Somebody please look at this - exit poll vs actual in Dem Senate seats

[magellan]

The exit polls were not off by much in the five solid win states:

            Exit poll           Actual

PA          57 - 42             58 - 41
RI          53 - 46             53 - 46
OH          57 - 43             56 (55.9) - 44
NJ          52 - 45             53 - 44
MO          50 - 48             49 - 47

So what goes on in VA and MT?

VA          52 - 47             49 - 49
MT          53 - 46             49 - 48 

Somebody needs to take a look at this I think!! The amount these numbers are out looks very suspicious, when all the others were within a percentage point.

The exit poll data is from Huffington Post. I got the actual percentages from http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections/2006/Senate.html

[Karenca]

1. KIck............

[FourScore]

65. TIA...Paging, TIA...

Please respond to white courtesy phone...

Or post here.

What do you think???

[Hubert Flottz]

2. And after January, if someone cheated we may find out who and

where!

[JCMach1]

3. Failed Repug Firewall...

Kick

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. Statistically, they're not that far off

If you use the entire US as a sample, they were remarkably accurate this election.

[magellan]

7. I'm one who believes the exit polls are USUALLY accurate

Which is why I'm pointing out that the two undecided states are noticeably out from the exit polls and both had trouble -- VA had the illegal GOP robocalls, MT had the machine malfunction that forced a recount.

I mean, I'm not the most perceptive person in the world but that jumped out at me. There are rarely coincidences with the Repugs.

[Stevepol]

87. The exit polls are NOT accurate anymore. They've changed the methodology.

This has to be understood. Andrew Kohut on the News Hour on Wednesday said as much (in lauding the new polls). The exit pollsters sequestered themselves and insured that there would not be the screen shots of the early un-re-calibrated results as occurred in the 04 race. Also, they've decided to use special calibrations to insure the inherent Dem bias of the polls is acctd for.

I have no doubts that Dems won by at least 10% where the alleged exit polls said 5% or neck and neck.

THE EXIT POLLS CAN'T BE TRUSTED ANYMORE, AT LEAST THE "OFFICIAL" ONES. There are a lot of private ones that still perhaps stick closer to the raw data without assuming the machine count is accurate and re-calibrating on that basis.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Yes - But I Smell A Rat

1. Exit polls were very accurate until 2000. ll of the sudden, in 2000, they became inaccurate. Why?
2. Bush has always been the "beneficiary" of the inaccuracies of exit polling. Why? Shouldn't he sometimes do worse than the exit polls indicate?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

24. But, if we are the beneficiaries of these inaccuracies,

then who are we to complain? I'm not saying that there might not be something weird going on, but statistically, the exit polls were very very accurate in this election. You just have to look at the entire US voting bloc as a whole rather than just two races. Sample size always increases accuracy.

Anomolies will always occur, and it very well could be a coincidence that exit polls were off on two of the races that matter to us.

The fact of the matter is, exit polls can be close but never exact. I'm far happier with the exit polling in this election than I have been in many years.

[Katherine Brengle]

26. After what we have been through these past years, we owe it to ALL Americans

to make sure nothing hinky is going on at the polls.

ALL Americans, whether they agree with us on the issues or not.

[cui bono]

38. And it just *happens* to be in the deciding states for senate control?

This the very time you should be looking at these 2 races. They are the last two to be called, and control of the senate depends on them. Being the last hope it becomes suspicious that Rove has stuck his nose into things and said okay, now you really have to do something, anything, just make sure they don't get control of the senate. And notice how Montana, the one in the later time zone, had "problems" and a county had to be recounted and also has the closest margin. To me these are absolutley signs of something fishy going on, though it still looks like we're going to take both.

Coincidence? I think not.

[jbnow]

86. I don't know about Montana but

in Virginia there would be no way to find out the real vote...no paper trail, all you could really do is really what the computer says

Considering how much higher the exit polls had Webb than the final results did...I would guess they didn't rig the switch quite high enough but felt safe to do it there since it could never be proven. That is if I were the suspicious type who didn't trust this administration and thought they might stoop low enough to try to keep the majority in the Senate by cheating.

