

**************************************************************

"It's my opinion that the alteration of the Exit Poll data on everybody's TV screens-- "adjusting" it to match the BushCon controlled "results" --is THE most serious journalistic crime of our era, bar none."

First MSM did not change any numbers, Mitofsky did and the MSM posted them. However, this still does not even qualify as a smoking gun. There are several steps in the exit poll process, where, after the polls close, exit poll data is re weighted to better reflect the actual votes in the precincts. This is basic stuff, so it's hard to understand why so many people still think this is fraudulent. The procedures are well known, and accessible via Google.

One more thing on this. Freeman acknowledges in the latest version of his paper that "survey results originally collected and presented to subscribers were subsequently 'corrected' to conform to official tallies." He then notes that "the pollsters explain this as a natural procedure." The poster to which he refers is Warren Mitofsky. There is an interesting footnote on the same page (Page 3.) It says: "Warren Mitofsky, the founder of Mitofsky International, is credited with having invented the exit poll." Arnebeck, in case 04-2088 says "Warren Mitofsky is a world recognized expert in exit polling." (OH Case 04-2088 Paragraph 66)

Summarizing, if you cant believe the inventor of the exit poll when he says that re weighting to actual vote is the way an exit poll is done, then who are you going to believe ?

*************************************************************

This leads right in to something that I find is a somewhat troubling phenomenon here on DU. Let me establish 3 facts that I think everyone will agree with.

1. TruthIsAll is not a exit poll expert, or a expert statistician. We know this because he told us this in at least two of his posts, so it's on record.

2. Arnebeck and Freeman both recognize that Mitofsky is the inventor of, and a world renowned expert in exit polling. we know this because they wrote this in their papers, so again, it's on record.

3. Warren Mitofsky conducted the very first US presidential election exit poll in 1967 and in the 38 years since then he has conducted 3000 exit polls. (Arnebeck OH Case 04-2088 Paragraph 67)

Now, when TIA (who self describes himself as no exit poll/statistics expert) is confronted with or even shown statements by Mitofsky that contradict statements made in his 'analysis' here on DU, TIA generally offers some disparaging remark about Mitofsky, sneers and says, in effect, that he knows better than Mitofsky how exit polls work, and that he knows better than Mitofsky how exit polling statistics should be done. If that's not bizarre enough, almost every other DU member flocks to his side and agrees with him. This doesn't make any sense at all, does it ? It's all the more puzzling when you see post after post after post where DUer's are complaining about the fact that MSM is not taking us seriously. Well, now you know why.

[Old and In the Way]

50. See the screenshots I posted above.

nt

[mod mom]

13. If Mitosky wants to discredit this info then he must release his data

Their silence speaks for itself.

[keepthemhonest]

16. agreed n/t

[Old and In the Way]

52. Absolutely correct.

It's quite simple....we are all wrong, of course, and the exit poll data will show us that. So why not release it?

Because they must be mighty busy reworking the raw data to cover the reported summaries.

Or maybe they are afraid to release it because there may be someone out there who has the real data and is waiting for them to release the cooked data first?

[me b zola]

58. "someone out there who has the real data.."

talk about a smoking gun! I don't believe that we necessarily need this to prove the case, but that sure is a lovely thought.

[me b zola]

57. Silence is the voice of complicity

n/t

[jazzjunkysue]

15. I was dating a guy who was doing the exit polls and wrote the software

He says, and I have no reason not to believe him, that the exit polls are not an accurate barometer of the larger republican/democratic vote. They're done only to get at the inside ratios of information, such as, how many women/seniors/catholics/ went democrat, and how many pro lifers went republican. It's the inside ratios they're looking at, so the parties can figure out how to run campaigns.

He also told me that the exit pollsters have to change the raw numbers from the earlier raw poll to match the real vote. This guy wrote the software to do that deliberately, and it was not part of any coverup: It is assumed that when you ask every 5th person on the way out in only a few chosen places that the exit poll will not match the real larger vote. They poll such a tiny number that it is not reliable. It can't be, and was never intended to be. They're simply trying to figure out the demographics inside the larger vote.

In other words, the raw number is unreliable, but the inside ratios are fairly reliable. Not reliable enough to overturn a vote.

So, the fact that the exit poll changed is not indicative of a cover up. It's doing what it's supposed to do, and that's not for any sinister reasons.

If you want to ptove fraud, (which I personally believe 100% happened) you'll have to prove that the real vote is off, and not compare it to the exit poll.

The areas where the republican vote was way too high because it was a heavily registered democratic area are legitimate places to look for fraud. The places where the vote exceeded the registration is also proof. But, the changing exit poll is not republican cover up: It's part of every exit poll plan.

