Reply #14: There is no reason to disbelieve the exit polls, given so much OTHER...

[Peace Patriot]

...evidence of fraud (for instance 86 out of 88 reported incidents of touchscreens changing Kerry votes to Bush votes--how COULD that happen without fraudulent programming? --it couldn't!)(--and there is so much more!), and given exit polls' constant improvement over the years, and good record in recent years, in the US and elsewhere. They are standard election practice specifically used to detect fraud in other democratic countries. And, you think corporations don't want accurate polls on consumer habits? (They do!). Exit polls are like all polls, only much better--they poll actual voters as they leave the polling place.

What there IS reason to disbelieve is Edison-Mitofsky's lame and non-fact based "theory"--invented after the fact--that the reason Kerry won the exit polls is the Bush Republicans are shy creatures and didn't respond to being asked who they voted for.

Such hogwash! People who voted for Kerry in Republican districts--like those folks in Waynesville who were recently thrown out of their church for refusing to renounce their Kerry votes--are much more likely to have shunned a pollster in their neighborhood polling place than loudmouth, fascist Bushites who don't think anyone else is entitled to an opinion, let alone entitled to vote.

THAT's what we don't trust--after the fact excuses, with no basis in reality or the data.

E/M were the jerks who permitted the news monopolies to LIE to the American people about who won the exit polls. They put FALSE DATA on everybody's TV screens on election night!

And now they're lying to cover their asses. It's very simple: They did their exit polls in good faith, with time-tested methods. It showed a fraudulent election--or was/is strong evidence pointing in that direction. Somebody put the heat on (late night call to the networks by Karl Rove?). Now they're trying to cover it up--fuzz it over, muddle the issue.

And it stinks to high heaven.

As for TIA--their plea is legit, TIA. I, too, want to better understand WHAT you are saying, and as much of your method as I am able to. Don't slough it off. We are (or at least I am) committed activists who are trying to get the truth out, and we need help in translating your insights into the data, into terms that others can understand.

It's a bit snotty to say: go read a book! You don't have to write a treatise. Just a bit of context, and some terms, and the import of your findings.

For instance, what an optimizer is, why you are doing a "plausible" scenario that the exit polls are right, the significance of the "key results," and...

I had trouble with this: "under his 51.80% assumed vote." (Where did the assumed vote come from?)

You are doing these optimizer studies in a certain context. Just briefly give the context. (And explain your "Hmmm...". Does the result surprise you? Conflict with other data? Confirm something?)

It's up to you, of course. I'm just urging you to explain more--for my own sake, and that of others. I've been riveted by your posts, and have taken a lot of time and trouble to understand them, and convey your findings to others. You are good at explaining--when you take the trouble to do so (your posts were excellent in the Febble controversy, for instance--and have been in other cases). (Your "To believe Bush won, you have to believe..." series is superb!) We activists are constantly engaged with others who know less than we do--and it's vital, it's the heart of our democracy, really, that we communicate what is going on here, with the exit poll analyses, with the other 2004 election evidence, with the news monopolies, and with election reform. So, if you can, help us out.

(Or, if you're just thinking out loud here--just working something out--if it has no great significance to YOU, as yet--then just say so.)