Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cal Tech exit polls (corrupted) & Freeman-U of Pa exit polls (uncorrupted)

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
 
BlueInRed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 08:17 PM
Original message
Cal Tech exit polls (corrupted) & Freeman-U of Pa exit polls (uncorrupted)
Edited on Tue Nov-16-04 09:05 PM by BlueInRed
I have been asked by Jonathan Simon (of Verified Voting) to post this data widely. He supplied it to me in response to an an inquiry about the accuracy of an article (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html ). The exit poll discrepancy is caused by the source of the base data -- Cal Tech used corrupted exit polls, while Freeman used uncorrupted data.

Freeman (U of Pa) based his report on screen shots taken of exit polls at about 12 am Eastern. Jonathan Simon of Verified Voting also took similar screen shots of 47 of the exit polls. Simon says (ha!) that the Cal Tech people used flawed data, while Freeman used accurate exit poll data.

Here's the full text of Simon's explanation:

"Please distribute this clarification as widely as possible.

Okay, here's the deal. These data points for national # of respondents are undoubtedly correct. My screen shot for the 12:23 a.m. national update says 13,047; although I don;t have a second national screen shot for comparison, I do have several individual states which reflect a major change in candidate preference with little (OH, e.g.: 1963 @ 7:32 pm to 2020 @ 1:41 am) or no (CT, e.g.: 872 unchanged) increase in # of respondents.

What this indicates, however, is simply that in these later updates the exit poll results were being "corrected" by inclusion of increasing amounts of actual tabulated data (known as "quick counts") from target precincts. It is not so much that "the fix was in," but that the "exit polls" were no longer exit polls at this point, but were still being called such in the screen shots and by the media in general.

There was a lot of confusion about this and it has led to some very serious analytical error, such as the Cal Tech/MIT paper which uses the corrupted late "exit poll" results to conclude erroneously that the exit poll/tabulated vote discrepancies are not worth shouting about. This was, unfortunately, picked up by Keith Olbermann as a valid refutation of Steve Freeman's excellent work using the pure exit poll data and analyzing these red flag discrepancies.

The "official" exit polls were not designed to serve as a check mechanism on the vote totals, so Edison/Mitofsky had no compunction about conflating them with tabulated vote data (and thereby contaminating them with the very data stream we were relying on them to check, and rendering them useless for this purpose) as the night wore on. Fortunately I was able to secure the screen shots for 47 states (incl. DC) before the tabulated data was mixed in; and this data, of course, has proven to be a gold mine for analysis.

Would it have been swept under the carpet if someone had not been awake at the swtich to pick it up? Doubtless. Does that mean it was part of a "fix?" Not necessarily, just that this is a very tricky game (which it shouldn't be!) and you have to stay awake and keep on your toes. Are the lack of cooperation by the pollsters and the glib misinterpretations by the media evidence of a cover-up, an attempt to make the whole thing just go away? Very probably.

Can we still get at the truth? Yes, if we keep sorting through the rubble, learning as we go, and not taking "no" or "i dunno" for an answer.

Please post this information widely.
Jonathan Simon "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Most excellent. Nominating for front page, and shame on Caltech/MIT nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intelle Donating Member (416 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks for posting this.
Are you going to send this on to Keith Olbermann?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueInRed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. already sent, but feel free to resend
to Olberman. If he's getting 27,000 emails, I doubt he reads them all himself!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intelle Donating Member (416 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thanks, will do, n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. kick
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 Thu Apr 18th 2019, 08:13 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