So, you're wasting your time and energy chasing the changed exit poll conspiracy. That one is not real.

[TruthIsAll]

17. No, you are wrong.To prove fraud we need:

1) Release of the exit poll numbers. It exists.

2) A paper trail of the touchscreen votes. It doesn't.

3) Whistleblowers? Have already come forward.

Motive.
Means.
Method.
Opportunity.

They had them all.

[Not a Sheep]

24. Yes, we need exit #'s released. But you already said.....(more)

..."We know this is leaked data AND Mitofsky/MSM won't release it."

So either we know it is correct or we don't know. And it seems like you are wrong from your statement above and we don't know that this is the ACTUAL DATA that was "leaked".

[fearnobush]

41. It is rediculous to believe that all the sudden, Bush voters showed up

at the final hour. Seems to me they flipped the data somehow. Any way I love this line.

"This always seems to be the case with Bush. The numbers become as small as the size of an atomic particle."

Kind of like the size of his brain.

[Old and In the Way]

53. Who was voting in the final hour? The BLUE West Coast.

So how could those samples be representitive of what the state outcomes were on the West Coast?

[Not a Sheep]

18. Interesting info jazz......(more)

But if we don't know for a fact that the data TruthIsAll is relying on to come to his conclusion is the actual data, then we're just asumming and speculating.

Maybe it's just me but I would be up front about it and state that "if this is the actual data, then this is what is means".

As a Kerry supporter, I find it troubling that we don't want to question the inital data, we sinply want it to be correct so that it will confirm what we suspect.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Not a Sheep]

32. Ah no you're wrong again.......

I voted for Kerry. I was first in line at my precinct Tuesday morning. I live in PA on the border of Franklin (voted 72% for Bush) and Cumberland Counties (voted 64% for Bush).

Why is it anytime a fellow Kerry supporter asks questions around here they are brushed aside? Everyone must fall in line and agree huh?

The bottom line is you don't know that this is the actual data. You previously said "we know it was leaked" but your only assuming it's correct because you want it to be.

I find it incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical that because I question the data source you automatically assume I'm pro-Bush but in actuality you are the one jumping to conclusions and making assumptions concerning the data's legitimacy because of party/candiate loyalty.

[Old and In the Way]

56. What data would you like us to use?

We are in a catch 22 here. Can't prove fraud without the data. Can't get the data to prove fraud.

As a Kerry supporter, why aren't you outraged at the info we do know? Like, as TIA has shown in an earlier post, that 16/16 exit polls favoring Bush went outside the MOE. I think that also correlates to paperless voting systems.

There's enough smoke here to know that there is a fire underway....

[Not a Sheep]

93. What do you mean...

"What data would you like us to use?". I would like us to get the real data. I just asked if we had it.

I agree it's a Catch-22 as you said. And I've been outraged at this administration from day one. There's a lot to be outraged by.

However, I simply asked if the data we had had been confirmed as legit. Obviously if it was, I would be really pissed because what it showed. But when I tried to ask, I was told by TruthIsAll that it had been leaked. I then said, so it's legit? .. and he wouldn't reply and everyone starting attacking me for asking.

If you have the stomach to read the posts above, you'll see that's exactly what happened.

Do you think I was treated fairly?

[TruthIsAll]

80. Now, Not a Sheep, its your turn to listen....

I find it incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical that because I analyzed the original data source, you automatically assume I'm biased to Kerry due to party loyalty, but in actuality you are the one jumping to conclusions and making assumptions concerning the data's legitimacy because of your apparent lack of understanding that, since the media has refused to release the data, in order to determine the truth we must use the data that was initially funded and collected by the media, for which we now have and always will have access.

Got it?

[Not a Sheep]

99. SEE POST #98 ABOVE AND YOUR POST #5. ANSWER THOSE ?s. nt

[keepthemhonest]

35. it is easy to see who voted for Kerry and who voted for Bush

isn't it TIA.We understand very clearly why these posters come to call.I love when posters requote you like we did not already know what we said and then everyone has to read it over and over.Then the spin on words,my goodness what simplicity.

[foo_bar]

69. resorting to ad hominem attacks

indicates a lack of facts or evidence. So do "with us or against us" tirades, treating peer review as the enemy, appeals to popularity or "higher authority", and preordained hypotheses unconcerned with the scientific method. These tactics are also the hallmark of Creationism, geocentrism, and the Bush Administration.

[Not a Sheep]

92. Thanks foo_bar.....

I really just asked a simple question was attacked over and over. I'm glad you saw this for what is was.

