First it was rBr, now its eDp (Exuberant Democratic Pollster)

[TruthIsAll]

They have no shame, do they?

They just throw anything up against the wall hoping it will stick.


Snip

Exit poll results were just one item in a long bill of election-fraud particulars that folks began passing around in the aftermath of the election. But over the past seven months, the exits have proved more enduring to the election-was-stolen movement than many of the other early indicators of fraud. Lefty bastions like Democratic Underground are aflame with discussions purporting to prove how the exits show Bush didn't really win.

But a clear consensus among experienced pollsters is finally emerging on what happened with the exits. Last month, at an annual conference of opinion pollsters in Miami Beach, Warren Mitofsky, the veteran pollster who conducted the exit poll for the networks, offered a detailed and convincing explanation of what went wrong with the polls. The reason the exits were off, Mitofsky said, is that interviewers assigned to talk to voters as they left the polls appeared to be slightly more inclined to seek out Kerry voters than Bush voters. Kerry voters were overrepresented in the poll by a small margin, which is why everyone thought that Kerry was going to win. The underlying error, Mitofsky's firm said in a report this January, is "likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters."

more…

http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/15/exit_polls/index_np.html

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. They'd put frosting on crap

and tell you it's cake.

:puke:

Let's hear it for Lefty Bastions! :yourock:

[Melissa G]

2. We are So Hot at DU that we are Aflame with the Truth!!!

Hep Me! Hep Me! I'm HOOOTT!! JUST burning up...with the Truth!:kick: :toast:

[applegrove]

3. Why do they insist that the Democrats were exuberant. Could have

been and exuberant Repuke liar? or under exuberant Repuke voter who were given instructions to not give out info to pollsters.

Could be so many things.

[deacon2]

4. I have already written to him

But you have the numbers, TIA. Please give him the stick -

[email protected]

then address one to the editors at Salon.

[TruthIsAll]

5. I did not see that he linked to my latest June 14 thread of links

in the article. So he has them.

But he probably didn't read read them and just posted the links.
After all, I just posted the thread yesterday.

If he read any of them, then either he doesn't care to relate the specific contents and/or he doesn't understand them.

[LightningFlash]

6. Probably a little of both....

What, with burgalars from Colorado now ransacking Ohio state to cover up the election fraud....Nothing's a surprise. :eyes:

[Peace Patriot]

7. My advice, TIA: Focus on one of them--and I would pick your...

...analysis of the final (impossible) exit poll number (with the 613 added in). Send it to him. Explain it simply. And let this simpleton then cogitate about the truths that are found within the exit poll and related data.

The assertions in this article are unbelievably, friggingly stupid and gullible. I LAUGHED OUT LOUD--literally.

But maybe it will be possible for this writer to understand a simple point, that's it's not just that Kerry won the exit polls; it's that Kerry won the exit polls in a context of massive fraud and intent to defraud, and that the numbers just don't add up.

There is much that one could say to him, and to his editors--and I may send something in. But since it appears that you are a particular target of this piece, you ought to reply, too--not with a barrage (reporters these days, Bushite or not, can't handle tough data sets), but with an example. One riveting example. To pry open his eyes with.

I'll take that back. I don't think he is willing to understand. He could not have written this crap if he was. He has ulterior motives (poodle, lapdog, to the lib deniers; salon.com games?). But LTEs are not just for the writer (or editors). They are for the uninformed--for those who may really want to know the truth.

I see our task as one of reaching the uninformed and the disenfranchised--those masses of Kerry voters whose votes were disappeared into the electronic ether, and who have been robbed of "consent of the governed." They need to know what happened, and most of them want to know. And to reach them, we have to overcome the obstacle of reporters, editors and news monopoly owners who DO NOT WANT TO KNOW, or who know and DO NOT WANT OTHERS TO KNOW--and, also, forge our own pathways of communication to the many.

So it may be worth a letter--is what I'm saying.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Another thought: OR, it was way for some good guy to get your...

...analyses posted there, but it had to be surrounded with excrement in order to accomplish that mission.

Given the tone of the piece, I don't see how it could be the writer who wanted to promulgate the truth (but it still could be, I suppose). Maybe somebody else. Or maybe the whole thing is just a pre-emptive strike. Hard to tell, in the Byzantine Empire of the U.S. of A.

Corrupt and collusive Dems are shaking in their boots at a number of things: fear of their planes falling out of the air, fear of ruination by means of secret dossiers and black ops, fear of their corruption and collusion being exposed, fear of (and contempt for) the grass roots, and fear of the Dem masses never voting again, and, more important, not giving them any money.

Dem leaders permitted this fraudulent election system to be put into place (Bushites controlling the vote count with secret, proprietary programming code--I mean, come on...), or in any case, they (some of them) failed to cry foul when they should have. Complex and multiple kinds of corruption were involved, in my opinion. (Some favored war in the Middle East and want Bush to run it; some are benefiting from tax cuts to the rich--these didn't much care if we won the election; some liked having control of all those HAVA billions; some are outright accepting money, or favors, or future job offers from the Bush election system companies, or related entities, or have ties to state Dems who are; some are just ignorant about the election system and thus malfeasant (although I am less and less inclined to believe this of elected officials--oblivious to how votes are counted? --not likely)...etc., etc.)

