In 2000, Bush won Iowa and Wisconsin

[Awsi Dooger]

Pennsylvania was a tie.

I know that because afternoon exit polls said so, and on DU that's what we go by. Maybe someone can throw these numbers into a mathematical analysis and determine Bush's likelihood of winning both states (I also welcome guesswork):

Iowa:
Gore 47%
Bush 50%

Wisconsin:
Gore 45%
Bush 50%

Pennsylvania was 48-48.

I stumbled upon those numbers tonight while looking at an old Jaz disk. I realized DUers wouldn't accept them from conspiracy-doubting me, so I verified quickly thru Google. First from our favorite source. Notice, however, the thread is from one day PRIOR to election, before anyone knew the early exit polls would favor Kerry: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1265291/posts

Since we don't trust Free Republic, here is an accurate memory from another politically oriented website. The following paragraph is near the bottom of the text at this link: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001709.html

"Both Drudge and NRO point out that early exit polls had Gore up in Florida by 3 and that didn't pan out as expected. This is true -- but if memory serves, those same polls had Bush winning the Electoral College pretty easily when you added up states -- Bush was winning in Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in the early exit polls of 2000."

[jfern]

1. Yawn

Those are the MIDAFTERNOON polls. Compare apples to apples: compare the exit polls from when polls closed.

[tritsofme]

2. Can we get some graphs

or something like that proving that there is 99.99% probability that mid-afternoon exit polls are more reliable than actual vote counts?

[Awsi Dooger]

3. Darn, someone guessed the actual probability already

I thought it would take a few days

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

4. LOL!!

First you have to post a few dozen "Kerry electoral win probability 95% - 99%" BEFORE the election...

Even though anyone with any sense knows this is a 50-50 country.

[TruthIsAll]

5. Keep quoting Drudge and FreeRepublic.

That is what you are left to?

[Awsi Dooger]

11. Where did I quote Drudge?; I'm questioning early exit polls in general

As I wrote, I found a partial list of 2000 early exit polls on one of my Jaz disks last night. I didn't remember keeping them or I would have posted this info a week ago. I needed an internet source to verify and it just happened Free Republic had the full list, much more than I did.

The second link from this thread is a quote from Daniel W. Drezner, who mentions Drudge early in the quote. It is not a quote from Drudge. I would NEVER quote Drudge.

Truth, I just think you are focusing backward too much. I wish you would use your terrific math skills to evaluate recent elections and propose what we should do to win in 2006 and beyond.

Meanwhile, here is more stuff from Daniel Drezner, on election day 2002, regarding unreliability of early exit polls: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000507.html

Early exit polls mean squat, but...

"Two years ago I remember being very excited because I got a sneak peak at VNS (Voter News Service) numbers at around 2 PM. Of course, those numbers had Iowa and Pennsylvania going for Bush, so I don't place a ton of faith in these instruments. That said, compare and contrast Drudge's info with Joshua Micah Marshall's skinny on early exit polling for crucial Senate elections. Oh, hell, I'll do it for you:

ARKANSAS -- Drudge has Pryor (D) winning "easily"; Marshall has Pryor up by 18 points.

COLORADO -- A shocker. Drudge also has Strickland (D) winning “easily”; Marshall has him up by 20 points.

GEORGIA -- Both Drudge and Marshall have Chambliss (R) up by 4 points

LOUISIANA -- Drudge has Landrieu facing a December runoff.

MINNESOTA -- Drudge has Coleman (R) up by 3; Marshall has Mondale up by a similar percentage.

MISSOURI -- Drudge has Talent (R) "leading"; Marshall has him up by 10 points.

NEW HAMPSHIRE -- Drudge has nothing on this race; Marshall has Shaheen (D) up by 6 points.

NORTH CAROLINA -- Very interesting. Drudge has Bowles (D) "leading"; Marshall has Dole up 4-6 points.

SOUTH DAKOTA -- Nothing from Drudge; Marshall has Johnson (D) up by 2-4 points.

TEXAS -- Drudge has Cornyn (R) up 8 points, and Marshall has him up by 10 points."

OK, as you can see from 2002, the exit polls were similarly unreliable. I posted that on election eve last week, in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1267841

Regarding the 2002 exit polls referenced above: Strickland lost big. Shaheen lost. Bowles lost. Drudge had 2 of 8 wrong, based on poll numbers from his sources. Marshall was even worse, missing 3 of 9 and his margins out to space, even in the ones he got right.

[Teaser]

6. This won't stop the carping.

Assuming these numbers are right, you'd think this would silence the screeching here a bit.

You'd think that.

[Township75]

7. Interesting find...

I am glad you posted it.

Instead of focusing in our failures of GOTV, we are now focused on conspiracy theories about BBV. If we leave the 2004 election thinking we were robbed once again, we will likely lose the GOTV effort in 2k6.

[lakeguy]

8. why can't we do both?

people should be looking at number discrepancies but that doesn't mean that's ALL we're doing. i see many threads here trying to figure out what happens in 2006 and 2008 so i don't see what the big deal is when people want to make sure we still have a democracy here in America.

[spooky3]

9. I agree, and I don't see why people want to shut down investigations

of fact. Once those are complete, then we can draw conclusions.

