18 NATIONAL POLLSTERS AND MITOFSKY HAD IT EXACTLY RIGHT- KERRY GOT 51%

[TruthIsAll]

18 NATIONAL POLLSTERS HAD IT RIGHT- KERRY GOT 51% 
 
 
Taking an average of the final 18 national RV polls
(registered voters) and assuming that Kerry would get 67-75%
of the undecided/other vote (as was fully expected, since
undecideds have historically voted for the challenger), he was
projected to win: 

51.15% (if he won 67% of the undecided/other vote)
 or 
51.63% (if he won 75% of the undecided/other vote) 

But that is based on the TWO-PARTY VOTE.
The third party vote was 1.0%

Let's subtract 0.50% from Kerry's and Bush's percentages to
compare to the actual NEP result, which had Kerry winning with
50.78%.

If Kerry won 67% of undecided/other, he had 50.65%  
 50.65 = 51.15 - 0.50
If Kerry won 75% of undecided/other: he had 51.13% 
 51.13 = 51.63 - 0.50

So the average of 18 final pre-election national polls EXACTLY
CONFIRMS (within 0.13% and 0.41%) the National Exit Poll of
13,047 randomly selected voters (1.0% MOE): 

Kerry won the NEP with 50.78% based on his percentages of the
54% female/46% male split. 

To summarize:
Final 18 poll RV average, 67% Undecided : 50.65%
National Exit Poll (1% MOE, 13047 sample size): 50.78%
Final 18 poll RV average, 75% Undecided: 51.13%
											
Latest Poll Results				Projected Kerry % of Vote			
	                              Other/undecided to Kerry		
Date	Poll	Kerry	Bush	MoE	2-party	60%	67%	75%	80%	87%	
1020	AP	49	46	 3.50 	0.516	0.520	0.524	0.528	0.530	0.534	
1021	Time	46	51	 3.00 	0.474	0.478	0.480	0.483	0.484	0.486	
1024	LAT	48	47	 4.00 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1025	Harris	48	47	 2.50 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1026	ICR	44	46	 3.10 	0.489	0.500	0.507	0.515	0.520	0.527	
1027	Econ	49	45	 2.00 	0.521	0.526	0.530	0.535	0.538	0.542	
1029	Nwk	45	48	 4.00 	0.484	0.492	0.497	0.503	0.506	0.511	
1030	Pew	46	45	 3.50 	0.505	0.514	0.520	0.528	0.532	0.538	
1030	Zogby	47	48	 3.10 	0.495	0.500	0.504	0.508	0.510	0.514	
1030	ARG	49	48	 3.50 	0.505	0.508	0.510	0.513	0.514	0.516	
1030	ABC	48	47	 3.00 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1031	Marist	49	48	 2.50 	0.505	0.508	0.510	0.513	0.514	0.516	
1031	TIPP	44	45	 3.50 	0.494	0.506	0.514	0.523	0.528	0.536	
1031	CBS	46	47	 3.00 	0.495	0.502	0.507	0.513	0.516	0.521	
1031	FOX	48	45	 3.40 	0.516	0.522	0.527	0.533	0.536	0.541	
1031	DemC	48	47	 3.10 	0.505	0.510	0.514	0.518	0.520	0.524	
1031	Gallup	48	46	 4.00 	0.511	0.516	0.520	0.525	0.528	0.532	
1031	NBC	47	48	 3.00 	0.495	0.500	0.504	0.508	0.510	0.514	
										
	Mean	47.17%	46.89%	3.21%	50.15%	50.73%	51.15%	51.63%	51.92%	52.34%	
	Median	48.00%	47.00%	3.10%	50.52%	50.90%	51.35%	51.75%	52.00%	52.35%	

 
 

[GetTheRightVote]

1. Why are we not running thru the streets of DC rioting like we should ??

We need to get angry, really, really angry !!!!

We need some real passion behind all this talk.


:mad:

[TruthIsAll]

27. RightVote, you know I hit a nerve. Sat AM and here come the naysays..

tia

[TruthIsAll]

2. The final national/state poll analysis and graphics here.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/

[underpants]

3. Ukraine run but you U can't hide from the truth

Sad

[TruthIsAll]

49. This tells us that if Kerry won 69% of the undecided/other vote...

If Kerry IS ALLOCATED 69% of undecideds/others, then the allocation-adjusted 18 POLL NATIONAL PRE-ELECTION AVERAGE of 50.78% EXACTLY MATCHES THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL RESULT:

It is 50.65% for a 67% allocation.
It is 50.78% for 69%.
It is 51.13% for 75%.