[Straight Shooter]

21. For some reason, I don't believe the story in your post.

I don't have time to pick through it, but I'm sure someone else can go through it and methodically dismantle one paragraph after the other. It isn't cohesive.

And the final remark about "you're wasting your time and energy" and your inclusion of the attack word "conspiracy" is a Republican talking point. Just so you'll know.

[keepthemhonest]

31. I was thinking the same thing n/t

[Straight Shooter]

22. Dupe gremlin.

x(

[goclark]

28. Thanks Straight Shooter

That story about the guy didn't pass the truth tests for me.

Fire! Fire! Freeper in the house.

[katinmn]

30. Of course it is a Repug talking point. They are starting one thread

after the other in an effort to discourage people from uncovering the truth.

I think through Jan 6 we should just hit alert and have the mods check and see if they've been banned previously.

I can see making one negative comment and moving on but it's getting really sickening.

[keepthemhonest]

38. yes and some of the trolls

come back for shearing again and again

[understandinglife]

67. Wonder how they explain the fact that the US paid our tax $$ to...

...do the exit polls in the Ukraine; and how they might explain the consequences of those exit polls.

Maybe they should do a little reading....

"The U.S. state department last week said it had spent $65m over the past two years financing groups in support of democracy in Ukraine, part of the $1bn spent for the same purpose globally each year.

"Our money doesn't go to candidates. It goes to the institutions that it takes to run a free and fair election," said a spokesman, Richard Boucher.

The U.S. embassy said it - together with seven other western embassies, including Britain's - had funded an exit poll which showed Viktor Yushchenko was ahead in the first run-off by 11 points, and helped to spark the mass protests." (more at links)

As quoted from:

Inquiry Sought into Claims of U.S. Funding

By Nick Paton Walsh
The Guardian U.K.

Monday 13 December 2004

Ukrainian MPs are seeking a parliamentary investigation into allegations that money from the U.S. government was used to help fund the opposition during the recent electoral campaign.

Links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1372536...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121404C.shtml

oh, and you can google and find others...

Peace.

"Who bought the green shoes: daddy or Karl?"

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[mod mom]

29. I have always thought the most basic issue was blatant civil right

abuses. There was deliberate placement of machines to suppress the dem inner city vote. Just compare the waits for voting. It was a modern day POLL TAX. This is UN-AMERICAN! Where was equal protection under the law? Look at placement of machines in low income African American neighborhoods (hi dem) vs. suburban repug precincts. Look at Kenyon College machine placement vs the rest of Knox County. Look at the precincts around Central State vs the rest of Greene County.

I certainly don't want minimalize the exit poll analysis. The work everyone is doing regarding the exit polls is very important and backs up with the rest of the story of a stolen election. I deeply resent our dismissal as conspiracy nuts. The people who are working on this are all intelligent, dedicated patriots willing to put their lives on the back burner for the sake of democracy. The sad fact is most Americans won't take the time and effort to use alternative sources of information. They are spoon fed the crap dished out by MSM.

[nodictators]

36. The guy you're dating needs to study statistics

A properly designed national poll with 5,000 respondents would give a good estimate of how the votes split. Here, more than 13,000 voters responded to the poll. It should be highly accurate.

In fact, former President Carter uses exit polling to help verify the integrity of elections in foreign countries.

I got some of the leaked data in mid-afternoon on Election Day. It was amazingly accurate. It called both Arizona and Colorado for Bush. It said Iowa was a tie. In fact, it took Iowa 3 days to determine that Bush won the state. The only flip-flops in the claimed results were in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico. And New Mexico had Kerry ahead of Bush by only 1 or 2 percentage points.

[IStriker]

42. If Carter uses exit polls to verify integrity of foreign elections...

then why did he call the recall election in Venezuela fraud-free? Wasn't the election way off from the exit polling that was done by an American company? (By something like 20 pts. I believe.)

You say the data leaked to you was accurate and list AZ, CO, and IA. What data was leaked to you about VA, GA, MISS, ALA?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with anybody over exit polls and actual vote, but I just do not see that if the exit polls are completely different from the actual vote it is any more than a reason to see why, i.e., were the exit polls screwed up, was there fraud or errors in tabulation, etc. It is NOT evidence of anything except that there are differences between the two. We need proof to challenge an election.

[Peace Patriot]

81. The only exit polls in Venezuela that went against Chavez...

...were done by NED on behalf of the oiligarchy that opposed him, who kept ranting about it on the entirely oiligarchy-controlled media. The election was verified by dozens of international organizations, the Carter Center among them, using many different methods including exit polls and hand counts. Chavez won the recall by a landslide. The oiligarchy wouldn't shut up about it, even then--very like our BushCon media yappers who keep repeating false information over and over and over.

