The Overlooked Exit Poll Question: by Mark Blumenthal

[applegrove]

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/exit-polls/2006/10/22-week/

The Overlooked Exit Poll Question

by Mark Blumenthal
October 28, 2006

"SNIP..............

New Pollster.com readers may not know it, but in the months following the 2004 election I devoted 68 posts and tens of thousands of words to the 2004 exit poll controversy. In about a dozen days, most of us will start thinking about exit polls again (although it looks like we may not have leaked exit polls to obsess about on Election Day this year). For tonight, however, I want to pass along one intriguing new finding buried in the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll that sheds a little light on one particular aspect of the 2004 controversy.

Nearly everyone now agrees that the final, just-before-poll-closing exit poll results gathered by the news media consortium known as the National Election Pool (NEP) in 2004 showed a small but statistically significant discrepancy with the official results. The national sample showed Kerry ahead 51% to 48%, but Bush won the national popular vote by a 2.5% margin (50.7% for Bush and 48.3% for Kerry). On average, the statewide exit polls showed a similar overstatement.

A few days after the election, the late Warren Mitofsky, director of the 2004 exit polls, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour and offered a theory: "We suspect that the main reason was that the Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters." Three months later, the report issued by Mitofsky and his partner Joe Lenski again argued that the discrepancy occurred because "Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters." They also offered "hypothetical completion rates of 56% among Kerry voters and 50% among Bush voters" that would have accounted for the entire discrepancy.

Mitofsky's assertion was dismissed by conspiracy theorists that mocked it as "hollow" and "preposterous" and scathingly labeled it the "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis. They insisted (despite plausible arguments to the contrary) that no evidence existed to support the idea of Democrats responding more readily to exit pollsters than Republicans.

.......SNIP"

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/exit-polls/2006/10/22-week/

[socialindependocrat]

1. Why not?

I remember my Repub parents (and it was the 60s, too) They were very concerned about class. They wouldn't share their salaries with anyone and to air family business was taboo. Maybe they are the same today...

[Fly by night]

2. Mitofsky's own report debunked the "reluctant Bush voter" theory.

In addition, Mitofsky's behavior after the election (refusing interviews and repeated inquiries from professional colleagues, refusing to release the raw exit poll data to anyone) made it clear that something was very wrong. That unprofessional, unethical stonewalling behavior continued until Mitofsky's (unexpected) death after the election.

In addition, the Bush camp's immediate (and well-rehearsed) attacks on the exit poll results that started the day after the election made it clear they were expecting the dissonant results we got.

Continuous and unrelenting criticism of the exit poll methodology ever since (including by one DU poster who never seems to comment on anything else, but who ALWAYS comments when the utility of exit polls is discussed here) make it clear (to me and several million of my small "d" democratic friends) that even a smoking gun makes no noise when opponents of democracy control the media and the election process in this country.

Who did your voting machine vote for, Mark? Neither you nor anyone else (except the person who programmed that machine in secret knows). On the other hand, I know you know that and that you know we know that too.

And therein lies the obituary for the democratic process. Sad, really, to see the consent of the governed drowned in the unverifiable voting bathtub. Sadder to see our side incapable of seeing that and acting on that before it was too late (at least in Tennessee).

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. your attack on Mitofsky makes little sense

Mitofsky's own report debunked the "reluctant Bush voter" theory.

Surprising, since the theory is usually attributed to that report. I think it's a misnomer anyway. Would you like to walk us through your unsupported claim?

In addition, Mitofsky's behavior after the election (refusing interviews and repeated inquiries from professional colleagues, refusing to release the raw exit poll data to anyone) made it clear that something was very wrong. That unprofessional, unethical stonewalling behavior continued until Mitofsky's (unexpected) death after the election.

This is just nonsense. I know Mitofsky cussed out Ron Baiman in an email, and didn't give Steve Freeman everything he wanted -- but neither one of them was a professional colleague of Mitofsky. The exit poll data were released earlier and more widely than they ever had been before, and Mitofsky also worked closely with at least two groups to provide additional data while protecting the confidentiality of respondents.

