Well, actually I guess I can, but it still makes me mad. :grr:
Better Interviews Said Key to Exit Polls
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
MIAMI BEACH, Fla. - Better training of interviewers to get a proper sample of voters after they cast ballots will be key to improving the performance of exit polls, one pollster who handled the 2004 election surveys said Saturday.
Exit polls on Election Day 2004 overstated support for Democrat John Kerry overall and in many key states, which led to widespread confusion that day about the election eventually won by President Bush.
The exit polls contacted more supporters of Kerry than of Bush because of "the failure of interviewers to follow the selection rate," said Warren Mitofsky, who conducted the exit polls along with Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research.
In exit polling, properly trained interviewers are supposed to follow a carefully designed strategy of contacting voters, such as every fourth or fifth voter, to get a random sample.
Mitofsky has said the discrepancy between exit polls and the vote count was caused by several problems with the polls done for the television networks and The Associated Press.
Mitofsky said the 2004 problems could have been caused by several factors:
_haphazard choice of voters to interview
_legal restrictions that kept exit poll interviewers 50 feet or more from voting locations
_hiring of too many young interviewers
_inadequate monitoring of interviewers
Some researchers are still quarreling whether the problems were with the exit poll or the vote count and possible fraud.
1. Here is another one. Does this mean the feel a need to justify?
Edited on Sat May-14-05 08:34 PM by MelissaB
Ohio Exit Polls 'Not a Smoking Gun' for Fraud, Study Says
MIAMI, May 14 /PRNewswire/ -- A just released analysis confirms pollster Warren Mitofsky's assertion that the exit polls that put John Kerry ahead of George Bush in Ohio on Election Day 2004 do not necessarily indicate that there was fraud in the Ohio election. Exit polls estimated that Senator John Kerry was leading for Ohio's electoral votes, but not by a large enough margin to be called the winner. Had he won Ohio, he would have won the Presidency. However, the official result was a victory for President George W. Bush. The discrepancy between the polls and the results gave rise to widespread accusations of systematic election fraud.
The new study, commissioned by the Election Science Institute (ESI), was presented on Saturday at the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research in Miami. It looked at the results of the exit polls, which were conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, and compared them to official results from 2004 and 2000.
The research team, led by Dr. Fritz Scheuren, used more detailed information from the exit polls than previous studies. The team was able to use this precinct-level information while preserving ballot secrecy at a local level.
"The more detailed information allowed us to see that voting patterns were consistent with past results and consistent with exit poll results across precincts. It looks more like Bush voters were refusing to participate and less like systematic fraud," Dr. Scheuren said.
Dr. Scheuren is the current President of the American Statistical Association, and Vice President for Statistics at NORC, a research institute based at the University of Chicago. Steven Hertzberg, project director at the Election Science Institute, spoke to the broader implications. "We need to develop better tools to monitor our elections. The fact that there is debate over this at all shows that we need elections to be more transparent, more accountable, more auditable," he said. "To increase public confidence in the system ESI has begun working with election officials in Ohio to help publish more timely election data so the public may verify for themselves that the voting and the counting is done accurately."
The Election Science Institute (ESI) is a non-profit, non-partisan scientific organization based in San Francisco and founded in 2002 under the name Votewatch. ESI monitors public elections in the U.S. to identify voting anomalies which impact election results, and works with election officials to help them improve voting and election systems. ESI conducted its own exit polls in New Mexico for the purpose of assessing voters' experiences.
The paper is being presented at AAPOR 2005's Saturday lunch plenary. The conference is at the Fontainebleau Hilton Resort, 4441 Collins Ave, Miami. See http://www.aapor.org. For more information on the Election Science Institute, see http://www.electionscience.org.
