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
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
Exit polls... JSup Apr 2016 #1
Now you will get a lot of Clintonistas who acknowlege election fraud occurred in 2000 Kalidurga Apr 2016 #2
99.95256454% sure he is cuckoo-bananas! tritsofme Apr 2016 #3
The "Sane Progressive"... OilemFirchen Apr 2016 #4

JSup

(740 posts)
1. Exit polls...
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 02:33 PM
Apr 2016

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. They’re surveys, and like any other survey, they have a margin of error. The precision that a lot of these people are talking about just doesn’t 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 you’ll 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 they’re 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
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 07:10 PM
Apr 2016

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.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Sane Progressive Intervie...