Here's what Marjorie Cohn says about the Venezuelan opposition's exit polls (Cohn is a contributing editor to www.truthout.org, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists):

"Opposition exit polls, which (Jimmy) Carter has dismissed as inaccurate and 'deliberately distributed … in order to build up, not only the expectation of victory, but also to influence the people still standing in line,' were funded by the National Endowment for Democracy."

"NED, a U.S. government organization purporting to promote democracy, was set up in the early 1980s by Reagan to counter negative revelations about the CIA's covert operations in the late 1970s. NED successfully manipulated the Nicaraguan elections in 1990 and worked with right-wing groups in the late 1990s to oust Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide."

Cohn also discusses the BushCons' financial backing of the earlier coup attempt against Chavez.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082004A.shtml

To sum up, the Venezuelan oiligarchy is a minority of wealthy people backed by the BushCons--in a land of vast numbers of poor--and is not to be trusted on Exit Polls or anything else.

[IStriker]

40. Is jazzjunkysue correct in what the exit polls are designed to do?

I don't know. All I know is that this is NOT the first time exit polls have been way off, not just here but in other countries as well and recently.

In addition, I can't think of any way why the exit polls are anymore accurate in relation to the election outcome than polls leading up to an election. Everyone is free to lie to pollsters, not answer them, etc. The ONLY proof of fraud must come from the actual vote. Anything else is not evidence of fraud.

[Peace Patriot]

82. IStriker, where are your facts?

"All I know is that this is NOT the first time exit polls have been way off, not just here but in other countries as well and recently.

"In addition, I can't think of any way why the exit polls are anymore accurate in relation to the election outcome than polls leading up to an election. Everyone is free to lie to pollsters, not answer them, etc. The ONLY proof of fraud must come from the actual vote. Anything else is not evidence of fraud." --IStriker

-----

Dear IStriker:

"All you know" about it is not very much, apparently. I suggest that you do some Googling on, 1) U.S. elections in which the Exit Polls have been wrong (a very small group, you will find--and quite specific); 2) Exit Polls in other countries (and you might try reading Dr. Freeman's latest paper which discusses this--they are highly accurate and greatly respected worldwide as a check on election fraud); and 3) the Venezuelan recall election exit polls conducted by the BushCon financed NED on behalf of the Venezuelan oiligarchy (also, see my post herein).

Freeman paper: http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm

[IStriker]

85. You didn't answer my question...

I would not be asking a question if I knew the answer. It was NOT a rhetorical question. Is Jazzywhatever correct in what she says about the reason exit polls are done???? Or are they done for some other reason? I have no expertise in exit polling or fraudulent elections and have never done any delving into the subjects because until I joined DU I never heard about Democrats losing elections due to fraud. I still don't hear a peep about it anywhere else (not TV news, not newspapers, not my neighbors, etc.) I remember reading in my local newspaper (AP probably) that there was great surprise about how the Venezuelan recall election came out since polling up until the election and the exit polling had shown that Chavez was likely to lose by a lot. I also remember hearing on CNN that there was no problem with exit polling while it was done by Voter News Service (30+ yrs?), but the new group doing the polling had come up with results that the networks did not use because they were suspicious of it from in front which proved to be correct once the actual votes were known.

[spooked911]

88. Come on! The exit polls were designed to call who won a specific state

Was JazzJunkySue is talking about may indeed be part of exit polling, but it is not the only or most important part.

Remember, the networks WANT to know who won a state so they can call it!

[IStriker]

102. Yes, but there is more than the simplifications that many on DU insist...

is proof of fraud. I am no expert in voting patterns, exit polls, regular polling, election fraud, etc. The difference between many on DU and me is that I KNOW IT. I'm going to stop reading any posts in this category because I've wasted enough time trying to understand how posters here can be so certain that the election was stolen. It's evident after spending hours reading this stuff that they KNOW fraud occurred because they want it to have happened and if this were not a given, they would have to spend time looking at the other possibilities. That would require a reality check which is in very short supply. It is much easier to draw a conclusion that fraud must have occurred and to then hunt for snippets to support that. Of course, this method of operation is not going to fly in the real world.

[1democracy]

39. Exit polls VS actual vote tallies

In another DU thread, discussion is of the fact that the AP had direct access to vote counts (tabulators?) during election day. This timed data could provide the actual ballot information to parallel the exit polls on Nov 2, to prove the fraud.
A continuous time line of the data of the ballot counts as emerging might show the appearance of the mysterious late voting Republicans (phantom over votes) AT A SPECIFIC POINT IN TIME. If this happened in independent precincts, cities, at the same moment--- it would mean a "fix the election " decision occurred at a that moment in time, i.e. fraud. Other aberrations could be detected by looking at the patterns. If we can data mine for terrorist, we could data mine for computer hacking using the actual ballot count data. The timline aspect is key. We need the AP data!

