NEWS: (PRNewswire) 81 to 16 Percent Majority Believes Presidential...

[AmyCrat]

81 to 16 Percent Majority Believes Presidential Election Was Conducted Fairly
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041117/nyw135_1.html
<snip>---
ROCHESTER, N.Y., Nov. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Whether or not they wanted to re-elect President Bush, most people heaved a sigh of relief that in general the presidential election was conducted fairly, and that there was no doubt about the result. While some bloggers and others have raised the possibility of fraud, the overwhelming majority of the public, including more than two-thirds of Democrats, believe that the election was conducted fairly.

A few people believe that there were many attempts to intimidate or prevent legitimate voters from voting and a substantial minority believes that there were some such attempts. However, two-thirds of the voters say that there were none or only a few such attempts. And, given their answers to the first question, it is clear that few people believe that these attempts were successful.

These are the results of a nationwide telephone survey conducted by Harris Interactive® between November 9 and 14, 2004 based on a sample of 1,014 U.S. adults.
---<snip>

Read entire article, including charts

[whistle]

1. Oops so the 49% who voted for Kerry are really only 16%, I see!

[mrdmk]

2. Yahoo attempt to act like mainstream news n/t

[strauss_sucks]

3. Survey Conducted by Harris, Tabulated by Diebold.

[JaneEyrez]

4. Then it must be so...

because if this election has proved NOTHING ELSE, it's that polls are right, not the votes! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[LauraT28]

5. SHEEP!! SHEEP SHEEP SHEEP SHEEP, BAAAH BAAAH!

[ahyums]

I suspect this'll start changing when the Ohio recount starts

I'd be very surprised if that didn't get coverage and coverage will probably seed doubts.

[Eloriel]

6. Man, if that's true

(and frankly I don't believe it is), boy have we got our work cut out for us.

Fortunately, there's a LOT we can do:

VOTE FRAUD? What can we do? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2701028#

Also see the Activism posts (also Resources, etc.) in these threads:

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

VOTE FRAUD Links Compendium - Thread #2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x3223


And NOT to be missed:

********SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND MEDIA TOO *********
Best Fraud Summary I've seen!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x57214

[havocmom]

7. Media makes a lot of $$ on campaign ads. If too many people

get to believing it is all pointless, what with fixed elections, well, folks might stop contributing. Media wants to keep this story contained. They are doing damage control to protect future income.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=201&topic_id=4071&mesg_id=4071

Also, I really think a lot of people just cannot face the horror that our elections are a complete sham. Even on the DU, there are so many posts about how we could have won if... :eyes: Get real! They count the votes, whether the votes are there or not.

[anamandujano]

8. This is one survey that might be true

considering that all Dems in top positions have been reinforcing this view since Kerry conceded.

[CyberChas]

9. This is perfect -- a metric we can use to track our success

This is just what we need, and given the almost total blackout of VOTE FRAUD stories and regurgitation of the RWMSM talking point that the election was "fair and trouble free" I'm surprised the percentage that doubt it is as high as it is.

This is a STARTING POINT. If we can take down that 81% by five points per week for the next ten weeks we will have enough traction to prevent the wholesale destruction of our electoral process.

Don't panic. This is actually GOOD news.

Charlie Levenson (aka CyberChas)
Portland, Oregon
[e-mail]

[BeFree]

13. It's a start

81% don't have a clue. That number will change. How much it changes will be the telling point for our democracy.

The question I have is: How we force the change? Besides a few emails and posting here, how do we effect the mass media? I'm going local with a campaign to rid my county of the black boxes. Above that level include learning the ins and outs of the state election system and working with a whole lot of others to get rid of the black boxes on a state level.

That 81% number will change, lets all of us pledge to make it happen ASAP.

[Carolab]

10. They didn't mention the breakout by party

Look at how many Repukes (95%) thought it was fair, versus how many Dems (68%) thought it was (and 27% of Dems thought it was NOT). Hmmm...appears the Dems have a problem with the credibility of this election.

Another fine example of the "liberal" press? I think not.

Can you say BIASED REPORTING???

[Hobbes199]

11. I believe it

Look at the lack of coverage, or the looks on your friends faces when you show up at the office with a tinfoil hat on? Almost anything the media has said about it is all spin to the debunking. If the news had some of this information in it, I wouldd bet the numbers would be reversed faster than an optiscan machine can switch votes to the Bush camp.

[GR]

12. These Quotes Kind Of Sum Up Why The Poll Came Out That Way..

"It is not corruption that brings down a society : it is the acceptance of corruption." -- Patrick Rattigan

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous." Carl Sagan

[rodeodance]

14. 80% or so also initially believed SH had wpd!!

[Dancing_Dave]

15. Manipulative Polling in Action!

This how they use opinion polls to turn lies into overwhelming "facts of opinion", freeze out discussion of dissenting evidence, and freeze public opinion into rigid, ignorant and prejudicial patterns.

