Since when did Exit Polls (samples) become Exit Potes ("votes" mixed in)?

[TruthIsAll]

The 11,000 sample-size from the CNN site are cleaner than the final numbers which were apparently Bushwacked to match the actual "votes".

Can you believe it?

Did you EVER hear of this kind polling practice? How can NPR justify it with a straight face? Do they think we are that stupid? Why the hell take an exit poll if you're just going to contaminate poll responses with actual votes?

Is it an EXIT POLL or an EXIT POTE?

What is the statistical justification for this?

The exit poll data was "massaged" with "votes" late in the exit poll count. Why?

Even with contaminated exit polls arbitrarily inflated for Bush, Kerry STILL comes out ahead.

[MissBrooks]

1. Do you have the URL for this information

I'd love to read the whole article.

[TruthIsAll]

2. No link. But it's well established by Mitofsky/NPR . They admit it.

I will look for a link.

[MissBrooks]

3. I'd love to read more.

[TruthIsAll]

4. Here are some links

BELLACIAO - TV Networks refuse Conyers request for Exit Poll Data ...
... the Bush campaign citing deliberate manipulation of votes. ... election day, the networks started "mixing in" the ... real" numbers with the exit poll data, and from ...
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4895 - 64k - Cached - Similar pages

Election Topics > Exit Polls | Waypath Topic Streams
... touchscreens registered negative 25 million votes, while a ... election day, the networks started "mixing in" the ... real" numbers with the exit poll data, and from ...
www.waypath.com/topic/election_exitpolls.html - 88k - Dec 30, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

Air America Radio | The Al Franken Show
... that, late in the afternoon, CNN began mixing the Exit ... to get hold of the pure Exit Poll data before it ... Exit Poll predictions) occurred in 10 of the 11 states ...
www.airamericaradio.com/weblogs/alfrankenshow/index.php?/franken/comments/2096/P100/ - 98k - Cached - Similar pages

Save the Redwoods/Boycott the Gap: ***URGENT Action Memo: Election ...
... observer, on Election Night) Get your friends at CNN and Fox News to start mixing your electronic vote data into the Exit Poll data, to hide ...
www.elksoft.com/news/fullarticles/2004.12.01.boycott.01.html - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Optimistic Mixing for Exit-Polls
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... electorate for timely information, and also the mischief ... In such cases, our exit-poll scheme permits seamless ... can take over, complete the mixing and produce ...
www.cse.buffalo.edu/~szhong/papers/mix.pdf - Similar pages

The Smirking Chimp
... country is that the Bush/Rovians stole votes in a ... A sqeaker: The first wave of exit-poll data reaching my ... of the confusion may stem from the mixing of morning ...
www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=19023&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

Slashdot | Slate Posts Top-Secret Exit Polling Numbers
... Some of the confusion may stem from the mixing of morning ... just some of the raw data that will eventually end ... Every exit poll i've seen says Florida is leaning ...
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/02/220224&tid=149&tid=103&tid=219 - 84k - Cached - Similar pages

MyDD :: Nader's Impact Quantified
... a question: I understand your objections to mixing these poll ... is a link to the raw Florida data: ftp://ropercenter ... to note was how bad the exit poll in Florida ...
www.mydd.com/story/2004/6/10/232010/111 - 61k - Cached - Similar pages

Democratic Underground Forums - The difference betweent the US and ...
... Ethics for pollsters which prevents them from mixing in the ... t get Mifosky to tweak the Exit Polls to Bush ... to Plan B, getting the networks to pollute the data. ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x130608 - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Democratic Underground Forums - Kick.
... mixing music in Battery Park City. ... CNN Story - Republicans blocked exit polling in Ohio, SoCalDemocrat, Nov-03 ... Voter Turnout Census Bureau Data, SoCalDemocrat, Nov ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1290765&mes... - 101k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.democraticunderground.com >

The Idler,vIIIn34
... doing it my way, CNN would still be mixing it up ... who gave Bush "the exact numbers" from the "early exit poll data"? ... to make sure that all the votes get counted ...
www.geocities.com/dcjarviks/Idler/vIIIn34.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages


TXCN.com | News for Texas | Personal Technology
... I've added each state's electoral votes in parentheses ... The first wave of exit-poll data reaching my desk comes ... the confusion may stem from the mixing of morning ...
www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/ptech/weblog2/110204ccdrptechweblog.1ba1b0f8.html - 48k - Cached - Similar pages

[americanwoman]

5. Do we know whether or not this was the practice in say 2000? n/t

[liam97]

6. This is another form of fraud

[TruthIsAll]

7. Never heard of it till now. Exit Polls are primarily for demographic info.

"Who did you vote for?" is only one out of a hundred questions asked.

