THE 2000 STATE EXIT POLLS WERE ALMOST PERFECT

[TruthIsAll]

2000 Exit Poll Data - 50 states

FROM THE MSNBC SITE
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=FL		

Avg. Gore Exit poll:	47.39%
Avg. Gore Vote tally:	47.27%

Avg. Gore Deviation: -0.12%

Deviations favored Bush: 21
Deviations favored Gore: 29

States	Dev.	Within
39		1%
3		2%
2		3%
6		over 3%


					           2-party	2-party			
		Exit Poll		Exit%	Exit%	Gore	Gore		Exceed	
		All	Gore	Bush	Gore	Bush	Exit	Vote	Diff	3%MoE	Favor

											
AL	Men	48%	37%	63%	43.8%	56.2%	43.8%	42.9%	-0.90%		Bush
	Women	52%	50%	50%							
											
AK	Men	54%	35%	65%	41.9%	58.1%	41.9%	32.2%	-9.72%	Yes	Bush
	Women	46%	50%	50%							
											
AZ	Men	49%	37%	63%	43.1%	56.9%	43.1%	46.9%	3.76%	Yes	Gore
	Women	51%	49%	51%							
											
AR	Men	47%	46%	54%	52.4%	47.6%	52.4%	47.4%	-4.94%	Yes	Bush
	Women	53%	58%	42%							
											
CA	Men	42%	53%	47%	57.6%	41.2%	58.3%	55.8%	-2.53%		Bush
	Women	58%	61%	37%							
											
CO	Men	49%	41%	60%	46.6%	53.9%	46.4%	45.2%	-1.22%		Bush
	Women	51%	52%	48%							
											
CT	Men	47%	56%	44%	65.0%	35.0%	65.0%	59.6%	-5.44%	Yes	Bush
	Women	53%	73%	27%							
											
DE	Men	51%	44%	56%	49.4%	50.6%	49.4%	56.7%	7.31%	Yes	Gore
	Women	49%	55%	45%							
											
GA	Men	52%	38%	62%	46.6%	53.4%	46.6%	43.9%	-2.76%		Bush
	Women	48%	56%	44%							
											
KS	Men	49%	24%	76%	33.2%	66.8%	33.2%	38.9%	5.77%	Yes	Gore
	Women	51%	42%	58%							
											
FL	Male	46%	42%	54%	47.9%	49.1%	49.4%	50.0%	0.62%		Gore
	Female	54%	53%	45%							
											
HI	Male	49%	49%	42%	55.6%	36.9%	60.1%	60.2%	0.09%		Gore
	Female	51%	62%	32%							
											
ID	Male	51%	21%	76%	28.4%	69.1%	29.1%	29.5%	0.39%		Gore
	Female	49%	36%	62%							
											
IL	Male	47%	51%	46%	54.2%	42.8%	55.9%	56.1%	0.27%		Gore
	Female	53%	57%	40%							
											
IN	Male	47%	35%	64%	40.8%	57.6%	41.5%	41.8%	0.37%		Gore
	Female	53%	46%	52%							
											
IA	Male	50%	44%	52%	49.0%	48.0%	50.5%	50.5%	0.00%		Gore
	Female	50%	54%	44%							
											
KY	Male	49%	37%	61%	41.1%	56.4%	42.1%	41.8%	-0.30%		Bush
	Female	51%	45%	52%							
											
LA	Male	45%	39%	56%	44.5%	52.7%	45.8%	45.9%	0.14%		Gore
	Female	55%	49%	50%							
											
ME	Male	48%	42%	50%	48.8%	44.3%	52.4%	52.7%	0.28%		Gore
	Female	52%	55%	39%							
											
MD	Male	46%	47%	50%	56.7%	39.7%	58.8%	58.3%	-0.47%		Bush
	Female	54%	65%	31%							
											
MA	Male	47%	52%	37%	60.0%	32.2%	65.0%	64.5%	-0.52%		Bush
	Female	53%	67%	28%							
											
MI	Male	49%	46%	51%	51.1%	46.4%	52.4%	52.6%	0.17%		Gore
	Female	51%	56%	42%							
											
MN	Male	46%	43%	50%	47.9%	45.1%	51.5%	51.1%	-0.40%		Bush
	Female	54%	52%	41%							
											
MS	Male	43%	32%	67%	41.1%	57.9%	41.5%	41.4%	-0.12%		Bush
	Female	57%	48%	51%							
											
MO	Male	47%	43%	54%	47.2%	50.3%	48.4%	48.5%	0.02%		Gore
	Female	53%	51%	47%							
											
MT	Male	46%	28%	64%	32.9%	58.6%	35.9%	36.3%	0.34%		Gore
	Female	54%	37%	54%							
											
