Ok, this is really HUGE AND A CONFESSION BY CNN

[RaulVB]

Yes, a dupe, I know.

BUT THIS STATEMENT NEEDS TO BE BROADCASTED EVERYWHERE!

CNN's EXIT POLLS WORKED PERFECTLY

THEY FOUND MORE KERRY VOTERS BECAUSE THERE WERE MORE KERRY VOTERS.

Period.

Exit polls worked, Kerry won!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=292400&mesg_id=292400

- Edited with link to original tread now.

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. Link to original thread?

I'd love to learn more.

[Pam-Moby]

2. OMG yes-link please n/t

[Cha]

3. Me, too! What Der Blaue Engel

said!

[Carolab]

4. You are confusing the editorial statement with the article.

That's not what CNN said; it's what the poster said.

CNN is still lying.

[RaulVB]

6. Ok, thanks!

Still is the information posted by CNN.

The lecture would be:

"We don't know why we keep changing our story but the number of Kerry voters still is larger than the other guy's..."

[libertypirate]

5. I have been reading....

Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System

I have been noting some of my thoughts on it.

In it they try and offer up a plausible explanation of why the results leaned Kerry, they indicate an over sampling of Kerry voters. However I could argue that the report also confirms the view that the exit polls measured more Kerry voters because simply there were more Kerry voters. The report does not sight specific evidence that concludes only over sampling could have been the cause of the incorrect poll. As a matter of fact page 3 paragraph 2 states “most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate then Bush voters” this is not in certain terms telling what caused the skew.

So far they have equally supported the plausible explanation that Kerry got more votes.

[Old and In the Way]

7. The smoking gun on this is-

Exit polls were statistically fine in places where paper trails existed (both directions). But exit polls were consistantly out of the MOE in places with BBV (always in Bush's favor).

That's what they need to explain, IMHO.

[Igel]

17. I don't know if I answered you before (or somebody else):

I don't think they say "oversampling of Kerry voters". If they do, they're being sloppy. Any oversampling would just be random error, in all likelihood.

If you interview voters at a set interval, you don't ignore non-respondents in the count. If your interval's 10, you never, ever interview #12 or 23 or 48. Just 1, 11, 21, 31, 41 (or 10, 20, 30, 40). If #11 and 41 don't respond, you don't interview 12 and 42 (because that would skew your sample).

If you get greater participation by Kerry voters, it's not because you've selected more Kerry voters to interview, but Bush voters have less participation. They walk by the poll taker. It looks like they got greater than expected participation of Bush voters in some areas, or they overcompensated in trying to resolve who the non-respondents voted for.

I wish Mitofsky had said what his non-respondent rate was.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. The diffidence of the Republican voters

is simply conjecture. I once heard a man conjecture that the moon might actually be made of cheese.

[2Design]

8. what they said is repukes were less likely to talk to pollsters and

that a large number of kerry voters did

so instead of saying the vote machines were off - they are saying the exit polls were skewed -

lies and they lying liars who affirm the lies

lie and the other one swears to it - same game as grammer school

[zbdent]

9. Oh, those quiet little Bush voters. Never wanting to brag abou who

they voted for. Of course, you NEVER see a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker!

These people want to appear humble and not actually let anybody know that they are "good, conservative Christians", no!

/sarcasm

[MichaelTheCat]

10. Actually, that's true.

I saw ten Kerry stickers for every Bush sticker this fall. Shit, would you want to advertise your support for that cretin. I live near a military base, and I would be especially sensitive about pissing them off (contrary to popular perception, military families loathe bush for his casual disregard for the lives of soldiers in Iraq).

[Carolab]

12. Well, that's just in your area. The Kerry voters in mine were 10:1 against

There were MORE Kerry voters, that's the truth. Kerry voters weren't more likely to talk about who they were voting for, in my experiences with GOTV. Bush voters came right out and said it. No hiding. So I don't buy it. And, ANYWAY, this is PURE conjecture.

[sepia_steel]

14. Yep, that's your area.

Here in Orange County the bumper stickers are about 60/40 Kerry, if not 50/50 based on what I've seen. Lotsa rich, SUV-drivin' *-lovers.

[PennyMan]

11. If Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit poll than

were Bush voters then how did Bush end up with a bigger percentage if they didn't poll as many of them.

[IndyPriest]

13. Well, because they "corrected" the polls with the actual votes.

Their whole story is that the "actual" votes edit the polls, not the other way around.

[sepia_steel]

15. Yup.

Almost an admittance that Kerry did win. Almost!

[PennyMan]

16. But If They Corrected With The "Actual" Votes Then It Wouldn't

Be An Exit Poll

[Peace Patriot]

19. Exactly! Why did they pollute the Exit Poll results with the...

..."official results"?

The US was testing out a highly controversial new election system for the first time nationwide--with insecure, unreliable, hackable computers, and BushCons owning the source code as secret, proprietary information. Why DIDN'T they stick with a pure Exit Poll? The situation CRIED OUT FOR IT.

This is what Exit Polls are used for worldwide--to verify elections and check for fraud. Why did they hide the information from the American people that there were conflicting results (Exit Polls, Kerry won vs. "official results," Bush won)--as the people in the Ukraine knew? That's how the Ukrainians knew something was wrong.

Big malfeasance, in my opinion--by the pollster, by the TV networks and by all involved.

I haven't read the full Mitofsky report yet, but does he deal with the fact that it wasn't just a skew to Kerry, it was a skew to Kerry that was lopsided in the battle ground states that Bush needed to win? If it were an innocent skew--a simple error--it would have skewed everywhere to somewhat the same degree. Not this poll. Very out of whack--in fact, that's the main point of much of the expert analysis, that the odds against this kind of skew are astronomical.

And most of them say this outright in their conclusions: It CANNOT BE random or innocent error.

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

20. Please God, can we see the raw data . . .

Forgive me if i'm stating the obvious or just somehow being stupid, but I sure wish we could drag the raw data out of them.

How the hell can someone (Mit - off -sky or whatever his name is) write a REPORT that doesn't present the data upon which it is supposidly based. Seems like nonsense to me. Are readers just supposed to take his word for it?

I greatly value the thinking and work here, but it angers me greatly you all are without the basic data. (I suppose this work is steps toward the end of dragging it out of them eventually. I hope. Under oath and penalty of perjury.)

Arrrrgggggggh!

(Thank you, people. It's THEM that piss me off. Good work.)