ULTIMATE PROOF KERRY WON: COMPARE THE NATIONAL EXIT POLLS -1996,2000,2004

[TruthIsAll]

Finally, here is a statistical comparison of the 2004 National
Exit Poll with the two prior polls. This analysis provides a
comparative reference of the essential exit poll story.

We know that the Democrats won the popular vote in 1996 and
2000.
Comparing the exit polls to the 2004 exit poll demographics,
it is obvious that Kerry won as well - and by a much bigger
margin then Gore. 

KERRY VOTERS WERE NOT MORE DISPOSED THAN BUSH VOTERS TO SPEAK
TO THE EXIT POLLSTERS; THERE WERE JUST MORE OF THEM.
USCOUNTVOTES.ORG HAS TOTALLY DEBUNKED THE EDISON-MITOFSKY
"RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER" THEORY. 

THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE PARTY-ID SPLIT WAS 37/37/26 AS THE
LATER, CONTAMINATED EXIT POLL SUGGESTS. THAT IS A CONTRIVED
CONTORTION OF THE FACTS. THE DEMOCRATS WERE ENERGIZED. THEY
WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL IN REGISTERING MORE VOTERS THAN THE
REPUBLICANS, SO HOW COULD THEY HAVE LOST MARKET SHARE?

Focus on these important categories - all positive for Kerry:
1) The Party ID: 38% Democrat /35% Republican /27% Independent

2) Gender: 54% female/46% male, a 2% increase in the female
share of the total vote- and Kerry won 54% of them.
3) Minority voters increased by 3%.
4) New voters increased by 17%.
5) Late undecided voters voted 60-40% for Kerry.
 
The 2004 National Exit poll of 13,047 respondents is pristine,
uncontaminated and confirmed by the two prior national exit
polls.

Minority voters:
Increased by 6% over 1996.
Increased by 4% over 2000.
					
PartyID: 
Democrats held a 38-35% advantage, down slightly from 39%-35%
for Gore and Clinton.

Democratic Party Loyalty:
Kerry won 90% of Democrats.
In 2000, Gore won 86% (Nader effect). 
In 1996, Clinton won 84% (Perot effect).

21 million new voters, a significant 17% increase:
Kerry got 59% of new and 65% of Nader 2000 voters.
In 2000, Gore won 44% of the 13% new voters.					
In 1996, Clinton won 53% of the 9% new voters.

Undecided voters chose the challenger Kerry, as expected:
Kerry won late deciders by 60-40%. 
In 2000, Gore won them by 48-45%.  						
In 1996, Clinton split with Dole . 
							


		2004 (13,047 respondents)			2000					1996		
GENDER	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader		All	Gore	Bush	Nader		All	Clinton	Dole	Perot
Male 	46%	47%	52%	1%		48	42	53	3		48	43	44	10
Female 	54%	54%	45%	1%		52	54	43	2		52	54	38	7
											
														
RACE	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader		All	Gore	Bush	Nader			Clinton	Dole	Perot
White	77	44	55	1		81	42	54	3		83	43	46	9
Black	11	90	10	1		10	90	9	1		10	84	12	4
Hisp   9	56	41	3		7	62	35	2		5	72	21	6
Asian	2	61	39	0		2	55	41	3		1	43	48	8
Other	2	56	38	2							1	64	21	9
														
AGE	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader		All	Gore	Bush	Nader		All	Clinton	Dole	Perot
18-29	17%	56%	43%	1%		17	48	46	5		17	53	34	10
30-44	27%	49%	50%	1%		33	48	49	2		33	48	41	9
45-59	30%	51%	47%	1%		28	48	49	2		26	48	41	9
60+	26%	48%	51%	1%		22	51	47	2		24	48	44	7
														
														
EDUCATION	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader		All	Gore	Bush	Nader		All	Clinton	Dole	Perot
No H.S.	      4%	52%	47%	1%		5	59	39	1		6	59	28	11
HighSch        22% 	51%	48%	1%		21	48	49	1		24	51	35	13
College	       31%	47%	51%	1%		32	45	51	3		27	48	40	10
CollGrad	26%	48%	50%	1%		24	45	51	3		26	44	46	8
PostGrad	17%	58%	40%	2%		18	52	44	3		17	52	40	5
														
														
INCOME	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader		All	Gore	Bush	Nader		All	Clinton	Dole	Perot
<15	9%	66%	33%	1%		7	57	37	4		11	59	28	11
15-30	15%	59%	39%	1%		16	54	41	3		23	53	36	9
30-50	22%	52%	47%	1%		24	49	48	2		27	48	40	10
50-75	23%	45%	53%	1%		25	46	51	2		21	47	45	7
75-100	13%	49%	50%	0%		13	45	52	2		9	44	48	7
100-150	11%	45%	53%	2%		15	43	54	2		9	38	54	6
250-200	4%	47%	53%	0%										
200+	4%	41%	58%	1%										

PARTYID
	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader		All	Gore	Bush	Nader		All	Clinton	Dole	Perot
Dem	38%	90%	9%	1%		39	86	11	2		39.4	84	10	5
Rep	35%	7%	92%	0%		35	8	91	1		34.7	13	80	6
Ind	27%	52%	45%	2%		26	45	47	6		25.9	43	35	17
														

IDEOLOGY	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader		All	Gore	Bush	Nader		All	Clinton	Dole	Perot
Liberal	         22%	86%	12%	1%		21	80	13	6		20	78	11	7
Moderate	45%	57%	41%	1%		50	52	44	2		47	57	33	9
Conservative	33%	16%	82%	1%		29	17	81	1		33	20	71	8
												
