Zogby has a partial National Post Election Poll -- $27-$47

[Laura PourMeADrink]

caveat-I think if Zogby had found results that Kerry really won -- he probably would have leaked this or made it free??



http://zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=215

snip

Mindset America in the Aftermath of Election 2004
How Bush Won
Zogby International' s In-Depth Post-Election Analysis
Post-election interviews of over 500 voters in each of 17 Battleground States.
PLUS: 12 other U.S. states critical to the Election '04 outcome, and nationwide interviews.

We ask Americans the Big Questions:
Who did you vote for?
Why?
What's the impact on America' s future?

PLUS: In-depth analysis by John Zogby and a team of political experts, including Catholic University of America' s Dr. John K. White.


Package 1:
Package 2:

Accurate numbers, on-target analysis and comprehensive demographic information on post-election poll numbers.


Was $34.99
Now $27.99*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate numbers, on-target analysis and comprehensive demographic information on post-election poll numbers with Crosstabs.

Was $59.99
Now $47.99*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[roenyc]

1. i participated in this poll and have a PDF

here is the web page - http://www.zogby.com/Post-Election-Report.pdf

it should be available for you to read from this link. its 26 pages and was sent due to my participation.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Thanks. I guess this was misleading. Zogby advertises it by

saying "who did you vote for". Implying that he was "replaying" the election. But he starts with the premise that B** 51%. And I just skimmed, but I didn't see where he ever brought it back to say, "hey wait a minute, this doesn't add up, B** couldn't have won". Maybe, like others have said, a pollster would be a laughing stock if they tried to "replay" an election.

[davidgmills]

28. That was worthless

What the hell of importance did he poll?

[NationalEnquirer]

3. I asked before, whats up with Zogby?

Its obvious he was pretty set agains B*, and he is one of the best pollsters, why doesn't he say anything about the potential fraud?

[qwghlmian]

4. Because he doesn't believe there was

enough fraud to swing the election?

Why this automatic assumption that if someone doesn't say there was fraud they are lying or were "bought"? He just could honestly NOT think that way, could he?

[NationalEnquirer]

5. I guess he probably just doesn't know for sure.

Either way, it was probably so close that you couldn't say with any degree of certainty that there was fraud.
I am not 100% myself either, but I figure Zogby would know.
Hmmm, makes ya think I guess.

[sabra]

7. A Zogby Spokesperson was at the Conyers Hearing

Shawnta Walcott (Communications Director, Zogby International), was at the hearing, and noted that something isn't right and needs to be investigated further...

[qwghlmian]

8. And so say quite a few people -

but Zogby is very careful not to say the "f" word - ever.

[sabra]

9. But they do believe that things don't make sense...

whether they attribute it to fraud or not in public...

[qwghlmian]

10. Lots of things don't make sense to me....

which don't mean there was fraud. Like for example I don't understand why people in northern Florida counties have a need to register as Democrats but consistently vote Republican. Doesn't make sense to me. But does happen.

[sabra]

11. That's a whole different topic

but having a company such as Zogby calling Kerry overwhelmingly winning @ 5:00 PM on 11/2 (http://www.exitpollz.org/zogby_predictions.html), that doesn't make sense.

And Zogby knows it!

[qwghlmian]

13. Actually, if you look at that Zogby call,

it was not "overwhelmingly Kerry". In fact, I would say Zogby jumped the gun and made some very sloppy decisions, maybe that is why he is all over the map now about this.

His call did not take into account his own numbers. For example, he states that Florida is .1% (!!) positive to Kerry - and instead of calling it "too close to call" he calls it for Kerry. Based on .1%? I don't think so. Same with Ohio. He says that Ohio is "Bush 2%" - yet he calls it for Kerry. That's just Zogby gambling on being right - and he lost the gamble.

[sabra]

14. 311 electoral ain't bad...

So essentially you are saying that Zogby was willing to gamble his credibility, and call states such as OH, FL, NM, IA for Kerry? What kind of information did he have that he was willing to gamble on those four states, and come up being so wrong?