But I hope the republicans feel angry enough that there can't really be a recount that could change the results that they will start demanding a change too and that we can get a fair and open system.

[txindy]

9. They were remarkably accurate in 2004, too. Too bad the M$M lied.

They parroted the wingnut line about exit polls being deliberately skewed by voters. :eyes: Exit polls are always accurate. The M$M is full of stenographers, not journalists. Posers.

[davekriss]

11. They were remarkably accuracte EVERY election

Substantial circumstantial evidence that 2004 and Georgia 2002 were stolen. Maybe the DEMOCRATIC House (hoo-ray!!!) will do something about it?

[indepat]

23. But it is obvious which two states where chosen to be stolen as needed to

retain control.

[Strelnikov_]

76. Ka-Ching. All This Talk About No Fraud Slays Me

They pick a couple of critical states and put their efforts there (FL 00, OH 04).

These skewed results in battleground states are exactly what we saw in 04.

We got lucky in that they underestimated the depth of electorates anger.

[druidity33]

5. yup...

feels suspicious to me too. But i think nevertheless WE SHALL PREVAIL!

Have all votes been counted yet?

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Time to review all the information we collected on voter fraud in

those two states.

[dalaigh lllama]

17. Election fraud, please

not voter fraud. :)

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. Yes, though I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the Republicans

relied on just robo-calls to suppress the vote.

[2008]

10. k & r (nt)

[Karenca]

12. another kick

:kick:

[bunny planet]

13. oh yes, most def.

Kickedy kick kick
Kick
:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[mom cat]

14. I also saw a post that said the EP's in CT showed a Lamont win.

since our "my Post" function is down now, I cannot finnd the post readilly.

[The Count]

15. What are the numbers for CT? Someone said it was Lamont's

I don't see exit numbers anywhere.

[mom cat]

16. It is in this thread, sswcond reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2632094

Laura PackYourBags (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-08-06 01:13 PM
Original message
CURIOUS - Exits close to on the Money = Except for MT and VA??
Exit Polls from National Review posted on Huffington - ALL FAVORING DEMS

RI
EP: 53/46
Latest Actual: 53/47

PA
EP: 57/42
Latest Actual: 59/41

OH:
EP: 57/43
Latest Actual: 56/44

NJ:
EP: 52/45
Latest Actual: 53/45

MO:
EP: 50/48
Latest Actual: 50/41

MD:
EP: 53/46
Latest Actual: 54/44

VA:
EP: 52/47
Latest Actual: 50/49

MT:
EP: 53/46
Latest Actual: 49/48 *not yet 100% of vote
Alert | Hide Thread | Recommend Topic for Greatest Page (4 votes) Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Replies to this thread

X Great observation....Bookmarked NOLADEM Nov-08-06 01:14 PM #1

X How about Ct? I heard Lamont was ahead there! The Count Nov-08-06 01:14 PM #2

X Well the actual on him is 50-40 - 10 pts. But on the cnn exit Laura PackYourBags Nov-08-06 01:22 PM #3

X p.s. by him I mean JoeMo, not Lamont Laura PackYourBags Nov-08-06 01:27 PM #6

X This is very interesting. KayLaw Nov-08-06 01:25 PM #4

X I see lots of 2 pt differences sandnsea Nov-08-06 01:26 PM #5

X FWIW, here's the final poll composite Lasher Nov-08-06 01:29 PM #7

X K&R This is huge! Please rate this up. mom cat Nov-08-06 01:32 PM #8

X Failed firewall... attempt at rigging the electronic votes JCMach1 Nov-08-06 01:33 PM #9

X I want to know why Webb raced suddenly surged 20,000 w/o new precints cryingshame Nov-08-06 01:34 PM #10

X Let's Waterboard KKKarl MannyGoldstein Nov-08-06 01:39 PM #11

NOLADEM (898 posts) Wed Nov-08-06 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great observation....Bookmarked


The Count (745 posts) Wed Nov-08-06 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. How about Ct? I heard Lamont was ahead there!