RELIGION	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader		All	Gore	Bush	Nader		All	Clinton	Dole	Perot
Protestant	53%	43%	56%	1%		54	42	56	2		54	42	47	11
Catholic 	27%	50%	49%	1%		27	50	47	2		29	53	37	9
Jewish	          3%	77%	23%	0%		4	79	19	1		3	78	16	3
Other 	          7%	75%	20%	4%		6	62	28	7		6	60	23	11
None 	         10%	70%	29%	1%		9	61	30	7		7	59	23	13


DECIDED
	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader		All	Gore	Bush	Nader		All	Clinton	Dole	Perot
Today 	6%	53%	40%	5%		11	48	46	5		11	35	38	22
3Days 	3%	53%	41%	4%		6	48	44	5		6	35	47	17
Week 	2%	48%	51%	1%		13	49	45	5		13	47	36	13
Month 	10%	60%	38%	1%		70	48	50	1		69	53	41	5
Before 	79%	50%	50%	0%										
														
HOW VOTED:
2000	All	Kerry	Bush	Nader	1996	All	Gore	Bush	Nader	1992	All	Clinton	Dole	Perot
Gore	38%	91%	8%	1%	Clinton	47	82	15	2	Clinton	43	85	9	4
Bush	41%	9%	90%	0%	Dole	32	7	91	1	Bush	35	13	82	4
Other	4%	65%	13%	16%	Perot	6	27	64	7	Perot	12	22	44	33
None	17%	59%	39%	1%	Other	2	26	52	15	Other	1	24	36	9
					None	13	44	52	3	None	9	53	33	11

[whistle]

1. Terrific, but since the democrats don't wish to do anything....

...about this, save your keystrokes and let's focus on how to get the impostor and pretender to the office of the presidency and the republican party out of power.

[Webster Green]

4. Disagree....

Its important that this stuff be documented. Eventually the truth will be recognized, and BuchCo Inc. will be discredited (at least in the history books). I for one would like to see that happen.

Stay on it, Truth is All!

[whistle]

7. Well, yes, I did not mean don't publish it, putting it out here in DU

...is critical as a reference especially if new facts come to light. I just wish that instead of threads which carry this disappear quickly even from our archives that we keep track and not keep flooding the discussion threads with already documented and known evidence. And, I apologize if that is what your data show, but I have ssen numereous claims since the election, posted here, and I just wish that somehow, someway, the news would be something like this:

"Discovered, smoking gun which proves Republicans stole both the 2000 and 2004 presidentail elections. Bush and his gang of thugs now in chains!"

[TruthIsAll]

5. You have it backwards. First you prove the fraud. Then you focus

on the remedy.

[TruthIsAll]

22. PARTY-ID WEIGHTS, EXIT POLLs VS. FINALS

1996 PARTY ID WEIGHTS:
DEM 39.4%
REP 34.7%
IND 25.9%

Clinton won the NEP: 48.17-41.16-8.49%
CLINTON WON THE VOTE: 49.20-40.70-8.40%
RIGHT ON THE MONEY.
WITHIN 1.03%!
.......................
2000 PARTY ID WEIGHTS:
DEM 39%
REP 35%
IND 26%

Gore won the NEP: 48.29-48.09-2.44%
GORE WON THE VOTE: 48.38-47.87-2.74%
RIGHT ON THE MONEY.
WITHIN .09%!
..............................
2004 NEP PARTY-ID WEIGHTS:
THIS IS FROM THE WP 13,047 RESPONDENT VERSION - BEFORE LATER
CONTAMINATION USING 37/37/26 WEIGHTING:
DEM 38%
REP 35%
IND 27%

Kerry won the NEP: 50.76-47.91-1.02%
BUSH WON THE VOTE: 50.73-48.28-0.99%
A 2.82% DISCREPANCY FROM THE EXIT POLL TO THE VOTE.
WHAT HAPPENED?

[TruthIsAll]

25. 1996-2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL COMPARISONS - WEIGHTED BY DEMOGRAPHIC

NATIONAL EXIT POLL - WEIGHTED AVERAGE VOTE												
		2004				2000				1996		
DEMOGRAPHIC	Kerry	Bush	Nader		GORE	BUSH	NADER		Clinton	Dole	Perot

Female/Male 	54/46				52/48				52/48		
Gender		50.78%	48.22%	1.00%		48.24%	47.80%	2.48%		48.72%	40.88%	8.44%

Race		50.94%	47.86%	1.00%		48.46%	47.91%	2.73%		48.76%	41.12%	8.34%
Age		50.53%	48.17%	1.00%		48.66%	48.05%	2.51%		48.85%	40.53%	8.69%
Education	50.21%	48.05%	1.17%		47.59%	48.72%	2.48%		49.02%	39.64%	9.41%
Income		51.42%	48.12%	0.95%		48.19%	48.28%	2.30%		48.89%	40.79%	7.45%

Dem/Rep/Ind	38/	35/	27		39/	35/	26		39/	35/	26
PartyId		50.69%	47.77%	0.92%		48.04%	48.36%	2.69%		48.74%	40.77%	8.46%

Ideology	49.85%	48.15%	1.00%		47.73%	48.22%	2.55%		48.99%	41.14%	8.27%
PrevVote	50.90%	47.09%	1.19%		48.64%	47.81%	2.37%		48.75%	41.18%	8.16%
Decided		51.23%	47.95%	0.54%		48.13%	48.55%	2.20%		48.63%	39.97%	8.58%
Religion	50.85%	47.90%	1.18%		48.55%	48.07%	2.71%		48.22%	39.76%	9.23%
												
Average		50.74%	47.93%	1.00%		48.22%	48.18%	2.50%		48.76%	40.58%	8.50%
Actual		48.28%	50.73%	0.99%		47.87%	48.36%	2.74%		49.20%	40.70%	8.40%
Diff%		2.46%	-2.80%	0.01%		0.35%	-0.18%	-0.24%		-0.44%	-0.12%	0.10%

[patrice]

2. Early decided voters could not carry it. It was starting to move Kerry's

way. Rove et al are absolute masters of their fudge/smoke/noise machine, but I think if there had been even just a few more weeks, you'd have seen more of a pronounced shift toward Kerry. We were really just beginning to find those who were crossing over to Kerry in the canvasses the week before the vote. Just a little more organizing and effort and time would have been successful.

