Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSane Progressive Interview with Richard Charnin: Exit Polls, Why They Matter, A Discussion
More important information from DU's most hated progressive.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 721 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sane Progressive Interview with Richard Charnin: Exit Polls, Why They Matter, A Discussion (Original Post)
Gregorian
Apr 2016
OP
Now you will get a lot of Clintonistas who acknowlege election fraud occurred in 2000
Kalidurga
Apr 2016
#2
JSup
(740 posts)1. Exit polls...
The article also discusses where this meme originated.
Virtually all of these claims are based on the idea that exit polls are a telltale sign of fraud. In a follow-up tweet, tim Robbins explained that, exit polls are historically pretty accurate, and are a heads-up on vote tampering.
As for using his results to suss out fraud, he says that American exit polls are just not designed for that type of precision. Theyre surveys, and like any other survey, they have a margin of error. The precision that a lot of these people are talking about just doesnt exist with our polls.
In emerging democracies, says Lensky, the exit polls are designed specifically to catch any manipulations of the vote count, and also to bring some transparency so voters can trust the vote count. They have a lot more locations in the sample, they do a lot more interviews and they use a much, much smaller questionnaire. In some cases, they just ask, who did you vote for? A brief questionnaire, he explains, increases the response rate. The more interviews you do, the more locations you cover and the shorter the questionnaire, the higher response rate youll get, and that all leads to a much smaller margin of error.
Lensky stresses that pre-election polls are also adjusted to conform their samples to what pollsters know about the populations theyre trying to measure. The irony of all of this is that the adjusted data are far more accurate than the raw data.
As for using his results to suss out fraud, he says that American exit polls are just not designed for that type of precision. Theyre surveys, and like any other survey, they have a margin of error. The precision that a lot of these people are talking about just doesnt exist with our polls.
In emerging democracies, says Lensky, the exit polls are designed specifically to catch any manipulations of the vote count, and also to bring some transparency so voters can trust the vote count. They have a lot more locations in the sample, they do a lot more interviews and they use a much, much smaller questionnaire. In some cases, they just ask, who did you vote for? A brief questionnaire, he explains, increases the response rate. The more interviews you do, the more locations you cover and the shorter the questionnaire, the higher response rate youll get, and that all leads to a much smaller margin of error.
Lensky stresses that pre-election polls are also adjusted to conform their samples to what pollsters know about the populations theyre trying to measure. The irony of all of this is that the adjusted data are far more accurate than the raw data.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/on-tim-robbins-election-fraud-and-how-nonsense-spreads-around-the-internet/
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)2. Now you will get a lot of Clintonistas who acknowlege election fraud occurred in 2000
and 2004, but there is no way it's happening in the Democratic Primary cuz there was no conspiracy with JFK's assassination which well who knows. I am going with the people who have researched this because I haven't. I am going to say yes it's very likely that there was a conspiracy because the official story on the face of it makes no logical sense. And there is this
An issue that previously many Democrats would agree is a serious issue and that it happens. But, now they will pretend everything that is going on is above board and honest because if they admit there are problems then they will have to question the results that show their seriously and majorly flawed candidate might not be winning at all. Or she might not be as popular as they want to believe. But, in order to do that they will have to pretend her negatives in polling don't exist and she isn't as untrustworthy as polls suggest.
tritsofme
(17,379 posts)3. 99.95256454% sure he is cuckoo-bananas!
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)4. The "Sane Progressive"...
is neither.