ALERT! reluctant Bush responder scam "invented" by Mitofsky in 2000!

[tommcintyre]

- Buchanan vs. Bush in the 2000 NH primaries: Scenario: Buchanan very close in the early exit polls (6 points), amazingly (and mysteriously), Bush pulls it out big (16 points), and Mittofsky explains (spins?) the early exit poll discrepancies:

July 18, 2000 NA (Network America) e-wire
What? Buchanan Bias? What’s that?
http://www.votefraud.org/News/2000/7/071800.html

"Mitofsky’s best guess <hypothesis?> is that Buchanan’s voters were prouder of what they had done and, hence, more prone to respond, than Bush’s were. <THE BIRTH OF rBr!>” <Hmm... so voters BOTH to the left (Kerry) AND right (Buchanan) are prouder of voting for their candidate than Bush?>

"When they find a Buchanan --- who exit polls higher than his final vote, -- they have to suppress the exit polls as “not fit for public consumption”..." <sound familiar yet?>

"...I have news for all of them: Buchanan BIAS is known as PUBLIC SUPPORT when it happens for any other candidate. In fact, there is no other candidate in the history of “exit polling” that has generated a “bias”, according to these manipulators." <Hmm.. it looks like it worked so well in 2000, they decided to use this "explanation" again in 2004.>

"Furthermore, the earliest returns were 49% to 49%, and someone who was in the Buchanan inner circles when these results became known, heard Buchanan say, “ . . . we could win this thing.” But that’s before the strange goings on began in which Bush stayed at 49% and Buchanan dropped 3% every few hours until he was at 40% at 2 AM. THEN, the next morning, 10,000 ballots were “found” as reported by Larry King the next night – and Buchanan dropped ANOTHER 3% to 37% -- just what Bush was hoping for. In the meantime Bush allegedly rose to 53%." <WOW! This really does sound like "deja vu all over again". So they got to practice this strategy in 2000.:mad: >

So, it turns out that rBr is NOT a new idea for Mitofsky. He "invented" it in 2000 to explain away exit poll discrepancies in the Buchanan/Bush NH primary!

Conclusion: So voters BOTH to the right AND left of Bush are more likely to express their preference??? LOL FAT CHANCE!

[kster]

1. Oh my!...nt

[kansasblue]

2. excellent snag, tommcintyre!

Can you take a look at Georgia in 2002? There's good stuff there.

[smartvoter]

3. kick nt

[kster]

4. kick.nt

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Fat chance indeed

Both people were proud of their canidate (why Bush who the hell knows) but I don't believe that for a second. And the same people who did our exit polling did the Ukraine's and Bush supported their polling results. Hmmmmm....

[kster]

6. kick.nt

[Coexist]

7. these people are SHAMELESS

[Helga Scow Stern]

8. Good work, tommy!

The facts keep coming in.

[bleever]

9. Great catch, tom. Nominated. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. Excellent catch, who are you sending it to?

[tommcintyre]

14. Right now I'm building a larger case of a co-ordinated effort to discredit

the exit poll discrepancy evidence. As the pieces are falling into place, I am creating an article.

This is only one incidence of a Mitofsky "impropriety" (an understatement), regarding this issue, that I have found. I've been sitting on this for a few days (as the story is still developing), but I thought it was just to "hot" NOT to put it out there.

In the meanwhile, please feel free to email the link to this thread far and wide. (In fact, I encourage you to.) I suggest you DON'T just send out the link to the article, since many busy people (like MSMer's) may miss the full significance of it without my commentary.

Actually, you will be helping me if you DO send it out. If I take the time to build a blaster (and give the blaster a much needed overhaul) for just this right now, I will lose many hours that should be put into the co-ordinated effort story.

So please spread the word. Brad Blog, Raw Story, Scoop, Koehler, Lampley and Olbermann would be a good start.

[kansasblue]

16. If I remember right, in 2002 they claimed a major system meltdown

in the exit polls. Anyone have info on that? And also Georgia had some major upsets vs exit polls. I wonder what the explantions were for that and if there are state polls to check out.

We have some history on that here don't we?

[tommcintyre]

17. Yes, there was the same familiar pattern:

http://ohvotesuppression.blogspot.com/2005_01_30_ohvotesuppression_archive.html
"A particularly egregious case was visible in Georgia in 2002, when the Democratic candidates for governor and the senate - leading in the polls and leading in the exit polls - were suddenly revealed the day after to have lost."