A clearer values message would have helped, because we beat them all to heck and back again on almost ALL of the values issues.

[politicasista]

3. If only the media didn't distort anything.

:grr: :mad:

[patrice]

6. We must speak to one another. F---- the media. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

10. As Steven Freeman showed...

...Gore 2000 repeat voters + huge Democratic edge in new voter registration (57% to 41%) + huge jump of Nader voters to Kerry = a 4 to 8 million vote margin for Kerry that somehow got 'disappeared' on election day.

It wasn't a matter of winning the values debate. People obviously rejected unjustified, pre-emptive war, mass slaughter, torture, massive theft and the Bush Cartel's idiot puppet--and did all this with no help from the lapdog news media.

There are some values for you: Rock solid American values of fairness, honesty, lawfulness, decency and intelligent, mature behavior in public officials.

And if they'd had the choice, they would have put an antiwar president in the White House as well (Howard Dean), to clean out the mountains of rotten, stinking military-industrial corruption in our government.

Nearly SIXTY PERCENT of Americans STILL oppose the war on Iraq, now, today. SIXTY THREE PERCENT oppose torture UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Bush's approval ratings sank to FORTY EIGHT PERCENT on his INAUGURATION DAY! --and have been dismal, and without precedent, since before the election.

The Bush Cartel does not represent the majority in this country, and never did. They are a fascist coup.

You said that with "just a little more organizing and effort and time," we would have been successful (ousted the Cartel).

I don't agree. They would have manufactured or stolen whatever amount of votes they needed to retain power.

We have to face this--and FIX IT. State by state. Election rule by election rule. Either return to paper ballots and hand counts, or, at the least, require OPEN SOURCE CODE, a Voter Verified Paper Ballot that takes prededence over electronic tallies in any recount, and stringent certification and auditing rules.

That's what we must do, or our democracy is over.

And this fraudulently elected Congress of Bush Pod People is not going to help.

[Melissa G]

16. Well said Peace Patriot! n/t

[omega minimo]

28. 2004 WAS next time

<The Bush Cartel does not represent the majority in this country, and never did. They are a fascist coup....They would have manufactured or stolen whatever amount of votes they needed to retain power.>

With ya so far.

<We have to face this--and FIX IT. State by state. Election rule by election rule.>

This regime is so dangerous, NOW, why do folks think we have time?

<That's what we must do, or our democracy is over.>

Isn't it already over? 2000 coup + 2004 fraud = game over.

<And this fraudulently elected Congress of Bush Pod People is not going to help.>

One Congresswoman and one woman Senator stood up for democracy and for the American people. I still don't understand how people still believe in the system if Bush is illegally in the WH and there is no recourse?

Either people acknowledge that this is, as you say, a "fascist coup" and ce la vie, what's for dinner-- OR demand action NOW. This in between stuff baffles me.

If there are some brilliant threads I need to check, please let me know. I missed the part where Americans bore witness to the fact that their election was hijacked.

:smoke: :evilgrin:

The evidence has already been shown. Statistics won't win against evil intent, public complacency, media complicity and congressional abdication.

[dandrhesse]

34. right on patriot!

I get so tired of hearing the Dems should do this or that, it's all bull, we did the work, we motivates the masses and they turned out in droves. I am even more optimist than TIA as far as the margin of victory! And if the majority party in the us congress had upheld their oath of office, bush would have been impeached in his first term. The question is what do we do about the voting mess? I agree with paper ballots and hand counts, I was appalled to learn that we don't do that basic of accounting check in each and every ward in our country. Its basic common sense. Check your count against the machines.

[TruthIsAll]

8. Kerry won 56% of the 21% of voters who decided in the final month.

Not quite 60%.

[bleever]

9. Ignoring something of this magnitude is HARD WORK.

Especially when TIA, and Freeman, and a growing host of others keep pointing at the elephant hiding behind the drapes.

It requires that responsible people either keep their eyes shut very tightly, or that they twist their brains around accepting that the component data contradict the final result, but that that's okay.

How long can everyone ignore it?

:thumbsup:

[TruthIsAll]

11. Kerry 2-party demographics vs. Gore and Clinton

This is a quick statistical reference to determine how Kerry
measured up vs. Gore and Clinton in the various demographic
categories.

If the category ratio exceeds 100%, then Kerry outperformed
Gore or Clinton vs. Bush on a two-party basis.

The total average shows Kerry outperformed Gore by 10% (110%)
and tied Clinton.