[Township75]

10. Doing both is great!

I am not advocating entirely leaving the BBV theory, however, my perception - which is obviously much different than yours - is that this is the centerpiece of our efforts. It is that, that I abhor.

My perception of DU is that the election was stolen and the votes were there. Have you been listening to AAR? I have The Majority Report, Rhodes, and Unfiltered all focus their shows on the election being stolen through electonic voting.

I think an investigation into electronic voting will only validate it. I hope the investigation happens, but I hope when it happens, it isn't the centerpiece of our analysis of why we lost. I think we lost the GOTV effort.

[relaf]

15. Agree

I think that focusing on conspiracies is a waste of time, absent some clear proof they occurred. The bottom line is the Repubs sold a line of crap and people bought it. We need to regroup and make it work through GOTV, re-thinking our presentation of issues, and anything else. Just like Al Davis says, our focus should be Just Win Baby.

[LightTheMatch]

12. All of the BBV/Fraud Work is Useful.

Even in the most likely scenario, which is that we do not overturn the election, we have done many useful things in our efforts here of late.

1. We've cast doubt on Bush's supposed mandate.

2. We've cast doubt on electronic voting machines - which we must do, as they have several flaws, not the least of which is that voting on them is slower than on pencil and paper (optical scan, etc) ballots, which can cause us votes in elections because of long lines and waits.

3. We've proven that DU can be more than just a discussion forum - this can be a place to form ad hoc organizing groups to get things done in the real world! This knowledge will help all of us accomplish goals in our local, state, and national governments from now on.

[Awsi Dooger]

13. Are electronic machines slower?

I'm not disputing that, but I just don't know. I've voted on both punch cards and electronic and I thought electronic was faster, but come to think of it the line two weeks ago was incredibly long and didn't move particularly fast.

Again, electronic machines MAY cost us votes. We KNOW punch cards hurt us. That was proven again in Ohio this year. The ideal situation for Democrats is the most reliable type voting method in large urban areas. I thought that was optical scan but now everyone is casting doubt on them.

[LightTheMatch]

14. Optical Scan

I would much prefer to see Optical Scan ballots used, -with- the machines that can check them for errors and omissions at every single voting location. I know these are/were used in lots of suburbs around the country before. This usually gives the person a chance to change their ballot before it's submitted.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. Hmmm. Can't let this thread die in the archives

since it is so wrong in it's premise.

[Awsi Dooger]

17. Fine, I'll be glad to kick my innacurate thread for you

Since it doesn't seem to have been shot full of holes so far

[Milo_Bloom]

19. The problem...

The problem with your post is that you are harping on the same silly thing as some non-proof of fraud, when the proof of fraud lies elsewhere.

How many voting "inaccuracies" do you need to realize there is a serious problem?

How many messed up vote tallies, not exit polls, ACTUAL VOTE TALLIES have to not add up before people wake up to the realities of this problem.

Have you looked at the New Mexico vote totals? http://65.160.159.96/County17.htm

I'm not even talking about the fact that the vote totals don't add up correctly with the number of voters, forget that, let's assume absentee ballots explain it.

Go through the counties and precincts Notice the fact that in just about every single one Kerry got LESS VOTES THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT.

Check out precinct 004. 527 votes cast for President, yet the most votes cast for ANY OTHER LINE IS 311. So, in THIS PRECINCT alone, over 200 people decided to ONLY vote for President and leave.

In precinct 020, Bush wins the most votes, but every other Democrat CRUSHES the GOP.



Come on... get off the exit polls already. They are JUST ONE piece in a much MUCH bigger puzzle.

Everything about this election points to 1 of 2 things. FRAUD or A MOMUMENTAL CLUSTERFU*K.

Either way, the results of the election as stated are WRONG. Period. End of list.

[Awsi Dooger]

20. I've been focusing on vote totals much more than exit polls

Studied Florida and Ohio for 3 days apiece. As far as I remember, this is only the second thread I've posted regarding exit polls. The first was the night before the election and is linked at bottom of post #11 of this thread. It does irk me when DUers use exit polls like up 16 in New Hampshire or up 20 in Pennsylvania or only down 2 in North Carolina among the "proof" the exit polls were accurate and the vote was stolen. Anyone who follows politics understands those margins are not representative of those states, or even remotely close.

I'll be glad to look at New Mexico. Thanks for the link.

I don't pretend to know much about New Mexico politics other than the registration and party ID are still heavily Democratic, but that NEVER translates into substantial advantage for us in presidential voting. The state has been a true bellwether, never deviating more than 3% from the national popular vote average since '88. This year we came much closer there than I would have projected, based on losing nationally by 3.05%. From my notes, the state was 36% conservatives and 22% liberals this year, almost dead even with the nation, which was 21% and 34%.

Both parties pursued New Mexico heavily this year. The GOP had its "Viva Bush" campaign which ran all year and targeted Hispanic voters. I will look at the races you cited. But in heavily Democratic counties, it's likely the Republicans would not field the greatest candidates, especially versus Democratic incumbents. You can't just assume Kerry will receive equal, greater or even similar support to local Democrats.

[genius]

18. No. Those must be early returns