[IStriker]

4. The problem is in the "assumptions" which I find in all your posts...

Obviously your "assumptions" are incorrect. It's that simple. IF Kerry voters had turned out in the numbers you assume, he WOULD HAVE WON, but they didn't and he didn't.

[TruthIsAll]

6. Is that your best rebuttal? Hello? It was stolen. That's the point.

n/t

[IStriker]

17. If that is your best PROOF, an assumption, then yes, that is my rebuttal.

[TruthIsAll]

50. YOUR assumption is that the phantom Bush vote tallies are legit.

That is quite an assumption on your part, what with all the documented evidence of "irregularities":

-suppression of the minority vote,
-machines recording Kerry votes to Bush votes,
-vote totals which exceeded registration totals,
-lack of sufficient voting machines,
-Repukes voting against a paper trail for HAVA,
-Repukes building the machines,
-Reukes writing the code,
-Repukes hiding the code (proprietary?)
-Repukes counting the votes,
-Diebold's O'Dell declaring his intent to win Ohio for Bush,
-Ohio's SOS Blackwell disenfranchising voters based on paper-weight
-Blackwell defying Conyers in every request.
-Jeb Bush controlling the touchscreens and optiscams in FL.

- etc etc etc

So YOUR assumption that the votes were right and the exit polls were wrong is quite an innocent one, to say the least.

[insane_cratic_gal]

7. Actually TIA

Is not the only ones who came out and said Kerry had a certain win.

The MSM did too. They were reading the exit polls. They were just as confused as we were.

I didn't hear it off a blog. I didn't hear it off the internet I never logged on that night. I heard it on CNN, ABC, CBS, Even fox was admitting defeat. I heard it as early as 9 am.. and as late as 6 PM. Polls don't just turn around on their ear all of a sudden. It doesn't happen. So explain to me in just the last 2 hours there was enough fundi-bush-addicts to swing the election to **?.


In examination of the exit polls others have drawn the same conclusions. Something stinks, I doubt it belongs to the dog.

There are times in this country, I feel like I am stuck inside a burning building. Someone is yelling "fire fire". Most of us refuse to hear it, because we just can't comprehend it.

Thanks TIA, keep educating dear. We are with ya.

[marcologico]

12. non scientific anecdote

I remember being in my car around 3:30 (6:30 NY time) and all day Kerry had been solidly ahead, but with a gazillion irregularities reported from all over everywhere. Three hours later Bush was ahead, and even the chirpy robots on NPR were shocked. They kept running out of things to say. It was weird.

[insane_cratic_gal]

14. Yes they sure did

It was sort of a deer caught in the headlights look on CNN.

Alot of stumbling, shifting, you could see people gathering around (what I assumed was the polls when they cut to them) Frowning! They did have one guy on the polls but seemed to not use them. Because that information was disagreeing.

What about FL? did Gore win the exit polls in 2000?

[bobbieinok]

60. I think so.... exit polls agreed with the vote in all states EXCEPT FL

[IStriker]

15. Who are you to know that Kerry was ahead? Nobody else had...

access to the exit polls. I find that a little hard to believe that you are somebody "in the know" but you are unaware that the bulk of voting occurs first thing in the am (before work) and after 5 pm (after work.) The LAST 3 or 4 hrs. is what they are waiting to see before making any PREDICTIONS about how the election will go. Until the votes are COUNTED all you have are PREDICTIONS, trends, etc. To the best of my knowledge, NPR is not part of any consortium conducting exit polling, so if that's where you got your info, you were listening to rumors and wishful thinking.

[TruthIsAll]

18. Yoy mean NEP. You are ignoring the WP/NEP SITE I referred to. Why?

Those were the results as of 12:23 AM on Nov. 3.
Everyone had voted by then.

I sense desperate avoidance, profound denial or a complete lack of rudimentary analysis on your part.

[IStriker]

24. If 100% of all voters had voted for Kerry, he would most definitely be...

inaugurated on 1/20. Since my assumption is incorrect and 100% of all voters did not vote for Kerry, there is a different outcome. Sorry to inject a reality check into your "assumptions."

[TruthIsAll]

54. What exactly do you mean by that statememt? "If 100% of all voters

had voted for Kerry.."

Could you translate that sentence into something coherent?

[mycatforpresident]

67. Math check...

Uhhh, I don't think Bush is being crowned on the 20th because he had 100% of the votes. Last I knew, a candidate just needed the majority of votes.

AND-it wouldn't have mattered if Kerry did get 100% of the votes. BushCo would have found a way to rip them off.

[euler]

69. The exit poll has not been released yet.

At least 1 preliminary exit poll was released - the WP one you reference. It takes 3 or more months to refine the final release.

You still haven't done that basic exit poll research I've been imploring you to do.

[TruthIsAll]

85. It takes 3 or more months to "refine" the final release?

How long does it take to post the raw data?

We already have the data, categorized for our analysis.
I have analyzed and confirmed the results across all
characteristics.

Its 13,047 respondents.
Randomly selected.
MOE is 1.0%

Kerry wins every which way from Sunday.

He only lost in the South.

He won the women's vote with 54%.
The big difference this time.
Millions of new voters, mostly young and female, came to the polls.

You want to know why?

Roe V. Wade, mostly.
Gay rights, also.
Iraq, thats another one.
Health care.
Jobs.

and on and on..

Come on, Euler. You're a smart guy.

Bite the bullet. Why lie to yourself.
In your heart you know Kerry won.

[Joe Chi Minh]

82. Weird. Even Larry King

and his small group in the CNN studio seemed lost for words. Almost funereal - which, of course, is surreally ironical.

[IStriker]

19. I was watching TV and never heard anybody say Kerry was ahead...

All I saw were LONG faces and people questioning what the exit poll trends told them - that Alabama was too close to call even 2 hrs. after the polls closed for instance.

I did not hear one person in govt. who spoke on challenging the election or Kerry or his representatives say that he won but the election was stolen. That seems to be the personal property of wishful thinkers on this website.

[marcologico]

22. They were reporting exit polls conducted by the campaigns as I recall n/t

[Spiffarino]

38. I was working for the Kerry campaign locally

We got DNC exit poll results all day long until 8:00pm, which was right after the polls closed. All signs were pointing to a VERY close race in North Carolina with Bush ahead by less than 5%.

National exit polls were coming in sporadically, but all indicators were that Kerry was ahead (2% or better) nationwide. This was well into the evening. The Western time zones were still voting, but the EST zones were all done. Kerry was ahead at or near the MOE.

Argue if you want to that they were partisan, but there's no way the parties want to be wrong in their exit polling. It's how they decide where to focus their last-ditch GOTV efforts. I was getting sent all over the damn county to pull voters out of their houses to the polls because exit polls in certain precincts indicated we had to.

The statewide exit polls showed Bowles and Burr neck-and-neck, with Burr coming on stronger in the evening hours. Our local Congressional candidate was behind, too, the percentages remaining fairly constant.

But hey, you seem to know more than the rest of us. Why don't you share your own insights? Other posters who disagree are at least using evidence. Or are you just here to pooh-pooh? :eyes:

[TruthIsAll]

23. My assumption is based on historical FACT. All posters agree.

The majority of undecided voters break for the challenger.
That is exactly what occurred.
It was NO SURPRISE.
It was EXPECTED.

The NEP results, when compared to the final 18 national polls, proved that the "assumption" that undecideds swing to the challenger, was correct. Once again.

In fact, I used the undecided allocation as a clear assumption for my Election Model projections. I provide a range of allocation assumptions, from 50% up.

Take your pick. I'll stay in the middle 75%. But it could have been 60%. In any case, Kerry won.

Kerry was expected to win a majority of the undecided. He did just that.

Get over it.

[Igel]

37. California Poll (exit poll) doesn't. n/t

[Spiffarino]

40. Doesn't what?

Doesn't suggest that undecideds broke for Kerry? :shrug:

[Igel]

41. I've seen posts that said the California Poll (aka Times Poll)

showed Bush-Kerry 51-48% or thereabouts. It's frequently left uncited here because the state-level results aren't very meaningful (i.e., it says nothing useful about Ohio). I have no idea whether there were "early releases" of data or not, or whether the raw data (which would, of course, be fairly useless) is available anywhere.

This particular poll has been useful in keeping people from saying stupid things based on Mitofsky's early projections for a few California races in the past.