Avg	55.5%	52.3%	56.6%	110.0%	100.1%

	2party	2party	2party	Kerry/ Kerry/
	Kerry	Gore	Clinton	Gore	Clinton

Male 	47.5%	44.2%	49.4%	107%	96%
Female 	54.5%	55.7%	58.7%	98%	93%
					
					
Race					
White	44.4%	43.8%	48.3%	102%	92%
Black	90.0%	90.9%	87.5%	99%	103%
Hisp	57.7%	63.9%	77.4%	90%	75%
Asian	61.0%	57.3%	47.3%	106%	129%
Other	59.6%		75.3%		79%
					
					
					
AGE					
18-29	56.6%	51.1%	60.9%	111%	93%
30-44	49.5%	49.5%	53.9%	100%	92%
45-59	52.0%	49.5%	53.9%	105%	96%
60+	48.5%	52.0%	52.2%	93%	93%
					
					
Education					
None	52.5%	60.2%	67.8%	87%	77%
H.S.	51.5%	49.5%	59.3%	104%	87%
Col	48.0%	46.9%	54.5%	102%	88%
ColG	49.0%	46.9%	48.9%	104%	100%
PostG 59.2%	54.2%	56.5%	109%	105%
					
					
Income					
<15	66.7%	60.6%	67.8%	110%	98%
15-30	60.2%	56.8%	59.6%	106%	101%
30-50	52.5%	50.5%	54.5%	104%	96%
50-75	45.9%	47.4%	51.1%	97%	90%
75-100  49.5% 46.4%	47.8%	107%	103%
100-150 45.9% 44.3%	41.3%	104%	111%
250-200 47.0%				
200+	  41.4%				
					
PARTY ID					
Dem	90.9%	88.7%	89.4%	103%	102%
Rep	7.1%	8.1%	14.0%	88%	51%
Ind	53.6%	48.9%	55.1%	110%	97%
					
					
IDEOLOGY					
Lib	87.8%	86.0%	87.6%	102%	100%
Mod	58.2%	54.2%	63.3%	107%	92%
Con   16.3%	17.3%	22.0%	94%	74%
					
					
Religion					
Prot	43.4%	42.9%	47.2%	101%	92%
Cath 	50.5%	51.5%	58.9%	98%	86%
Jewish77.0%	80.6%	83.0%	96%	93%
Other 78.9%	68.9%	72.3%	115%	109%
None  70.7%	67.0%	72.0%	105%	98%
					
					
Decided 					
Today 57.0%	51.1%	47.9%	112%	119%
Last3	56.4%	52.2%	42.7%	108%	132%
Week	48.5%	52.1%	56.6%	93%	86%
Month	61.2%	49.0%	56.4%	125%	109%
Before50.0%				
					
					
Prior Election					
	91.9%	84.5%	90.4%	109%	102%
	9.1%	7.1%	13.7%	127%	66%
	83.3%	29.7%	33.3%	281%	250%
	60.2%	33.3%	40.0%	181%	151%
					

[Peace Patriot]

12. TruthIsAll, is that JFK quote from his speech to the United Nations?

My husband (retired Air Force captain, nuke armed fighter jets) told me of hearing this speech on the radio one day, and pulling over on the L.A. freeway he was driving on, and crying.

[TruthIsAll]

20. I don't know where he made the speech.

When I hear Bush, I think: how far have we fallen since 1963?

[count_alucard]

13. another proof that Kerry was the wrong candidate

and that the left needs to choose a strong COURAGEOUS contestant, not a corrupt rabbit who runs away scared.

[berniew1]

14. What is the URL reference?? Where does this come from??

[TruthIsAll]

19. See Msnbc, CNN, WP national exit polls sites

http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polllaunch.asp

For the 2004 exit poll, the WP/NEP site:

Right click on the picture (gif) for the following http:
//media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif'

[TruthIsAll]

26. CNN site for 1996 national exit poll stats

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

[Coexist]

15. I don't know if I am more amazed at the

math/statistics you do - or embarassed that I have trouble following them.

Great work - thank goodness it isn't up to me!

[msongs]

17. what response do you get from elected Democrats????????

guess I will just have to keep asking this question until you respond :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[TruthIsAll]

18. None n/t

.

[msongs]

21. thx 4 the reply, it is what I expected hear :-( eom

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[clovis29]

23. Wow, that is some great research!! If only the MSM would pay attention.

Kick!

This should be seen by everyone on DU! We can't stand by and allow this injustice to go unchallenged!!!

[BamaLefty]

24. Makes You Want To Cry...

We won. Dammit we won.

[garybeck]

27. great! but I can't find...

does it show the grand totals for 2004? I see it broken down by all the categories but I can't find how what the total percentages for Kerry / Bush were without breaking it down. Is that there?

thanks
gary

[TruthIsAll]

29. Gary, be specific. Exactly what do you want?

What are the 2004 grand totals you are referring to - Exit Poll or actuals?

The NEP consists of 13047 respondents.
The responses are rounded to one percent.
Must be that Mitofsky does not want anyone to calculate the numbers exactly.

I wonder why?

[garybeck]

64. yeah, what I'm asking is

if there were 13,047 respondents, how many of them voted for bush and how many of them voted for kerry? I don't care if they were black, white, male, female, I just want to know the percentage breakdown of kerry and bush. is that not provided? very weird. is it possible to extrapolate it from the data they provided?

[sandnsea]

30. Kerry did better than Gore or Clinton

Kind of hard to get anybody to pay attention to your numbers when the conventional wisdom is that Kerry didn't connect, wasn't anti-war enough, didn't have a message, bla bla bla. Kerry is a shit-wad fuckhead doesn't really go with performing better than Clinton or Gore in almost every category.

[TruthIsAll]

31. True, Kerry did great in the vote..and threw it away. Big mystery.

He didn't fight the swift-boaters.
He didn't fight to count all the votes.
He keeps letting Bush off the hook on everything.

He's typical of the Republican wing if the Democratic party.
Hillary and Bill are worse. But not by much.

Traitors, all of them, to the truth and democratic ideals.
We are most definitely screwed.