Zogby reps, have agreed that something isn't right, but you are correct they aren't saying what/why. And it's with this ambiguity, that speculation occurs. However in my opinion, the Zogby call, and the exit polls, can't be ignored nor dismissed....

[qwghlmian]

15. Again - look at his call

he SAYS that Bush is leading in Ohio by 2%, yet he calls it for Kerry. I would call that a gamble on Zogby's part - wouldn't you?

[sabra]

16. What about IA5%, and NM 3% for Kerry?

Again, what led to those calls? In regards to the OH call, I agree that 2% for bush, and calling Kerry seems is peculiar, the question is why did he then? What info did he have?

[skids]

19. That's fairly common...

Before the election, you still have survey respondants who are "undecided". Zogby was making an educated guess as to how that group would break.

[Yupster]

18. Zogby lost some of his credibility

when he said the election was Kerry's to win way back in May.

That's something a non-partisan pollster should never say. Once you make a prediction like that the other side is going to see your work as trying to make your prediction come true.

That was a stupid thing for him to say.

[KaliTracy]

12. what about primaries -- do they Vote the same then? are they just a

bunch of Republicans trying to skew the numbers? Has anyone done a countywide canvass of areas that had strong "DixieCrat" vote patterns? After looking closely at these articles, does anyone think that it would be worthwhile to investigate further? Or does the "DixieCrat theory stand on its own two feet?

From: The Modern Indpendent
Someone Must Investigate and Explain These Anomalies” With Florida E-Voting That Gave Between 130,000 and 250,000 Extra Votes To President Bush

Problem Only In Largely Democratic E-Voting Counties, “99.9 Percent” Certain Error Of E-Vote Tally Responsible

by Betsy R. Vasquez
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i22berkeley.htm

From Missouri Independent
Does Not Compute
http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=4508
<SNIP>
"Florida Fiasco II
"Kathy Dopp’s eye-opening examination of Florida’s county-by-county record of votes cast and registration by party affiliation (http://ustogether.org/Florida_ Election.htm) suggests systematic and widespread election anomalies in 47 of the state’s 67 counties. The apparent discrepancies occurred in counties where optically screened paper ballots were fed into a central tabulator PC, which is highly vulnerable to hacking. In these optical-scan counties, had GOP registrants voted Republican, Democratic registrants gone for Kerry and everyone registered showed up to vote, Bush would have received 1,337,242 votes. Instead, his reported vote total there was 1,950,213! That discrepancy (612,971) is nearly double Bush’s winning margin in the state (380,952).

"Colin Shea, writing on Freezer Box.com, double-checked Dopp’s figures and confirmed that optical-scan counties gave Bush 16 percent more votes than he might have expected. “This 16 percent would not be strange if it were spread across counties more or less evenly,” Shea explains, but it is not. In 11 different counties, “actual” Bush tallies were 50 to 100 percent higher than expected. In one county, where 88 percent of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two-thirds of the vote—three times more than predicted by statistical models. "

<snip>
***

From ResidentBush.com

"Why did Florida voters with one type of machine vote one way, and voters with a different machine vote another?

"In Florida, the figures show that, in counties with one type of voting machine, voters with no Democrat or Republican party affiliation appeared to split their votes roughly 50/50 between Bush and Kerry, which was to be expected; yet in counties with another type of voting machine, unaffiliated voters seemed to vote nearly 100% for Bush!

"Click HERE for a table that shows, county by county, how many registered Republicans there were (the vast majority of whom, polls and common sense tell us, would vote for Bush), how many registered Democrats there were (likewise for Kerry), and what percentage of registered voters turned out to vote (we can reasonably assume a roughly equivalent percentage of each party's base came out to vote). From those figures, they arrive at an "expected" minimum vote for each candidate. However, since many more people vote besides those who are registered Democrats or Republicans (i.e. Independents, unaffiliated, or members of some other party), the actual vote for each candidate is naturally going to be higher than the "expected" figure which is a projection based only on registered Democrats and Republicans. The table also then shows the actual vote, as of 98.6% of the vote tallied."