On search, try http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/timespoll/ (and click on the national exit poll results; it's a pdf document). It conveniently has a MOE of 3%, which renders its results somewhat dubious.

[Spiffarino]

46. 3% MOE?

Pretty high, I think. There's nothing to indicated that the numbers were "corrected" later on. I'm not sure what to make of it, although the California EP results were close to actual.

[euler]

70. "All posters agree"

Aha, the root cause of your malady. What about experts ? Do they agree ?

If all you want to do with your posts is convince other people who post in this forum that you are right, then you will apparently succeed . If you are trying to convince others in the outside world, you fail miserably.

Shouldn't you be trying to convince the outside real world that fraud occurred ? If so you've chosen the wrong tactic.

[euler]

71. The undecideds did not break for Kerry.

Wouldn't it be better to wait for the relase of the exit poll ?

[riverwalker]

5. meanwhile, Carter is monitoring Palestinian elections

for fraud. :eyes:

[PatsFan2004]

8. Assumptions and more assumptions - ASSUME

That was a big problem with the voter projections. It turned out that the war issue moved more undecided voters to stay with the incumbent than not according to actual undecided voter surveys.

[insane_cratic_gal]

9. that's an assumption as well n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. Niether of which would stand up in court

[liam97]

10. TIA, so what do we do?

This is so unacceptable

[IStriker]

20. It may be unacceptable, but it is reality.

[marcologico]

25. enjoy your visit

:hi:

[IStriker]

32. I am enjoying DU; I just do not share your delusions.

[Joe Chi Minh]

42. You will, buddy... you will...

[IStriker]

44. Nope. Time for you to get a reality check or not...

Stay delusional if you like. You've got lots of company on DU.

[Joe Chi Minh]

51. Strumming lips...

Time will tell, IStriker. And it's not on your side. Mr Reality Check! That's the best one I've heard, since I've been on this board.

No offence intended, but is your real name "Streicher"? It might go a little way to explaining that bizarre fantasy about the Russians allowing Germany, San Marino, for that matter, allowing Germany, to take over the rest of Western Europe.

[IStriker]

53. Is this another conspiracy theory?

My name is not "Streicher" and I have no idea what European "bizarre fantasy" you are referring to, nor do I have any interest in learning. I'm just not big on conspiracies as evidently you are.

[nodictators]

11. Did all of the undecided poll respondents actually vote???

That is the unnoted assumption that underlies this "analysis."

Wouldn't undecided poll respondents be a lot less likely to vote than those who had decided? Yet, here it is assumed that the undecided would have a 100% turnout.

Also, I thought that Zogby had Kerry winning. Herein, the poll results have Zogby showing Bush ahead of Kerry by 1 percentage-point.

It's still too close to call from the posted data! This "analysis" shows nothing.

[KerryDownUnder]

13. But if you use other data from the same sources...

That is, using likely voter results instead of registered voters, you get a very different result. Also, I don't think you're taking into account that several of the pollsters weighted their polls based on an ultimately flawed percentage of Democratic versus Republican vote (if you believe the exit polls that show party ID even instead of favoring Democrats by 4 points).

For instance, if you use likely voters the results are much different: Gallup had Bush up +2, not Kerry +2. Fox had it Kerry +2, not +3. Tipp had it Bush +2, not +1. ABC had it Bush +1, not Kerry +1. ARG was even, not Kerry +1. Pew was Bush +3 (they actually had it Bush 51, Kerry 48), not Kerry +1. Newsweek was Bush +6, not Bush +3. Harris had Bush +4 in one version of their polling while you have Kerry +1.

Not saying anything about your analysis is wrong (although I would also factor in the fact that some of those undecideds didn't vote), but just pointing out that if you use the likely voter results from the same pollsters released at the same time you'll get different results (using the presumption that 50% of the undecideds from these polls ultimately didn't vote and 67% of those who did voted for Kerry):

Bush: 50.02
Kerry: 48.87
Nader/Other: 1.11

That's not 51% to 48%, but it shows that the results DO change when you use other data from the same source.

[TruthIsAll]

16. And some of those who were not undecided didn't vote. So what?

Pollsters mostly agree that in this election, RV's were most critical, due to unprecedented millions of new voters.

THE AVERAGES REFLECT ALL 18 MAJOR POLLSTERS, AND SOME DID NOT SPECIFY RV OR LV.