[SicTransit]

8. If you *really* want to know how exit polling works -

read this

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_difference_.html

And to answer your question: always.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. never

it was never done before this year.

[bemis12]

25. It has, in fact

always been done. There was nothing different this year. The re-weighting of the polls is also nothing new. It's how exit polling is done.

[dlaliberte]

32. Weighting for the truth

Samples need to be weighted according to who was sampled. I would agree and expect that such weighting should be a part of any statistical study. I don't know what has happened in past elections, but it MAY be correct that final released "exit" polls are adjusted based on what the actual vote revealed. I haven't seen evidence either way so far.

HOWEVER, weighting the raw exit polls according to what the actual votes revealed is valid and trustworthy only if the actual votes are trustworthy, and everyone here knows that we don't trust the official vote counts.

Furthermore, a poll done before (or after) the election never has the benefit of being adjusted based on an actual vote, and yet such polls carry a lot of political weight. Why is an exit poll different?

An exit poll obviously has the benefit of being a poll of actual voters (assuming those who say they just voted really did do so). This should make exit polls more accurate than non-exit polls, if all other things are equal. Why can we not leave it at that and do no further adjustments.

I believe it should never be necessary to adjust the exit polls according to the actual vote in order to have a good approximation to the actual vote. So what benefit is there in doing this adjustment? Taken to an extreme, why not keep adjusting the exit poll according to the actual vote incrementally getting closer and closer until they match precisely? What's stopping the pollsters from doing that? It would be a more "accurate" reflection of the actual vote. Is that the point of an exit poll? No, this line of reasoning proves that the adjustment according to the actual vote should definitely not be done.

One of the values of having an exit poll is to allow the press to "call" states earlier than the actual vote is finished. That's fine, but after the election, that value is completely vacuous, so why do any adjustment for that purpose? Another very important value of doing exit polls is as a check on the validity of the election. And for this, it is essential that the exit polls not be adjusted by the actual vote. Adjusting the exit polls based on the actual election destroys this check we have on the validity of the election, and the act of having done this adjustment seems like further proof to us that the election was fraudulent.

[SicTransit]

38. You don't understand something about exit polls

The pre-election polls are supposed to have as random a sample as possible of the likely (or registered) voters. Exit polls, by the nature of how they are done, expressly do NOT have a random sample of voters. The exit polls are done only in some precincts. Precincts, as you well know, vary WIDELY in their voting preferences. Two precincts, separated by a mile, may have 30% difference in the vote margins.

Thus, raw exit poll data is only as good as the precinct selection - and no one can select precincts in a way that would assure that the sample of voters polled is truly random - that is called "clustering effect". THAT is why there are all kinds of adjustments of exit polls and why the raw data of exit polls does not mean anything.

In fact, in the Dukakis election, the raw exit poll data showed Dukakis winning. In real life, Dukakis lost by what - 7%?

[dlaliberte]

41. I understood that just fine

I started out by agreeing that some adjustment of the exit poll numbers is required based on the population being sampled. So I don't disagree that some adjustment is necessary.

What I objected to is the adjustment based on the actual vote. Since we don't trust the actual vote, we can't trust the exit poll numbers either after they have been adjusted based on the actual vote.

Why should we trust the "raw" exit poll numbers? Because they have been adjusted based on turnout and other demographics independent of the actual vote adjustment. I would expect they should be able to adjust the exit polls in the same way they adjust the pre-election poll numbers. My question was why do anything more?

We also want the per-precinct exit poll numbers, so we can hopefully tell which precincts more likely had fraud. A random sample within a precinct should match up with the actual vote in that precinct pretty well.

[jkd]

40. What were Mitofsky's priorities?

Edison/Mitofsky explains how they use their data to predict election results:

"What will Edison/Mitofsky provide to NEP?
Edison/Mitofsky will conduct exit polls in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, it will collect the vote count in sample precincts. From the exit polls it will provide analytical tabulations of vote. It will make projections, where possible, from the exit polls, from the vote returns and from the county vote tabulations for President, Senate, Governor and selected state referenda and initiatives."