Thus, some Dem leaders don't want us to know how fraudulent and corrupt the election system is. This is part of the picture of obfuscation at the top of our party. I'm not sure I understand it all--but when you get a hit piece like this, in a "lib" rag, it's probably coming from the top--or the writer has sussed out the powers, and knows what they want--consciously or unconsciously.

They want us to believe that Bush won, and that we have to keep sending them money, and casting votes for them, to prevent Armageddon. They could win our hearts by acknowledging the fraud and doing their damnedest to restore our right to vote (and a few are in fact doing the latter). But they have bad reasons for not acknowledging the election fraud (fear, corruption), and are insistently, as with one voice, into denial.

Fear, more than anything, is at work. They really can't have a clean fight with the Bushites. It's a dirty, rotten, Byzantine back alley--our nation's governance, at the moment. And the Dems are afraid of the Bushites (with some notable exceptions).

We do need to understand this--because what they're doing messes with our sense of reality. And we often get the question, "If the election was fraudulent, why haven't the Democrats said so?"

We need to ride over all of this betrayal and complexity of motives to reach the disenfranchised, to hearten them, and to mobilize them for election reform.

That should be our guiding beacon: reach the disenfranchised; trust the people; and have faith in democracy, even if the Democratic leadership (as a whole) doesn't.

[brindis_desala]

11. Thank you for this post. I agree with all of your points except.

the sufficiency of "trusting the people". WE the People are hogtied by a non-responsive legislative branch which is why though we have had corrupt administrations in the past we are left feeling so impotent. This is a dangerous situation because of the intricate system of checks and balances the Founders created. We MUST free the Congress from the clutches of corporate power (that means first: the ballot machines) or this democracy is left functional as Terry Schiavo. Madison understood this which is why we "re-elect" our reps. every two years. What the founders did not envision was that they'd be completely cut off from their constituents and living year-round in Washington.
As you recall From Federalist Paper#49

"The members of the legislative department, on the other hand, are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. The nature of their public trust implies a personal influence among the people, and that they are more immediately the confidential guardians of the rights and liberties of the people."
Don't we wish....

[tommcintyre]

21. self- delete

[yowzayowzayowza]

9. From Salon, no less...

Then again, this piece does create a "fair and balanced" space begging for a rebuttal. ;)

[dchill]

10. How about...

"likely due to Kerry voters participating in the ACTUAL VOTE at a higher rate than Bush voters."

That is how and why.

[Peace Patriot]

12. If you watch commercial TV, and pay any attention to commercials (one...

...should, really--don't let them seep into the unconscious), you begin to notice a pattern.
Whatever the TV commercial asserts, the exact opposite is very likely true.

If the TV commercial asserts that purchasing a new 4-wheeled drive vehicle will gain you
freedom, and shows freedom as the vehicle tearing up a beach or a forest floor, or just
driving up Highway One on the California coast all by yourself, no other cars on the road,
the truth is that purchasing this new vehicle will put you in debt and tie you down to a job
that requires a daily commute in bumper to bumper traffic in an urban area polluted by
yours and all the other vehicles, and that frequent confinement in this vehicle will make
you sick, not free, and even if you do manage to go tear up a beach or a forest floor, that
isn't really freedom, it's just destruction.

Or, if the TV commercial asserts that a certain toothpaste will make your teeth sparkly
white, it most likely has ingredients that will cause tooth decay and gum disease, and/or
poison your body with chemicals. Plain baking soda, which is extremely cheap, is the
best toothpaste, but they'll never tell you that.

Or, if the TV commercial asserts that you need to buy an expensive window cleaner to
have sparkly clean windows in your house, the substance they are selling you probably
causes streaks, or, in any case, is completely unnecessary. If it's sparkly windows you
want, plain vinegar and newspaper is by far the most effective window cleaner, and is
very cheap by comparison.

Apply this rule to almost any TV commercial, and see what I mean: It is invariably--and
almost amusingly--true that, whatever the commercial asserts, if you assume the
opposite, you will find the truth.

I have found this rule to be applicable to almost anything asserted by George Bush, Dick
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and their close associates such as Condoleeza Rice.
It is also applicable to the Bush Cartel "pod people" in Congress. These people are
"walking TV commercials." Their sole purpose is to sell you something that is bad for you
by constantly asserting the opposite of the truth about that product (say, the war in Iraq).
(War = freedom.)

And it is most certainly true of rightwing radio talk hosts. For instance: "Liberals are
ruining the country" is reversible to the truth, "Conservatives are ruining the country."

The news monopolies, who have come to control how we perceive our identity as a
"nation," have also become increasingly subject to my little "TV commercial rule" over the
years. It's not quite as neat as when George Bush says something or when an SUV maker
flashes you the freedom to tear up a forest floor--these things are neatly reversible (for
the truth). News monopolies may be telling you the truth about how many people were
injured or killed in a car accident that afternoon (MAY be--we can't know for sure), but
beyond relatively neutral facts about non-political and non-financial matters, their
assertions about what happened and who did it become highly questionable, and the rule
of "the opposite is the truth" comes into play.