It never has made any sense to me that Bush voters would refuse to respond. The "Shrinking Violet Republican" theory is just way too funny for me to stop laughing! Conservatives/Republicans spend a lot of time demeaning and intimidating liberals/Democrats. I don't think the latter are nearly as much into playing the browbeat and domineer game. I agree with Peace Patriot's recent posts describing her theory that only reluctant Republican respondents who voted for Kerry are likely to be afraid to reveal how they voted. Then, too, why would Bush voters refuse to respond knowing full well that there was a big discrepancy in the 2000 presidential election between the exit polls, which caused the news media to call the election for Gore, and the final reported results? Would they intentionally want to increase the likelihood of another Florida debacle (which is, of course, what happened anyway)?
4. I agree, but I posted this because this story was picked up around the
country. I really shouldn't use the words I want to to say what I think of this article.
In the first three hours this story was picked up by the following:
Fort Wayne News Sentinel, IN The State, SC Seattle Post Intelligencer, WA Tallahassee.com, FL Charleston Gazette, WV Bradenton Herald, FL Charleston Sunday Gazette Mail, WV philly.com, PA San Jose Mercury News, CA Guardian Unlimited, UK Boston Globe, MA Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL phillyburbs.com, PA WJLA, DC ABC News The Ledger, FL San Francisco Chronicle, CA ABC News Times Picayune, LA News & Observer, NC Dateline Alabama Gainesville Sun, FL Newsday, NY Los Angeles Times, CA Washington Post, DC
9. What does he mean by "more detailed information"?
The research team, led by Dr. Fritz Scheuren, used more detailed information from the exit polls than previous studies. The team was able to use this precinct-level information while preserving ballot secrecy at a local level.
"The more detailed information allowed us to see that voting patterns were consistent with past results and consistent with exit poll results across precincts.
Did Mitofsky provide detailed exit poll data to Scheuren/ESI? If so that is proof of a remarkable collaboration between Mitofsky and ESI. After all, there are many organizations, USCV prominent among them, that are clamoring for the detailed exit poll data. If this means what it seems to mean then I'm at a loss for words to express how outrageous I find this.
I mean are there stories in the same media about the election fraud?
Seems to me they doth 'protesteth' too much.
... and then we win.
I'm tired of this sh*t and it makes me mad too. Why would anyone hire a guy that's been in the biz so long and admits to running such a shoddy ship? Ummm, because he lies well and stays with the program?
ESI describes their presentation as being part of a larger presentation by M/E and CBS.
And Elizabeth Liddle (Febble) admitted yesterday that she was working for and receiving information from M/E at the same time that she was posting comments here to discredit the USCV paper without telling us about that connection.
I see a coordinated effort between M/E, ESI and Liddle.
15. Here's the "evidence" that Febble DID say she is working with Mitofsky
<I've been working this out. Thanks for your post, up until now, I only had inferential evidence - none that was direct. (I was ready to move forward with just the inferential - since it's good enough to make the rBr hypothesis (that's ALL they have), it should be good enough for this situation, right? ;) ) But your statement above is definitely DIRECT evidence. I will make a thread to see if anyone else read her post before she deleted it.
Anyway, this is what I had so far:
Yesterday (May 14th), Febble* apparently admitted she is working directly with Mitofsky; and, this fact was posted by sunshinekathy** in two places (note the times of the two posts, and the last edited times***):
24. Correct me if I have this wrong, this is what was going on.
1. The discussion between Sunshine Kitty and Febble revolved around Mitofski's noon time presentation, that apparently included evaluating the algebraic correction that Febble has been touting on this site.
2. There are allusions to intellectual property issues between the USCV and Febble.
30. I'm sure you realize that if Febble had access
to data which she insisted was not available due to its sensitive nature, that it counts against her (and Mitofsky's) credibility by suggesting that E/M is releasing this sensitive data to people they hope will support the rBr hypothesis, rather than those who would criticize it. In other words, if it is so sensitive, why is it ok to release it to Febble and ESI (I did gather from ESI/Hertzberg's statements that ESI did have access to precinct-ID'd raw data, I may be wrong), but not to allow the USCV people to 'verify' that the rBr hypothesis is supported by the real information?