VNS melted down, etc., etc.

Mitofsky appears to have been at this type of (or similar) deception since 1967 - when Mitofsky "invented" exit polling.

[candice]

53. Don't forget the computer glitch on Election Day 2004

...after that critical server went down that was calculating poll results, whole states "flipped" in Bush's direction.

[smartvoter]

11. This is a significant find. Good work! nt

[helderheid]

12. GET THIS TO KEITH O!

[tommcintyre]

15. helderheid, please see this link, and help out if you can

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369999#370133

Thanks

[babsbunny]

39. SEND THIS TO IMUS

Imus on MSNBC was making fun of Kerry for thinking he actually won the election. Laughing at him, mocking "the long lines" in Ohio as if it was funny. Can someone here email Imus all of the proof the election was stolen? IMUS.MSNBC.COM

[tommcintyre]

42. Good idea. I'll include him in a blast of the "coordinated effort once

all the dust settles. The story is still developing.

[tandem5]

13. good find nt

[kster]

18. kick for the evening crowd.nt

[althecat]

19. What you mean.... Bush voters are just shy..... shy...shy...shy...shy...

That's why freepers are such a bunch of pussies.

[Kip Humphrey]

20. What a great find! Thanks!

[autorank]

21. And that's why we here at DU Elections call this theory The Liepothesis

:rofl: oh stop me :rofl:

The force of the rear guard obfuscation after the fact is just...oh please Mitofsky stop...

:rofl:

[kster]

22. Your killing me

with them :rofl: guys,don't make me break out twisted sister. I've heard of the word liepothesis I cant remember where ,now I remember http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=368143

[tommcintyre]

23. I used "scam", because Liepothesis wouldn't fit in the subject line ;) nt

[kster]

24. kick.nt

[donkeyotay]

25. So. let me get this straight

Bush is the ONLY candidate people vote for but are ASHAMED of their vote?

[LightningFlash]

26. Not the only.

Mitofsky cited it was repeated in the 2002 Georgia elections also. The "theory" in itself, has always been used to be a scapegoat for the incumbent. In a real math calculation it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It would never under any verb, be able to account for the switching of percentages in these exit poll results. Unless a computer was pre-recording them all, even then unlikely when its the vote counts on constant computers.

However, through-out history it has been the backbone of other countries. When it came to the U.S.A now, it seems to only have stood the time of day when a incumbent was losing.

[donkeyotay]

27. Oh, but Georgia 2002 had a perfectly logical explanation

Didn't rural voters come out in astoundingly large percentages to vote against a disabled war veteran for being soft on war, Bush's War?

Now THAT made total sense. Oh dear, I better use this:
:sarcasm:

So the rBr ISN'T a voter only ashamed to vote for Bush, but a voter ashamed to vote Republican? Maybe it's an rRr?

[tommcintyre]

28. Can you give me a link and/or more info on the 2002 "rWCr" connection?

What you say doesn't surprise me, but I haven't been able to make the clear - Mitofsky using rWCr* to explain it all away - 2002 Georgia connection (as I have done with with 2000).

*rWCr = reluctant Winning Candidate responder

[LightningFlash]

29. 2002 Election data, Georgia

this information from American press. Here's a clip:
"Something very odd happened in the mid-term elections in Georgia last November. On the eve of the vote, opinion polls showed Roy Barnes, the incumbent Democratic governor, leading by between nine and 11 points. In a somewhat closer, keenly watched Senate race, polls indicated that Max Cleland, the popular Democrat up for re-election, was ahead by two to five points against his Republican challenger, Saxby Chambliss. Those figures were more or less what political experts would have expected in state with a long tradition of electing Democrats to statewide office. But then the results came in, and all of Georgia appeared to have been turned upside down. Barnes lost the governorship to the Republican, Sonny Perdue, 46 per cent to 51 per cent, a swing of as much as 16 percentage points from the last opinion polls. Cleland lost to Chambliss 46 per cent to 53, a last-minute swing of 9 to 12 points."
http://nov2truth.org/article.php?story=20050316095006518

http://kaldveer.blogspot.com/2005_03_13_kaldveer_archive.html

[tommcintyre]

30. Thanks, strong acct, but I'm still searching for a rWCr "explanation"

for this radical swing. This would be very helpful - it helps to develop the pattern. I've searched quite a bit for this "explanation" for the 2002 GA exit poll discrepancies; but no luck so far.

The VNS meltdown also appears to be part of the pattern.

If you don't have a link to this info, I will make a request thread for it soon.

Thanks, and welcome to DU

[LightningFlash]

31. I went ahead and dug into the archive.

I went deeper and dug into the archive for the roper center, which seemingly shows the pattern here.

2002 (none / 0)

Please note that it took 10 months for the release of the 2002 data at the roper center website. Interestingly, note the following statement that accompanies the release:
This data set is properly sampled and weighted to reflect the views of all voters nationwide in 2002, but it should not be used to analyze voting behavior in individual states. As in previous years, VNS in 2002 developed a national sample and, in a separate process, created statewide samples with different questionnaires and weighting procedures in each state. Nearly all of those state-level interviews are not included in this data set and no valid analysis of individual states can be made without them. Do not select respondents in a specific state and analyze their responses separately; any attempt to do so could easily result in invalid and misleading results.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/usvns2002_2.html#states

Check the ftp://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ parts as well for more.

[helderheid]

32. wow

That statement says it all doesn't it???

[LightningFlash]

33. More.

ftp://ropercenter.uconn.edu/United_States%5CVNS/USVNS2000-NATELEC/version2/usvns2000-natelec.pdf


Clearly, according to the facts the entire theory has never been considered new whatsoever. Apparently if the other person had been the one on this end of the exit poll discrepancy, it would have gone the same way.

Either the exit polls are done by a rigged computer,
Or the vote counts are at this point.

[tommcintyre]

34. Either...exit polls are...rigged...or the vote counts are. Probably both

I've been looking deeply into Mitofsky, VNS, etc. And my best conclusion so far is that Mitofsky's primary role is as a "fixer". His job is to "massage" the data to make the exit polls match the final results. (In the past, a pattern of murky computer "meltdowns/breakdowns", "found votes", etc. has been his modus operandi.) So, the early exit poll data is much more reliable than the final "doctored" version.

In the past (since 1967 when he "invented" exit polling), he has been relatively successful in matching up the exit polls with the final results.

Lately, he has run into some problems though. First, the scrutiny since the 2000 election. Secondly, the Internet leaks of the early exit poll data.

So, he has had to scramble and make "cover stories". Hence, the birth of the rBr - regardless of whether the candidate is to the right or left of Mr. Bush.

Conclusion: Mitofsky is a crooked "fixer", NOT an unbiased exit poller

I will put this up shortly as it's own thread.

-----------------------------------------
Meanwhile, thanks again for the additional information, but perhaps I'm being a bit thick since I'm doing about six election-related activities at once. I don't see the specific connection (in your posts above) as to HOW the GA exit poll discrepancies were "explained away".

If you can elucidate this point for me (a precise quote and link), it would be appreciated. If not, I'll post a thread for it.

Thanks again

[LightningFlash]

35. I went deep into this.

But finding his original quote is tough too, a good idea to post the topic on General Discussion.

But I did find a whole lot more..

VNS in a nutshell, the same story.

Don't Blame the Exit Polls: They didn't cause Election Night problems on Tuesday or in 2000.
Nov. 6, 2002 http://slate.msn.com/id/2073608/
The crash of Voter News Service's exit poll computers on Tuesday only confirmed the bad reputation of exit polls.

The Election: How the Web Blew It
Slow-loading sites, stale info, built-in glitches--the Net's big
night was a big bust
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_48/b3709072.htm

Election night and the long morning after should have been the World
Wide Web's finest hour. But much of the opportunity created by the
the Web's unique ability to make vast amounts of information available on demand was squandered by lack of imagination, the usual technical glitches, and sloppy quality control. Web sites gave political junkies the opportunity to check on the odd House race in Idaho, but didn't add all that much.

[tommcintyre]

37. OK... here's the answer. THERE WERE NO EXIT POLLS.

Exit Polls: Georgia Senate
"Results as of 6:45 p.m. EST


CNN.com is committed to bringing you full exit poll results when available. However, Due to problems with exit polls from Voter News Service (VNS), no exit poll data is available for the 2002 elections.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/data/epolls/states/GA/S/01/epolls.html

Exit Polls: Georgia Governor
Results as of 6:45 p.m. EST


CNN.com is committed to bringing you full exit poll results when available. However, Due to problems with exit polls from Voter News Service (VNS), no exit poll data is available for the 2002 elections.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/data/epolls/states/GA/G/00/epolls.html
---------------------------
The info you have above is the last minute opinion polls. So, it became necessary to obfuscate the exit poll info.

Lots of good info on what happened in GA if you are interested:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm

[LightningFlash]

38. So the mystery is finally revealed....

Yes, it appears MP and Mitofsky thought the exit polls were embarassing but yet the server database did crash. So they justify it afterwards...

Good work on unraveling the conflict of interest. Given the proof that Mitofsky has been a part of this sort of methodology since he got started, one can not assume or base his hypothesis in reality.

One must take into account instead, the conflict of interest and approach the hypothesis with healthy skepticism.

As this evidence lays out in bold detail.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/30/223723/91

Evidently, it is just not possible for a uniform responder bias. Not unless someone had pre-cooked them, and it makes little sense. Occum's razor tells us instead, they were weighted to match corrupted vote counts...

Someone slips money under the table and VNS is ordered to "match" the adjusted results. Mitofsky knows the election is STOLEN.

Have we the audacity to deny that now? Obviously if he did not or simply wanted this over with, the questions and precinct WPE would be released immediately for a full test. You don't need voters NAMES to run any such test.

The proprietary exscuse is a liepothesis, identical to that of the voting vendor's.

[donkeyotay]

40. All the polls were wrong and so was the SOS

"But something about these explanations did not make sense, and they have made even less sense over time. When the Georgia secretary of state's office published its demographic breakdown of the election earlier this year, it turned out there was no surge of angry white men; in fact, the only subgroup showing even a modest increase in turnout was black women."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm


Georgia Senate
http://www.coxnews.com/newsservice/stories/2002/1107-POLL.html
Pollsters may have goofed in not picking up the Republican surge in Georgia, however, some pollsters said. In the Senate race, for instance, Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. The Hotline, a political news service, recalled a series of polls Wednesday showing that Chambliss had been ahead in none of them. The closest was the most recent Zogby International poll that had showed Cleland leading 46 to 44 percent, within the plus or minus 4 point margin of error.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-11-03-state-polls-usat_x.htm
In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49%-to-44% lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss.
Final Result
53 to 46 percent Chambliss
HOW ACCURATE?
Polls had Cleland winning by 2 and 5 points, he lost by 7
POST POLL SWING:
9 to 12 points towards Republican Party
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0211/S00078.htm

[tommcintyre]

41. Yes... and that same commondreams article

shows some real wild reverse-swings in both Dem AND Repub traditional strongholds. Looks mighty suspicious.

Also, it appears the machines were never certified, so the elections were illegal!

Much more in that great article.

[LightningFlash]

43. Keep on top of it.

We're finally lighting fires under the truth!! The truth will escape into the world.

[tommcintyre]

44. Apparently, the only one in the recorded history of our country.

I have been searching for days now, and have found no other example.

Factor in that voters both to the left, and EXTREME right are "prouder" of their vote...

I wonder what the chances are of that?

[LightningFlash]

45. Let me calculate the odds....

The odds that, only candidates who are to the extreme right and left of a republican, losing the election every time is.....

1 out of 433,433,324,342,121 In other words its over 400 trillion.....

Flat out 0. Impossible. Bush responder uniform theory=The wizard of oz

:crazy:

[tommcintyre]

46. I've "thrown down the gauntlet here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x370679#371286

Let's see if the pro-rBr apologists have the courage to take it up. If not, I'll put it "in their face" with it's own thread.

[tommcintyre]

47. So they haven't taken up my challenge...

So I'll have to post a thread for it tomorrow. Gee, I wonder if Mitofsky et. al will pay them overtime to work on Saturday? ;)

[kster]

48. Mitofsky can't even

get them to work on Friday evening,so I wouldn't count on them being here Saturday.

[tommcintyre]

49. LOL! They're here, but they're hiding... NOW they're rBAr's

Oh my god! There has now appeared a NEW species: the "reluctant Bush Apologist responder"!

Please let Mitofsky know - I'm sure he can use it to try to explain away SOMETHING. ;)

[kster]

36. Kick.nt

[Time for change]

50. I don't get it

Didn't McCain win the 2000 Republican NH primary?

[LightningFlash]

51. No he did not, Buchanon was paired against Bush. nt

[Time for change]

52. Please don't say that -- you're making me think that I'm losing my mind

So I just did a Google search:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presprim.htm
McCain 48.5%
Bush 30.4%
Forbes 12.7%

Am I missing something?

[MajorFlaw]

54. Locking. Discussion of a non existent matchup between shrub and

Buchanan in NH in 2000 serves no useful purpose.