This is just ONE confirmation (of the NEP)
Pre-election state polls ALSO confirmed the STATE EXIT POLLS.

There is NO way around the obvious.
No matter how much one tries to SPIN.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

WHERE IS THE RAW DATA?

[KerryDownUnder]

29. All I'm saying

is that if you use the likely voter data that many of these pollsters provided at the same time that they provided their RV results you reach a very different conclusion. You seem to be acknowledging that using polls to deduce a winner is flawed in the title of your response.

[TruthIsAll]

83. I do not acknowledge that at all.

I am saying that in this election, with so many new voters, owners of cell-phones, that LV iss not as accurate as RV.

Do you disagree?

The fact is that there were at least 17 million NEW voters, who were RV's, not LV's.

Should they not have been accounted for in the polling?

In LV polls, they weren't.

[Imajika]

21. More nonsense...

Without even taking more than a moment to look at your latest junk number crunching "research", I can already see serious problems.

"Taking an average of the final 18 national RV polls
(registered voters) and assuming that Kerry would get 67-75%
of the undecided/other vote (as was fully expected, since
undecideds have historically voted for the challenger), he
was projected to win"

Why not use likely voters? Likely voter poll results have always been considered more reliable than using registered voters? From what I recall seeing just prior to the election, a combined average of likely voter polls showed Bush and Kerry either in a deadheat or with Bush ahead slightly.

You can't, with any certainty, assume that Kerry would get 67-75% of th undecided vote. You can try to build a model with those figures, but if the results don't match your predictions you'd have to be willing to go back and determine whether that assumption was just wrong. Many pollsters do not necessarily agree that undecideds would break for the challenger in a Presidential contest at the rate your suggesting.

Your problem is that your "work" is completely unobjective and it renders all of the results worthless. You can post this blather till the cows come home but, outside of Internet message forums where preaching to the choir is the norm, no one is ever going to take any of it seriously.

Imajika

[TruthIsAll]

26. Why not likely voters? Some of these WERE LV's (Zogby)

But most experts agreed that this time, due to the large number of NEW voters, that Registered Voters were a better indicator.

And that is WHY the pollsters used it.

Some used LV only.
Most used a mix of RV and LV.
Some used RV only.

I will leave it to you to further analyze the rationale for using RV.

Just go to the polling blogger web sites.

Will you actually do some research?

AS I HAVE ASKED YOU MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS:

WHERE IS YOUR ANALYSIS?
CALLING MY POST NONSENSE IS NOT ANALYSIS.
WE ARE PATIENTLY WAITING FOR YOURS.

[KerryDownUnder]

31. Why not use likely voters?

It's pretty obvious that he didn't use RVs because it doesn't lead to the results that he wanted. That's just one of the problems with statistical manipulation.

[TruthIsAll]

48. MILLIONS OF NEWLY REGISTERED VOTERS WERE RV'S, NOT LV'S.

This was entirely valid. Many experts preferred RV's. In this election, there was a vast number of NEWLY REGISTERED WHO DID NOT QUALIFY AS LIKELY VOTERS. That's why they used RV'S.

Sounds reasoanble to me.
AND IT WAS ULTIMATELY PROVEN TO BE CORRECT.

[euler]

72. Reality check.

TIA is doing more harm than good and it's getting worse, not better. Many people want to know why MSM does not take us seriously. Now you know.

Is TIA the Pied Piper ? Are we all rats ?

Start thinking for yourself.

The real world has something called peer review. It's a really good idea, but unfortunately, we don't have that here yet. TIA is our peer, why not review his work? He can't object to this, can he? Start thinking for yourself, expecially on IMPORTANT topics that interest you. Topics don't get an more important than this. The interent is awash with experts explainig this exit poll. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM WOULD ENDORSE TIA (of the ones I've seen), yet we blindly endorse him ourselves.

Even liberal publications have started to do some real reporting on exit polls. See Alternet.org, for example.

http://www.alternet.org/story/20934

See the section that begins:


Charge: Exit poll results were more accurate than actual ballots
Finding: False
Explanation of Problem: Imperfect nature of polls


GASP: Exit polls aren't accurate.

[RevCheesehead]

28. TIA, have you sent this to Mitofsky?

I'd include a really cheery letter, saying "I simply cannot believe that your polling could be so completely wrong. Here is my analysis, which shows that you got it exactly RIGHT."

