You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #118: Answers first [View All]

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. Answers first
I presumed that since most election monitoring organizations use some polling that they must have done a bit of it as well. Not an unreasonable assumption considering how often they are used. I will concede that finding percise methodology on what techniques were used by field observers seems to be a bit more daunting that I assumed it would be. For the sake of putting it aside I will admit that I cannot find the information you have requested. But I would add that I cannot find ANY of the methadology the other organizations used to ascertain the accuracy of the vote.

I would again point out that the organization that did the exit poll against Chavez was actually part of a funded operation to delegitimize him internationally. Of course this is beside the point, just wanting to clear the air with regard to that.

Now with that aside...

Apart from wrangling over the definition of validity and accusing me of asking a bad question you seem to suggest you do not think that exit polls are as accurate as people seem to think.

A follow up question then: "Are exit polls more or less accurate than other forms of polling?"

Apart from that you seem to admit that they are used but, and (*sigh* again)I really can't ascertain you motive, but you seem to refute that they are used as an indicator as to how legitimate an election is. Again you toss in a question about my "moving goalposts" or whatever.

I thought I stated very clearly that I was putting these out questions aside from the original argument in an attempt to refine your positions but as you like it.

Having read the Conyers report and countless articles about the topic I just cannot agree with you on the idea that Bush legitimately won Ohio in 2004. Since you seem obsessed with the idea that he did win it despite tons of testimony to the contrary I come the conclusion that there really isn't a lot of common ground here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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