<snip>

[qwghlmian]

17. It has been shown that the results in those

"Dixiecrat" counties did not differ drastically in 2004 from the 2000 election - that is, both in 2004 and in 2000 lots and lots of "registered Democrats" in those counties voted for the Republican presidential candidates. Keeping in mind that there was a meticulous hand-recount of all of Florida in 2001 by the MSM consortium that did not show any vote-counting fraud in the 2000 elections, it is easy to conclude that the results in 2004 are not due to any vote-counting fraud, but are real.

[Yupster]

20. Not knowing about those specific counties, but

where I live (Texas) there is a similar thing that goes on, or had until the last decade.

All the local officials were Democratic Party members, so if you wanted to vote for sheriff, or county treasurer, you had to be a registered Democrat, because the race was in the Democratic primary.

These local officials were more conservative than northern Republicans (I am from New York originally), but they stayed as Democrats because everyone was so the voters stayed as Democrats so they could have a say.

Starting with Reagan and again around 1994, many of these office-holders have switched parties, and the voters have switched too, so there is not too much of this going on in Texas anymore. I'm assuming the same thing in those Florida counties, but may be wrong.

[skids]

21. It's easy to understand, yes.

It simply has to do with the difference between local politics and federal politics. "Dixiecrats" are nothing new.

And none of the statistical studies that came out early after the election were complaining about this. What they were complaining about was the variation due to technology, *compared* to other counties and to 2000 figures, not the presence of Dixiecrats.

Unfortunately the general inability of people to understand this distinction caused the technology question to get conveniently swept under the rug as soon as some right wingers screamed "dixiecrat" over and over until people thought that they had rebutted the studies, which they hadn't, and still haven't.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Yes, the 2000 vs 2004 results would NOT differ much if the FIX

in 2004 was keyed to 2000...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x114559#114559

[fasttense]

33. Your first premise is wrong and you go down hill from there.

First, you say that since the 2004 voting pattern was much like 2000 than that proves it was an accurate reflection of how people voted. Wrong. 2000 was the first massive attempt by Rove to steal an election. Just because the second attempt reelects the first, does not make it an indicator of a fair election.

Second, meticulous hand count? Oh come on, since when has the media cared about getting all the facts? Are you watching a press corp from a foreign country or something?

Did they compare the votes to the poll logs? Did they then canvass voters to see if the record reflected the actual population? Just cause they recounted rigged ballots does not make it a safe assumption that there was no fraud.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. Thanks - I'll pass that on the the author.

[qwghlmian]

38. Please explain the "rigged ballots" part -

do you claim that differently-punched ballots were actually substituted for the real ones in Florida?

[Peace Patriot]

35. The election SYSTEM was a fraud going in.

Major Bush partisans (Bush "Pioneers," major donors, campaign chairs, rightwing billionaires) manufacture our electronic voting machines.

They insisted on keeping the programming code that runs these machines and COUNTS ALL OUR VOTES as SECRET PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.

Their electronic voting systems are extremely insecure, unreliable and hackable.

They insisted that no paper trail was needed--and, with Tom Delay's help, got no paper trail in a third of the country.

They and their allies in Congress resisted and prevented all measures aimed at transparency and auditability.

And you think they didn't USE this made-to-order "re-install" Bush machine?

Discussions of 2004 election fraud that do not START with this information about who owns and controls the tabulation of our votes are B.S.

[myschkin]

34. Wow, she was a pretty person... :-O

Now you know why she participated:

"She has served as political director for the Rainbow/Push Coalition"

(Excerpt from her bio, see here: http://www.zogby.com/about/detail.cfm?ID=43)

So she has a special relation to Jesse Jackson...

However, a great person...

[candice]

27. Zogby has called for a "blue-ribbon panel" to investigate what went wrong

On Charlie Rose he said that this President defied history and logic in winning (with his statitically low approval rating and the number of people who said that they disapproved of the direction this country was going in. He also stated that he didn't expect entire states to flip (from Kerry to Bush).