One other thing some of the above posters aren't getting:
It is an assumption that Bush won the election.

I love Underpants' comment: Ukraine run, but you can't hide.

[TruthIsAll]

30. No, he has enough to worry about. Freeman and Baiman are doing it

much better than I.

I fully expect that Freeman, Baiman et al will see this post.
And when they do, they just might update their analysis to include it.

I'll stick to DU.

[RevCheesehead]

33. You sweet-talker!

Has anyone told you lately how much we love you?

:loveya:

[fooj]

34. May I second that, RevCheesehead?

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[euler]

74. "I'll stick to DU"

Good idea.

[bleever]

35. Keep it up, TIA. Galileo was excommunicated, but the earth STILL

revolved around the sun.

:thumbsup:

[Spiffarino]

36. One look and I knew it was you, TIA

I'm glad you're on our side. If you were a Repub, we'd be screwed.

:yourock:

[liam97]

39. Next time, we shd make the candidate sign

a "pre-electoral", to fight fraud and irregularities so that if they don't they face a class action suit

[pixelthief]

43. kick

You're an absolute machine, bro.

Awesome-O

[KatieB]

45. TIA - have you sent this to Arnheim?

Or to [e-mail] (who is still accepting evidence).

[TruthIsAll]

47. No, I'm too lazy. You can send it. n/t

.

[texpatriot2004]

52. Kick it for TruthIsAll, a mighty good man

[aquart]

55. That's all?

I'm incredibly disappointed.

[TruthIsAll]

57. Maybe you would like to look at a picture.

[aquart]

61. I just don't understand 49% for Bush.

It stuns me that that many actually voted for him. It's like putting out milk and cookies for the Angel of Death.

[hilster]

58. I have to say

that I love how those that challenge the legitimacy of the election via the exit polls (mathematicians, scientists, lawyers, etc..) are using mathematics and statistics to get to the root of the problem instead of blindly believing the numbers we are given.

[tritsofme]

59. IN FINAL 50 POLLS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE ELECTION, KERRY ONLY LED IN 6

Poll Date Bush/
Cheney Kerry/
Edwards Spread
RCP Average 10/27 - 11/1 48.9% 46.9% Bush +2.0
GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/31 - 11/1 50% 46% Bush +4
Rasmussen (3,000 LV) 10/30 - 11/1 50.2% 48.5% Bush +1.7
TIPP (936 LV) 10/30 - 11/1 46.9% 44.3% Bush +2.6
FOX News (1200 LV) 10/30 - 10/31 46% 48% Kerry +2
CNN/USAT/Gallup (1573 LV) 10/29 - 10/31 49% 47% Bush +2
CBS/NY Times (643 LV) 10/28 - 10/30 50% 47% Bush +3
ARG (1258 LV) 10/28 - 10/30 48% 49% Kerry +1
Newsweek (882 LV) 10/27 - 10/29 51% 45% Bush +6
Battleground (1000 LV) 10/25 - 10/28 51% 46% Bush +5
CNN/USAT/Gallup (1195 LV) 10/22 - 10/24 52% 46% Bush +6
Los Angeles Times (881 LV) 10/21 - 10/24 49% 48% Bush +1
Newsweek (880 LV) 10/21 - 10/22 48% 47% Bush +1
Time (803 LV) 10/19 - 10/21 52% 47% Bush +5
GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/18 - 10/21 49% 45% Bush +4
Rasmussen (3,000 LV) 10/17 - 10/19 48% 47% Bush +1
FOX News (1000 LV) 10/17 - 10/18 48% 43% Bush +5
CBS News (678 LV) 10/14 - 10/17 47% 46% Bush +1
CNN/USAT/Gallup (788 LV) 10/14 - 10/16 52% 44% Bush +8
Time (865 LV w/leaners) 10/14 - 10/15 48% 48% TIE
Newsweek (LV) 10/14 - 10/15 50% 45% Bush +5
GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/11 - 10/14 49% 46% Bush +3
CBS News (760 LV) 10/9 - 10/11 47% 46% Bush +1
ICR (763 LV) 10/9 - 10/11 49% 46% Bush +3
CNN/USAT/Gallup (793 LV) 10/9 - 10/10 48% 50% Kerry +2
Rasmussen (3,000 LV) 10/7 - 10/9 50% 46% Bush +4
Time (886 LV w/leaners) 10/6 - 10/7 47% 46% Bush +1
GW/Battleground (1250 LV) 10/3 - 10/7 49% 46% Bush +3
Fox News (1000 LV) 10/3 - 10/4 48% 45% Bush +3
ICR (762 LV)** 10/1 - 10/5 51% 46% Bush +5
ARG (800 LV) 10/2 - 10/4 46% 47% Kerry +1
CBS/NYT (561 LV) 10/1 - 10/3 48% 47% Bush +1
Zogby (1036 LV) 10/1 - 10/3 46% 45% Bush +1
CNN/USAT/Gallup (772 LV) 10/1 - 10/3 49% 49% TIE
Newsweek (1013 RV) 9/30 - 10/2 46% 49% Kerry +3
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/27 - 9/30 51% 44% Bush +7
LA Times (1100 LV) 9/25 - 9/28 51% 46% Bush +5
CNN/USAT/Gallup (758 LV) 9/24 - 9/26 52% 44% Bush +8
IBD/TIPP (649 LV) 9/22 - 9/27 45% 46% Kerry +1
Time (877 LV) 9/21 - 9/23 49% 43% Bush +6
FOX News (1000 LV) 9/21 - 9/22 45% 43% Bush +2
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/20 - 9/23 50% 45% Bush +5
CBS News (931 LV) 9/20 - 9/22 50% 41% Bush +9
Zogby (1066 LV) 9/17 - 9/19 47% 44% Bush +3
IBD/TIPP (650 LV) 9/14 - 9/18 46% 43% Bush +3
CNN/USAT/Gallup (767 LV) 9/13 - 9/15 55% 42% Bush +13
CBS News (1088 RV) 9/12 - 9/16 50% 42% Bush +8
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/12 - 9/15 49% 45% Bush +4
IBD/TIPP (674 LV) 9/7 - 9/12 47% 47% TIE
Newsweek (1003 RV) 9/9 - 9/10 50% 45% Bush +5
Zogby (1018 LV) 9/8 - 9/9 47% 45% Bush +2

