Naysayers are just way too primitive

[RaulVB]

Exit polls are "no good", sure...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4090647.stm

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31590.htm

http://www.mitofskyinternational.com/company.htm

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_102204b.html

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/10/ec09c1da-882e-485f-97a2-7a5a9cfb2ee1.html

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=50631

http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040613170342.kltagxpa

Let's play a new game, naysayers, this is "tiring"!

[Shalom]

1. You've Got Lots of Good Sites, what's your main message ?

[RaulVB]

2. Naysayers lurking around today want to deny the validity of exit polling

Those links will make a bit more "difficult" for them.

[RevCheesehead]

3. ..and when it gets ugly again, I'll kick this thread again!

Thanks, Raul!

[RaulVB]

4. You welcome, Rev,

They are unbelievable, eh?

[jsw_81]

5. If your evidence is really so strong...

Then why do Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Tom Harkin, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, Bob Graham, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Joe Biden, and John Kerry (among others) say that Bush won? Are they *all* part of Bush's grand conspiracy?

[ginnyinWI]

6. I think what John Kerry said was

that they didn't have enough evidence to overturn the election. That's a whole lot different than saying "Bush won."

[jsw_81]

7. Statement by Sen. John Kerry on November 3, 2004:

"Earlier today, I spoke to President Bush, and I offered him and Laura our congratulations on their victory. We had a good conversation and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need – the desperate need – for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together..."

Full speech

[Vektor]

8. Sadly....

despite what we are finding out now, I am sure Kerry believed, for all practical purposes, that Bush HAD won on Nov. 3rd. It LOOKED like he had 120,000 extra votes. Kerry did what he thought was right.

[RaulVB]

12. As I said before, (is not against you), very skewed rationale...

"The cheat is so big it can't possibly be a cheat..."

They assumed that the other side would play by the rules.

Nonsense!

[Vektor]

13. I know...

...it's too bad. I think Kerry has been honorable. It's the Repukes who have butchered the system and spit in the face of democracy.

[RaulVB]

10. No. The status quo is good for those with power

Simple.

[myschkin]

14. answer

<Then why do Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Tom Harkin, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, Bob Graham, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Joe Biden, and John Kerry (among others) say that Bush won? Are they *all* part of Bush's grand conspiracy?>

Because they are not informed.

Could they ever ignore serious studies like that one from Freeman and Baiman (and Berkeley)?

They just got the Conyers Paper...

[euler]

17. Could they ever ignore serious studies ?

It's easy to ignore 'serious studies' when actual exit poll experts write more serious studies that say these studies are bunk.

[berniew1]

9. There's lots of documentation of vote machine fraud, dirty tricks, suppres

suppression of minorities and students, etc. Many hundreds of thousands were directly affected and everyone indirectly. But there are also lots of other things going on where flagrantly illegal and dumb actions are leading to results that are building to a crescendo. its just a matter of what will the the straw to bring down the house of cards. If people persevere and work together, good things will happen and justice will prevail(to some extent). Major breakthroughs are just around the corner.

[Wilms]

11. Help me finish this...

One one side we got:

Voter Suppression, Voter Intimidation, Exit Polls, Software "Glitches", Recount Irregularities, Blackwell's Actions, Moyer's Action's... what else?

Then we have:

Conyer's Work, Arnebeck's Suit, Challenged Electors, Congressional Testimony, Introduced Legislation, FBI (is in this somewhere I think)... what else?

And the Backdrop:

Oh, let's spare ourselves listing all the clouds gathering about the WH.

And another backdrop:

I can't get that old grainy B&W footage of Kerry in Vietnam out of my head. You know, the one where he's carrying his rifle.

There's something about his gait.

[RaulVB]

15. Naysayers are back at it (n/t)

[euler]

16. I have no idea what argument you are attempting to support

RaulVB, do you have any idea what you are trying to convey here? If so, let us in on it.

[RaulVB]

19. Good!

I'll "keep you posted"...