[justice4all]

76. Actual tallies during the day?

These sound at least as interesting as the exit polls.

[spooked911]

87. very interesting if true and your idea is excellent (nt)

[euler]

43. You say...

<snip>

"MITOFSKY ET ALL ADMIT THAT VOTES WERE MIXED
WITH THE POLLS. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS IT BEGAN AROUND 1:00am
NOV.3. WILL THE NAYSAYS SAY NAY ABOUT THAT? OF COURSE THEY WILL.
THEY WOULD ALSO SAY THAT NEW YEAR'S DIDN'T HAPPEN."

</snip>

The first presidential exit poll in 1967 mixed exit poll results with actual votes after the polls closed. The same thing happened this election, and in 2008, the exit poll numbers will again be 'mixed' with actual votes as precincts close. THIS IS THE WAY EXIT POLLS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DONE, AND ALWAYS WILL BE DONE.

You've been told this before, but you always reply with some comment about low post counts. Please educate yourself before doing more damage. Thanks.

<snip>

How did Bush get 63.6% of the final 623 out of the 3168 total
who responded to the dual question of HOW or IF they voted in
2000? Bush only had 48.1% of the FIRST 2545 polled.

</snip>

Well, it all depends upon the makeup of the final 623 of 3168. If the democrat/republican ratio was the same as the first 2545, then you may have something here. What was the party breakdown of the final 623 ? You are assuming the 623 is a random sample of the 3168. Is it a random sample ? If you can't answer these questions, then you have nothing.

Now, I expect your reply to me to be no different from your reply to everyone else that criticizes you (low post counts, partisan hack, freeper, whatever.) Such vacuous arguments may work in a DU forum, but they won't work in the real world. The real world is where this is supposed to be going, right ? We hope we can get into court or in front of congress, right ?

In the real world, people who are experts in their respective field will be called to testify. They will destroy an analysis such as the one you provide here. You need to stop focusing your argument on DU members and begin refining the argument you intend to use when defending your work against the actual experts called by the other side. You can't use your usual arguments (low post counts, partisan hack, freeper, whatever) on the exit poll experts called by the other side. These experts will say things like:

"It's not possible to use the raw exit poll numbers for any type of useful statistical analysis." You may think the experts are wrong in this regard, but you must explain why the experts are wrong and you are right. In short, you must actually defend your work. I encourage you to start with me. If you can't convince me, you will never convince an expert.

[TruthIsAll]

90. I don't have to testify. And I won't even try to convince you.

Your agenda is clear; your posts are all fog.

If you think my analysis is worthless, just ignore it.
If you can do better, then do it.
If the mathematical truth makes you uncomfortable,too bad.
If you want to spin, keep it up. Your'e good at it.

Where the hell is YOUR analysis?

[mgr]

97. The 623 is very likely from a different population pool.

If Mitofski was sampling voters after 2130 Eastern Standard Time, then he no longer was sampling eastern states. This would be the period when voters from the south have an effect on the totals, particularly if voting in the South that supports Bush occurs late in the day. This is the clustering effect in action.

Mike

[rdmccur]

44. All concerned, for what it's worth,

I sent the following note to the editor at scoop

"Ed,

A group of us in the USA (along with some compatriots from other nations) are using the exit poll data found at
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/pdfs/Mitofsky4zonedata for some analyses and general discussion

(site of discussion is www.democraticunderground.com ). We would like more infromation about the source of this data for verification and validation purposes (it may also have been passed to John Conyers).

Can you help by providing the verification of the source of this data, etc?"

(the address to write is [e-mail] <[e-mail]>)

[euler]

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

</snip>

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

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

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

[McCamy Taylor]

51. How about "Mifotsky was hacked by Karl Rove?'

He says his computers went down and that data was lost. Is it possible that he was the victim of a dirty trick from the Rove War Room? If so, maybe a more viable startegy would be to give him the benefit of the doubt. "You poor world respected acedemician! How could they do this to you?"

Would this work?

O8)

[jazzjunkysue]

70. I had a Kerry sticker on my car. I have no reason to make this up.

I now have a Bring Them Home sticker on my car that I bought at a protest. I've been emailing and faxing my brains out. I've been driving all over the northeast to protest in the cold. I've given lots of money to Kerry. I've taken all kinds of crap for sticking up for the truth in my private life. I've lost friends and almost lost my Dad over this stuff. I know in my heart that the Ohio vote was rigged and then covered up.

