Reply #42: Sorry, Febble, but your argument is specious...

[Rex_Goodheart]

and circular... You're assuming what you wish to prove.

"The polling incompetence hypothesis is easier to test because we do know (or E-M does) which precincts had the poor conditions. And the results suggest that it was a significant factor - error was greater where factors that would have compromised good sampling protocol were present."

What you and E/M have presented as "explanations" for a pro-Kerry variance are mere post hoc conjectures. You have no basis to contend that distance from a precinct makes a Bush voter more reluctant to respond. You have no basis to contend that crowded conditions make a Bush voter more reluctant to respond. And you have no basis to contend that a Bush voter would be more reluctant to respond to a new interviewer.

I could contend quite the opposite on each of those... for example, a new interviewer is not so jaded as the older one and not as disinterested, so takes better care with his sample.

Just imagine, for a second, a wholly possible 6% bias in Bush's favor in vote tabulations. You'd suddenly have no need to create post hoc explanations for the exit poll at all.

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?