That said, I haven't seen the actual post where Febble acknowledges working *for* Mitofsky. I got the impression that the conversation implied that E/M worked with her in applying some variation of her noise-reduction function, not that they'd released the info to her to work out the function in the first place.
Others may know different, and Febble has not (to my knowledge) posted to clarify. Given the highly charged atmosphere here, I figure she just doesn't feel like she should have to defend her integrity over and over.
If you look at Febble's paper, you can see that the function doesn't have anything to do with particular data sets. So she wouldn't need access to the data in order to work out the function, and in fact there isn't really anything she could do with the data to affect the function. There is nothing in the function that is tuned to explain away the 2004 results.
I don't know what data Febble had or when she had them, ditto ESI. I do know that there are real privacy issues around a public release linked to actual precincts. And I don't think that either Febble or ESI set out to prove one thing or another. If people want to believe that the scatterplots are somehow doctored, I guess they can. Heck, people can believe that the entire exit poll dataset is generated by random numbers. But at some point, it seems to me, the debate isn't about Febble's credibility any more.
And yeah, if I were Febble, I would not spend my time here.
What I think the issue between USCV (or Sunshine Kathy) and Febble is a personality issue, not an integrity issue specific to fraud being detectable in the exit polls.
If one does not cast the issue in shades of black and white, collaboration between Mitofski and Febble as to how to apply her correction term, should not be seen as a credibility issue, but a plus on Febble's side in that she was willing to approach and work with Mitofski to correct a potential broad error affecting the evaluation of the exit poll's possible bias and measurements of movements towards candidates. For Mitofski, given the reports of his thin skin, to have considered this re-evaluation indicates how on target it might be.
From a scientific perspective, this is quite expected, the working together to determine what is the truth. This is a possible step in the right direction. Transparency as to how science is done is never pretty, and always confusing.
12. Follow the money: how did they payoff Mitofsky?
Edited on Sun May-15-05 01:12 PM by autorank
That's going to be a major clue in the entire election fraud story. Mitofsky, inadvertently, gave us the top-down proof that election fraud took place, no two ways about it. He had to fix that poll quickly but that wasn't enough. "Management" needs him totally discredit the NEP, his work, through a NEP Debunking National Tour, coming to a city near you. Mitofsky is essentially saying his work is trash and that he's not a reliable person to do business with.
Now, follow the money: Who is paying him now? For what? Who will pay him in the future?
On edit: Excellent Post MelissaG. This is an irony, it's "The Dog that Barked when Nobody was There"
I was stunned to read about Warren Mitkovsky recommending more training for his exit pollsters after they wrongly predicted that John Kerry had won the November 2 elections. Mitkovsky, the founder of the exit polls, is famous in the whole world for the exactitude of his election predictions. Mexico, Russia, Venezuela, the Ukraine, everywhere in the world his election-day polling method is used to predict the winner and detect election fraud. Up to past 11 PM on November 2, 2004, the exit polls had Bush losing against Kerry. Ever since I have kept wondering that perhaps the pollsters were right and the election tallies fraudulent. ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;(
I'm an old Dem. I go back to the days of the Huntley-Brinkley News and Walter Cronkite, national exposure of the white bigots in the southern states who murdered civil rights workers and beat up civil rights marchers, the relatively uncensored coverage of the Vietnam war, and a bit later the Washington Post investigation of Watergate. Our country was by no means perfect--we were slaughtering 1 million Vietnamese and lost 55 thousand US solders in an unjustified war, for one thing--but at least we knew about it. We had a better "balance of power" among government, industry and news organizations.
It is still shocking to me how much this has changed. The news organizations--including such icons as the New York Times--have become COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE. You cannot trust ONE WORD they print or broadcast. There may be nuggets of fact; the obits are probably accurate; the sports page probably gets the scores right; and the general facts about an event might be true (and I stress, MIGHT BE true)--that is, the date, time, participants and occasion, say, Colin Powell DID speak to the U.N. on such and such a day, and said such and such.