Laura PackYourBags (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-08-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well the actual on him is 50-40 - 10 pts. But on the cnn exit
males favored him by 9% (52% of voters) and women favored him by 6% (48% of voters)

So miraculously, JoeMo beat the exits too !!!

Laura PackYourBags (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-08-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. p.s. by him I mean JoeMo, not Lamont

[magellan]

19. Curiouser and curiouser....

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

18. Team Maccaca tried and failed to steal the VA election

If Allen is smart, he'll go ahead and concede.

If he doesn't, I'd like to see half the civil rights attorneys in the US here looking into election fraud and those "You'll be arrested if you try to vote" phone calls, which originated with Team Maccaca through some proxies.

[cui bono]

40. Maybe we should make some "you'll be arrested if you try to recount" calls.

:rofl:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

72. Actually, let them count. It'll bring more light into how screwed DRE's are

I don't see how Team Macaca can possibly find 7,000 more votes.

It'll probably show a pattern of how Allen's totals are inflated where DRE's are used.

[Jcrowley]

20. k & R n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. Thanks for the info: I wondered what the exit polls would say about those two.

I cannot seem to shake my tinfoil hat. And I hope the truth comes out.

[Mr_Spock]

22. Good to see the exit polls were pretty accurate this year

Good to control House, Senate & all local government switched from R to D !!

:applause:

[robinlynne]

30. The exit polls were always accurate... the vote counts not so accurate...

[Mr_Spock]

35. I guess - but exit polls are only a sample - only as good as the person

who derives the formula on who to sample, then it must be executed accurately with real people on the street. Both the exit polls and the vote count are subject to error, but I cannot assume the exit polls are more accurate - I am a scientist and that does not fall in line with scientific thinking - sorry.

[mhatrw]

39. Why not? n/t

[followthemoney]

47. I am a scientist also. Your dismissal is premature. The general inability to

see the unexpected in a data set is an example of the need for experimental blinds.

The subjective construction of reality is a human trait from which scientists are not exempt and are, in fact, vulnerable.

The belief in accurate elections in the U.S. will result in the rejection of data that don't support your preconceptions.

A scientific examination of the data should not refer to exit poll errors but discrepancies. Neither the official election results nor the exit polls should be held as the "gold standard" by which the other is judged.

I assume you are dismissing the data prior to investigation because so little time has passed since the election.

[Mr_Spock]

55. Gobbledygook

I seem to get replies that don't answer my claim - which of course cannot be denied.

You don't have to be a genius to restate that neither dataset is a "gold" standard - that's what I said.

I am assuming that someone has some "discrepancies" to bring to the fore here? Or is there an assumption that I am supposed to make to be on the right "team" in this analysis?

[kenny blankenship]

50. If exit polls and polls prior to election show one result but

election results show another would that interest you, as a scientist?

[Mr_Spock]

56. Absolutely!

Then I would want to know where the discrepancy lies - in the sample technique in states that didn't fit the technique? Or is there an issue with the vote tally accuracy due to equipment errors? Or is there a possible tampering with the vote tally by "interested" parties? Lets look into it - but leave preconceived notions at the doorstep - most analysis here is done with no facts and an assumption that something illegal was done - this is my only issue.

[Joe Chi Minh]

57. As a scientist, you should know that all truth, other than "a priori"

truth, such as mathematics, is statistical, and inherently imprecise. So, your "scientific thinking" is a travesty of scientific thinking.

It has been proved that there are innumerable ways in which the machines can be hacked and their purpose subverted. Moreover, even if you are not of an academic caste of mind, you must be aware that no computer is unhackable. Consequently, you have made the grossest of errors in stating that you can't assume that the exit polls are more accurate.

There are far more cogent grounds for doubting the accuracy of the machines, indeed, particularly under the scandalously partisan aegis of so many Republican election workers (as well as machine manufacturers). So that "Trust me. I'm a scientist" nonsense is plain laughable.

[Mr_Spock]

61. OK, so machines can be hacked - I agree

Is that the first assumption one makes when a statistical anomaly occurs?

The assumptions you seem to be making, and the fact that you are seemingly attacking me for making different initial assumptions, makes me think you are pre-biased in your analysis, thus a discussion on this topic is pointless.

[Joe Chi Minh]

62. No. It's the first assumption one makes in the face of the

evidence.

To downplay the machines' vulnerability to hacking - particularly in the light of the evidence of the scandalous Republican chicanery alone (e.g. in terms of the vote-switching and the robo-calling), in comparison with the reliability of exit polls, seems at best, groundless.

Whatever questions might and frequently are raised concerning the formulations of particular exit-polls, are without any merit at all, since exit-polls have been proved to be consistently reliable, within certain margins of error, over a considerable period of time. And the statistical mathematics that underpin them, like all mathematics, constitute certain and immutable "a priori" truths.

[Mr_Spock]

63. What evidence?

I would like to see some evidence besides one exit poll.

I have not downplayed the machines vulnerability to hacking - at least I can't remember doing that. Where have I downplayed their vulnerabilities - seems I have agreed that they are vulnerable - no?

So, exit polls are infallible? I wish I had as much faith in the gathering of data using humans as a source.

[Joe Chi Minh]

64. Exit polls have a long history of accuracy. Nothing's perfect, but

for practical purposes, they proved more than adequate in the accuracy of their predictions.

You tacitly downplayed the vulnerability of the machines, by scoffing at the accuracy of exit polls, which in countries with traditions of relatively honest elections, have proved much more reliable than the machines here and the people in charge of their manufacture, installation and often supervision in the polling stations.

"So, exit polls are infallible? I wish I had as much faith in the gathering of data using humans as a source."

Did I not point out to you in my earlier post that the very results of the exit polls in terms of their predictive relibaility, proven in many different countries over a substantial period of time, render questioning of the all the variables associated with the data collection, futile and purposeless? The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof.

[Mr_Spock]

66. lol - "tacitly downplayed the vulnerability of the machines"

I am not suggesting that data not be analyzed, I am commenting on the prebias & rhetoric used when anyone questions a theory put forth by one of the so called experts here on DU.

I am getting tired of having words put in my mouth so that you can make your arguments - have a nice day. :hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

67. Same here.

[followthemoney]

85. You didn't mention that you can't assume the vote count to be more accurate...

either. An attempt at objectivity would leave you equally skeptical about either data set. Your statement could be freed of its bias, though relatively boring, if written as follows:

"Both the exit polls and the vote count are subject to error. I cannot assume that either the exit polls or the official vote counts are more accurate."

This makes it plain that nothing can be assumed about either data set and that further investigation is required in order to make a meaningful statement about either of them.

That is to say you know nothing about them despite your status as a scientist. A scientific investigation would be interesting, although more work than spouting opinion.

Obviously, your interest is in being provocative rather than scientific.

Not Spock-like.

[dogday]

25. That is why these exit polls are so important

they help indicate problems, or fraud in an election, and isn't it funny the first time this ever happened was in Florida 2000? Then of course 2004 had many discrepancies as well...

[Last Stand]

71. Let. Republicans. Contest VA. We'll Investigate.

If they contest the results, then since all the voting was on computer, this court case will be one worth watching.

Diebold (ES&S) On Trial:popcorn: :popcorn:

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

27. All The Reports About KKKarl Turning In Early Last Night....

He was busy working on his computer late into the evening, to try and hold those 2 states.

[w4rma]

28. Virginia uses almost all DRE computer voting machines. That's what is wrong in VA. (nt)

[In Truth We Trust]

31. K&R Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW!

[msmcghee]

32. It may be possible that in these 2 states . . .

. . the Repuke candidate was particularly odious. Burns was obviously in bed with Abramoff and Allen was shown to be clearly a racist. It seems likely that in cases like that - that some who have a repuke-to-the-bitter-end mentality and who harbor some "social guilt" about that - might say they voted for the dem when they didn't - just so the pollster would not think of them as the racist or asshole that they are.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

45. That's a Republican talking point.

No truth to that whatsoever.

