Has Dr. Freeman posted Part II of his exit poll paper?

[YBR31]

Has Dr. Freeman posted Part II of his exit poll paper? If so, can someone tell me how to find it?

[papau]

1. Some data

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf

other sites

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/CNN_EP_data.xls
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/CNN_EP+Vote_data.xls
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_freeman_pap_1.html

And some comments By Freeman on objections to first draft


Hello, Mark:

I’d like to thank you for taking the time for offering this detailed critique of my paper, and more generally for your knowledgeable commentary on polling processes. Since writing the draft you read, I’ve learned a great deal about polling – in large part from reading through your site. I’ll have a revision of my paper out in a few days, which will be much stronger for having read your commentary.

Regarding your post, I’m going to respond to several points and then give a general response to what I see as the big question:

1. Data. I’m happy to make my CNN data available. I have 49 states & DC (only Virginia missing if anyone has that), although for a few I don’t have sample size. Just tell me where you’d like me to send it to or post. (My own personal and University websites have been going down from too much traffic.)

2. High degree of certainty (Your point 1). I agree that I overstated the case, should never have cited Hartmann, and did not understand the logistical challenges you explain. NEVERTHELESS, logic and evidence still indicate that exit polls should be a good basis for prediction, and although I can understand why the logistical challenges would increase the margin of error, it’s not at all clear why they should skew the results.

3. 250-million-to-1 (Your point 2). I see that I did put too much faith in stratification counterbalancing the effects of clustering, and will redo the calculations with the 30% increase. That’s a very good citation. NEVERTHELESS, as you point out, it doesn’t change the finding that **random error can be ruled out as an explanation.** This is really the main point of the first draft, because once chance is ruled out, some other explanation needs to be found.

4. Official “explanations. (Your point 3). My key point about explanations is that all we have -- at best -- are hypotheses. Perhaps Bush-voter refusal is a better hypothesis than I gave credit for, but it still is only a hypothesis. (Too many women would be irrelevant to the CNN data. Male and female preferences are reported separately and thus automatically weighted appropriately.) On the other hand, there are also creditable hypotheses, some with substantial evidence, which could have effected the tally.

I object most to belittling dismissals of these second set of hypotheses and allegations (e.g, Manuel Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating, “Latest Conspiracy Theory -- Kerry Won -- Hits the Ether” Washington Post, November 11, 2004; Tom Zeller, Jr. "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried" New York Times November 12, 2004-Page 1), along with unquestioning acceptance as “explanations” the hypotheses and allegations about poll error.

In summary, I think that perhaps I biased my paper somewhat unfairly towards suggesting count errors as explanations, but that was probably in response to what I still see as an extreme bias at the press in dismissing them.

When you say that suggesting the possibility of count errors is delusional, perhaps you have done the same? (It seems as though you spend a lot of time on the tin foil hat circuit.)

Thinking coolly and scientifically: Is it delusional to question the Bush-voter-refusal hypothesis as conclusive without independent evidence? On the other hand, considering the scores of allegations, the history (especially in Florida), the lack of safeguards with electronic voting, the conflict-of-interest in election oversight, etc…, etc… (and now the Berkeley study) is it delusional to consider that, just possibly, even part of the discrepancy might be due to the possibility of miscount?

Yours truly, Steve Freeman

[papau]

2. As posted at DU previously

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/24/115048/86
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf

As posted at DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=76325&mesg_id=76325

There was some solid criticism of his first paper coming out from the myster pollster, and Freeman covered most it. The exception being the alledged need of Republicans to run and hide from exit poll takers.

(Of course, they didn't mind talking to tracking poll takers in the months leading up to the election. We know that because Gallup among others kept oversampling them.)

Some of that dialogue can be found here:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_freeman...

The final tally? Giving our critics every luxury and benefit of the doubt?

662,000 to 1. In just the three major battleground states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania!!

I like the little molotov cocktail Freeman throws on page 7, where he looks at how the exit polls compared to actual results in German elections. This is in response to a criticism of his first paper where he just took the word of Thom Hartmann from commondreams dot org.

Okay, Kerry. Hillary. Jesse. We've shown you ours now you show us yours.

Get off your lazy asses and fight!