Of course the majority of people will think the elections were fair when they haven't heard the evidence that the elections weren't fair! Anything which is REAL NEWS won't be believed by the majority of people when they haven't even heard it!

There is actually a great deal of public curiosity about evidence of fraud...the number of hits sites with evidence of fraud are getting proves it!

I haven't met one single Democrat who wasn't interested in this evidence when I brough it up. I've found that it helps to broaden the topic when talking with Democrats, and discuss all the evidence of a mounting pattern of fraud from the 2000, to 2002, to 2004 elections. Here's a good site for evidence and analysis on 2002: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/voting_machines.htm

With Republicans and Independents it is important to admit that some Democratic politicians have been guilty of electoral fraud in the past. Many Republicans found it spooky the way Mayor Daly of Chicago was able to get the Democratic dead to vote right along with the living in Chicago.

However, technology has made it possible for the Bush Administration and it's allies to greatly increase the scope of election fraud in the last few elections at least.

[klebean]

26. well said dancing dave

"This how they use opinion polls to turn lies into overwhelming "facts of opinion", freeze out discussion of dissenting evidence, and freeze public opinion into rigid, ignorant and prejudicial patterns."

It's well known polls and the statistics they reap are often used to manipulate opinions;
done so by selectively using the statistics that serve a purpose. (Another poster has
illuminated statistics that delve deeper).

[htuttle]

16. Now go to sleep Tommy go to sleep Tommy go to sleep Tommy

The first thing that happens is that the bone splinters.

PRNewswire merely carries press releases from private companies.

This is not a news article.

It is a press release from Harris Interactive®.

[go west young man]

19. The recounts will be the deciding factor...

and when those numbers dodn't add up. Things will change quickly. Either that or we will ahve to shut the fuck up for a while. My gut says things will be changing. The irony will be that it will be thanks to third parties.

[dewaldd]

17. we have to go door to door to set the record straight

and get petitions for a ballot measure calling for all votes being hand-counted--including the vote on the ballot measure

[Bread and Circus]

18. If you believe that, then over 15,000,000 Americans think they

got ripped off...

How acceptable is that?

[Donailin]

20. Lest anyone think the effort is a waste of time

read this first.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

scares the shit out of me.

[Hobbes199]

21. WTF?!

I have a hard time reading it, though this is a very decent article.

What happened to the separation of church and state? This is one of the founding tenets of our nation! How can abortion and gay marriage be issues surrounding elections? Those are matters for your religion, not the law.

[althecat]

22. Classic case of BS.. who is the fucking client for this poll anyway..

If you look at the questions and answers you find that the headline does not tell the full story.

1. 27% of democrats think it wasn't conducted fairly... 27% of voting democrats is closing in on 15 million people.

2. 62% of democrats think there were a few or more attempts to prevent legitimate voting. A majority overall 57% of the sample thought their were a few or more attempts to prevent legitimate voting.

3. 36% of democrats and 37% of independents (and 31% overall) thought there were some or many attempts ot prevent legit voting.

Given the media lockdown these statistics are fairly striking I think.

[Straight Shooter]

23. This poll is worthless unless they ask the same question of 2000 election

I would be interested in knowing if it breaks down to approximately the same 81/16 ratio of those who still believe 2000 was a fair election, versus those who don't.

And if more respondents believe 2000 was not fair, then why in the world are they so gullible as to think the same group of people wouldn't tamper with another election?

Ignorance. It's not just for inbreds anymore.

[SmokingJacket]

24. Loada Shit.

50% of people are below average in intelligence too.

Who gives a fuck?

[Wordie]

25. First, there was a USA Today poll that came up with a number of 29% of

Americans not being sure it was a fair election (that one was just a few days after the election), then later, there was the poll by the AP that put the figure at 39% (although the newscasters tended to announce it the other way around, saying that 58% felt confident in the results. And now this poll. Why? Is it because even with the tiny bit of news exposure these stories have gotten have only allowed them to be painted as "conspiracy theories"? Or what is it? Is this a sign that the story is going away? :(

[Wordie]

27. Whoa! Did you guys see this in the article? About methodology?

This was in the section entitled, "Methodology"
<snip>
In theory, with a probability sample of this size, one can say with 95 percent certainty that the results have a statistical precision of plus or minus 3 percentage points of what they would be if the entire U.S. adult population had been polled with complete accuracy. Unfortunately, there are several other possible sources of error in all polls or surveys that are probably more serious than theoretical calculations of sampling error. They include refusals to be interviewed (nonresponse), question wording and question order, interviewer bias, weighting by demographic control data and screening (e.g., for likely voters). It is impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
___________

They are listing possible sources of error in the poll, but the odd thing is that's what their research is supposed to be designed to avoid. For instance, they are supposed to design the poll to reduce or nearly eliminate the problems of question wording and question order. They are supposed to train their interviewers to eliminate interviewer bias. I'm really surprised they have that on there. Those things, as I understand it are just basics, that all research design is SUPPOSED to account for. Do you think they are just now trying to cover themselves, after there were so many problems with the exit polls? It just seems strange.