NE	Male	47%	30%	64%	32.7%	62.4%	34.3%	34.7%	0.39%		Gore
	Female	53%	35%	61%							
											
NV	Male	51%	41%	53%	45.4%	49.6%	47.8%	47.9%	0.11%		Gore
	Female	49%	50%	46%							
											
NH	Male	51%	40%	53%	46.4%	48.6%	48.8%	49.5%	0.64%		Gore
	Female	49%	53%	44%							
											
NJ	Male	47%	49%	47%	55.9%	40.6%	57.9%	58.3%	0.43%		Gore
	Female	53%	62%	35%							
											
NM	Male	48%	44%	51%	49.2%	46.3%	51.5%	50.0%	-1.51%		Bush
	Female	52%	54%	42%							
											
NY	Male	46%	53%	41%	59.5%	35.6%	62.6%	63.2%	0.60%		Gore
	Female	54%	65%	31%							
											
NC	Male	47%	38%	60%	42.8%	55.8%	43.4%	43.4%	0.03%		Gore
	Female	53%	47%	52%							
											
ND	Male	51%	31%	59%	32.5%	61.0%	34.8%	35.1%	0.35%		Gore
	Female	49%	34%	63%							
											
OH	Male	46%	39%	57%	46.6%	50.5%	48.0%	47.9%	-0.04%		Bush
	Female	54%	53%	45%							
											
OK	Male	45%	36%	62%	38.2%	59.8%	39.0%	38.8%	-0.20%		Bush
	Female	55%	40%	58%							
											
OR	Male	48%	40%	54%	46.8%	47.8%	49.5%	50.0%	0.53%		Gore
	Female	52%	53%	42%							
											
PA	Male	48%	43%	54%	50.8%	46.7%	52.1%	52.6%	0.49%		Gore
	Female	52%	58%	40%							
											
RI	Male	50%	54%	37%	60.5%	32.5%	65.1%	65.6%	0.54%		Gore
	Female	50%	67%	28%							
											
SC	Male	45%	35%	60%	40.5%	56.2%	41.9%	41.8%	-0.07%		Bush
	Female	55%	45%	53%							
											
SD	Male	51%	30%	67%	36.4%	61.1%	37.3%	38.8%	1.47%		Gore
	Female	49%	43%	55%							
											
TN	Male	47%	42%	56%	46.2%	51.2%	47.4%	48.0%	0.52%		Gore
	Female	53%	50%	47%							
											
TX	Male	49%	30%	65%	37.7%	58.9%	39.0%	39.2%	0.17%		Gore
	Female	51%	45%	53%							
											
UT	Male	48%	18%	73%	26.3%	66.8%	28.3%	28.0%	-0.32%		Bush
	Female	52%	34%	61%							
											
VT	Male	47%	45%	46%	50.8%	40.7%	55.5%	55.4%	-0.10%		Bush
	Female	53%	56%	36%							
											
VA	Male	46%	37%	58%	44.6%	52.1%	46.1%	45.8%	-0.29%		Bush
	Female	54%	51%	47%							
											
WA	Male	49%	43%	48%	49.1%	43.4%	53.1%	52.6%	-0.45%		Bush
	Female	51%	55%	39%							
											
WV	Male	46%	42%	57%	46.3%	51.6%	47.3%	46.9%	-0.37%		Bush
	Female	54%	50%	47%							
											
WI	Male	48%	40%	54%	47.8%	48.3%	49.8%	50.0%	0.25%		Gore
	Female	52%	55%	43%							
											
WY	Male	47%	21%	76%	27.9%	69.1%	28.8%	29.2%	0.41%		Gore
	Female	53%	34%	63%							
											
				Avg	45.75%	50.87%	47.39%	47.27%	-0.12%	6

[GetTheRightVote]

1. Well, the plot thickens now, exit poll close but now not workable

Sounds like the repubs are lying again to the public.
What can be done to stop these lies ??

:kick:

[TruthIsAll]

2. THE GRAPH: GORE VS. KERRY

[americanwoman]

3. Do we know whether or not the 2000 results

were reweighted to match the results (as we know they were in 2004)?

[spooked911]

20. Yes-- this is key.

How do we know these 2000 numbers weren't "fixed"?

[Stevepol]

4. Keep up the good work TIA. This is the only way to wake people up.

