Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
carincross Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:31 AM
Original message
Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama
Exit Polls are considered the "Gold Standard" of polls and are frequently used to corroborate that the raw vote is true. One of the main reasons for the popular revolt against the election in the Ukraine in the Orange Revolution was the significant disparity between exit polls and vote results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

This morning BRAD BLOG reports that Chris Matthews confirms that exit polls were showing Obama with an significant lead.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535
Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in NH
"MATTHEWS: So what accounts for Hillary Clinton's victory in New Hampshire? What we don't know is why the victory is so much different in fact, then the polling ahead of time, including what we call the Exit Polls were telling us. Obama was ahead in those polls by an average of 8 points, and even our own Exit Polls, taken as people came out of voting, showed him ahead. So what's going on here?"

"Did anything go wrong in New Hampshire? Who knows? The Pre-Election Polling indicates it did. The unadjusted Exit Polling, at least according to Matthews, indicates it did. But until we realize we need to actually count ballots --- openly and transparently --- in our American elections, we expect these same questions and nightmares will continue, over and over and over, for a very long time to come..."

This happened to Kerry-Edwards in 2004. It may be happening again. This is not for or against any candidate. It is to put all of us on notice that our voting system is still unreliable and may be unsafe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. The tinfoilers are getting pretty desperate
when they have to fall back on Tweety's analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Thats putting it lightly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JAbuchan08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Wouldn't be the first time
the media reported a story in order to kill it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. Raw exit polls are just that, raw and unreliable!
Raw exit poll data has never been the gold standard for reliability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riqster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. People need to remember this
...in 2004, the exit polls initially reported a Kerry win. After the vote totals came out, the polling data was 'adjusted' to match the vote numbers.

We can not trust exit polls any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
5. The Clinton people certainly didn't act like a fix was in. If they had
known there was, they should have played the slightly-concerned-but-confident role the Bush Crime Family has perfected, and not the surpised-as-everybody-else reaction they had.

Could someone else have fixed it? Who knows?

The election may or may not have been fixed, but we'll never know, will we?

When is this country going to wake up and demand hand-counted paper ballots?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. hand counted paper ballots can have voting fraud too
its not sufficient
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. What additional reforms do you think are necessary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. I'll have to go back to the BBV site and research
but I recall them finding uncounted used ballots in hefty bags outside the polling places.

Honestly, there was lots of election fraud before there were ever voting machines. So I'm gonna say that the only way to stop fraud is high volume of citizen participation. You can't have a conspiracy if thousands of people are involved.

Why the hell leave it in the hands of a few people?
Increase the numbers of observers/judges/monitors and tally'ers


But every time I suggest people volunteer to make their democracy work, no one responds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I honestly don't think the Clintons themselves were in on the fix. They were as shocked
as anyone that they won. Bill is said to have cried.

Our corporate masters have many slaves in many places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Ahh, so it isn't the Clintons pulling the strings, but...
...who?

The Bildebebergers?
Skull & Bones?
Illuminati?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. He has been saying this day and night. Chris, is so emotionally
emotionally involved with the obama Candidacy and his visceral hatred
of the Clintons, Imo, he appears to ignore what other Pollsters who
specialize in this say.

1. They had kids doing the exit polls--A reporter from NH observed
this plus the fact the kids were not very disciplined.
2. Obama reached the predicted number of votes. In the polls taken
before the voting began, Obama after the voes were counted
reached that prediction. He got the number of votes he was
predicted to get.
3. Voters fib about whom they voted.

4. As the voting started there were 40% undecided. They broke foe
Hilary.

5. For God's sakes we often problems with Exit Polling. People
are fed up with Media and Pollsters. Just to get even they
fib.

A few years back, I heard people on C-Span Washington Journal
organizing to thrwart pollster. Part of the strategy was to
deliberately give wrong information when Pollsters call their
home. They thought if they could screw things up enough by
not answering the phone or giving wrong information, Politicians
would be forced to listen to American People.

The fact that Obama got his projected vote should say something Why
keep chewing on the polls.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Thread over.
You've pretty much covered it all with this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. I'd like to take your word for that, but there
are paper ballots that we could count to find out for sure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
9. More evidence of what happened and why the polls were all wrong....
It was the women.....they came back.....aroused and angry.... they worked their sisters.....and they are here to stay....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008...