[sandnsea]

32. ha

We counted NH and nothing came up. We counted OH, and even in the precincts that were fair, nothing came up. Richardson and Vilsack took days to go over NM and IA. Nothing came up. Those are just the sad facts. You said it yourself, there's just no evidence.

And I doubt you have a clue on what Kerry's been doing and even if you did, you'd twist it beyond recognition anyway.

I really don't know why you're bothering with any of this if you don't want a Democrat in office anyway.

[TruthIsAll]

33. Is the reply meant for me?

So I guess there is no evidence after all.
You checked OH.
You checked NH.

Nothing to see here.
Move along.

Sorry for my post. I was wrong.
The election was not stolen.
Your diligent efforts prove that fraud never took place.

Thanks for enlightening all of us.

[sandnsea]

35. "first you prove the fraud"

That's what you said. Your diligent efforts haven't proven that fraud took place. They did, however, prove that Kerry did better than Clinton or Gore. So I thank you for that.

[berniew1]

58. Its been proven that Gore won by 40,000 if fair count; and likewise 2004

there is documentation of the vote machine fraud, compiler "glitches" and fraud, systematic dirty tricks, ballot and registration manipulation, and sytematic suppression that swung the millions of votes in the 2004 election.
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html
http://votersunite.org messups, mythbreakers, etc.
http://freepress.org departments/articles

[chorti]

44. are you serious about ohio?

"We counted OH, and even in the precincts that were fair, nothing came up."

Really? You should thoroughly read the Green Party recount summaries before making that statement. <http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/> Very few recounts were random and many were off by several votes in just a couple precincts. They all should have been hand re-counted 100%.

But there was only one county where all the precincts were counted - Coshocton - and the recounted totals gave Kerry 47 more votes (net) than he had in the initial count. This is hardly "nothing" in a little county.

<<snip>>

December 14
Coshocton County Presidential vote totals as distributed to witnesses during the recount of the Presidential vote in Coshocton County on 12/14/04. This document had the heading "Official-Nov. 2, 2004," dated 12/10/2004 10:25:28 AM and included pages 1-3 of 96 pages:
Bush 9,839
Kerry 7,378
Peroutka 68
Badnarik 15
Schriner 2
Cobb 1

Total Presidential Vote in Coshocton County 17,300
December 14
Coshocton County Presidential vote totals at completion of hand recount 12/14/04. These totals to be certified as the official vote:
Total Presidential Vote in Coshocton County 17,322
Bush 9,826
Kerry 7412
Peroutka 68
Badnarik 13
Schriner 2
Cobb 1

[NationalEnquirer]

52. I am afraid of Hillary.

And no, not because I hate her or anything.
I loved her back in the day, Bill too, it was good to feel "in power"!
But now that we look back, what did they do for us?
They were, essentially, Republican-Lite.
I am afraid that they are going to take control of the party again and sell us down the river.

[kiwi_expat]

36. Help. I have been trying to reconcile TIA's data with Mistwell's data.

TIA and Mistwell seem to be talking past each other. Elsewhere Mistwell referred to Ruy Teixeira's analysis summarized in

www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

Year/Exit Poll Results/Dem Lead/Dem Actual

1988/Dukakis: 50.3% Bush: 49.7%/+0.6%/ -7.7%

1992/Clinton: 46% Bush: 33.2%/+12.8%/+5.6%

1996/Clinton: 52.2% Dole: 37.5%/+14.7%/+8.5%

2000/Gore: 48.5% Bush: 46.2%/+2.3%/+0.5%


TIA, do you think that the above data is false?

Could the inconsistency between your figures and Teixeira's figures be because you are using only the demographic data? I assume that the number of respondents for each question is significantly lower than the number of respondents for the entire exit poll questionnaire. (i.e., many people do not answer every question on the questionnaire.)

[TruthIsAll]

37. Quick response.

My data uses the published National Exit Poll demographics.
As you can see, the various category weightings are extremely consistent over all three polls.

Check the 13,074 poll for 2004.
Party-id, religion, gender, etc, are consistent with the two prior elections.

Especially significant is Party ID: a 38/35/27 mix, almost exactly equal to the prior two (39/35/26).

[Aussie_expat]

38. Good question...

There are several sets of numbers out there.

This data:

Year/Exit Poll Results/Dem Lead/Dem Actual

1988/Dukakis: 50.3% Bush: 49.7%/+0.6%/ -7.7%

1992/Clinton: 46% Bush: 33.2%/+12.8%/+5.6%

1996/Clinton: 52.2% Dole: 37.5%/+14.7%/+8.5%

2000/Gore: 48.5% Bush: 46.2%/+2.3%/+0.5%


TIA uses the raw data gathered at some point mid-way through election day. To the best of my knowledge he has never addressed these figures or factored them into ANY of his spreadsheets.

These numbers are out there and must be addressed to find the TRUTH.

[rdmccur]

57. The term "raw data"

is tossed around all the time here.
TIA did not use "raw" data. It was weighted.
The exit poll report (where TIA gets this data) states clearly that the data was weighted. Mitofsky has never released his raw data!

[Aussie_expat]

59. I was referring to what TIA calls 'pristine'........ n/t

.

[kiwi_expat]

60. I'm afraid I was responsible for introducing the word "raw".

I now use TIA's term "pristine" for the data that was demographically-weighted but (hopefully) not contaminated by "actual" votes.

[TruthIsAll]

39. Here are links to the 3 national exit polls and a puzzle.

So what is the problem?