But the fact that what Colin Powell said was 100% false will not be revealed, or even hinted at; his assertions will not be vetted; and in fact the news organization will promote the Bush Cartel viewpoint, and ignore and blackhole anything to the contrary, and will continue to do so until the Bush Cartel's purpose is accomplished (invasion of Iraq, the deaths of 100,000 innocent people, widespread torture of prisoners, the shredding of the Constitution, tax cuts for the rich, Halliburton theft of billions of dollars, etc.), then they may permit some contrary facts into the back pages of the paper or at the tail end of news broadcasts. What the other countries and the UN weapons inspectors had to say, or what 500 thousand anti-war protesters had to say (and how many there were, and who they were) will be extremely distorted or marginalized, or entirely ignored, especially at critical junctures when they are trying to force public opinion in a certain direction.
They have done the same thing with the 2004 fraudulent election. That is the situation--and it continues to be mind-boggling. Mission accomplished. The Bush Cartel is still in power--to the enormous benefit of news monopoly CEOs, global oil companies, arms dealers, and all global corporations and the rich, and to those who want Israel surrounded with U.S. military might--and now they permit a little news talk about election fraud, in order to debunk it.
What is more, many Americans still remain plugged into these lying, war profiteering, fascist news monopolies, as if to an umbilical cord to "the nation." Many people accept the illusion that these news monopolies create, even those who are aware of some of the lies. It is an emotional thing, in my opinion. Maybe it goes back to the days of Huntley-Brinkley and Walter Cronkite--when we seemed to be a nation, a people, with a common sense of progress and destiny, despite all the dissension (the dissension was a sign of political health!). Or maybe it's that American communities and families have been so shattered by corporate policy that people feel few common bonds with each other any more, and rely on "the news" to create some sort of common national identity.
People in this condition (brain-fuzzed by their own need to identify with "the nation," which the news monopolies brutally use to spread disinformation) can't see the utter discrepancy between the rulers and themselves. The newscasters and reporters are mere spokespeople for the rulers, who couldn't care less what we think. They merely manipulate us, and rob us, and lie to us. But the illusion that they create--the illusion of democracy, and this very mentally deranged illusion (delusion, really) of a common national identity and purpose that incorporates rich and poor, the Bush Cartel and the local grocer and schoolteacher and firefighter, sucks people in, time and again.
What do we have in common with the Bush Cartel or its lapdog media? Nothing. They rule us. We have no say in the matter, and no common ground. None. But still many people prefer to think that we do--and "the news" is how that delusion is foisted upon us.
Thus, too many people feel that "if it's not in 'the news,' it isn't real." They sometimes WAKE UP from the delusion--as they did on Iraq WMDs, for instance. Opposition to the war was huge (nearly 60% of Americans opposed it), and continues to be huge today. Further, the majority voted Bush out! They saw through all the B.S.--and rejected it--a credit to the strength of the American psyche, it seems to me. (It was certainly not a credit to American "journalism.")
Americans are not stupid, and they are not "conservative." (I'm sorry, I just don't believe it.) But we DO have a serious weakness, and that is our vulnerability to the delusional world that is created on TV (which the print media provides the headlines for).
The utter cynicism and diabolical manipulation that is revealed in these posted "news" stories--about Edison-Mitofsky and ESI--and the putrid corruption behind it, is the sort of thing we have been dealing with here at the DU Election Forum since Nov. 2, 2004.
The Bush Cartel stole this election. There is really no doubt about it. The evidence is overwhelming. And the news monopolies who HELPED THEM DO IT--by giving the American people FALSE INFORMATION on election night--ALTERED exit polls--are now helping them cover it up. (They changed the exit polls to fit the official tally, late on election night--thus depriving the public of strong evidence of fraud. They failed to disclose that Kerry actually won the exit polls, or that they were putting polluted data on their TV screens.)