[euler]

24. I ask: Do you have any idea what you are trying to convey here?

....and you reply "'Good' keep you posted." There are 3 possibilities here:

1. You don't know what idea you are trying to convey by your original post.

2. You do know what idea you are trying to convey by your original post, but you think it best that no one else understand what it is.

3. "'Good' keep you posted" truly is the idea you are trying to convey by your original post.

Which is it ?

To make it easy for you, you can answer by simply typing a number 1,2 or 3 in the subject line.

[euler]

18. These links demonstrate that exit polls are conducted in Europe

Who doubted that ?

[RaulVB]

20. Ha, ha (n/t)

[euler]

22. Ha, ha (n/t)

Was my 'ha ha' response any more effective than your 'ha ha' response? I doubt it. This begs the question: Why do you say anyhthing at all?

[euler]

21. and .... the facts bounce off...

You could also post a link that demonstrates the difference between European Exit polls and US Exit Polls. Now that would be quite interesting. Oh. Wait, here's one.

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

It's interesting. European exit polls use true random samples of respondents, not random precincts as done here in the US. A direct result of this is that European exit polls can be used to verify the actual count, whereas US exit polls cannot. US polls are still accurate, but they are only accurate when used as they are designed to be used. Europe wants to verify elections with their exit poll so their poll is designed to give them that information. Our poll is designed to provide the MSM with demographic information for later analysis. Since MSM pays for it, that's what they get.

George Lakoff wrote in his book, don’t think of an elephant!

We believe that "if we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusions. But we know from cognitive science that people do not think like that. People think in frames....To be accepted, the truth must fit people’s frames. If the facts do not fit a frame, the frame stays and the facts bounce off."

We aren't immune to this phenomenon just because we're progressive.

Finally, it seems that discussion of exit polls will be moot soon anyway. When the progressive media (Alternet.org, Tompaine.com) begins criticizing the exit poll hysteria, you know it's time to retire.

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

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/election_2004_stolen_or_lost.php

[Karenca]

23. As soon as I saw your post

I knew exactly who was going to respond. :crazy:
For example, it's obvious when someone joins DU, and w/in just 2 weeks of joining, manages to post 320 NEGATIVE only remarks.
Why bother with the naysayers. I believe this forum should help us create ways that we are going to deal with and expose the crimes that tool place Nov. 2nd.
The naysayers are just trying to succeed at thwarting out attempts to expose these acts...they are tring to disrupt us.
The only thing they contribute to this forum is to take up space.

[euler]

25. That's exactly what this forum is for. Thanks.

"I believe this forum should help us create ways that we are going to deal with and expose the crimes that tool place Nov. 2nd."

[Karenca]

26. "That's exactly what this forum is for."

So then, if that's exactly what you infer you believe,
why expend all of your energy trying debunk the work in progress here?

[mgr]

30. Because the exit polling issue is a red herring

It would appear that advocates of the position that the raw Mitofski exit polls show that fraud occurred in the US Election of 2004 are irrational. Can you present a coherent statement as to what reasonable evidence you could entertain to abandon your position. If you cannot consider the possibility that your attachment to the issue is based more on emotion than rationality, then you have a problem. Emotional and irrational arguments bordering on stubborness are what will get us killed in the national media.

I have stated before, and I will state once again, sufficient evidence exists showing that TIA's analysis, as fruitful as it may have been to start, is in error and should be abandoned. That evidence exists in the hand count for Washington, it exists in the examples of the exit voting for the Ukrainian revote.

It is you, the fanatics that are hurting the cause.

Mike

[RaulVB]

31. Suggestion:

Abandon your position.

Fanatics like you are "hurting the cause..."

[Karenca]

32. I know what you mean

and I know WHY you try to dissuade us.

You put too much effort into this.
No one is taking your attacks seriously.

[TruthIsAll]

28. And just what do you think those crimes were, Euler?

And how are you helping to expose them?

[RaulVB]

27. "Collateral" kick (n/t)

[RaulVB]

29. "Side" kick (n/t)