I can't see any other way except statistics to make people aware of the fraud. Every other avenue is closed off or so hard to travel thru that it's essentially impossible to make any inroads. Look at how hard it was to get the fake recount in OH. A lot of money, speeches, pressure, and in the end the recount went as the RW people in power wanted it to go: only 3% of the precincts hand recounted and those 3% cherry picked by the Blackwell folks in one way or another. None of the really crucial precincts hand recounted. Same with FL and NM. There are other law suits pending and going on and that's important too, but the real breadth and depth of the fraud can only be revealed by stats and you're providing an invaluable service.

Keep yourself well. Get plenty of exercise, eat the right foods, and think positive! I want you to stay around a long time.

May you live to be 150, TIA, and may you have many offspring.

[Igel]

5. Standard dev = 2.4

Averages without it are pointless.

Skew = -0.8

[TruthIsAll]

10. Not true. Even unweighted average is a good indicator..

Compare 0.12% average deviation vs. 2.24% this time.

Focus on the individual deviations.
How many under 1.0%?
Under 2.0%?

KISS

[Igel]

11. But the 2.24% can come about in numerous ways.

You can't do stats, which looks at aggregate distribution and characteristics, and then say the s.d. is useless.

S.d. characterizes the distribution, as does skew. Give me skew, s.d., average, and kurtosis, and I have a good idea what the curve looks like. Give me an average, and I know very little. Give me lots of individual tokens, and I'm likely to get lost in the details while wondering why anybody provided an average, or I'll look at the s.d. and skew.

I don't care if the average is weighted or not.

[nodictators]

13. Yes, but you should care about how the data is weighted, or...

...if it should be weighted at all.

[Igel]

24. Yeah, I should, but my point wasn't the validity of the

numbers, but the lack of stdev. (Actually, I seem to recall that averaging errors like that is a fairly meaningless exercise, but I wouldn't swear that I'm right.)

[TruthIsAll]

26. You should consider the number of deviations within 1,2,3%

In 2000, THIRTY-NINE fell within 1% (way below the MOE for any state). What does that tell you?

Only 9 exceeded 2%. Tight fit. Whether they were manipulated or not is beside the point of this discussion.

In 2004, there were 30 deviations above 2%. All for Bush.
That tells me a lot.


Avg. Gore Exit poll: 47.39%
Avg. Gore Vote tally: 47.27%

Avg. Gore Deviation: -0.12%

Deviations favored Bush: 21
Deviations favored Gore: 29

N Dev Within
39 1%
3 2%
2 3%
6 over 3%

[TruthIsAll]

27. When did I say the S.D. was useless. I'm only saying

that when there's a 2.24% average deviation for all 50 states, it is significant. This is confirmed by calculating the MOE for each state poll. If there was an outlier or two, we would see it. But when TWENTY-ONE states fall outside or are equal to the MOE, we have a problem, Houston. The average deviation is not sure not due to an outlier.