1996 CNN National Exit Poll 11/06/96
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

2000 MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polllaunch.asp

This exit poll of 13,047 shows Kerry winning all the demographics, by an average of 50.8% -47.9%. This appeared on the NEP/Washington Post site on Nov 3, as shown below.

The poll was later expanded (manipulated?) to include 613 additional respondents, bringing the total to 13,660 - and Bush magically climbed to a 51-48 lead.

So the first poll, which included 95.5% (13,047) respondents, had Kerry winning handily 51-48.

But Bush must have won virtually ALL of the remaining 4.5% (613) to win 51-48 for the later 13660 poll. Something inexplicable is going on here.

Here are the unbelievable numbers:
Kerry won 6654 of the first 13,047 votes for 51-48%.
But he ended with 6693 of the 13,660, a gain of just 39 votes.
So he gained just 39 votes out of the additional 613.

Bush won 6263 of the first 13,047 votes, assuming a switch to 51-48%.
But he ended with 6967 of the 13,660, a gain of 704 votes.
This is impossible, since there were only 613 new votes.

Who can explain it?
Can you, Aussie?

........Polled..................Kerry Bush
Bush 13660 51% 48% 6693 6967
Kerry 13047 51% 48% 6654 6263
...............................Gain 39 704

Do you believe this? I don't. I just did the math above. Impossible.
CNN poll of 13660 respondents 11/03/04 Updated: 2:04 p.m.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Or do you believe this? I do. I did the math. It makes sense.
2004 Washington Post 13,047 respondents created 11/03/04
http:
//media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif

[kiwi_expat]

40. Your 1996 CNN and 2000 MSNBC data do not appear to be RAW data.

Teixeira claims that his 1996 and 2000 exit poll data is actual raw data. See http://www.tcf.org/publications/pow/nov17_2004.pdf

I do agree with you that the 2004 raw data was subsequently weighted in very curious ways.

[Aussie_expat]

41. No, I can't explain it TIA......

I don't know enough about the internals to offer a pro or con opinion as to the validity of the either set of numbers.

I want the truth regardless of the my personal feelings.

The exit poll data that you use could have been affected in a million different ways.

I have been involved in politics for too many years to not to question everything and every party...... including my own.

How do you explain these numbers TIA :

Year/Exit Poll Results/Dem Lead/Dem Actual

1988/Dukakis: 50.3% Bush: 49.7%/+0.6%/ -7.7%

1992/Clinton: 46% Bush: 33.2%/+12.8%/+5.6%

1996/Clinton: 52.2% Dole: 37.5%/+14.7%/+8.5%

2000/Gore: 48.5% Bush: 46.2%/+2.3%/+0.5%

IMHO, they seem to match the revised figures from later in the day.

How do you explain the history going back to 1988?

Do you suggest 16 years of massive fraud?

[TruthIsAll]

42. OK, I see we are making progress.

Year/Exit Poll Results/Dem Lead/Dem Actual

1988/Dukakis: 50.3% Bush: 49.7%/+0.6%/ -7.7%
4.1% shift

1992/Clinton: 46% Bush: 33.2%/+12.8%/+5.6%
3.6% shift

1996/Clinton: 52.2% Dole: 37.5%/+14.7%/+8.5%
3.1% shift

2000/Gore: 48.5% Bush: 46.2%/+2.3%/+0.5%
0.9% shift

Seems to me there's a pattern here.
But this is nothing new.
Millions of Democratic votes are spoiled in every election.
Especially in minority precincts where punched cards are used.

It's a combination of bad machines and fraud.
Remember Florida?
The Butterfly ballot?
The 110,000 overvotes (double and triple punched cards)?
Those were 75% Gore votes.
What about the 65,000 undervotes. They were mostly Gore votes also.
When the election is close, it will swing to the Repub.

The Democrats are the majority party.
They would win every election if all the votes were counted.
But they never are.

Now we have BBV switching votes (GA)
And optical scammers (FL)
And those good old levers (NY)
And the old reliables: punched cards (OH)

That's why the Dems always win the exit polls and lose the votes.
And why the final exit polls look so good - because they're manipulated to match the votes.
Even Mitofsky admits it.
He claims it's SOP.

So that's why the pristine 13,047 exit poll had Kerry winning - because it's true, he won.

The contaminated 13660 exit poll says Bush won - because the poll has to match the votes, come hell or high water.

[Aussie_expat]

45. According to that logic........

"So that's why the pristine 13,047 exit poll had Kerry winning - because it's true, he won."

So did Dukakis:

1988/Dukakis: 50.3% Bush: 49.7%/+0.6%/ -7.7%
4.1% shift

[jkd]

43. Hi TIA. I'm no fan of Mitofsky, but I'll try.

The raw data must be weighted because this data is not based on a truly random sample. The precincts are chosen randomly, and then those polled at these precincts are selected in the same manner. To be random all the voters would be in the mix, not just those in those predetermined precincts.

Howard B. Christensen, Chairman of the Department of Statistics at Brigham Young University, relates the following: “A simple random sample is one selected such that every possible sample of the same size has the same probability. To implement it requires a "list" of the elements in the population; in the case of an exit poll, it would require a list of all of the voters who turnout. Since this list doesn't exist, a simple random sample cannot be conducted in an exit poll setting.”

The weighting of the exit polls simply attempts to adjust the totals to a true state or national sample based on their demographics. The raw data in Utah gave Kerry 29% of the vote, but when the raw data was weighted Kerry got 26%. Some of the voters were weighted eight times greater than other voters based on their profile.

I have asked NEP about their formula to weight the
exit polls with no response from them. The 2004 results are off more than previous exit polls. Mitofsky insists that their methodology is not at fault, but how is one to know.