Why are so many upset about their activity when they are only doing what they said they would do?

Look at their survey. Do they ask all those question in order to predict the winner, or were their other concerns. If their priority was to predict the election results only, they could have made much more accurate projections. It would have cost considerably more. You get what you pay for.

[americanwoman]

22. I've read MysteryPollster

and I'd love it if MysteryPollster (or anyone else) could explain the newly released Mitofsky data mentioned on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x214701

I'm not sure MysteryPollster's conclusions still work.

[Time for change]

9. To put a benign interpretation on what CNN did

By "adjusting" the numbers to fit the actual vote count, they preserve the relative proportions for all of the demographic categories, while changing the absolute count to fit what they (apparently) believe are the real numbers. This is, in some circumstances, considered acceptable practice.

But what is not clear to me is, what was the actual intention in doing this. Was it really meant to defraud, or was it simply a benign practice based on my above explanation?

It seems to me that the answer to that could only come from asking CNN and all the others who have posted these numbers. If they deny what they did, then the benign interpretation doesn't seem plausible. But if they admit it, then maybe that interpretation is correct.

I am not aware that anyone has ever asked them that question, or if they have, what the answer was.

[idiosyncratic]

10. How can someone "adjust" the numbers of a poll?

When would that be considered "acceptable practice?"

If the pollsters are professionals, and these were, they are polling people randomly.

If they ask me who I voted for, I don't want them later saying, "Well, she really meant to say * instead of Kerry." :puke:

[The Judged]

14. They realized, because Kerry was ahead, that they sampled wrong!

Then they fixed the poll to reflect reality: * was appointed by God!

[Time for change]

15. Here's how you "adjust" a poll

Let's say Bush got 52% in the official vote and Kerry got 48%. In the exit polls, Kerry gets 52% and Bush 48% (Not far from what actually happened). The exit polls show Kerry winning by 6% among women, 2% among men, and 4% overall. So He's doing 4% better among women than among men.

In the "adjustment", you start out by assuming that the official vote was correct. In order to preserve the relative 4% preference of women for Kerry, the adjusted total would say that Bush won by 6% among men and 2% among women (4% overall). That preserves the relative differences among the two genders, while "correcting" the poll to reflect the official vote tally. If the official vote tally was actually correct, this would actually be good information.

[idiosyncratic]

21. But, but, but . . . that is WRONG!

By "adjusting" the percentage of women who said they voted for Kerry and saying they really voted for * , they are disenfranchising those women.

They are basically taking away my vote! And, that makes me MAD!! :argh:

[Igel]

23. Nobody was disenfranchised because they

altered their model. (Maybe because of other things, but not that one.) It's just a model.

They're basically saying they got their model wrong. Any model made up before the fact has to incorporate assumptions; assumptions can be wrong.

Also, remember that Mitofsky didn't call Ohio; he calls states when he's confident his model is accurate enough. He's made a few (sometimes glaring) mistakes, but this time he didn't trust his own model.

[Time for change]

43. The exit poll was over-ridden by the official Ohio vote tally

That doesn't at all mean that the exit poll was wrong. What it does mean that either the exit poll was wrong or the official vote did not reflect who people thought they voted for. I think there are a multitude of reasons to believe that the latter was the case.

[idiosyncratic]

44. But if there was FRAUD, the Ohio "official" vote is WRONG!!

To adjust a well-thought-out and well-conducted exit poll to equal FRAUDULENT numbers being counted by Republican lackeys is simply unconscionable.

[Time for change]

45. My post # 43 essentially says what you say in your sugject heading

But in different words.

[SicTransit]

28. I posted this link above -

really, read it, it will explain to you what exit polls are and what they are not:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_difference_.html

[RevCheesehead]

11. Please excuse an ignorant question:

Didn't CNN get their polling data from Mitofsky?

I was under the impression they were all pooling their resources, and would ALL report poll data and returns from the same source, thereby avoiding the "confusion" of 2000.

Or was that just the raw data, provided by AP?

And where did the AP get its information?

[Time for change]

16. I think they all got it from Mitofski. n/t

[The Judged]

13. Exit polling is a science. These *glitches* were fixed scientifically!

EVIDENCE LOG: DEBUNKS ALL EXIT POLL CONSPIRACY THEORIES! **j/k**

1). Right now, in fact, Mitofsky is being taught how to explain the Rove formula, a new scientific formula that always shows that Re-uglicans win every exit poll.

