More "smoking gun" stuff. Sorry if this is a dupe.

[ClintCooper2003]

link: http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1713046.php

Exit Poll Data Does Not Match Pre-Election Polls
by Tim Lohrentz Thursday, Jan. 06, 2005 at 5:14 AM
[e-mail]

The national exit poll data was adjusted during the early morning hours of November 3. This report reveals many inconsistencies in this adjustment, including a weighting process that leaves impossible results, such as 104% turnout of the Bush 2000 voters.

download PDF (101.9 kibibytes)

It is now well known that the final exit polls from the November 2 Presidential contest between George W. Bush and John Kerry were adjusted (weighted) once actual vote tallies arrived in order to match the reported vote. This paper will first demonstrate that the weighting process was invalid. In other words, it is mathematically impossible to match the exit polls to the reported results of the popular vote. Then this paper will compare exit poll results to pre-election poll trends over the last month leading up to the election and then provide some other clues regarding which states may have fraudulent results.

Weighting of the Exit Poll Is Impossible

The final fixed exit poll shows how the electorate of 2004 broke down compared to the voting in the 2000 election. And what it reveals is that in order for Bush to win, a virtually impossible thing happened: every single Bush voter from 2000 also went out and again voted in 2004. That is, no Bush voter passed away from 2000 to 2004 or for whatever reason, could not vote in 2004. It is perhaps the greatest electoral miracle that Karl Rove has ever performed!

A very large number of people voted – 122.6 million. The 'fixed' exit poll says that of these, 43 percent voted for Bush in 2000, 37 percent voted for Gore in 2000, 3 percent voted for Nader/Other in 2000, and 17 percent did not vote in 2000.

Translating this into numbers means that of the 122.6 million voters in 2004, 52.6 million voted for Bush in 2000, 45.4 million voted for Gore in 2000, 3.7 million voted for Nader/Other in 2000, and 20.8 million did not vote in 2000. Really?

In 2000, Bush received only 50,456,169 votes. So 104 percent of Bush's 2000 base returned to polls, compared to 89 percent of Kerry's base. This is impossible! And this is important, because the exit polls show that Kerry won new voters, Kerry won voters who did not vote in 2000 (54 to 45), and Kerry overwhelming won voters who voted for Nader or someone else in 2000 (71 to 21). Also, the exit poll shows that Bush and Kerry swapped about an equal number of voters in 2004 -- ten percent of Gore voters went for Bush in 2004 while nine percent of Bush (2000) voters went for Kerry in 2004.

[ClintCooper2003]

1. kick

[Lurker321]

2. It's a well-known effect, people tell pollsters

they voted for the winner. Here is a study about it:

http://www.mori.com/mrr/2001/c010403.shtml

"in the USA, for example, where John F Kennedy won the Presidency by a tiny margin, the margin on recalled vote steadily increased during his term, and, after he was killed, some two-thirds recalled that they had voted for him."


or

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03...

"Nor are post-election recollections as reliable as what people tell exit pollsters on Election Day; there is usually a tendency for more respondents to say they voted for the winner than actually did so."

[Carolab]

3. In an election as heated as this one...

I doubt anyone would NOT remember for whom they voted. They may lie about it later but they would certainly remember.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

4. who did you vote for, Lurker?

I bet I don't need an exit poll to guess correctly

[Laurab]

7. It's funny, I wondered that, too

Same name turns up in every exit poll discussion trying to debunk any kind of exit poll theory. Believe me, I'm not stalking the post-er, but the name stands out, and so do the numerous arguments against every single exit poll comment posted by someone else. Kind of makes one wonder...

[Skittles]

8. I asked him about WMDs

just to see if he could answer without ranting about exit polls

[Lurker321]

9. Funny how simple presentation of facts

causes some people to wonder about someone's voting patterns. Do you think that only people who don't vote the way you like have facts at their disposal?

I don't like people posting misinformation. Note: not opinions, but pure misinformation, such as "Ukrainian exit polls were accurate" or "US raw exit polls have always predicted the election results correctly before 2000". When I see that, I try to correct it. Why do you object to that? Would you prefer that the misinformation be perpetuated?

[Straight Shooter]

12. You ask, "Would you prefer that the misinformation be perpetuated?"

No, we do not wish to perpetuate misinformation, as we do not wish to be mistaken for Republican bushies and right wing nutcases.

[Laurab]

15. No, not really a problem, a curiousity

as to how you can be everywhere, correcting everyone, and every single thing any one else has posted is "misinformation" according to you. It's not so much what you refer to as "a simple presentation of facts" - I'm of the opinion that most anyone can find some kind of "fact" to back up their own theories.

There appear to be quite a few people on here who are knowledgeable about exit polls. Unfortunately, I'm not one of them, nor do I really choose to spend my time becoming knowledgeable about them, because I really don't believe that will help prove the election was stolen.

I do believe they are probably an indicator, though, and your "facts" are always opposing someone else's "facts", to help enlighten us all, that although the exit polls showed Kerry winning, they were mistaken. That seems to be your only real point.

[Lurker321]

16. First of all, since anyone can find some "fact" to back up

their own theories, I would love for someone to present me with a "fact" that 1988 raw exit polls, for example, accurately predicted the official election results.

Second, no, I am not saying that "although the exit polls showed Kerry winning, they were mistaken". I am saying that the historical accuracy of raw exit poll numbers is low enough that they cannot serve as an indicator in a close election.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaulVB]

22. Says a Republican? (n/t)

[RaulVB]

11. We should make a poll on him (n/t)

[fearnobush]

10. There is a relationship with winners and voters choice increase over time,

but not 1 minute out of the booth also these studies were never conducted when the winner was actually the loser - Gore 2000, more pop votes than Bush.

[Lurker321]

17. Yes, the post-electoral "bandwagon effect" increases with

time and the original post discussed asking people who they voted for 4 years after they voted.

"Winner actually the loser" - perception is everything, especially in mass psychology, which is where the "bandwagon effect" studies belong.

[BR_Parkway]

25. According to your logic, 43% that claim they voted for Shrub 2000 is over

stated?

A very large number of people voted – 122.6 million. The 'fixed' exit poll says that of these, 43 percent voted for Bush in 2000, 37 percent voted for Gore in 2000, 3 percent voted for Nader/Other in 2000, and 17 percent did not vote in 2000.

If more people claim to have voted for the "winner" as time goes on, then some percentage of the 43% who told the 2004 pollsters that they voted for Shrub in 2000 were not truthful. That means that he had to get even MORE votes in 2004 - instead of 104% of his base, maybe a larger percentage like 110%...

[TruthIsAll]

5. This is DUer Chorti's superb analysis. It confirms my own. Keep it kicked.

tia

[Melissa G]

6. kick

[RaulVB]

13. Kick (n/t)

[DearAbby]

14. Kick

[spooked911]

21. You don't even need to rely on exit polls-- we know from other polls

that roughly as many Likely Voter Democrats were going to vote Bush as Likely Voter Repubs were going to vote for Kerry.

It is just common sense anyway for Bush to get so many votes overall that he had to get ALL of his previous voters, even though this seems impossible. Bush simply could not have gotten more than 50% of the new voters. So WHERE did Bush's 3 million margin come from? It's just not clear at all.

This is why the election was fishy when the numbers came out on Nov. 3rd.

[RaulVB]

23. Kick (n/t)

[KatieB]

24. kick