[msongs]

6. too bad elected dems don't care about all this w/ a few exceptions cuz

until the dems quite spreading their cheeks to the repubs we are wasting our time money and effort giving anything to a democrat candidate.

msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[livvy]

7. These numbers are dramatically different from 2004.

Are these based on final adjusted numbers, or like the 2004 data? If this is a stupid question, sorry. As I mentioned in another thread, I'm just starting to wrap my statistically disabled brain around data like this. I guess what I'm trying to say is, can this set of data be compared to the data in your other thread on an equal basis (apples to apples), or are they different?
Do you ever sleep, TIA? Nice work, again!
:toast:

[livvy]

8. Just looking at the data from Michigan, my state....

there is no possible way. Kerry was much more popular and supported than Gore was, at least in the SE part of the state. Kerry rallies drew huge masses of people, with several hour waits, and many turned away. That did not happen when Gore visited the state. I'm comparing the turnout at the same facility in the state. The differences in the turnout were huge.

[Mistwell]

9. The unweighted numbers were not!

These are the weighted numbers. Much like the weighted numbers from this election, they match the reported actual vote.\

The unweighted numbers were:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

Gore: 48.5%
Bush: 46.2%

Democratic lead: +2.3%

The actual result was: +0.5%

Hardly "accurate".

[nodictators]

12. This ACCURATELY shows the Fraud in 2000

The exit polls showed Gore with a 2.3% lead. After the requisite number of Gore ballots were spoiled Gore had only a 0.5% lead. QED

Note from the data in TIA's excellent find that Arkansas may have been stolen from Gore in 2000, along with Florida. And the data in the Washington Monthly/Kevin Drum article shows that Repubs may have fraudulently rigged the presidential elections in 1988, 1992, and 1996.

[FogerRox]

14. TIA--very interesting--Luv ya

[LeeB]

19. I've fallen behind in my reading . . .

Do you have a link to this Kevin Drum article? Thanks!

[Mistwell]

29. sure

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

[LeeB]

32. Thanks again . . . (n/t)

[Mistwell]

28. That is crazy

It is very rare that I would call someone crazy here.

I'm doing it now...at least, about your idea. It's crazy. Totally insane. True blue conspiracy tin foil hat stuff. To imagine that the Republicans rigged the election against Clinton twice (yet lost), rigged the election against Gore (lost that too, for the popular vote) and rigged the Dukakis election (which they would have won even without the rigging) as the only logical explination for the Washington Monthly data, is lunacy. They would have had to employ a massive, nation-wide conspiracy to do it. In those earlier elections, there was no software to rig...they didn't even have electronic voting. Nor was there a handful of voting machines like now..back then, there were hundreds. So, it would have had to be a conspiracy on a bible scale of production...with NOBODY talking about it all these years.

The obvious FIRST logical explanation is the one offerred by the creator of exit polling himself, who is also a lifelong Democrat: that the polls NEED TO BE WEIGHTED TO BE ACCURATE, AND WITHOUT WEIGHTING THEY ARTIFICIALLY DEVIATE TO DEMOCRATS DUE TO POLLING IN URBAN LOCATIONS MORE THAN RURAL LOCATIONS.

Seriously...that you would even think to conclude that massive conspiracy is the more logical explanation than unweighted polls are flawed is scary to me.

[euler]

41. Been there. Said that.

No one cares. If the math is right, and you know how paste data into Excel, your underying assumptions can be true or false without affecting the validity of the argument. The calculations are CORRECT. End of story.

[myschkin]

15. but now

we have 5 % difference... :-/

[bleever]

16. Thank you sir, may I have another?

:thumbsup:

[LeeB]

17. LOL! n/t

[ccarter84]

18. ...this could be the corrected/reweighted data...right?