HOWEVER,

I also know that this friend of mine wrote the software program that brings all the inside and larger tabulation into sync with the actual vote numbers.

That's what exit polls are designed to do. What reason do I have to make this up and bring hell upon myself? If you pull all my posts, I'm a huge Kerry supporter, but, this piece of information is real and I'm not going to keep it from you: The overall exit poll numbers are not reliable. Sorry. I wish it were otherwise.

We're all so trained to follow the polls before the election, that we believe them as gospel, but that was never their intention, which is why the media that paid for them tried to keep them under wraps: It takes a pro to interpret them.

It's possible that a pro might be able to take the inside ratios, like, say, Catholics for Kerry or seniors for Kerry, and show that those ratios are skewed in the actual vote, but at best, it just shows you where to look for proof of fraud, nothing more.

You're wasting your time with this, and it doesn't serve the dem's cause to harp on it. Keep emailing and faxing the media about their lack of coverage. That will help, more than anything. I pester them weekly. They love me.

[Straight Shooter]

72. Have your "friend" register and answer some questions.

You can start a thread and he can post responses to questions.

My problem with exit polls this election? All of a sudden, they're not reliable. If they're not reliable, Mitofsky should release his info. After all, why should anybody bother with exit polls anymore? They're not reliable. At least not in America.

Sorry, something stinks.

As far as emailing the media, bwahahahaha. Like they care.

[euler]

89. If not accurate, why bother ? An answer.

here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64906-2004Nov20.html
A snip from the story:

<snip>

I learned early in my Washington Post career that exit polls were useful but imperfect mirrors of the electorate. On election night in 1988, we relied on the ABC News exit poll to characterize how demographic subgroups and political constituencies had voted. One problem: The exit poll found the race to be a dead heat, even though Democrat Michael Dukakis lost the popular vote by seven percentage points to Dubya's father. (The dirty little secret, known to pollsters, is that discrepancies in the overall horse race don't affect the subgroup analysis. Whether Dukakis got 46 percent or 50 percent didn't change the fact that nine of 10 blacks voted for him, while a majority of all men didn't. The exit poll may have under- or over-sampled either group, producing an incorrect national total, but the within-group voting patterns remain accurate.)

</snip>

In this one paragraph we can learn 2 things:

1. Some exit polls are not accurate. More proof that exit polls are not necessarily accurate can be found here:

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

2. To the people and corporations that pay for exit polls, the poll is useful whether or not the percentages are accurate. Exit polls aren't done (in the US) to prove or disprove fraud. They are done so that MSM can make statements like "nine of 10 blacks voted for Kerry, while a majority of all men didn't."

Incidently, unlike the US, exit polls in Europe are designed in a way that makes it possible to monitor election fraud using the exit polls. Exit polls in Europe, use a true random sample of respondents.

Read more here:

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

[jazzjunkysue]

101. If you refuse to listen, you'll never understand.

My friend doesn't waste his time in here because he was an insider and knows the stuff we're trying to find out. He also has no reason to lie, because he's a democrat, too. But he'll tell you exactly what I'm saying, so, it's really up to you to look at my posts and see if you think I'm credible. I'm not the one who was a pollster, but, unless you've got hard evidence that you are right, then neither of us can prove anything. In that case, just ignore me. Think whatever you want, and ignore the people who offer a differing piece of information. Works for the re-uglicans every time.

[Peace Patriot]

83. Freeman on Mitofsky re: use of his Exit Poll to verify election

...Mitofsky himself has said that, just because the Exit Polls are designed for demographic information, doesn't mean that they can't be used to verify the election.

Freeman:

"...their only unqualified statements have been that (1) the exit poll was not designed to verify the election can hardly be seen as conclusive that it could not be used to help verify whether or not the election was clean; (2) that the poll was conducted correctly and, more recently, that (3) their data confirm the exit poll-official count discrepancy." (part 1, page 3)

Draft: "Hypotheses for Explaining the Exit Poll-Official Count Discrepancy in the 2004 US Presidential Election."

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm

And I have to repeat that this only makes sense. What good is demographic information that is WRONG about white Catholic single mothers voting for Bush, or for Kerry (or any other demographic)?

And I'm going to repeat my other point as well: With US presidential elections in such disrepute after 2000, and a NEW ELECTION SYSTEM being used in 2004, featuring BushCon companies manufacturing our electronic voting machines, and running them on SECRET source code, with no paper trail in a third of the country, and Republicans deliberately preventing a paper trail and other transparency measures, why DIDN'T the networks and Mitofsky DESIGN the Exit Polls TO VERIFY the election?

It's a no-brainer!

