...
here.
Different pollsters and polling groups have different approaches in determining who among a sample of "registered voters" are deemed "likely to vote." Thus, a pre-election "Likely"-voter "polling" is not a separate and independent physical sampling of Registered Voters (RV), but rather a mere culling of RVs deemed "unlikely to vote", based on 1) varying pollster criteria applied to already-sampled RVs and 2) pollster projection of actual turnout based on assumption. Re the
Gallup system (emphasis mine):
In each sample, a
subsample of likely voters is identified by taking into account each respondent's score on a 0 to 7 scale that assesses a person's likelihood to vote. The top scorers on this scale --
equal to the projected turnout -- are identified as likely voters. ... Gallup's system consists of asking respondents a battery of questions about past voting, current interest in the election, and self-reported interest in voting...Putting all of this information together, we can assign each voter a score based on our estimate of his or her probability of actually voting. Based on
assumptions about actual turnout, we use the scores to select the pool of voters that we think best represents a realistic pool of likely voters come Election Day. (see, too, Gallup's "Expanded Likely Voter Model" for Presidential elections)
There is no fixed criteria set for defining a pool of "likely voters." It varies between pollsters and their skill -- or preference -- in "assumptions about turnout." How "unlikely to vote" is a registered voter who voted in the prior election? Not very — often less than 3%. Such persons have been termed "habitual voters" who turnout 98% for elections. And that is a basic question pollsters typically ask not only of registered voters in
pre-election interviews, but also of voters in
post-election exit polls: "Whom did you vote for in the previous election?" Richard Charnin made good use of that information in
confirming (p.49,
Proving Election Fraud) the reliability of the 12:22am
Preliminary National Exit Poll of voters that showed Kerry won by
51-
48% versus the
Final NEP vote-share that was "forced" to match a
recorded vote count with Bush at
51-
48%.
And which registered voters largely become excluded from "likely voter" subsamples as a result of questions about past voting? Naturally, "new" voters, i.e., first-time, newly-registered voters and others who 'Did Not Vote' in the previous election. Why is that significant for pre-election
projection of Dem share based on
LV criteria?
Democrats have recently fared an average 14% margin advantage amongst "new" voters -- that is, before Obama's whopping
71-27% win of "new" voters in 2008. (Kerry won "new" voters by
57-41% in 2004.) Pre-election projections of election-day Dem share based on Registered Voter (
RV) polls would not exclude any registed voters, "new" or otherwise, while an RV subsample of "likely voters" based on "questions about past voting" might very well exclude a segment of the registered voters among which Democrats do very well relative to Republican candidates. Also, pre-election underestimates of turnout lower projected Dem share on election-day by raising the cutoff score for "likely voter" inclusion. How far off were pollster pre-election estimates of actual turnout in 2004 (similar to 2006 and 2008)? TruthIsAll studied and presented it
here (scroll down to 2004) — an average 6%. That translates to nearly 8m voters of 125m total. For 2008, one political analyst, Bruce Gyory, warned on Oct 29 that RV polls – and not LV polls – should be heeded for accurate projection of the vote, based on early-voting trends in certain states. (That Newsday article, as well as a series of articles by Stephanie Saul re NY voting system, is currently "unavailable".)
Thus, what we'll soon see in the pre-election polls is a not-so-gradual displacement of all-inclusive
RV polls by pollster-dependent, voter-excluding
LV polls, with the result being
lowball projections of Dem shares for election day. This is why turnout is key to Democrats overcoming systemic Republican vote-count fraud. "The Republican candidate often benefits from a turnout advantage." That quote from the Gallup site might have been qualified more finely: '...benefits from a
low-turnout advantage.'
This lowballing of projected Dem share by reversion to
onlyLV polls lays a foundation and cover for vote-count fraud against Dems on election day, followed up by the coverup of always "forcing"
Final exit polls to match the
recorded vote count. And who 'takes care of the counting' of the vote? Self-admittedly (only "joking"?), rad Republicans like
this guy. How successful has their "careful counting" been for the "GOP"? Check out Charnin's straightforward, no model, no assumption historical comparison of exit-poll responses of voters and official recorded counts of their votes,
1988 thru 2004 (p84,
Proving Election Fraud).
Oh, a new twist — perhaps degree of desperation? — was added in 2008 to the cover-up of "GOP" election fraud: Suppression by the NEP consortium of news outlets FOX, AP, CNN et al of its contracted exit pollster's Evaluation Report, which, in 2004, contained 51
unadjusted state exit polls and three
un-forced, preliminary-national exit polls. Charnin demonstrates in his book how those unadjusted state exit polls, aggregated, adds another national measure of confirmation the American electorate voted Kerry president, while the
recorded (
secret)
vote count indicated otherwise. What might the 2008 unadjusted state exit polls reveal about Obama's
true margin of victory and mandate, if made available?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