Lots of work TIA, but this seems almost too accurate, i'm suspicious that its probably the corrected data.
my 2 cents
-CC

[Mistwell]

30. It is

It's the weighted data. You can see the unweighted data sourced by the Washington Monthly article:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

[spooked911]

21. Come on! How do we know these numbers are in any way comparable to the

2004 exit poll numbers you keep giving us?

If these are final weighted numbers, then they are probably not meaningful, right?

[TruthIsAll]

22. I found it on the MSNBC site. Thought it would be interest. End of story.

Do you believe the 2004 exit poll numbers?
I do.

Do I believe these are comparable?
Who really knows?

But I'll take MSNBC at their word.
You might want to investigate this on your own.

I have no reason NOT to believe these numbers.
That is not to say they are perfect.
They may have been "adjusted".

We all know what happened in FL.

[hootinholler]

25. I think we all know you believe them but,

Have you looked at the coat tails?

-Hoot

[Mistwell]

31. Question

"Do you believe the 2004 exit poll numbers?
I do."

Which ones...the weighted or the unweighted ones? You seem to believe the unweighted ones...and yet are now citing weighted exit polling data to claim that exit polls are accurate. Make up your mind TIA...what's your position...is it weighted polls are right, or unweighted polls are right?

"Do I believe these are comparable?
Who really knows?"

You know, for sure, that they are the weighted numbers. You have, in your hands, the unweighted numbers, and they do NOT match the election. So, who are you kidding?

[euler]

39. I';m trying to be nice, but you've been posting distortions for months.

Please learn something - ANYTHING - about exit polling. In your prior posts, you have been working with 2004 numbers that are not reweighted to the actual vote.

If this 2000 exit poll you posted here is the final exit poll, it's been reweighted to the actual vote. So, of course it matches the actual vote almost perfectly.

The final 2004 exit poll will ALSO match the actual vote almost perfectly after it too is reweighted to the actual vote count.

[rdmccur]

23. I posted this in another thread

but here it is again. Does anyone know whether this means anything different than what it says?

This was the caption at the top of the files posted by SCOOP, which were purportedly from Mitofsky/Edison for the various media (MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc.), are the words. Here is from the 4 pm poll.

"Estimates not for on-air use
PRES04 - Vertical Percentages
Time Created: 11/2/2004 3:59:05 PM
Time of Weighting: 11/2/2004 3:59:05 PM
United States General Exit Poll"

Specifically says "Time of Weighting: 11/2/2004 3:59:05 PM"
This tells me that this is NOT raw but weighted.

[euler]

38. We don't, but that isn't important

The math is right.

[seaclyr]

33. Numbers "weighted" but not "corrected"?

Seems no one can be sure right now, but if I had to guess they're probably weighted (aren't they usually weighted before being made public?) but not corrected to agree with the vote counts, or at least not consistently corrected. Otherwise how does one explain the states with the larger deviations?

[rdmccur]

34. Exactly!

[TruthIsAll]

35. Adjusted, weighted, corrected, normalized...

Different formulas, criteria, assumptions, scenarios, trials.

[euler]

36. Of course the exit polls match the actual vote almost perfectly.

They've been weighted to the actual vote count, just like every other exit poll in US history.

[seaclyr]

37. So please explain what happened with AK, AZ, AR, CT, DE & KS

[TruthIsAll]

40. Tthe Exit Poll is not really a poll.

So the Exit Poll is not really a poll.
Is that what you are saying?

It's weighted to match the actual vote.
If that's the case, who needs it?
Why bother?

Why not jjust use the vote counts.
They are accurate, aren't they?
There is no reason to assume otherwise, is there?

After all, it's a 100% sample-size.
ZERO margin of error.
That's very accurate.

No wonder they weight the exit poll to agree with the actual vote count.

Otherwise, you might conclude they are lousy pollsters.