Continuous and unrelenting criticism of the exit poll methodology ever since (including by one DU poster who never seems to comment on anything else, but who ALWAYS comments when the utility of exit polls is discussed here) make it clear (to me and several million of my small "d" democratic friends) that even a smoking gun makes no noise when opponents of democracy control the media and the election process in this country.

Yeah, I get it: your finger is jammed on the "transmit" button. I'm wasting my time stating facts.

Since this is another thread, I'll point out again: the 2004 exit poll said, inter alia, that Kerry won Minnesota by 14 points, New Hampshire by 15 points, and New York by 31 points. I think if those facts ever sunk in, the debate would be over.

If you want to talk about election verification, let's do that. Sliming Warren Mitofsky won't help in the slightest.

[Fly by night]

4. Like I said...

I wasn't sliming Mitofsky -- just stating the facts that both you and I know too well. On the other hand, I'm not tasked to waste more of my time with you on an issue that you seem very clearly tasked to defend. I wasted too much of my time from 2004-05 doing that (as did many, many other DUers), and you're still here repeating the "exit polls don't tell us anything" meme ad nauseum and not saying much else. In fact, it appears you have a search engine programmed to let you know whenever the words "exit polls" appear here at DU. Why is that, exactly?

Mark, I've never "ignored" you here though I have been sorely tempted to do so. Rather than pick at your scab this morning, I have blueberries to pick. Our unelected Republican majority here in Tennessee haven't taken those away from me (yet).

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. it is not apparent that you know the facts "too well"

No one has "tasked" me with defending Warren Mitofsky's integrity. I happen to think he deserves it. I've done the same for you in the past.

I've never said that "exit polls don't tell us anything." You appear to be mischaracterizing my remarks as a substitute for replying to what I actually say. Frankly, it probably works. But it shouldn't.

Why would I or anyone else need a "search engine" to find a thread at the top of the GD page? That's a screwball ad hominem.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

6. Blumenthal's post is sort of funny.

The story is seeded, Democrats answer polls more readily and now, he's pointing to people who know the story as evidence that the story is a fact?

lol

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. actually, that's not what he's doing

The OP didn't quote or explain what "the overlooked exit poll question" actually was.

Well, this week, the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asked a question that demonstrates Democrats' greater enthusiasm for exit polls:

Every election, the television networks conduct exit polls of people as they leave their polling places on Election Day. If you were asked to participate, how likely is it you would be willing to spend 10 minutes filling out a questionnaire? Scale: Very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, not likely at all.

More Democrats (72%) than Republicans (66%) said they were likely to fill out an exit poll questionnaire. The gap was far bigger -- and highly statistically significant -- among those who felt strongly (typically a better predictor of actual behavior): 44% of Democrats said they would be "very likely" to participate in an exit poll compared to only 35% of Republicans.

Of course it's logically possible that Fox News bribed Opinion Dynamics to rig that question, although I think you'd have a hard time convincing survey professionals that that was remotely likely. EDA's Prop 8 exit poll, according to EDA's own analysis, ended up with too many Republicans -- completely consistent with Blumenthal's argument.

If anyone actually thinks that Kerry won New Hampshire by 15 points, won't s/he please stand up, say so, and say why?

[EFerrari]

26. That's exactly what he's claiming. Typical Blumenthal. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. ?!

Maybe I just can't make heads or tails out of what you wrote to begin with.

The story is seeded, Democrats answer polls more readily and now, he's pointing to people who know the story as evidence that the story is a fact?

He isn't "pointing to people who know the story" as evidence that Democrats answer exit polls more readily. He's pointing to survey data that directly support his point. As I said, EDA data directly support his point, too. An ad hominem attack on Blumenthal doesn't change any of that.

But maybe you're saying that Democrats weren't more eager to participate in exit polls until after 2004? That would be at least an interesting argument, although it would still leave me to ask, again: does you or anyone else actually think that Kerry won New Hampshire by 15 points?

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. "unprofessional, unethical stonewalling"

For sane readers of this thread, that can be translated roughly into "Mitofsky didn't make time for every crackpot conspiracy theorist who wanted to visit his office and videotape him while they hurled accusations at him."