The BushCons have gotten really good at leaping twenty steps ahead of us, so that we FORGET the most fundamental starting conditions and questions: What the hell kind of democracy is this, with Bush "Pioneers" owning and controlling the voting system?

And the idiots who question the design of the polls, or the data that the public manages to get its hands on, keep confusing the issue, by demanding absolute proof that the election was stolen. There is no absolute proof of anything, ever. Every scientific statement is an hypothesis. The question always is, is it testable, and what are the odds on the test results being right or wrong?

DNA testing is never absolute proof--it's always a matter of odds--and people are put in prison and even executed on those odds (but generally combined with OTHER corroborating facts).

Same with court cases of financial fraud, where the perps have shredded the paper evidence. Statistics can be used to prove fraud.

But in THIS situation--the 2004 election--we are not preparing a court case, or asking for anyone's conviction (that may come later). We are saying that these Exit Polls showing a Kerry win, and impossible odds against a Bush win, COMBINED with a mountain of other evidence of anomalous numbers (in various kind of data), all of them favoring Bush, and intense, illegal vote suppression, all against Kerry voters, and, in addition, blatant NON-transparency, invalidates this election!

Elections are not just a scientific exercise. They are an inherently POLITICAL event. And if you have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of votes in serious doubt, you do not have validity and legitimacy in a democratic country.

Stack these Exit Polls up on the mountain! And if they said the opposite--if they said that Bush won--Bush supporters would most certainly be using them to counter all the OTHER evidence of fraud. But since they DO say that Kerry won--and, with statistical analysis, that Bush could NOT have won--then what do you have? You have overwhelming evidence that the "official results" CANNOT be trusted, and are very likely WRONG.

And this is a POLITICAL conclusion. Legitimacy is not a strictly scientific matter, nor is it a strictly legal matter. It is a matter of facts AND perception.

Both judges and politicians are supposed to behave not just within the law, but so as to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety and conflict of interest. (Or, at least that used to be the case!) The mere appearance of misconduct taints their judgments and decisions--even if they are entirely innocent.

And this is the real issue here--not some nitpicking over the "evidence." Does this election have legitimacy? Does it APPEAR to be fair? Was every measure taken to make it fair (or, were innumerable measures taken to make it unfair)? Did it have scrupulous transparency (or even half-assed transparency)? Is it auditable? Is it recountable? How are election officials behaving, as to transparency?

And, is there evidence that the outcome might be wrong?

And the answer to this latter question must be seen in the CONTEXT of all the other questions and answers.

[euler]

94. Are you looking at the latest Freeman paper - Dec. 29 ?

You say the following quote is on page 3 of Freemans paper:

"...their only unqualified statements have been that (1) the exit poll was not designed to verify the election can hardly be seen as conclusive that it could not be used to help verify whether or not the election was clean"

Sorry, it's not. The quote on page 3 is:

<snip>

The pollsters have taken great pains to argue that their polls
were not designed to verify election results, but rather to provide election coverage support to subscribers – as one set of data that the networks could use to project winners and to explain
voting patterns.

</snip>

You must be using a uncorrected version of his paper. I'm looking at the December 29, 2004 version. I think this is the 3rd version of the paper. He must have rewritten the paragraph in light of the public statements of Mitofsky and Lenski.

[euler]

96. Your fourth paragraph states::

"And I have to repeat that this only makes sense. What good is demographic information that is WRONG about white Catholic single mothers voting for Bush, or for Kerry (or any other demographic)?"

You seem to be asking: If exit polls aren't accurate, why bother ?

Start here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64906-2004Nov20.html

A snip from the story:

<snip>

I learned early in my Washington Post career that exit polls were useful but imperfect mirrors of the electorate. On election night in 1988, we relied on the ABC News exit poll to characterize how demographic subgroups and political constituencies had voted. One problem: The exit poll found the race to be a dead heat, even though Democrat Michael Dukakis lost the popular vote by seven percentage points to Dubya's father. (The dirty little secret, known to pollsters, is that discrepancies in the overall horse race don't affect the subgroup analysis. Whether Dukakis got 46 percent or 50 percent didn't change the fact that nine of 10 blacks voted for him, while a majority of all men didn't. The exit poll may have under- or over-sampled either group, producing an incorrect national total, but the within-group voting patterns remain accurate.)

</snip>

In this one paragraph we can learn 2 things:

1. Some exit polls are not accurate. More proof that exit polls are not necessarily accurate can be found here:

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

2. To the people and corporations that pay for exit polls, the poll is useful whether or not the percentages are accurate. Exit polls aren't done (in the US) to prove or disprove fraud. They are done so that MSM can make statements like "nine of 10 blacks voted for Kerry, while a majority of all men didn't."