But perhaps the worst of what the news monopolies have done (besides falsifying the exit
polls that showed a clear Kerry win, and changing it to a Bush win, on everybody's TV
screens on election night) is their "blackholing" of important stories and information-
-2004 election fraud, and our fraudulent election SYSTEM, being prime examples.

Where does Edison-Mitofsky fit into this news picture of pervasive lies, falsifications,
misinformation, and black holed stories?

To some extent the "commercial rule" fits. If Mitofsy touts a "reluctant Bush responder,"
you can be pretty sure that the truth has to do with "reluctant Kerry responders" (say,
Kerry voters in Republican precincts who feared social or religious repercussions from
their vote, and would be reluctant to disclose it in a neighborhood venue such as a polling
place). If he says that the exit polls are not evidence of election fraud, you can be pretty
sure that they are.

E-M has become little more than lying Bushites, akin to the news monopolies. However,
they try to maintain an ambience of science, and to aim their answers somewhere between
truth and lie, that is, at something that kind of sounds like the truth, but has no
foundation in actual data--like their latest excuse for Kerry's exit poll win, that the poll-
takers somehow smelled out Kerry voters, as they left the polling place, and favored
asking them how they voted, instead of Bush voters (thus biasing the polls). He brought
forth no data to support this latest (and doesn't have any, as far as I know), but it raises
some interesting questions. Do Kerry voters smell different than Bush voters? Dress
different? Make more frequent eye contact? Have better skin, or teeth?

I can't imagine what he's talking about--and I don't think he can either. But if that was the
case--that all the poll takers (and there were thousands), despite careful instruction, were
looking to give Kerry the edge, by their choice of respondents--then that's a poll all by
itself, isn't it?

The truth obtained from this reversal?: that most people in the country wanted Kerry to
win, and badly wanted to oust Bush, and that the enthusiasm for this outcome was
infectious.

(Note: I am not crediting this ridiculous theory; I'm just saying that the truth often lay hidden behind what the liars are lying about, and if you pay careful attention, you can suss it out, often by simple reversal of what they're saying.) (I learned this in Catholic grade school.)

[donkeyotay]

13. Total bull

"The reason the exits were off, Mitofsky said, is that interviewers assigned to talk to voters as they left the polls appeared to be slightly more inclined to seek out Kerry voters than Bush voters."

Professional pollsters use strategies to keep individual bias out. For one, many interviewers are used to minimize any one's bias, and for another, a method is employed to prevent the interviewer from only interviewing people they feel comfortable with. The interviewer follows a system for selecting respondents... and they're supervised.

The corrupt Republicans are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to avoid the consequences of all the lying and fraud that's accumulated.

[LightningFlash]

14. Here's what I'm reminded of...

Ted Koppel: "A stalinesque conspiracy to remove the consent of the governed, and cheat in the election as the exit polls conclude the result was fraudulent..."

Painted all as conspiracy theorists, because Koppel knew....Koppel knew the fraud was there. :crazy: :crazy:

[kster]

15. kick.nt

[autorank]

16. More DISINFORMATION from the Corporate Media "echo chamber"

That's right, it's coming from all corners now. First there were the endless obfuscations on the exit poll evidence which YOU demonstrate over and over again point to a fixed election. Then there were the early "visitors" to DU always attacking you and your work. Does that happen to anybody else? Will Pitt is controversial here and has a very high profile; but he posts here with out nasty attacks on every aspect of his work and intellect from people who just "sorta show up"a and then fade away (or get banned). Could it be...they're afraid of the Truth. Then there was the Mitofsky groveling tour where he trashed himself and his business to diminish the use of his work by the election fraud movement. Then "reluctant Bush responder" and more "visitors" to nay say, doubt, and quibble...but only with you and eomer.

On the one side you have the demonstrated problems of election fraud--on the ground, in the machines and networks, and in the National and State Exit Polls

On the other side you have disinformation and as CANNONFIRE says "DISINFORMATIONISTS"

It's as simple as that.

Whenever you hear someone say, "but can you prove it" be very wary. Of course we can't prove it, "they" won't release the information and, in fact, they won't even have an investigation. After you answer honestly with that statement you get, "well, we really can't take you seriously on a charge of this magnitude if you can't prove it." This is the core of the rhetoric. Total bull shit!

The point of all of this is generating a total, comprehensive, serious investigation of election fraud at all levels using all available evidence to point to more evidence in order to make reasonable conclusions and corrections to the system. Period!

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Contact the DNC and Tell Them to PREVENT Election Fraud

[LightningFlash]

17. Excellent way to put it, let's get this to all seeing eyes.

[kster]

18. kick/nt

[tommcintyre]

19. kick - In tribute to his tremendous contributions - WHY??? :( n/t

[bleever]

20. Kicking for truth, justice, and TIA's invaluable work.

[kster]

22. kick.nt