:rofl:

[Fly by night]

20. Or what I might have meant was ...

... that Mitofsky's 2004 post-election stonewalling behavior violated his own profession's code of professional ethics (as pointed out in the documentary "Stealing America: Vote by Vote".) I am not sure how many colleagues Mitofsky refused to respond to (much less how many documentary film-makers), but I am aware of at least four. He took his raw data to the grave, though I don't think even he expected his grave would show up so quickly.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. meaning it is one thing, supporting it is another

The AAPOR code actually required Mitofsky to protect the confidentiality of the exit poll respondents. It doesn't say anything about meeting all the demands of business school professors. Anyone who paid attention to "Climategate" should know better than to trust allegations of "stonewalling" without solid evidence to support them.

The whole thing is kind of bizarre. I still haven't found anyone willing to say s/he thinks that Kerry really won New Hampshire by 15 points. But even if there are such people, shouldn't they have been focused on examining ballots, not exit poll interviews from a few dozen polling places?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

30. I could try

But I think he knows that his words (or whoever's words) have little bearing.

Seems as if most DUers are past that stage and now are beginning to grok that their votes are not as secure as their votes should be. And that has been a long time coming, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. if you write posts to me, I'll respond

I haven't referred to myself in the third person. Do you think I'm Warren Mitofsky come back from the grave? Do you think I'm Mark Blumenthal? No and no.

I don't think telling the truth is ever a distraction from election integrity work. Exit polls, pretty much a distraction.

If anyone wants to discuss facts, that's great. You've been doing something else here, and that's unfortunate.

[PeaceNikki]

5. If this is in reference to the Wisconsin exit poll data posted here:

They showed us a SLIVER of irrelevant data. They showed us 5 polling places out of dozens in each district and only 2 of the 6 districts that voted. And in no case did they get the 70% compliance needed for any accurate analysis.

Argue the merits or follies of exit polls all day long, but EDA's data presented in the recall elections thus far is not sufficient enough to conclude ANYTHING other than "we need more data".

[54anickel]

9. "We need more data"....And more volunteers to work the exit polls. n/t

[BeFree]

12. We need more data

What we need is to get rid of the machine only counts.

What we need is proper audits.

What we need are hand counts either the first day or the next of all ballots.

The way it is now, the only people we can really trust are the folks who demand hand counts all the time and do not attack any of the people who really want and are working for real reform.

[PeaceNikki]

13. I agree 100% that we need audits. I think your " the only people we can really trust..." comment is

a snide dig that's untrue.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

15. lol, I wasn't calling "the science behind getting rid of voting machines a 'Kookie theory"

I was calling the general idea that we lost some of these recall elections to fraud a kookie theory. But have fun carrying that chip on your shoulder!! :hi:

[BeFree]

16. My question to you was:

"....would you be willing to learn the intricacies about the machines and how they can easily alter outcomes and you would never even see it happen?"

And your response was to call a Kookie conspiracy theory.

As for the recent recall elections in Wisconsin, there were no audits and no hand counts.

Given that the counts were produced by virtue of computer coding with very limited human oversight, accepting the counts as told to us is what is f'n Kookie.

My advice? Don't ever accept unverified counts and always support the people who are fighting for reform. Always. No reason not to support fully the people who are fighting for accuracy.

[PeaceNikki]

17. "Don't ever accept unverified counts...." - even when we win?

My reply to you was flip because you are barking up the wrong tree. Just because I don't think there has been clear evidence of fraud doesn't mean I don't support reform and think the POSSIBILITY of fraud exists. What you did to me was called a "strawman".

It's super cute that you are bothered by me enough to have that reply in your journal for quick reference. I'm flattered, but you're still way off-base in your assessment of me.