[cyn2]

6. The report posted here is not written by John Zogby nt

[skids]

22. Zogby does have an exit poll, but this isn't it.

Zogby's exit poll was conducted among early voters during his pre-election polling. Zogby asked people if they had already voted, and who they voted for. Unfortunately, Zobgy has not, AFAIK, released the internals of this poll, only a few gross summary statistics.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. Let me ask you a dumb question since polling is not my

long suit. If Zogby did a early voter poll, and say interviewed 100 people at a precinct. Would he just pick 50 B voters and 50 K voters? Thus, his results would have no correlation to the actual total voting in that precinct? Or, would he somehow scientifically pick a sampling of all votes that represented the total actual? Like the exit pollers try to do? Maybe my more basic dumb question is how do exit pollers find a representative sample? I know they say exit polls are within 1-2 moe. How do they do this so well? I know people have just voted when it happens, so that makes it better, but if they are so good at getting samples, then why are pre-election polls up to 4-5% moe? Is it just because some won't actually vote or some will change their minds?

[skids]

26. They don't systematically pick precincts...

...so yes, some adjustments have to be made. As far as I know, what they do is call people until they have a quota of a certain number of people who fall into certain heuristics, then adjust for demographics by weighting or discarding surveys from any over-represented group. What their heuristic is, I don't know -- they probably tweak and refine it monthly based on accuracy tests for polls which they did in the past (when such tests are available.) What it boils down to in plain english is that they try to figure out a way to call/count people who give an accurate picture of the country when taken as a group.

Not all polls adjust for heuristics. You'll remember during the debates, a few spot polls about who won them came out with republicans overrepresented, but the MM just ran with the numbers and didn't care that most viewers would miss that subtext.

If I were to start a new polling company, I'd make an initial investment in a large survey that didn't ask any questions other than demographics, and figure out stuff like "if I call on a wednesday night, this is the mix of people I will get." I imagine Zogby and other pollsters do things much more sophisticated than that basic idea.

However, the core reason why those polls are so errored is that they are done on the cheap and their sample size is much lower. Yes, there are biases in who gets contacted, so you always have to look at the demographics and adjust for known trends.

Plus there is the problem that some people will answer one way and change their minds. However, in the case of early voters in the pre-election polls, they could not change their minds. It would be interesting to compare Zobgy's (and Harris's, etc.) raw data for these survey respondants to various other data -- actual returns by state, NEP's phone survey data, etc. NEP's phone exit poll was only 500 voters (very small proportionally but likely larger than the number of early voters in most of the pre-election polls.)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. Thanks for taking your time to eductate me Skids! It seems to

me though, that you would have a different sample group to call/count for an exit vs. a pre-election poll. Since you would have to throw out a previously unknown number of respondents who didn't vote. (In a pre-election the same people would be in the undecided or not likely to vote category). So the problem with Mitofsky's poll was that he didn't adjust for demographics?

Funny, but all this time, I thought that exit polls were done at the polls. I guess because I was interviewed by ABC one time as I was walking out. And whenever anyone said that Dems were more anxious to be surveyed, I had this vision in my head of people standing in line after voting, jumping up and down, yelling "Ask me, ask me!" Guess I shouldn't have admitted that in writing, huh.

[skids]

31. NEP was done at the polls, Zogby wasn't

All pollsters adjust for demographics. As far as what the "problem" was with NEP, well we still don't know whether the problem was with the polls, or with the vote tally, or what combination of both.

And as far as the Zogby pre-election polls, yes, I'm referring to looking only at data from the early voters, because the ones that hadn't voted yet are less reliable. My point is that the Zogby pre-election polls among this subgroup of early voters (and the other polls also conducted where they bothered to ask who had voted and who hadn't) are approximately equivalent to the 500 or so in the NEP -- all were phone surveys of people who already voted. All were, roughly speaking, exit polls.

[RaulVB]

24. This IS NOT THE STUDY YOU'LL NEED TO SEE

Zogby's is trying to justify "*" "victory."

Different issue.

[ottozen]

30. Why give for free

What can translate to money.

[ottozen]

32. for Zogby.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. I would bet his reputation and ego need to prove he was

right would outweigh the money this time. He is now in the category of "wrong" on the last election. (of course "right" to many of us)