Clinton's Campaign in N.H. Touched Chord With Women
By Jonathan Weisman and Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 10, 2008; A01

To the pollsters and pundits, even the campaigns themselves, Hillary Rodham Clinton's victory Tuesday was a shocker -- "probably the most surprising political event that any of us can remember in a long time," said Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), a backer of Clinton rival Barack Obama -- and the result of a sudden, unexplained outpouring of female voters.

But New Hampshire proved to be a sleight of hand. While Obama was drawing huge crowds at exultant campaign rallies, an aggressive and old-fashioned ground game, focused almost singularly on ensuring that the gender gap Clinton had lost in Iowa was put in motion by her campaign and its allied women's groups.

In the four days between the two elections, her campaign and its allies were knocking on doors, working dozens of phone banks and aggressively hitting Obama with new attack lines -- implying in direct-mail fliers, for example, that the staunchly pro-abortion-rights Obama was less than committed to that issue and hinting that he favors raising taxes on the middle class.

Despite the polls favoring the senator from Illinois, it worked.

"Everyone's talking about the polls, but I was almost not believing the polls," said Mindy Kacavas, a stay-at-home mom in Manchester and an obliging but accidental participant in Clinton's New Hampshire blitz.

Just before Christmas, Kacavas was contacted by a political photographer friend of hers, asking if she'd pose for some pictures to help Clinton. The photo shoot was largely forgotten until a few days ago, when a flier arrived at her home from a political organization Kacavas had never heard of, with a photo of her emblazoned on the cover and a quote she never uttered: "When I think about Hillary Clinton, I think intelligent, decisive, and a true understanding of the problems facing America."

"I couldn't have said it better," she said yesterday with a laugh.

The mailing came from Women Vote, one of the largest organizations dedicated to electing Democratic women. The independent political arm of Emily's List had spent $500,000 in Iowa, educating women on the caucus process, trying to bring out a record female turnout, only to see its efforts swamped by Obama's appeal to young voters and independents.

In New Hampshire, the group went back to basics with a $200,000, lower-tech effort. It divided women into two camps: one with a history of voting in the primaries, another with newly minted registrations. Fliers went into the mail not with the fresh, smiling faces that were used in the Iowa campaign but with Granite State women, in Christmas sweaters, down parkas and sensible jackets, their faces set in earnest, speaking to their own kind. And Women Vote began calling 54,000 New Hampshire women in what Maren Hesla, the group's director, called "peer to peer" communication.


The election was "rigged"? No, it looks like Iowa was rigged by an arcane and flawed caucus system. New Hampshire was a standard but enlivened get-out-the-girly-vote super-bowl attempt to win an election.

It worked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Essene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. facts please, not speculation.
Pollsters and pundits obviously misunderstood NH.

Even if (big if) there was some massive voter fraud, it still wouldnt likely account for HOW BADLY the pollsters got it wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
14. Here comes the judges
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
16. dupe, fwiw
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Here's a teaser:
A key part of the media game has been the claim that Yushchenko won according to "exit polls". What is not said is that the people doing these "exit polls" as voters left voting places were US-trained and paid by an entity known as Freedom House, a neo-conservative operation in Washington. Freedom House trained some 1,000 poll observers, who loudly declared an 11-point lead for Yushchenko. Those claims triggered the mass marches claiming fraud. The current head of Freedom House is former CIA director and outspoken neo-conservative, Admiral James Woolsey, who calls the Bush administration's "war on terror" "World War IV". On the Freedom House board sits none other than Brzezinski. This would hardly seem to be an impartial human-rights organization.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GA20Ag01.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
17. Quoting Chris Matthews no less!
Even though Craig Crawford has repeatedly corrected him, showing him that Obama's predicted percentage from exit polls mirrored his actual percentage, Chris will not correct his assumptions. It was Hillary's percentage that was higher than expected. This argues against the "bradley effect" AND it suggests the discrepancy in exit polling respondents was with respect to Hillary support. Somehow after the beating the media had given HRC, I am not suprised that even female non-supporters might not have decided to vote for her at the last minute and that antagonism felt for the MSM and pundits might have extended to the inquiring pollsters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
18. Thanks moderators for moving all this crap back to its dungeon!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC