Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 01:02 AM
Original message
When will the MSM release the 2008 Exit Poll Report? (TIA) - x
Edited on Thu Jul-30-09 01:25 AM by tiptoe
Refresh | +10 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
HowHasItComeToThis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. "THOSE IN POWER" WILL NOT LET YOU SEE THE TRUTH
The evidence strongly suggests that Obama won by 1723m votes not by the recorded 9.5m.

WILL WE EVER KNOW????????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. what evidence do you have in mind?
Take your time. I have plenty of other things to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
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/2008ElectionAnal...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. This refutes False Recall
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #39
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. So which is it? Slow-drifting fog? Mere forgetfulness? Retrospective bandwagon?
Edited on Tue Aug-04-09 04:19 PM by WillE
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/FalseRecallRebut...

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%
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. which time did the NES respondents tell the truth?
Edited on Tue Aug-04-09 04:29 PM by OnTheOtherHand
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Yes,
this is only a partime gig for onTHeOthErHAnd
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-31-09 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. So what if it is? Or if it's just a hobby? Or an Army of posters using the same name?
Edited on Fri Jul-31-09 12:26 AM by Wilms
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-31-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Jesus saves,
Praise Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-31-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-01-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. God created the Heavens and the Earth.
God spared Noah and his sons.

Noah took two of each animal, spared from the flood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-01-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Ah. TIA created the Heavens and the Earth.
The exit polls are smoking gun proof of that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-01-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. With God all things are possible.
Hurricanes are his rath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-01-09 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-01-09 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Ramen. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-02-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-02-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. thz olde ur ban mith?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-02-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-02-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Clippity
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
25.  Clippity
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Clop
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
27.  Clippity
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
28.  Clippity
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Clop
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Tic
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Toc
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Tic
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Toc
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #33
34.  Clippity
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #34
35.  Clippity
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Clop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-02-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. I'm damn glad OnTheOtherHand contributes so much in that bit of time
Edited on Sun Aug-02-09 01:33 PM by WillYourVoteBCounted
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-02-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-02-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Bless you
heh! (in vein of the previous posts)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. & God Bless the Google.
*BING*
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. The Church of Google?


and

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lib_wit_it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #43
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?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. You are looning by ignoring the elections of 2006 and 2008
Edited on Thu Sep-24-09 11:18 PM by WillE
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.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #45
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:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Fri Jul 25th 2014, 11:12 AM
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