When will the MSM release the 2008 Exit Poll Report? (TIA) - x

[tiptoe]

Click for full article: When will the MSM release the 2008 Exit Poll Report? (TIA)

[HowHasItComeToThis]

1. "THOSE IN POWER" WILL NOT LET YOU SEE THE TRUTH

The evidence strongly suggests that Obama won by 17–23m votes not by the recorded 9.5m.

WILL WE EVER KNOW????????????????

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. what evidence do you have in mind?

Take your time. I have plenty of other things to do.

[starroute]

4. Here is a link for the likely source of the statement

The analysis is complex and based on a lot of hypotheticals and I don't vouch for it.

However, the main point seems to be that if you start with the breakdown of the 2004 presidential vote and then factor in Obama's overwhelming advantage among newly registered voters, the reported totals for 2008 don't add up. Either many 2004 Kerry voters would have had to vote for McCain or many of the enthusiastic Obama supporters who registered to vote for the first time must have decided not to vote after all.

It also suggests that if you assume the 2004 election was stolen and Kerry actually won by several percentage points, then the calculation for 2008 (returning 2004 Kerry voters plus new Obama voters) would be even higher yet.


http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionAnalysisLinks.htm

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. Ok, there's a known problem with this line of analysis

We can't really "start with the breakdown of the 2004 presidential vote" unless we also assume that exit poll respondents in general accurately report who they voted for four years earlier. And what the history of exit polling (and other polling, for that matter) actually demonstrates is that respondents as a whole tend disproportionately to report having voted for whoever won four years ago -- whether the winner was Democratic or Republican, whether the winner was popular or unpopular (although that may influence the magnitude of the overstatement). Even Nixon got a bump. The evidence is summarized in Table 3 here, and elsewhere in the paper.

TIA has never been willing to take these facts into account in his analysis, so he's pretty much nowhere, as far as I can tell.

[WillE]

39. This refutes False Recall

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. not so much, but thanks for the fresh fish bait, or whatever

What TIA calls the false recall argument isn't "based on an NES 600-sample survey" (say what? oh, never mind) -- but that is one piece of very strong evidence that some people misreport their past votes. The data actually document people who gave one answer in 2000, and the other answer in 2004. TIA can't rebut that, and he can't seem to bring himself to admit it. So, I figure he's nowhere. The evidence has nothing to do with "the false premise that... elections are fraud-free." That isn't a serious argument.

[WillE]

41. So which is it? Slow-drifting fog? Mere forgetfulness? Retrospective bandwagon?

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

So which is it? Slow-drifting fog? Mere forgetfulness? Retrospective bandwagon? The answer is:

NONE OF THE ABOVE! THE NES RESPONDERS TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR VOTE.

False Recall is based on the NES 600-sample retrospective vote survey. It was the final naysayer “Hail Mary” pass to explain the impossible 43/37 returning Bush/Gore voter split in the Final 2004 National Exit Poll. The claim was that the 600-700 polled produced a result that did not match the RECORDED vote share; the survey "overstated" support for the incumbent.

Here's why the naysayer interpretation of the survey was bogus. There was no false recall.

First, it was based on the recorded vote - not the True vote. There are millions of uncounted votes in any election. Any analysis which does not consider total votes CAST is invalid by definition. That is the fundamental FLAW in all of the naysayer "theories" used to denigrate UNADJUSTED exit polls.

Second, the individual survey MARGIN OF ERROR was 4%; the deviations can vary greatly from one election to the next. As in all statistical analysis, one needs to look at the average deviation to "smooth out" the variations. It's the Law of Large Numbers. A good example of LLN is that a baseball players batting average will fluctuate greatly early in the season but converge to his TRUE average at the end as his total at bats increase.

This analysis will show that the retrospective votes were well within the Recorded and True Vote margin of error. The respondents told the truth. That should end the discussion right there. By not considering TOTAL VOTES CAST, "false recall" is based on the FALSE PREMISE that the recorded vote is identical to the TRUE VOTE. In the 11 elections since 1968, the average Democratic True Vote share exceeded the recorded vote by 3.7%; the retrospective Democratic margin was higher than the recorded margin in every election.

In 8 of the 11 elections, the Democratic True Vote share fell within the NES margin of error.

The average NES winning margin was 11.4% (11.4% for the Democrats and 11.5% for the Republicans).
The average Democratic True Vote winning margin was 10.0%
The average Republican True Vote winning margin was 12.4%

NES vs. True Vote (1968-2008)
The average absolute discrepancy for the 11 elections was -0.40%.
The average Democratic absolute discrepancy was -0.70%.
The average Republican discrepancy was 0.46%.

NES vs. Recorded Vote (1968-2008)
The average absolute vote share discrepancy was -1.75%.
The average Democratic absolute discrepancy was -3.30%.
The average Republican discrepancy was -0.46%

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. which time did the NES respondents tell the truth?

Honestly, this is pretty easy to understand, no matter how many words TIA burns obfuscating it. When the same person says in 2000 that s/he just voted for Gore, and in 2004 that s/he voted for Bush over Gore, that is a problem.

"First, it was based on the recorded vote - not the True vote." No, it's based on what people said in 2000, and what the same people said in 2004. Like I said, this is pretty easy to understand.*

ETA: I think it would be really cool for someone to write an Artificial Intelligence program, sort of like Eliza, that would respond to questions by copying and pasting semi-relevant snippets of TIA's oeuvre.

*Of course, it's also based on other extensive polling data that TIA ignores. This evidence is especially pointed because the same people are asked twice. But when one watches Dukakis's retrospective numbers in the General Social Survey dwindle from year to year, it seems kind of crazy to argue that it's all measuring the "True Vote." That's probably why TIA prefers to ignore that evidence entirely.

[Kurovski]

6. Yes,

this is only a partime gig for onTHeOthErHAnd

[Wilms]

9. So what if it is? Or if it's just a hobby? Or an Army of posters using the same name?

Is the man's statement valid? Or not? What other point would you have?

For me, you can't verify an election with a computer, or with an exit poll. But some people think otherwise.

[Kurovski]

10. Jesus saves,

Praise Jesus.

[Wilms]

11. Then why do you fancy yourself a reformer and truth seeker?

We've already got faith based elections and exit poll analysis. You're all set.

Amen.

[Kurovski]

12. God created the Heavens and the Earth.

God spared Noah and his sons.

Noah took two of each animal, spared from the flood.

[Wilms]

13. Ah. TIA created the Heavens and the Earth.

The exit polls are smoking gun proof of that.

[Kurovski]

14. With God all things are possible.

Hurricanes are his rath.

[Wilms]

15. Exit poll true believers are his rath.

They self-immolate, their ashes spread in a brilliant plume of irrelevance often clouding the real issues.

And that's no urban myth. (Ask L. Coyote.)


Bless you, though.

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. Ramen. n/t

[Kurovski]

17. 'Tis the gift to be simpul,

'tis the gift to be free, 'tis the gift to come down where we ouwt to be.

God allmyty sayz serve the myty.

See down the street.

the tall bushes.

the shayking treez.

surv the masters on ur neez.

[Kurovski]

18. thz olde ur ban mith?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=474094&mesg_id=474094

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/106

*God blsses onlee tha mitey*

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. conveniently debunked in that very thread

It's funny: you have approximately 42 posts out of the 262 in that thread, and I can't find one where you even tried to address the truth of the OP's claims.

Maybe you can imagine how that looks to me. Or not. :shrug: It sure didn't change my mind about the OP.

[Wilms]

22. 42 posts out of the 262

At the rate he's going on this thread, he'll have that record beat by the end of this week.

[Kurovski]

24. Clippity

[Kurovski]

25. Clippity

[Kurovski]

26. Clop

[Kurovski]

27. Clippity

[Kurovski]

28. Clippity

[Kurovski]

29. Clop

[Kurovski]

30. Tic

[Kurovski]

31. Toc

[Kurovski]

32. Tic

[Kurovski]

33. Toc

[Kurovski]

34. Clippity

[Kurovski]

35. Clippity

[Kurovski]

36. Clop.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

19. I'm damn glad OnTheOtherHand contributes so much in that bit of time

Unfortunately, ER work is time consuming, and many talented people can't spare
any time at all to assist the movement.

OTOH does and without asking for a pat on the back.

edited for capitolization of OTOH's name.
Guess I can't complain, my screen name is hellishly long too.

[Kurovski]

20. I don't

trust him.

After what, five years, six? I find a lack of trustworthiness.

I don't appreciate him. at all.

But some do. Some don't.

they saw to getting rid of some who don't.

like perhaps, TIA.

But I think TIA very much likes OTOH. :)

Gawd bless us everyone.

Thank you for your daily threads, WYVBC.

I wish I could be here to recommend them everyday.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

23. Bless you

heh! (in vein of the previous posts)

[Kurovski]

37. & God Bless the Google.

*BING*

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

38. The Church of Google?

and

[lib_wit_it]

2. K & R

[Stevepol]

7. K&R

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. like Iran's election, without transparency

you can't prove the outcome one way or another.

You can have paper ballots but if you don't have public counting and robust
chain of custody - then you don't have transparency

So we know that elections in the US are a hodge podge of methods varying in
degrees of transparency/non transparency.

So we can speculate and say "probably" or "likely" and perhaps expose some fraud
but there's alot we cannot expose.

[WillE]

43. When hell freezes over...

Besides, the votes are none of our business.

What do you expect from the MSM?
The Truth?

We have the National Exit Poll.
So what if it's mathematically impossible?

So what if indicates that there were 5 million returning 2004 third-party voters?
Even if just 1.2 million were recorded.

So what if returning Bush voters outnumbered Kerry voters by almost 12 million?
Even if Bush won the bogus recorded vote by 3.0 million.
Why is that so hard for you to believe?

So what if Obama's true mandate was cut by more than 10 million votes?
Would it make a difference?
He wouldn't use that mandate anyway.

Look, he won by a landslide.
No need to rock the boat.
Get over it.

We won't see the exit polls in 2010, either.
Get used to it.

[Wilms]

44. What if you're mostly full of hot air and complicating election reform efforts?

Just askin'. :shrug:

Why don't you work with people who work on election verification? Is that beneath you? Or do you really think you're helping by looning about an election over four years ago?

[WillE]

45. You are looning by ignoring the elections of 2006 and 2008

The fact is that Democratic landslides were denied in the midterms
and last year in the general.

Or don't you care?

What are you afraid of anyway?
Do you object to kicking a thread which calls out the MSM?
What is it about exit polls that gets your dander up?

Do you trust the MSM?

Would you like to have ER all for yourself?
You would need some kind of(lever)age for that.

Your comment is unworthy of a true election activist.
It's no different than the ad hominens leveled at election activists in 2004-2005 when they dared to suggest that 2004 was stolen.

Are you suggesting that fraud ended in 2004?

Your pathetic reply only raises questions about your real motives.
By calling it "hot air", you only diminish yourself.
You should just back off and stick to your NY Lever mantra.

You are forcing DUers to question YOUR motives.
I've concluded that you are insincere and have a personal agenda.

Why would you thrash a thread which which asks the question many activists are asking:
Where are the unadjusted, "pristine" exit polls?

Just whose side are you on?
The activists or the media?

DUers can draw their own conclusions.

[Wilms]

46. The MSM has been called out. Everyone here knows the voting system is a wreck.

And some people are doing something about it.

Why don't you work with election verification advocates? :shrug: