Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is it that exit polls since 1988 have ALL overstated the Dem vote?

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
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 11:21 AM
Original message
Why is it that exit polls since 1988 have ALL overstated the Dem vote?
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 12:21 PM by TruthIsAll
Could it have something to do with the millions of votes spoiled and NOT counted in Democratic minority precincts?

Remember Florida 2000? Originally the Exit polls called it for Gore.
Later, we find out that 110,000 overvotes and 65,000 undervotes were not counted, the vast majority of them for GORE.
Not counted.

Of course, the liberal media doesn't report it. Justy like they didn't report the thousands of blacks who were disenfranchised.

Remember Palm Beach County?
Thousands of Jews voted for Buchanan.
Not counted.

Remember Duval County?
At least 28,000 overpunched votes. In black precincts.
Not counted.

Remember Volusia County?
16,022 votes dropped from Gore's total and spread out among third pary candidates. THIS DROP WAS THE REASON FOX AND THE OTHER NETWORKS SWITCHED THE FL CALL TO BUSH. LATER THAT EVENING, IT'S FOUND TO BE A DIEBOLD COMPUTER "GLICH". RIGHT.
GORE VOTES COUNTED. NOT.

How about 2004 Ohio? Greg Palast has written about the thousands of spoiled minority ballots for Kerry.
Not counted.

These voters were surely exit-polled. They all said they voted for Dukakis or Clinton or Gore or Kerry. They did. But...
NOT counted.

Perhaps that's a start in explaining the discrepancies.
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons.

How about the toucshscreens and the optiscans?
Hopefully, someone, somewhere, is compiling a detailed record of how many "gliches" proved favorable to Bush - and how many to the Kerry.

Assuming that we find that 60% of the thousands of gliches nationwide favor Bush, then it's a 99.9999% certainty that this could NOT just be due to chance.

IS IT JUST A COINCIDENCE THAT THE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS DO BETTER IN THE EXIT POLLS THAN IN THE VOTE TALLIES?

AMERICA'S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET IS NO LONGER A SECRET.

OCCAM'S RAZOR = F-R-A-U-D
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS = F-R-A-U-D

QUE BONO?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. I agree..........................OCCAM'S RAZOR = F-R-A-U-D
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Occam's Razor does equal fraud - but Occam's Razor is not useful in every
situation, because it undervalues motivation. It assumes equal incentive to the simple and complex - when in conspiracies the motivation is NOT equal.
This is why Occam's razor is often used to try and "debunk" conspiracy theories. But it is not a useful tool for those situations.
In this case, even with Occam's Razor weighted against collusion to commit fraud, fraud still wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. I was just being facitious. Occam is a convenient Repuke excuse.
For not doing the analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. The GOP's strategy has always included systematically...
...undercounting Democratic votes. In the old days of levers, a GOP poll watcher told me when she and her buddies spotted a likely Democrat entering a polling booth they would put a finger under the tally lever outside the booth so that the vote cast would not register. (She thought I was a Republican and she was sharing valuable advise with me). If you cant keep them from voting then keep their votes from counting. The best place to do this is in precincts which the GOP controls where it is easy to "accidently" forget to count a few Democratic votes here and there. Now, with electronic tabulation and central computers, Democratic precincts can be hacked too, turning the old nickle and dime GOP vote theft strategy into grand larceny--which is why Ken Blackwell tried to stop exit polls in Ohio on election day this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. I thought you said exit polls were always correct until 2000
If they've always overstated the Democratic vote since 1968 perhaps there is a systematic error in their sampling process; an error that has gotten worse because of societal or demographic trends the pollsters have not properly accounted for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I knew you would be right on that. I guess the GOP has always cheated.
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 11:58 AM by TruthIsAll
Your argument is typical Repuke. Pounce on a minor mistatement and avoid the substantive issues.

Systemic error = millions of spoiled Dem ballots?
Systemic error = thousands of machine "gliches", the vast majority favoring Repukes?

I suggest you do some research on your "systemic errorss".

It's systemic all right: systemic F-R-A-U-D.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. See my post...
at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

We need to pay attention to, and anticipate, just what phrases, sound bites, half-assed studies, non-factual arguments, hit and run tactics, and the whole bag of propaganda tricks that will be thrown against the overwhelming evidence of election fraud.

I actually feel some compassion for those who can't face this reality--and throw stupid arguments against it. It's hard thing to face that our democracy is hanging by a thread, and that we must act now to save it, or it's gone. Democracy's finest hour--the marvelous repudiation of Bush Inc. that occurred on Nov. 2--has been stolen from us. And it's a pisser to have to go back down to the bottom of the mountain and start pushing that boulder back up again, like Sisyphus.

Back to square one: They own the voting machinery. They had means, motive and opportunity, and they took it. It's as plain as day. And now, we're not just fighting for a fair and just country, we're back fighting for the right to vote!

It's as if 1776 didn't happen (and for black citizens, 1965).

But to put it in a more positive light: We were born to--or consciously chose--the great heritage of American democracy. It has fallen to us to try to save it, in what looks to be its final hour. Our right to vote is first and fundamental, and we must salvage it--by trying to overturn this election; and by focused, state by state efforts to achieve, a) paper trail; b) open source code (Congress isn't going to do this!).

This is a collective burden that history has placed on all living Americans--but especially on those of us who have been the first to see and understand it. We are like the very first organizers of the American Revolution, who saw what most others could not see: that fundamental rights were at issue, and that those fundamental rights must be asserted.

Once people understand what happened to their right to vote--that it is now in the total control of far rightwing Republican partisans--they are fully with us. They get it. They suspected all it along. They KNOW who they and their family members including their disaffected Republican uncles, and most of their neighbors, and all their co-workers, including people who had never voted before, voted for in this election!

So our task is, not to argue with wingers or serial naysayers (except to anticipate their line of baloney), but to get the word out to Kerry voters. Every one of them that I communicate with wants to know, "What can I do?" Because they KNOW deep down already that this election was crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Well said - and a belated Welcome to DU! nt
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. Thanks for the laugh, TIA
I'd stay and read the whole thread but at the moment I'm busy fighting election fraud where I'm quite sure there is a problem - right here in San Diego where I can make a real difference.

Next thing you know, you'll be claiming that the circumstantial statitistical evidence I have presented is just being "emotional".

Spoken with all the zeal and conviction of a "Creation Science" researcher.

http://www.icr.org/goodsci/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Why don't you stop laughing for a minute and address the issues?
And what exactly are you doing in SD to fight the fraud?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #25
53. Everyone - Let me briefly explain my POV on this thread
Edited on Mon Dec-06-04 09:58 AM by slackmaster
After three days in the desert where there are no computers, I logged into DU Forums. Because of my interest in the 2004 election results I read TIA's message at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... , which said "Why is it that exit polls since 1968 have ALL overstated the Dem vote?" (underlining added by slackmaster for emphasis)

I replied to what I saw, which seemed to undermine the whole foundation of TIA's discussions here, i.e. exit polls have "always" been accurate in the past.

I had no way of knowing that "1968" was a typographic error; that TIA actually meant to write 1988.

So it was totally reasonable of me to question his statement, as I did in reply #3.

In reply #4 I got excoriated with "Your argument is typical Repuke. Pounce on a minor mistatement and avoid the substantive issues., so in reply #5 (still unaware of TIA's typo) I asked for clarification.

I think a person in a rational state of mind would have replied with something along the lines of "I made a typo in the original message. I meant 1988 not 1968." But you can see how TIA behaved in his reply to my query.

"Why don't you stop laughing for a minute and address the issues?"

There's nothing left of value in this thread or the entire 2004 Election Results forum as far as I'm concerned. If we've sunk to a level where we can't treat each other with courtesy and respect there is no hope this kind of process will help us get to the real core issue, which is why our party has gotten out of touch with a majority of American voters.

I'm not denying that there were attempts to alter the results. I think there may have been outright fraud in some places, as there is in every election. But some of us here are grasping at straws, clinging to false hope, and to an outside observer a few of us seem to be acting like children throwing tantrums because they haven't gotten their way.

I think the official election results are a blend of truth and fraud. I believe the exit poll results were probably inaccurate. Why, I cannot say, and it's not my job to figure that out. The polls are run by professional pollsters, and if the results were wrong it's their problem. They have access to their sampling methods, procedures, etc. I don't. And keep in mind that I live in a state where nobody disputes that Senator Kerry won.

And what exactly are you doing in SD to fight the fraud?

Regarding our mayoral election - Encouraging city council member Donna Frye to file a lawsuit to get all of the write-in votes for her counted. I've offered to make a financial contribution to help out with a legal challenge, but she's refused it so far.

As it stands now if you wrote in a name and didn't fill in the bubble next to the written-in name on the paper ballot, your vote doesn't count. It's tough to get a fair hearing when the incumbent mayor is a long-time superior court judge. Although now retired from the judiciary, pretty much every judge and lawyer in San Diego knows him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myschkin Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
39. let's keep cool

"Your statement about my mention of 2000 as the first instance of GOP fraud was, in effect, a personal attack on my credibility."

The title of your threads are indeed contradictional...

Please don't be so aggressive... We have enough with this guy in the WH.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Why is systematic fraud or error so unlikely?
In the wake of Selection 2000, it was revealed that Gore won Florida 2000 because Republican controlled counties in Florida had initially, dare I say systematically, under reported Democratic votes.

It gets worse. The same pattern of SYSTEMATIC under reporting of Democratic votes in Republican counties was noted all across the south on recounts. Plus, poor, Democratic counties are more likely to have technology such as punchcards that have a higher percentage of undercounts of votes.

So, of course exit polls will always show higher Democratic votes than the election night tallies, since exit polls ask people how they intended to vote, not how GOP precinct workers intend to count or fail to count their votes or how machines will fail to read a card with a hanging chad.

Anyone who engages in the activity of exit poll bashing right now is a Freeper until proven otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. There have been machines counting votes since 1964.
Their presence in the voting process has been growing steadily since they were first introduced. Now 80% of all our votes are counted by two companies. Two private companies that strongly support Republicans.
And even before machines counted the ballots, some of them got dumped in rivers.
Fraud (in every industry, not just voting) has been around a long, long time. Lots of people have been convicted of it.
As our systems get more complex it is only natural to expect that the fraud will as well.
Until we investigate thoroughly, it's all speculation. The 'election was fraud' is speculation. The 'election was legitimate' is speculation.
It's all based on speculation, since there is no verification process.
Which is why we need to investigate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. lets see - "papau" election judge 1960 - and GOP fraud in Illinois - today
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 12:52 PM by papau
exit polls for last elections show likely hood of fraud.

Yes - you are correct

IT INDEED HAS BEEN 4 DECADES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reality_bites Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
47. I don't know if it's emtion he's running on....
but it certainly isn't logic.

Hey TruthIsAll, you need to get out more, maybe do a little reading. Statistics 101 would be a good place to start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myschkin Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
37. not all scepticals are repukes here...

TIA, you get more and more dogmatic... Look out!

I think we have always to be open for other arguments...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. The final pre-election polls showed
the race very close. There were six major polls, and Battleground put out two, one partisan Republican and one partisan Democratic.

Of the six non partisan, Bush was ahead in four, one was even and Kerry led in one by less than 1 %.

Here they are

Pollster Vote Projections
DETAILS Survey BUSH KERRY NADER OTHER Margin
Dates % % % % Bush Kerry

ELECTION RESULTS per AP (99%) 51.1 48.0 0.3 0.6 3.1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zogby 11/1-2 49.4 49.1 0.3
Battleground: Tarrance (R) * 10/31 - 11/1 51.2 47.8 0.5 0.5 3.4
Battleground: Lake (D) ** 10/31 - 11/1 48.6 50.7 2.1
TIPP 10/30 - 11/1 50.1 48.0 1.1 0.8 2.1
Harris 10/29 - 11/1 49 48 2 1 1
Democracy Corps (D) 10/29-31 48.7 49.5 0.6 1.0 0.8
Gallup 10/29-31 49 49 1 1
Pew Research Center 10/27-30 51 48 1 3

_______________________________________________________

The winner was the Pew Research poll which got the numbers exact at 51-48 Bush. Ed Tarrance's partisan Republican Battleground poll was also dead on at 51-48. The TIPP poll was very close at 50-48 Bush.

Furthest off was Celinda Lake's Democratic part of the Battleground poll having Kerry up 51-49.

Pretty accurate results since pollsters were complaining this was a difficult election to poll because there was so much of a push to get less likely voters out to the polls. The polling firms would have to guess who to count and who not to.

Anyway, I think reading some of the posts here, there are people who think Kerry was up by 5 % in all the polls coming into election day and then, Blammo, he lost by 3 %.

That's not it. The overall polls showed Bush up a few percent and that's what he won by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
witchhazl Donating Member (126 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
46. slackmaster, I don't have the facts at my fingertips, but what I
believe I have read is that there has been a small but consistent skew in the exit polls over past years in favor of the Democratic candidate. In earlier years I don't think it was statistically significant, but it stands out because it is consistent. So the polls were accurate, but with that consistent small deviation in favor of the Democrat.

This fits in perfectly with everything TIA is arguing. I wondered before what accounted for that consistent skew, & it kinda bothered me, but I forgot about it. What TIA says explains it in a natural and believable way. It still could be that he is wrong, but what he says makes perfect sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. Try this timeline:
1979-1980: Urosevich Bros. given large backing by extreme RW forces to enter voting tabulation software market.

1980-198?: Ursevich Bros. take over computerized vote tabulation.

198?: After learning where all the holes in local laws are, key states are selected and Republican state legislators in those states are put into place.

198?-1994: Election laws are further weakened by said state legislators.

1994: By "an impressive turnout of RW reactionaries", Republicans take control of the US Congress.

2000: Bush takes over Presidency

2002: VNS exit polls shut down on election day. Republicans take control of the Senate by "surprise election day reversal" of several key races.

2004: The rest is history
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. See what you can find out when you want to learn the facts?
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 12:23 PM by TruthIsAll
Good work.

tia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Give the devil his due. They took 20 years and did it "right"...
From the bottom up - Republican style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goldengreek Donating Member (835 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. I think we're on to something here.
Let's go get those fascist bastards!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Last Lemming Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. So the story goes
Clinton is elected by some screw up. You, wiley right winger, decide an end run. You put Newt Gingrich out with a bunch of crazy ideas. He bombs so you change the face but the fix is in 1992. Clinton reelcted (maybe unable to fix a national election at that point); to get him out you impeach him; nobody in America wants this but funny thing, all the guys that voted for impeachment are re-elected. Strange... and his hand picked successor goes down. . . Must be that old Contract for America. The democrats just don't "connect with the average voter." The talking heads distract us while the real work goes on within computers. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goldengreek Donating Member (835 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hmmm. Who was running for president in 1988?
Gee. The name escapes me...

Actually, it's true that exit polls have been "overrating" Democratic turnout twice as much as it underrates that turnout, compared to final vote tallies, since at least 1988. This is probably evidence of chronic fraud. African-Americans are always defrauded of their votes. This may also be evidence for a series of test runs that have been going on since 1988, when King George I first stole an election. This one a primary in South Carolina from Pat Robertson. I pointed this out to DUers a couple of weeks ago when discussing the second edition of the now famous Freeman study.

In 2000 and 2004, we may have been looking at these experiments in subversion come into full bloom.

It also explains how the Republicans keep getting more and more powerful, especially since their policies are toxic to the interests of most Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
16. The vast majority of overvotes were for Gore?
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 12:30 PM by Freddie Stubbs
How the heck can we know that? An overvote is when someone votes for more than one person when they are only supposed to vote for one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. How do we know? Here's how.
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 12:35 PM by TruthIsAll
Of 110,000 overvotes, at least 75-85,000 included a punch for Gore.
Only about 30,000 or so included a punch for Bush.
What does that tell you?

Google for some details on this - if you don't believe me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharman Donating Member (143 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Right
The WashPost did this study. Net 50,000 lost by Gore to the overvote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Unfortunely it tells me that there are a lot of stupid Democrats out there
Perhaps that is why we keep losing. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. You just don't get it, do you? Did you ever consider the...
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 04:48 PM by TruthIsAll
possibility that Repukes double-punched the votes after the fact to void them?

Of course you didn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccarter84 Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. Bush '88 primaries 1st example?
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 04:46 PM by ccarter84
And Thanks TIA
I could never match your knowledge, but I was wondering about the same thing. Also, I think 88 was the same year that Bush Sr. won in the primaries against Dole in (NH?) if I remember correctly from my reading it was unexpected and it was a turning point in the election...and I think it was tallied using machines in some manner or another
Peace man
good work
-C
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Exactly so. That 1988 primary was a joke. Bob Dole was way
ahead in delegates and in the NH polls just before the election.

How did Bush reverse the polls and win easy?

Just asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. Don't you remember 1988?
It wasn't that long ago.

Bush hit Dole with a blizzard of ads in New Hampshire listing all the taxes Dole voted to raise over his years in the senate. There was some quote about Bob Dole once called himself or someone once called him "the tax collector for the welfare state."

Anyway, the low tax Republicans in New Hampshire back in 1988 left Dole after the negative ads and the night of the primary Dole snarled into a mike on tv news that Bush needs to "stop lying about my record." That was the end of the Dole campaign.

Dole was way ahead on delegates? Don't know what that means. The only delegates chosen before New Hampsghire were the Iowa caucuses and as a neighbor from Kansas, it was no surprise Dole won there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
28. Wait a sec, all public opinion leading to these elections=wrong, unweigted
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 04:52 PM by tritsofme
raw exit poll data = right??

Is this your argument?

Since at least 1984, with the exception of 2000 and 2004, if someone was paying attention to public opinion polls it was pretty obvious who was going to win on election day.

Were all these pollsters for all these years in on the fix, while unweighted and raw data from exit polls shows the only "true" data?

Get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. So you agree that in an election like 1988 where Poppy had huge leads
in all the pre-election, was really won by Dukakis because that's what raw unweighted exit poll data says?

This is what you would have people believe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. So that scenario above makes sense to you?
Raw and unweighted exit poll data is more reliable than pre-election polls and the actual vote count?

I'm sorry if questioning conspiracy theories sets off alarms for you, but I haven't been here for over a year just to piss on some conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DLnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #28
50. Yes, exit polls have been much more accurate than public opinion polls.
Public opinion polls have been very poor predictors of actual election results. Exit polls have been very accurate (within about 1%). I don't have the references here, but this has been spoken about by a wide variety of commentators and is not at all hard to verify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Certaintly not the raw unweighted data from exit polls
Any properly conducted public opinion poll would be more accurate than that.

An exit poll should be more accurate than regular, but they are still subject to the same variables that affact all polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intelle Donating Member (416 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
29. TIA....do you think
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 04:53 PM by intelle
That the data that the networks like CNN were using in 2004 was unweighted data?

If so, then this exit poll data was perhaps not an anomaly -- at least compared to 1988 and forward?

I was thinking that the networks were using weighted data, and, then, when all those mad adjustments were made to the results, the weighted data had to be modified.

No? :shrug:

On edit: corrected syntax
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. I am not going to speculate on that. Let Mitofsky explain it.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intelle Donating Member (416 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I wish he would
this is what I thought had happened, and maybe I am right...that the "weighted" exit poll data had to modified to conform to the exaggerated Bush results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
45. Did you read the New York Times magazine story
that followed the Ohio director of the 527 group ACT on election day?

He got exit poll updates every hour or so.

The first batch showed Kerry up 4 % but each batch that followed was less favorable to Kerry until by the times the polls closed, he was hopeful but no longer confident.

According to this article, and this guy was the head of the Ohio Clark campaign before joining on with America Coming Together, there were not exit polls in Ohio showing Kerry way ahead unless you use the first batch that came out around noon which obviously would not be as accurate since it only measured morning voters.

I don't know which exit polls people are referring to when they say Kerry was up big.

If it's the first of four batches that measured morning voters so what? If it's the final batch of exit polls that were released atround poll closing, then according to this article at least, Kerry was no longer ahead.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
31. Well, it's true that Democrats are just nicer people. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
32. The gap became larger in 2000,2002,2004
Obviously, the neo-cons are adding to the old book of dirty election tricks...as well as "ousourcing" the fraud and disenfranchizement to give them a margin of "deniability".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
38. Does anyone happen to have any raw numbers from before 1988??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reality_bites Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
48. Question for the master
"Assuming that we find that 60% of the thousands of gliches nationwide favor Bush, then it's a 99.9999% certainty that this could NOT just be due to chance. "

Please provide your calculations and assumptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reality_bites Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
49. Need a little explanation from the master
A spoiled ballot is one where it cannot be determined who the voter voted for, or where the voter makes a mistake in marking his/her vote on the ballot.

How do you know that the ballots the election officials say are spoiled are not, in fact, spoiled ?

Maybe you are saying that spoiled ballots should be counted for for one of the candidates anyway. If that's the case, who should receive the vote ?

Another possibility is that many of these ballots are not spoiled and they are fraudulently being excluded from the count. Of course, there would need to be some proof that this before we can go around claiming fraud. Do you have any proof of this ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pgh_dem Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #49
56. spoiled ballots
as I understand the Ohio situation, in most cases a spoiled ballot just means it can't be read by a machine.
It is likely that a good number of those 93,000 ballots will not have a clear vote on them, but it is not correct to suggest that because they are considered 'spoiled' right now, that a clear vote could not be determined by hand counting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wlubin Donating Member (190 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
51. Probably due to the general fact that the nazi party has been stealing
elections since the beginning of time. Has a repub ever actually been voted into office? haha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. In 1868, Republican General Grant
won the presidential election in South Carolina.

I bet there were a few vote irregularities in that one.

PS - The Nazi Party didn't have to steal elections. Once they took office, they just didn't have them anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. Stealing elections is as American as Apple Pie and Motherhood
.
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 Sat Apr 20th 2019, 02:09 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