Fantastic way to discredit exit polls and hide the truth, that the vote tabulation is where the error lies and not the exit polls.

[followthemoney]

33. Exit polling discrepancies are examined carefully in a book ignored by the

MSM by Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, "Was the 2004 presidential election stolen?"

This book is the exit poll basis for Robert F. Kennedy's Rolling Stone article on the same subject.

You may not have heard of Joel Bleifuss. He has more top 10 Project Censored stories than any other journalist. He is the most important journalist you have never heard of.

[havocmom]

34. Cheney & bush both in MT last week

and we have a GOP Sec of State :shrug:

[happydreams]

74. I smell a "Blackwellian op".

But it didn't do any good anyway. Ha Ha!

[savemefromdumbya]

36. Interesting!

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. evoting machine magic?

Just a guess.:grr:

[Nikki Stone 1]

41. All the more reason not to forget to fight for paper ballots/receipts

and to kick Diebold out of the business.

[leftofthedial]

42. this is how they use Diebold

to swing close strategic races

[emlev]

43. Stay Tuned for independent exit polls and analysis

The Vote Count Verification Project and Election Defense Alliance, in collaboration with the Velvet Revolution Election Protection Strike Force, are doing quick analysis of these and other statistics in order to determine where there are red flags in the numbers. I haven't the time this morning to read the responses here, so pardon me if this has already been said. A description of what they're doing and links can be found at of the .

[truedelphi]

44. Keep reminding us you are there

And thank you for your hard work

[emlev]

54. You're welcome. New stuff will be posted soon.

We're all trying to get a bit of rest and do some regrouping, but we're still on the case. Cases. Thanks for noticing.

[happydreams]

46. K&R. Hell, Webb was filing a lawsuit last night over

voter intimidation and other dirty tricks. You know that the REthugs concentrated their energy/criminal activity in VA to keep the Senate from going to the democrats.

[Spiffarino]

83. Yep, and as hard as the thugs worked in VA...

...they still friggin' LOST!

Boo-YAAH, bee-otches! :rofl:

[meldroc]

48. Linkage?

I can't find any web sites with the exit poll data. I know the MSM's all saying "Election's over, the exit polls don't matter!", but I want to see the exit poll data.

Of course, I'll want to see the MSM's exit poll data (that was pored over in a secret bunker), but IIRC, some of the election integrity groups (blackboxvoting.org maybe?) commissioned their own exit polls. Anybody have links or knowledge of those?

[kenny blankenship]

49. Very interesting! Looks like 11th hour GOP vote conjuring going on !

[emulatorloo]

51. kick n/t

[Red Right and BLUE]

52. Something very fishy there.

We have GOT to go back to paper ballots. Got to!

[file83]

53. I smelled it late last night - MONTANA's numbers were jumping all over the place

and always the change helped Burns.

[zyguh]

69. Another thing about Montana and Yellowstone county last night

There are screenshots of the Montana voting numbers from the sos website. They are somewhere in a few of the post that were going last night when the Yellowstone county dropped to 0. I am really sorry for being so new to the site and I have no idea how to search for a post in the thousands of post that are on here since then, so I cant just link to it to show you guys. I will play around with the forumns and see if I cant find one of the screenshots Im talking about, and if so will post the link to it. Names of the post were things like "WTH just happened in Montana" and "trouble in Yellowstone" or problems, or something suspicous (I just cant remember the exact names for the life of me)

What I do remember extremely clear is that the last screenshot the members here were able to post a few minutes before Yellowstones numbers all dropped back down to zero is the fact that Tester had 18k and change in votes versus 16k and change for the Repubs. That was with 69 out of 69 precincts reporting. On the official screen it looked like 69 69 100.00%

So, right before the Yellowstone county had their accident and went back to zero, Tester had around a 2,000 lead with 100% of the vote in. Several hours later when it came back up the numbers were where they are now, Repub with 27k and Tester with 25k.

