Greens Should Raise Money Immediately for New Ohio Post-Election Exit Poll

[nashuaadvocate]

I thought one of DU's resident lawyers, David G. Mills, made one of the most interesting points I've seen on the board in some time, on the following thread (Post #19):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=203024&mesg_id=203456&page=

Can someone tell me why the Greens *couldn't* raise money immediately for a massive, 10,000-voter post-election exit poll in Ohio? I believe typical pre-election polls had 500 to 700 voters, and typical post-election state-level exit polls had anywhere from 500 to 3,000 voters. Why would people be less likely to report who they actually voted for less than 60 days after the election, pre-inauguration? Sure, it's not exactly hard evidence, but couldn't this at least shock the media out of its complacency -- even if it's initially termed a "publicity stunt"?

If Kerry won that poll, it wouldn't be considered a "stunt" for very long -- unless Bush supporters were willing to concede that their man's "mandate" fell apart even before the inauguration! It's a win-win for progressives.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[Emillereid]

1. I think the Kerry campaign should pay for his own Ohio exit poll --

he's the one rolling in dough. In fact some of the money is mine -- solicited in the last days of the campaign as a post-election 'fight' fund. I'm still waiting for the fight to begin!

BTW, I've already given several times to the Greens and the recount efforts too!

Kerry needs to pick up the mantel and lead -- the Greens and the Libs have fronted the fight long enough!

[nashuaadvocate]

2. That would work, too! Either way. n/t

[keepthemhonest]

3. interesting

idea.irregardless of who pays for it, we should get it done. I think DU and all of these other sites could probably raise the money if they wanted to. We could pay Zogby to do the Poll for us.Yeah great idea.

I was thinking for the next election since they are going to want boycott polling info alltogether, that we are going to seriously have to consider raising money just for polling in the next election.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Why Greens? Why not the Democrats?

They are the true injured Party here. About time they took the offensive and started a national movement to repoll the electorate, independent of the Republican corporate media who are co-conspirators in the election fraud.

This would be smart politics on a number of levels for the DNC-

(1) Shows that they are fighting election fraud for the rank-and-file.
(2) Will end the speculation of whether the election results were rigged.
(3) Establish a direct connection with the voter, by-passsing the Republican media distorting filter. Could expand the polling to cover issues like Social Security reform, Iraq, etc.

[nicho]

5. only poll that matters is the number of ballots cast on November 2

taking a poll of a tiny subset of the larger group won't change the result of the ballots cast. add to that people can simply say they voted for whomever even if they voted otherwise.

[Old and In the Way]

7. I'd crank it up a notch.

do a poll whose results require a signed affidavit. I think many who feel that their vote was not counted would have no problem attesting to their vote. I'll bet lots of Republicans voted Kerry and wouldn't mind stating it for the record, too. In fact, I'd include a control question.

Were you registered Republican or Democrat as of 11/2/04? I'd break responses into:

Dems/Republicans/Indies whose answers were legally notarized.
Dems/republicans/Indies who remain anonymous.

I'd see no benefit in people who voted for Bush saying that they voted for Kerry....that'd just make our case more convincing. And I doubt anyone who voted for Kerry will want to make Bush look better by saying they voted for him.

[nicho]

9. does not matter who is registered Dem or Repuke

undoubtedly you had cross over votes. so to try and extrapolate the "real" voting results from the number of party affiliated voters would not get you anywhere close to the "truth". also, what about independents?

also, what about sample size?? is 500 enough 1000?? again, these polls have an error of 3% or more and the vote was decided by 2%!! so how is that going to give you a definitive answer??


note the next time you see a poll they will say they have a poll of 800 or 1000 Americans on any subject?? 800 or 1000? is that really a good representation of 290 million? plus, note that the sampling error is almost always about 4% in these polls. If I remember my Stats correctly, any sampling error greater than 3% is in fact statistically unreliable.

[Old and In the Way]

10. In the run up to the general election, the Republican corporate media

used polling data based on a heavy oversampling of Republicans. The results? Bush and Kerry pretty much tied. This helped to set-up the election fraud.

Regarding the sample size, the bigger the better. And if people sign affidavitts attesting to their vote, I'll take that as accurate.

What I don't want are Republican Secretaries of State who moonlight as Bush campaign managers counting this vote and I don't want the Republican corporate media explain what the rigged results mean.

Question for you. Assuming you were one of the majority whose vote was stolen, again....wouldn't you be interested in having your vote counted in a national poll to see if these results match what the Republicans told us it was?

[Old and In the Way]

8. If the results prove fraud, Bush has no moral authority to govern.

[Emillereid]

6. I think you're right -- it could provide us with a national forum

to make the connections between the corporate/republican rigging of our elections as well as the corporate interests in reform/rigging of social security, taxes, medicare, etc. We need to not only re-frame the message, but also reframe the audience to reach the poor, working class who have effectively been disenfranchised!