Incidently, unlike the US, exit polls in Europe are designed in a way that makes it possible to monitor election fraud using the exit polls. Exit polls in Europe, use a true random sample of respondents.

Read more here:

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

[spooked911]

91. Thanks for your efforts and the info. However---

We know that exit poll data is merged with real vote counts, but certainly in many cases they can call states before ANY votes have been tabulated. It seems like for whatever reason, they weren't able to do that for many many states on Nov 2, 2004-- either because the voting pattern was very strange or because there was fraud. But it seems as if the voting patterns really weren't that strange after all-- so doesn't that leave fraud?

[euler]

95. Hey, I'm good to go. Besides...

...I'm not the one you have to convince; it's the array of experts that will be called by the other side that need convincing.

[mdb]

54. Dick Morris, Republican pundit, speaks for all Democrats when he says:

"This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play." Of course, he refers to the tainted exit polling, not the tainted election.

[Darkhawk32]

55. But didn't he suggest that the Dems rigged the exit polls after that quote

[rdmccur]

59. I think it would be instructive to

read Freeman's latest analysis/discussion.
(TIA I know you have --I'm referring to some of the others on this forum).
Furthermore; reasons not to trust the Bush administration (and thus the credibility of the last election)

1) this administration fraudulently took power in 2001,

2) this administration misled the American public about reasons to attack Iraq,

3) this administration has continually misled the American people about its intentions for Iraq and the Middle East, in general,

4) this administration initially blocked the investigation leading to the 9/11 report,

5) this administration has promulgated legislation to restrict American civil liberty

6) this administration has obscured the division of church and state,

and the list goes on...
(reverting toward the subversion of government by religious dogma)

[Old and In the Way]

60. 7) Turned a $500BB surplus into a $500BB deficit

That takes a lot of hard work.

[rdmccur]

61. I left that one out because

it's just plain incompetence (but doen't help one's trust does it?)
Incompetence runs rampant in this administration, it's their hallmark.
Gee I wonder why so many exited (or are about too) from this aministration recently. They were just having too much fun.

[Old and In the Way]

63. Incompetence?

Incompetence might explain their failure on 9/11....but draining the Treasury for taxbreaks to the richest and pay-offs to the war profiteers would take a very competent and concerted effort to make it happen.

[rdmccur]

64. I get your drift

[Peace Patriot]

84. Incompetence on 9/11?

We had a highly competent and efficient system of air defense, that worked perfectly well on all previous occasions of planes veering off course or not responding.

Was that system "incompetent" on 9/11? Or was it turned off?

And if, somehow, that system was innocently baffled or slow on the first three planes, what accounts for the lack of air cover, or any defense whatsoever, of our nation's capitol, and of the Pentagon itself, regarding the fourth plane? They had an hour to implement some kind of defense.

Not even a rifle. Not even a spitball.

[spooked911]

86. You have to realize incompetence is not what happened on 9/11

It was an inside job all the way. Bushco wanted the attacks. It is very clear if you do any reading on this.

[jazzjunkysue]

100. Yup.

I used to think we were lax in our security, and they merely took advantage of american rage to go to war. I read on the Catholic protestors thread some stuff about 9/11 that is so scary, I don't even want to post the nouns (or the link) on here. That's how scary it is. I always knew Iraq was a fix for the economy tanking, the stock market bubble bursting, and Bush's incompetence, but, now, I know it had everything to do with the fragility and age of the building itself, the cost to take it down and rebuild it, someone who put out new money in july so it would pay off when it fell, and a certain greasy substance that needs a way to get out to the ships so we can sell it. Can't drive over some sandy, rocky, hilly terrains, you know. Some substances need special help getting to market, and some people are willing to do anything to cash in. Trouble is, some of them come from one side of the isle, and some of them come from the other side of the isle, and that means, people, there are no good guys left to say, hey, wait a minute! This is wrong. When you know what I'm trying not to say, EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE. Everything. You stop being angry, and start getting scared.

[bleever]

68. Kicked.

[berniew1]

73. There is real proof of vote machine fraud, manipulations that caused swing

The exit poll data is only collaborative info.

Widespread vote machine fraud has been documented in Florida in the big touchscreen counties, as well as voter suppression of minorities. Similar to the widespread voter suppression and fraud that has been documented in Ohio and New Mexico.
The problems appear large enough to swing all 3 states, as implied by the exit poll data- for which a new version is circulating today with strong evidence Kerry won the election. Exit poll data on voting groups.

Documentation for Ohio is at: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19

and http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm

Documentation of the widespread Florida vote machine fraud is at: http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

[zapped 1]

77. kick