Also, the total number of voters was arounf 33-36 thousand, and its now up to what? 50something?

So somewhere, somehow, the county that had the mysterious glitch that reset the vote count and caused us all to wait for hours for the results of this race. The screenshot was of the official Secretary of States websites and had all the info. Total population number of registered voters, number of votes cast, etc. All of it. And it shows that before the glitch they were reporting 69 out of 69 precincts reporting and Tester with a 2k lead. It comes back up with 20k extra voters and the numbers are now reversed with Tester DOWN by roughly 2k votes.

I know I wont find it tonight, but I will dig thru the post and will find that screenshot, because someone attached to some kind of legal-something-or-other that the Dems have hired needs to see it.

[sandnsea]

88. There's 23,000 more voters

The total number of voters when they had the glitch was 35,956 with Tester ahead by 1300. I saved all the numbers. The number now is 58,738 with Burns ahead by 1300.

But they also found votes in the Dem stronghold, Butte, after Billings put up the last of the recount numbers around 5 am.

I don't know what happened.

[kestrel91316]

58. NO WONDER Allen and Burns are refusing to concede. They

know that the fix was in, they were supposed to win, DIEBOLD probably guaranteed it. Those two probably paid BIG BUCKS to get "reelected".

[kestrel91316]

59. NO WONDER Allen and Burns are refusing to concede. They

know that the fix was in, they were supposed to win, DIEBOLD probably guaranteed it. Those two probably paid BIG BUCKS to get "reelected".

[happydreams]

73. I heard you the first time

hee,.

These thugs can't even steal and election fair and square anymore. :wtf: :crazy:

[adamuu]

60. this needs to be on the front page

this is what happened last time.
but this time we broke the system with turnout.

federal investigation is in order.

[Megahurtz]

68. I think they're pulling shit again. n/t

[SouthernBelle82]

70. I have one word for that

Diebold? It looks like it. It's just too fishy.

[mirandapriestly]

75. cancel, wrong thread

[NotGivingUp]

77. very interesting. very, very interesting.

[helderheid]

78. get this to Dean

[liberalla]

79. Yes - this needs to be pursued!

:kick:

[gully]

80. I think we need to factor in all polls.

eom

[helderheid]

81. BIG KICK - are the machines programmed to switch within a certain percentage?

[papau]

84. yes-maybe? The Virginia malfunctioning machine had a 1% bias in one direction

but as the code is proprietary no one could look at the code to see if it was on purpose.

The bias was revealed via complaints by amazingly observant people - and confirmed post election by demonstration.

So was it code, or a "bad chip" - does it make a difference since the real question is "was it planned"?

[Spiffarino]

82. Felix is probably going to concede tomorrow

I heard on TPM that Bush probably wants Macacawitz to concede VA and not force a recount. I find this interesting given how close the race is and how Republicans in recent history have rarely conceded when it's this close. Remember how long they dragged out the Washington Governor's race a few years ago?

Rove and Bush may have good reasons to keep a lid on it, but I would personally love to see the machines opened up and examined and all the paper ballots hand counted. Will anyone give me 100 to 1 that Allen gains a single vote? I didn't think so.

[BREMPRO]

89. good analysis.. i think you are on to something

this is very suspicious. With the exit polls showing a greater percentage of votes for Webb than the vote count, they may not challenge knowing that there is little chance of winning more votes since they already may have stolen some, and a good chance of uncovering foul play. This warrants investigation. We need to be prepared for this kind of macaca-caca in 08 when the "stakes are high" (as lying Limpballs would say)

[izzybeans]

90. If there was any vote tampering it probably was designed to

not vary outside the margin of error of the exit poll. Otherwise this difference, and the problems with calling the election, can be explained by sampling error in the exit poll. But that does not rule attempts to swing close elections from within the narrow limits of error. + or - 3 or 4 % on most polls I've seen.

[KittyWampus]

91. very interesting