INCLUDES ALL POLLS, NOT JUST THE ONES YOU CHERRYPICK.

[TruthIsAll]

62. 17 MILLION NEW VOTERS WERE RV'S, NOT LV'S. 60% OF THEM VOTED FOR KERRY.

Any reputable pollster will tell you that in this election, RV's were a more accurate gauge of the vote.

17% of the voters were NEW VOTERS who would not have been polled as LV's, SINCE TO QUALIFY AS AN LV, ONE HAD TO HAVE VOTED LAST TIME.

AND MANY RV'S WERE CELL-PHONE USERS.

Kerry won over 60% of New voters (RV's).

Simple arithmetic puts the lie to your post.

Once again, you're logic is wanting.

[spooked911]

68. How do you know what percent of new voters Kerry won?

The exit polls-- which may have been wrong?

[tritsofme]

81. Voting in the last election is not the only criteria for being considered

a "likely voter" for most polling outfits.

Gallup for example would use 8 questions and give you a score based on those questions, and for the likely voter category would include the top 60% from that sample. One could easily be considered a likely voter when a pollster was anticipating high turnout regardless of whether they voted in 2000 or not.

It is also clear that not all registered voters actually went to the polls, but we do know that almost every single voter considered to be a "likely voter" did.

[TruthIsAll]

63. YOU ARE CHERRY-PICKING. I ONLY SEE 3 RV POLLS.

I SHOW 18 POLLS, SOME OF THEM ARE LV'S WHICH DID NOT HAVE AN RV POLL.
AND KERRY WAS SLIGHTLY AHEAD IN THE AVERAGES.

AND KERRY WAS LEADING IN 11 OF THE 18 POLLS, SO YOUR STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

AND THE NINE (9)INDEPENDENT POLLSTERS OF THE FULL GROUP OF 18, KERRY'S AVERAGE LEAD WAS 1%.

THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
IT AGREES WITH TTHE NATIONAL EXIT POLL.

I SUPPOSE YOUR RETORT WILL BE THAT THE UNDECIDED WENT FOR BUSH.
RIGHT.

YOU ARE MISLEADING DUERS.
I WON'T LET YOU GET AWAY WITH IT.

YOU CAN TALLY THEM UP FOR YOURSELF RIGHT HERE.

