Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

THE 2000 STATE EXIT POLLS WERE ALMOST PERFECT

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 Jan-16-05 01:55 AM
Original message
THE 2000 STATE EXIT POLLS WERE ALMOST PERFECT
Edited on Sun Jan-16-05 02:19 AM by 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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GetTheRightVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. THE GRAPH: GORE VS. KERRY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
americanwoman Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 05:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. Do we know whether or not the 2000 results
were reweighted to match the results (as we know they were in 2004)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. Yes-- this is key.
How do we know these 2000 numbers weren't "fixed"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. Standard dev = 2.4
Averages without it are pointless.

Skew = -0.8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nodictators Donating Member (977 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yes, but you should care about how the data is weighted, or...
...if it should be weighted at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
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.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. You should consider the number of deviations within 1,2,3%
Edited on Sun Jan-16-05 07:45 PM by TruthIsAll
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%


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. When did I say the S.D. was useless. I'm only saying
Edited on Sun Jan-16-05 07:57 PM by TruthIsAll
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livvy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livvy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
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/20...

Gore: 48.5%
Bush: 46.2%

Democratic lead: +2.3%

The actual result was: +0.5%

Hardly "accurate".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nodictators Donating Member (977 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. This ACCURATELY shows the Fraud in 2000
Edited on Sun Jan-16-05 01:19 PM by nodictators
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.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. TIA--very interesting--Luv ya
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeeB Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. I've fallen behind in my reading . . .
Do you have a link to this Kevin Drum article? Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. sure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeeB Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Thanks again . . . (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myschkin Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. but now

we have 5 % difference... :-/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
16. Thank you sir, may I have another?
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeeB Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. LOL! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccarter84 Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
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/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
22.  I found it on the MSNBC site. Thought it would be interest. End of story.
Edited on Sun Jan-16-05 04:48 PM by TruthIsAll
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. I think we all know you believe them but,
Have you looked at the coat tails?

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdmccur Donating Member (622 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I posted this in another thread
Edited on Sun Jan-16-05 05:03 PM by rdmccur
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
38. We don't, but that isn't important
The math is right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seaclyr Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdmccur Donating Member (622 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Adjusted, weighted, corrected, normalized...
Edited on Mon Jan-17-05 08:12 PM by TruthIsAll
Different formulas, criteria, assumptions, scenarios, trials.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seaclyr Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. So please explain what happened with AK, AZ, AR, CT, DE & KS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
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.
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, 01:31 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