[NationalEnquirer]

46. Sorry, I am depressed today..

But no matter what we find out, it seems no one is going to follow up with the STUPID PEOPLE we have to convince to pay attention. In other words, MSM won't help us out on this.

I am starting to give up hope about the whole election proof thing. I am still hopeful we can improve future elections, but I am afraid the past is the past..

It depresses me to think that sometimes the bad guys win.

[kiwi_expat]

47. Getting the goods on a central tabulator is our best hope....

for proving systemic election fraud took place.

Analysis of the ("pristine") exit poll data is very interesting and certainly indicates that fraud may have taken place. But it doesn't appear that it can PROVE election fraud.

[TruthIsAll]

48. The stats are not meant to "prove" anything. That was poetic license.

The purpose is to analyze the probabilities.

Bush climbed from 47.91% in the the "pristine" national exit poll of 13,047 respondents to 50.73% in the vote.
Probability = 1- NORMDIST (.5073 .4791, 1.0/1.96, TRUE)
***** 1 in 63 million ****

17 states deviated beyond the exit poll margin of error, all in favor of Bush.
Probability = 1- BINOMDIST (16,50, .025, TRUE)
***** 1 in 257 trillion ****

42 states deviated from the exit polls in favor of Bush.
Probability = 1- BINOMDIST (41, 50, 0.5, TRUE)
***** 1 in 1.7 million ****

Over 99% of documented machine "glitches" favored Bush.
The probability is just a hair from absolute zero.

There is no attempt to "prove" anything.
How could a probability analysis prove anything?
Bush may have gotten lucky.

[kiwi_expat]

49. The difference between the "pristine" exit polls and the final "vote"....

was about the same in 2004 as it was in 1992 and in 1996: a roughly 3% shift to the Republican candidate. The difference was somewhat greater in 1988, and significantly less in 2000.

If the difference between the "pristine" exit polls and the final "vote" is used to calculate the probability of fraud, one would have to conclude that the 2000 election was relatively clean and the 2004 election was just business as usual.

I find that hard to believe.

[TruthIsAll]

50. NOT SO. THE ODDS ARE 1 IN 87,000 FOR THE 2.16% BUSH DEVIATION IN 2000.

In the PRISTINE pre-adjusted exit poll, Bush had 46.2%.
He ended with 48.36%, a 2.16% increase from the exit poll.
Is a 2.16% move relatively clean?

I guess it's all relative.

Here's the spreadsheet NORMAL DISTRIBUTION PROBABILITY CALC:
Probability = 1-NORMDIST(BushActualVote%, BushExitPoll%, 1.0/1.96,TRUE)

=1-NORMDIST(0.4836,0.462,0.01/1.96,TRUE)= 1.15065E-05

************* 1 IN 86907 *************

[kiwi_expat]

53. The SHIFT in 2000 was 0.9%

...as opposed to the greater than 3% shifts in 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2004.

As I said, 2000 would have been "relatively" clean.

[TruthIsAll]

55. The Bush 2.16% shift is absolutely, not relatively, beyond the MOE. n/t

.

[kiwi_expat]

56. Please note that you stated a 0.9% "shift" for 2000 in your post 42

[TruthIsAll]

62. I incorrectly cited the final, "weighted" poll, just as you now

avoid citing the original, "raw" exit poll.

Who the hell do you think you are fooling?

I have admitted that I incorrectly used the ONLY exit polls which I found on the web. You won't let that one go, will you? You want your pound of flesh. But we all know that pound of flesh is just your way to avoid the real issues of endemic ballot spoilage, both benign and malignant, which affect the Democrats in every election.

Meanwhile, you ignore the original "raw" exit poll, in which there was a 2.16% Bush discrepancy to the final vote.

Very cute of you.

Keep coming after me.
I can handle it.

[kiwi_expat]

65. Your post 42, which I referred to, used the "original, 'raw' exit polls".

You had calculated all of the "shifts" by subtracting the Dem Actual from the Dem Lead and then dividing by 2. That seemed to me to be a good way to calculate the shifts.

I may be "cute", but I'm not your enemy.

[TruthIsAll]

67. I just copied that segment from the prior post as a lead-in to mine.

The Bush deviation was 2.16%. Why don't you just accept that and move on to the relevance of THAT statistic?

You keep pushing up a straw man - trying to make it appear that there is a contradiction when there is none. THE BUSH DEVIATION WAS 2.16%. PERIOD.

DO YOU OBJECT TO MY USE OF THE DEVIATION IN THE PROBABILITY CALCULATION?

YOUR ATTEMPT TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF THIS NON-ISSUE IS VERY TYPICAL OF THOSE WHO ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO DIVERT FROM THE FACTS THAT REALLY MATTER - SUCH AS THE 2.16% DEVIATION BEING BEYOND THE MARGIN OF ERROR.

WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS THAT 2.16% STATISTIC?
WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS THE RELATED PROBABILITY?

IF YOU HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEM WITH THE MOE, THE DEVIATION OR THE PROBABILITY, LET'S HEAR IT.

YOU ARE NEW TO THIS FORUM.
HOPEFULLY, YOU'LL HAVE NEW INSIGHTS INTO ELECTION FRAUD.
FOCUSING ON INCONSEQUENTIAL MINUTIA IS NOT PRODUCTIVE- IT ONLY INHIBITS DISCUSSION.

[kiwi_expat]

68. MY point was, comparing the "shifts" for the various years, 2000 was low

And you had just referred to the Bush 2.16% "shift". I do not disagree that the Bush deviation was 2.16%, or with your calculations based on it.

I have no idea of the extent of national election fraud in 2000. But I do know that the election was stolen by the Supremes. The news consortium's count of the Florida overvotes proved that Gore had the actual votes to win the election.