The exit polls are just one piece of evidence. There is much more--including the fraudulent nature of the election system itself (Bush partisans owning and controlling the secret, proprietary programming code that was used to count the votes; no paper trail; a corroded "chain of custody" between the votes and the reporting of the votes.) The facts of this story are riveting. Any one of these facts--such as 86 out of 88 electronic touchscreen voting machines changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, in reported incidents--is a major news story. And there are thousands of such facts, pointing to an invalid election and a wrong result. The news monopolies have have quite deliberately killed this information, and they have done so in sync with each other and with the Bush regime (with help from corrupt and collusive Democrats).
Here's another example: The Democrats had a blowout success in new voter registration (nearly 60/40) in 2004. Most new voters voted for Kerry. Most Nader voters switched to Kerry. When Gore/Bush repeat voters are added in, Kerry wins by 4 million votes (similar to his exit poll win). Where did Bush's support come from? Well, recently, Karl Rove put out a "talking point" about the Republicans' "invisible" voter registration and get-out-the-vote effort. THAT gets press. THAT gets repeated all over the newsmap. THAT never gets vetted or investigated (there is NO data to back it up). But Kerry's very significant advantages in the election--advantages that made a Bush win nearly impossible; advantages that were CONFIRMED by the exit polls, and for which there is solid evidence--fall into oblivion. Did YOU know that the Democrats blew the Republicans away in new voter registrations in 2004? Most people don't know that.
To believe Bush won, you have to believe that a significant number of Gore voters--the very people who were getting all their non-voting family members, friends, co-workers, fellow students, employees, bosses, church members and neighbors to register for the first time, as DEMOCRATS, and to vote THIS TIME--themselves voted for Bush! You have to turn reality on its head. You have to believe Karl Rove about "invisible" voters. ("Invisible," indeed.)
This is what the news monopolies have done, time and again, on the election story--just as they did with the Iraq story and many others. They have turned reality on its head.
Despite all this, I rejoice, and I hope you do, too. You have found a forum that is working very hard to expose the truth, and to apply the solution (election reform!). Americans who were duped by the news monopolies on the election will wake up, and begin to understand it. They have the capacity to do that. They overwhelmingly disapprove of Bush and all his polices, and many are probably already wondering how he got elected. Although we are a profoundly disenfranchised people, I think our common sense and our democratic traditions, and our long time belief in progressive policies, will prevail.
freedomfries, don't let it continue to be just a suspicion, on your part. Review the facts. Get well informed about this. Spread the word. And lend your support to the election reform struggle, if you can. Our democracy is at great risk, and needs your help.
21. Warren Mitkovsky is totally discrediting his company and reputation
That's true dedication to the Fourth Reich! Here's a guy who will destroy his and his company's reputation for a lie: Poor training, poor modeling, poor supervision, poor staff hiring, poor survey design. Who in this world would hire his firm in the future after such a sloppy debacle?
23. "Who...would hire his firm in the future...? THE MSM OF COURSE!
"...although the networks' polling organization has changed its name over the decades from News Election Service to Voter News Service to National Election Pool, it's pretty much the same cast of characters. Warren Mitofsky started exit polling in the 1960's and he's still in charge today."
In 2000, VNS "melted down", and congress responded by throwing lots of money at them to "fix" things.
The result? VNS again melts down in 2002, disbands, and Mitofsky AGAIN emerges (via Mitofsky-Edison) to be in charge of US exit polling for the NEP.
So, it appears Mr. Mitofsky is wearing a "teflon suit" - nothing sticks to him, and he maintains his credibility (and support) no matter what.
If you haven't listened to this interview yet, I highly recommend it. I certainly don't agree with (or can confirm) everything that's there; but it certainly does contain some interesting insights, and valuable info.
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.