[ROH]

65. Just for completeness...

>>I SHOW 18 POLLS, SOME OF THEM ARE LV'S WHICH DID NOT HAVE AN RV POLL.

Of these 18 polls, can you list which were LVs?

Also which polls are the nine independents?

Interesting analysis.

[TruthIsAll]

76. Independent Pollsters Group

Independent Poll Group
ARG Harris Zogby Economist Marist
DemCorp Pew IBD/TIPP ICR

I don't recall the actual RV/LV Split.
Need to find the sites.
But I'm pretty sure of these:
Zogby: LV
Pew: LV,RV
ARG: LV,RV

9 Group Average
Kerry 47.88%
Bush 46.89%

[ROH]

86. Thanks

At times a few of the election polls seemed to be way out compared with the majority of the polls; for example, shortly after the RNC in New York.

Has anyone here done a study on notable election poll outliers?

[ROH]

87. For anyone interested...

this website provides some comparative information:
http://tis.goringe.net/pop/pollofpolls.html

[GOPBasher]

64. Thanks again, TIA. I love your analyses. I use them to prove

election fraud to the unbelievers I know.

[Kota]

66. Thank you TIA.

I appreciate your hard work and effort and look forward to your posts.

[euler]

73. Reality check.

TIA is doing more harm than good and it's getting worse, not better. Many people want to know why MSM does not take us seriously. Now you know.

Is TIA the Pied Piper ? Are we all rats ?

Start thinking for yourself.

The real world has something called peer review. It's a really good idea, but unfortunately, we don't have that here yet. TIA is our peer, why not review his work? He can't object to this, can he? Start thinking for yourself, expecially on IMPORTANT topics that interest you. Topics don't get an more important than this. The interent is awash with experts explainig this exit poll. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM WOULD ENDORSE TIA (of the ones I've seen), yet we blindly endorse him ourselves.

Even liberal publications have started to do some real reporting on exit polls. See Alternet.org, for example.

http://www.alternet.org/story/20934

See the section that begins:


Charge: Exit poll results were more accurate than actual ballots
Finding: False
Explanation of Problem: Imperfect nature of polls


GASP: Exit polls aren't accurate.

[ROH]

75. Have you read through Baiman?

http://freepress.org/images/departments/Dep_Baiman.pdf

[TruthIsAll]

77. Peer Review? Did you read Baiman? Have you read Freeman?

Peer Review?

I suppose you would also call Freeman and Baiman Pied-Pipers.
Have you actually READ their work?
You will find a very close correspondence to mine.
And I did the analysis before they did.

Imperfect Polls?

But you believe in Perfect voting machines.
Press Kerry. Up comes Bush.

And you believe in Perfect Vote counters.
Diebold, ES&S.

And you believe in Perfect Truthtellers.
Bush, Rove.

Have you read Mitofsky?
1% MOE
13047 randomly selected sample
Kerry 50.78%
Bush 48.22%

So much for your Peer Review.

[Darkhawk32]

78. TIA. Got a question for ya!

With 13k+ respondants to the exit poll, what is the confidence level of the Mitofsky poll? (not the MOE)

[TruthIsAll]

79. The confidence level is 95% for 2 std deviations from the mean.

The MOE is 1.0% and the confidence level is 95%.
This means that 95 times out of 100, the final tally will fall within 1% of the sample mean.

Since Kerry's sample mean was 50.78% (based on his share of the male/female split) the confidence level applied to the MOE means that 95 times out of 100, his actual tally would be in the range {49.78%-51.78%}.

Since Bush's sample mean was 48.22%, the confidence level applied to the MOE means that 95 times out of 100, his actual tally would fall in the range {47.22%-49.22}.

The odds are 547 million to one that Bush would get 51.23%, based on his sample mean of 48.22%.

That's SIX (6) standard deviations from his sample mean.

See the Baiman paper. He calculates trhe probability of the Kerry deviation.

[Darkhawk32]

80. I was thinking the same thing, that the confidence level had to be....

somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% and the odds that the quirky 5% would skew THAT FAR would be extremely remote at best. Thanks a bunch.

[googly]

84. We can use the $$$$ saved to feed the poor, retire some debt if

we declared the winner based on exit polls which have proven
to be accurate in the past. Why waste millions of dollars
counting votes when exit polls do the same job at a fraction
of the cost? Does this make sense to anyone??