Last year I contributed to the Ohio recount. I had hoped that the recount could prove that election fraud occurred big time in Ohio. There is still (faint) hope for a re-recount, through the courts.

If a proper re-recount does not occur, the next best hope is to obtain a (FOIA)list of all Ohio precinct totals and then hand count selected precincts, ourselves.

Sorry to bring this up on an exit-poll thread. I just want to establish that I am very serious about proving that election fraud gave the election to Bush in 2004.

But since I don't really think that we will persuade the public with exit poll data, I guess I should go elsewhere.

[kiwi_expat]

69. I would like to "edit" my previous message.

Unfortunately I waited too long and my editing period is up.

Upon further reflection, I have decided to take up TIA's challenge:
"IF YOU HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEM WITH THE MOE, THE DEVIATION OR THE PROBABILITY, LET'S HEAR IT"

My background is in analysis, not statistics, but I do think that the probability calculation needs to take into account the deviation in BOTH Gore and Bush votes in 2000.

In 2000, Bush's deviation was 2.16% (according to TIA), but the OVERALL "shift" between the "pristine" exit polls and the "actual" vote was only 0.9%, because Gore's (negative)deviation was very small.

Had it been the other way around, with Gore having a -2.16% deviation but Bush having hardly any, the shift would still be 0.9%. But the probability calculation, using only Bush data, would produce a much less impressive result than "1 IN 86907".

My guess is that you need to use GoreBush nets instead of just Bush data.

[TruthIsAll]

70. Your guess is wrong: Bush+1.67%, Gore -0.12% from "raw" to actual.

You are taking your eye off the ball by making the implicit assumption that because there was no substantive net deviation, there is really no problem.

We have both used slightly incorrect data (see below).

This is the data we want:
.... Exit Vote Dev
Gore 48.5 48.38 -0.12
Bush 46.2 47.87 + 1.67

The fact that there was a miniscule Gore deviation compared to that of Bush, should raise a red flag. But that's not news. Virtually every Bush polling statistic raises a flag.

To calculate the probability of a deviation for either Gore or Bush, we need to consider the indivdual move, not the net move.

1) Gore's deviation was a slight -0.12% from the initial "raw" exit poll to the actual vote (48.5% DOWN to 48.38%).

2) Bush moved UP 1.67% (46.2% to 47.87%)

The probability of the 1.67% move is obviously less than that of the prior calculation, which was based on the incorrect 2.16%, but 1.67% is still beyond the 1.0% MOE.

This is the correct probability of Bush deviating from his exit poll of 46.2% to his actual 47.87%:

= 1 - NORMDIST(0.4787,0.462,0.01/1.96,TRUE) =0.00053
or ****** 1 in 1881 *******

On the contrary, the probability of the -0.12% Gore deviation is well within the MOE:

= 1 - NORMDIST(0.4838,0.485,0.01/1.96,TRUE)= 0.5929
or ****** 1 in 2 **********

The good thing about all this is that we are focusing on the exit poll that matters - the initial poll, not the adulterated "weighted" poll which we both stipulate was matched to the final (bogus) vote.

The final vote was bogus because there were 175,000 spoiled votes in Florida, 75% of them for Gore, which were not counted. And that's just Florida.

So we really have both made progress, haven't we?

[TruthIsAll]

72. Mull over this.

	Initial Exit Poll	Final Vote             Deviation	
	Dem	Rep		Dem	Rep		Dem	Rep
1988	50.3	49.7		46	54		-4.3	4.3
1992	46	33.2		43	38		-3	4.8
1996	52.2	37.5		49	41		-3.2	3.5
2000	48.5	46.2		48.4	47.9		-0.1	1.7
2004	50.74	47.93		48.28	50.73		-2.46	2.8
								
Average	49.55	42.91		46.94	46.33		-2.61	3.42

Est. "spoiled" votes		3.00%				
Avg Rep Deviation		3.42%				
Avg Dem Deviation		-2.61%						

[NationalEnquirer]

51. Welcome to DU. You seem to know your stuff.

Thanks for your contribution.

[kiwi_expat]

54. Thanks for the welcome

I have been following this forum for awhile. I always thought the "welcome newbie"s were kinda corny.

But I must admit that felt good. Ta.

[ClintCooper2003]

61. I hate to break this to you, but your 1996 and 2000 data are ADJUSTED...

in exactly the same way this year's exit poll data was adjusted to reflect the tallies. If you look closer at the data, it says it was updated the day after the election.

[TruthIsAll]

63. So what else is new?

Read the full thread and the others related to these exit polls.

Mitofsky adjusts the exit poll data to match the votes.
True.

Doesn't that imply an assumption that the vote count is correct and the exit poll is not?

Is that a fair assumption to make, knowing all that we now know has taken place in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 - and many other places?

[jkd]

71. I implies neither

I will repeat a previous post. Exit polls don’t measure the vote’s accuracy. They predict the results based on many factors. Exit polls are not purely random samples and must be weighted before they mean anything. If indeed the preliminary 2004 data were weighted, then that suggests a flawed model or inaccurate polling not a corrupted election. The accuracy of the polls is determined by the election results.

The “pristine data” means nothing because raw information from 250 precincts, out of all the possible voters from hundreds of thousands of precincts nationwide, is not representative of a national sample. Exit polls make useful information out of unrepresentative data through weighting. The exit polls neither demonstrate the accuracy of the election nor of the raw data. It just shows the ability of the model to turn the raw data into a mirror of the election results.

[Wilms]

66. Clint, Melissa G is looking for you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x331402#top