2). As soon as the math is finally created to justify the results, Mitofsky shall release his raw numbers.

3). Remember it takes only hours to use the raw #'s to affect and call the election, but it takes months and years to prepare these raw #'s for public digestion, because the public is too simple-minded to be able to understand something that took Mitofsky hours to understand.

4). He is so incredibly genius and beyond reproach that one and a half years wait is about what we should expect, just to be able to understand what he did in a matter of hours on Election Day.

5). Mitofsky employed such radical science that NO PERSON will understand it until 18 months from now!

6). A report must accompany the raw #'s, because without the report to illustrate that the #'s aren't what they actually are, people might get confused and think there is evidence that the election was tampered with or stolen.

7). What makes the US election exit polls different from those in the Ukraine, is that the US used its crystal balls to crack the source code and penetrate the pollsters minds in order to acquire the relevant reports on exit poll data prior to publicly revealing that it was a stolen election.

8). Here in the US, those same crystal balls showed that the election results were perfect, thus no problem for the Re-uglicans to accept the results, or rush the exit poll reports.

THESE DETERMINATIONS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS OR CORRUPTION!

[bleever]

18. The raw data is like parmesan cheese: it needs to be aged

about, oh, 18 months.


:eyes:

[The Judged]

19. Are you sure that isn't Locatelli Romano? or Pecorino Romano?

[bleever]

30. Could be a good romano, aged in a cave until dry enough

to grate up really nice and fine.

:)

[bleever]

17. It's a Media Crime. People claiming to report news crossing

the line into corporate whoredom by polluting their own science and serving it up to us, expecting us to take it without blinking, having seen what they were doing!

An Exit Poll is one thing. Election returns are another. Mixing returns into poll results creates a bogus illusion that we can keep trusting them even when they have to cheat right in front of us to make it work.

As far as I'm concerned, on this issue the Corporate Media has broken their bond of faith with the American people.

:mad:

[The Judged]

20. Listen if you can't accept blind faith then you are a "dissident!" lol

[Peace Patriot]

24. Yes, it was a journalistic crime of the first order...

...even worse than their failure to vet BushCon lies about Iraq WMDs, and their failure to find out why there was no air cover for our nation's capitol on 9/11.

Worse, because voting is the foundation of our democracy. Government lies are a given (and with BushCons, a 100% certainty every time they open their mouths). Voting is how you correct the situation, and throw the liars, thieves and mass murderers out of office.

Without honest, verifiable elections--and particularly given secret electronic programming code running the voting machines, and the sheer speed and undetectability of potential fraud--we have no way of correcting our government system. We have NO WAY to throw the bastards out.

If the TV networks were honest, they would have been loudly and frequently reporting that, a) BushCon companies--major donors to Bush, Bush "Pioneers"--OWN AND CONTROL the source code that runs all the central electronic vote tabulation machines as SECRET proprietary information; b) colluded with Tom Delay to insure that there would be no paper trail in one third of the country's electronic voting machines; and c) lied about the security and reliability of their electronic voting machines--just about the most insecure, hackable system in existence.

THEN the networks would have urged the Carter Center to do independent election monitoring in the US in 2004, despite his reservations that the US election system was so messed up, nobody could monitor it.

AND they would have commissioned independent, non-partisan pollsters to conduct Exit Polls on election day specifically to check for election fraud, and would have published those results honestly, and without fiddling them, on everybody's TV screens, so that the voters themselves could see if there was a significant discrepancy between the highly reliable Exit Polls (used worldwide to detect election fraud) and the highly unreliable, insecure and "privatized" Republican controlled electronic central vote tabulator "results."

The excuse they're giving now is that they did the Exit Polls for demographic information, and not for verifying the election and detecting fraud. But then you have to wonder...

...is their demographic information WRONG? Why wouldn't their pure Exit Poll demographic data reflect the CORRECT or near correct "official" election results?

...why DIDN'T they ask specifically for election verification exit polling (given all of the above)? (--the extremely non-transparent, Republican-controlled election system cried out for it!)

...why won't they release all of their pure Exit Poll data now, rather than next spring? (Is it because it confirms a big Kerry win?)

...why didn't the Democrats commission election verification exit polls?

...why didn't SOMEBODY commission election verification exit polls?

...what the hell is going on here?