*I* am also working to try to make things better and you continually take every opportunity to be shitty to me because we disagree on whether fraud has occurred. The fact remains, we have no credible evidence of it. So, snipe, roll your eyes and be nasty to me all you want, but I will continue to speak my mind and put my money and time where my mouth is but I will not buy into intellectual dishonesty. I will not allow my state and county to be trashed as "dirty Dems helping lose elections". And yes, I get defensive when people say the DPW or Kloppenburg have "no balls" or implying that our great state can't run a fair election or acting like we're idiots who can't run a recount. It was done well, even right here in my home of Waukesha County.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

21. Have a beautiful day!

:hi:

And best of luck in removing that huge stick up your ass, asshole

[BeFree]

22. Thanks. Here is an assesment. Your words bolded

"Don't ever accept unverified counts...." - even when we win?
I don't accept the counts even when we win. Check my journal.

My reply to you was flip because you are barking up the wrong tree. Just because I don't think there has been clear evidence of fraud doesn't mean I don't support reform and think the POSSIBILITY of fraud exists. What you did to me was called a "strawman".

So you are just being flip? Are you being flip by claiming I am barking up the wrong tree by questioning the accuracy of the vote counts?

It's super cute that you are bothered by me enough to have that reply in your journal for quick reference. I'm flattered, but you're still way off-base in your assessment of me.

It isn't you that bothers me, it is your words here that are bothersome. Words like kookie and your thinking I am somehow after you. This is a discussion board and all we are doing is discussing. You are claiming to be a sole victim, while I am claiming that we are all victims of fraud.

*I* am also working to try to make things better and you continually take every opportunity to be shitty to me because we disagree on whether fraud has occurred. The fact remains, we have no credible evidence of it. So, snipe, roll your eyes and be nasty to me all you want, but I will continue to speak my mind and put my money and time where my mouth is but I will not buy into intellectual dishonesty. I will not allow my state and county to be trashed as "dirty Dems helping lose elections". And yes, I get defensive when people say the DPW or Kloppenburg have "no balls" or implying that our great state can't run a fair election or acting like we're idiots who can't run a recount. It was done well, even right here in my home of Waukesha County.

Sorry, but what I have read coming from your county under the supervision of Kathy leads me in the opposite direction of your conclusion. And there is credible evidence of wholesale fraud. And I have attacked my own state for its allowing fraud to take place.

In conclusion my assessment is that you hate me because I question all election counts. Is that correct?

[PeaceNikki]

23. No, I don't hate you.

I contend that there has been no credible evidence of wholesale fraud in this state or county. If there were, Kloppenburg and the DPW would have pursued it.

That's the specific point we disagree on.

Oh, and whether that tiny sliver of data from EDA should be used to draw any conclusions.

[BeFree]

24. Oh?

This is where we disagree. The only credible evidence one needs to undertake an investigation is the fact that the voting machines are not verified and can't be trusted.

Through all the years and all the elections, there is considerable evidence of election counts being changed by the electronics. So the claim that there is "no credible evidence of wholesale fraud" is without merit.

There is evidence.

[BeFree]

25. Audits

From another thread there is this about audits:

Poster AmBlue says:
""These audits should be routine, random and statistically based on voter turnout and margin of victory-- and done BEFORE election results are certified "

So..... why don't we have proper audits?

Who, or what, is is keeping us from having proper audits?

This are the questions of Our Time, and if we don't get answers soon and reform takes place soon, we are doomed to seeing our democracy dead.

Link to original post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1738466&mesg_id=1742012

[BeFree]

11. Funky shit, dude

Examiners of the results found that the final polls were made up numbers with no sound basis.

In a nutshell the final numbers claimed something like 110% of the people who voted for bush in 2000 came back and voted for bush again in 2004. 110%?

And there is picture perfect proof of Mitosky adjusting his polling numbers to match the crooked counts on election night in Ohio. DU's own earlg captured the screenshots. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1293911&mesg_id=1293911

[tiptoe]

32. "TruthIsAll on the Mystery Pollster’s Critique of RFK Jr." (March 20, 2010)

TruthIsAll on the Mystery Pollster’s Critique of RFK Jr.

In 2006, RFK, Jr. wrote Was the 2004 Election Stolen? in Rolling Stone Magazine. The article was immediately thrashed by Salon’s Farhad Manjoo. Farhad's piece was also immediately debunked by a score of election researchers. But there were other attempts to rebut RFK’s work. In this post, I comment on Mark Blumenthal’s critique of the RFK piece – nearly four years after the fact. ...