[1democracy]

26. This is not a poll

It seems to me that exit polls that have been altered are not polls at all. Altering the polls to fit the data is "cheating". If you convert the % into actual numbers of voters from the two CNN "screens" shown in another thread, Kerry actually looses votes while the pollsters are adding more voters to their database while Bush gains more than the increase in the number of voters! The numbers don't work

[jkd]

27. Not a conspiracy

The mixing with votes was designed to help the data explain voting demographics. You make the assumption that the vote is correct. If we can't assume that, these polls are worthless. I don't think the mixing was part of a conspiracy. But if there was massive fraud, it sure makes Mitofsky and NEP look bad.

[RaulVB]

29. CNN's crooks

They can't explain what happened on November 2nd since they are part of the fraud.

So, because they think the American people is stupid...there you have it!

[jkd]

31. Why would CNN conspire with Mitofsky to steal the election?

[RaulVB]

34. Money and handouts from the FCC (n/t)

[jkd]

39. What have the Fellowship of Christian Cheerleaders got to do with it.

Seriously, are you kidding? CNN is going to commit fraud for money? Things must really be bad at the network.

[Old and In the Way]

49. Unindicted co-conspirators make strange bedfellows.

They've been working hand-in-glove with the Republican Party for over a decade. Maybe they've past the point of no return?

[The Judged]

33. Hours to act on exit polls and YEARS to prove the basis for those actions?

[breadbox]

35. a simple example

Here is a rather simple example which shows that (roughly speaking)
we do need some sort of weighting to be done:
consider the following situation -- there are two precincts,
R and D. In the election R votes 3:1 republican and D votes 3:1
democrat. Suppose that Mitbutsky Polling exit polls 100 people at
each precinct, and gets
23(D), 77(R) at A
78(D), 22(R) at B.
Does this suggest that D scrapes out a win? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Suppose that after the polls close, we also discover that the number
of people who voted at each location was:
1100 at A
900 at B
Then adjusting the polls would suggest that there were
.23*1100+.78*900= 955 D votes and
.77*1100+.22*900=1045 R votes.
On the other hand, if the turnouts were
900 at A
1100 at B
then we polls would suggest that the results were
.23*900+.78*1100=1065 D votes
.77*900+.22* 900= 935 R votes.

Hence, knowing just the turnout figures at each precinct
helps us to understand the predictions the polls are making.
Of course, the pollsters are *supposed* to poll every 100th person
but that is hard to maintain consistently!

[MissBrooks]

36. UGH

[nashville_brook]

37. BAD methodology? maybe this way by design...

Mitofsky openly admits "weighting" the exit poll to the actual vote. i remember discussing this on Nov 3 -- it makes no sense -- but it's part of their standard operating procedure for getting an "accurate" exit poll.

_____________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_exit_polls

from wikipedia

Because final published exit polls in America are matched to vote counts, they cannot be used to determine election fraud. However, in the 2004 election, pre-matched exit polls were leaked onto the internet. The exit poll results of one major consortium of news organizations, the National Election Pool ("NEP"), were based on interviews with voters in 49 states (omitting Oregon because its system of voting by mail eliminated the traditional polling place). The NEP results available during the day on Election Day showed Kerry leading Bush. These discrepancies led to charges that the exit polls were more accurate than the official counts, for various reasons. The co-director of NEP, Warren Mitofsky, said he suspected that the difference arose because "the Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters." <4> . Other academic analysts conclude that such explanations are poorly supported. It is also possible that women are either more likely to participate in a poll, or more likely to vote early. In the early polls women represented 58% of the sampled voters, but by poll closing only represented 52% of the voters as reported by local governments, so women were likely oversampled in the early polling. The 52% figure is consistent with historical turnout numbers. Blacks may also have been undersampled, since black turnout increased 25%, much greater than the increase in turnout by other groups.

(Reliability of Exit Polls as a predictor of election popular vote is discussed below #Reliability of Exit Polls. They are said to be consistently very accurate, often within fractions of a percentage point, across many elections and many countries, including USA)

[understandinglife]

42. To Those Awaiting A Prelim Analysis of Exit Polling Data Released 12/31

To Those Awaiting A Preliminary Analysis of Exit Polling Data Released 12/31/04:

It's a lot of data to wade through but what has been released is more or less in line with what we had. What is curious and potentially very misleading is that the data from the 12:20 - 12:25 a.m. time of updates (which I was able to capture on election night, but which otherwise apparently would not exist anymore) is missing from this otherwise complete set. This is crucial, since it shows that (to take the full national sample), Kerry maintained his 2.6% lead (rounded to 3%) when 13,047 of the eventual "13,660," rather than the 11,027 from the last pre-"adjusted" batch released here (7:33 p.m.), had been counted.

From the data released it would look somewhat plausible that a late Bush swing (between 11,027 counted and 13,660 counted) could have accounted for the shift in the EPs from Kerry51/Bush48 to Bush51/Kerry48; but the missing sweep (the 12:20 a.m. timeframe) shows that this was not possible.

So my question is, where is that group of data; or did whoever released this stuff forget that I printed out the missing link? It appears that a partial set of data was released (missing a crucial piece) possibly in the hope of creating the impression that all was according to Hoyle. It is critical to examine this newly released data in conjunction with the screenshots which I possess and have distributed to certain recipients who (for obvious reasons) will not be named.

Among these screenshots, the national sample at 12:23 a.m. is public and can be referenced as Appendix A of the Simon/Baiman paper at <http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1054>. It reproduced a bit fuzzy so I'll recap: 12:23 a.m.; 13,047 respondents; Male(46%) 52%B/47%K, Female(54%) 45%B/54%K; Total 48.2%B/50.8%K.

It is also very much worth scrutinizing the breakdown by party ID for that 12:23 a.m. sample:

Dem 38% (B9%/K90%), Rep 35% (B92%/K7%), Ind 26% (B44%/K52%). Compare that to the "adjusted" sample from 1:24 p.m. Wednesday: Dem 37% (B11%/K89%), Rep 37% (B93%/K6%), Ind 26% (B48%/K49%). Remember: the # of respondents barely changed, so the changes are due almost entirely to "renormalization" which, if it is without justification, can better be called flat out fudging.

What we see is that the sample shifts from 38%Dem/35% Rep to 37%Dem/37%Rep (because of the huge effect of party ID on candidate preference, this shift in weighting is very much more powerful in altering the overall results than any reweighting by gender) and Independents lurch over to Bush by 7% (from B44%/K52% to B48%/K49%). Without the missing screenshot from 12:23, an argument might be made that the 2500 or so late exit poll respondents (after 7:33 p.m.) account for these shifts—anyone analyzing just the data released today would be excused for drawing such a conclusion. The missing 12:23 a.m. data shows that such a conclusion would be erroneous (it was data manipulation to match the "actual" vote counts, and not an increase in the size of the respondent group, which produced the pro-Bush shifts).

Edison/Mitofsky must present a legitimate reason for skewing their own polls to overrepresent Reublican and underrepresent Democratic voters (remember the controversy over some right-wing pre-election polls which did essentially the same thing?), while throwing a substantial share of the Independent vote from Kerry over to Bush. The only arguable reason for doing so is what has been dubbed the "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis—the assumption being that (against all logic and observational evidence and against the evidence of the polls themselves) Republicans won the turnout battle in virtually every state across the country but that this implausible Republican advantage was masked by their innate comparative reluctance to participate in the exit polls. No EVIDENCE, however, has been advanced to support the reluctant Bush responder hypothesis other than the tautology that the vote count had to be right and therefore the exit polls must have been wrong and this is the only way to explain it.

We still await release of the missing late exit poll data and, of course, of the raw data which would permit independent analysis of the raw numerical facts of the case.

—Jonathan Simon

(source, private email forwarded to me)

Peace.

A very, very, very "orange" and happy New Year to you.

[stepnw1f]

46. Somebody Prove To US Bush Won This Election

Until then.... Fuck you!

[davidgmills]

47. Do you have this 12:23 screen shot saved on your computer?

If so, would you post it? I'm afraid Baiman's copy looks so crappy people will question it.

I spent the entire day looking all over the net for it and all I can find is Baiman's copy. I can not find a copy of CNN's 12:23 anywhere else.

[Old and In the Way]

48. Happy to oblige.

<>

<>

Maybe this isn't what you are looking for.....I don't have the national breakdown.

[davidgmills]

50. Wrong ones -- Those are Ohio from 12:21

I'm looking for the nationals at 12:23

I found the Ohio ones and saw theat they had been posted on DU a number of times.

You can find the crappy copy I'm talking about here:

http://helpamericarecount.org/PopularVotePaper181_1.pdf


If you haven't read Baiman's paper you sdould do it. The screen shot is Appendix A