Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Tuesday, March 22, 2005

They're lying to you about the exit polls. Here's the proof.

(Note: I consider this post the most important one I've written on vote fraud in quite a while -- you'll see why by the end. I'll be grateful to readers and fellow bloggers who help spread this news around.)

I may owe you folks an apology.

Yesterday, I directed your attention to this report, by an entity called the Social Science Research Council, on the exit poll discrepancies -- a report I had not actually read at the time I linked to it. Turns out the damn thing is a politely-worded whitewash based on the presumption that the exits, not the "actuals," must have been flawed.

Indeed, the biggest "flaws," according to the SSRC, were the leaks of early exit poll results -- even though no-one has presented one particle of evidence indicating that information published on various blogs on election day affected anyone's vote. (Are that many Iowa farmers really die-hard fans of Daily Kos?)

However, we do know from other sources that, as the night progressed, the exit polls were conformed to match incoming "actual" data. Thus, only the early exit polls offer any sort of objective indication as to whether the vote was honest.

In the Ukraine, only the exit polls -- and nothing else -- indicated the problems with that nation's election. If, in the future, the unconformed polling data remains hidden, as the SSRC insists it must, then we will never learn whether an exit/actual discrepancy exits.

So why, in the eyes of the SSRC, did the exit polls show a Kerry win?

The SSRC researchers believe that there was a demonstrable Democratic bias in the data, and they repeat the National Election Poll line that "differential response" is to blame. This amounts to an endorsement of what I call the "chatty Dem" theory: "Kerry voters were more likely to agree to be interviewed while Bush voters were less likely."

Both the NEP and the SSRC place this explantion in the "subjective" file -- which means they have no proof. One could, with as much evidence, decree that the exit poll numbers were changed by a wave of Professor Dumbledore's wand.

Fortunately, we now have concrete evidence that the "chatty Dem" explanation is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The evidence can be found in this Democratic Underground forum, which derives from an analysis by "Truth Is All," who has done a great deal of fine work in this area. (Even so, I do wish progressives would choose less embarrassing pseudonyms!)

The exit pollsters, as we all should know, did not merely ask folks whether they pulled the lever for Bush or Kerry in 2004. The polls included a number of other questions. Specifically, respondents were asked to divulge the recipient of their vote in the year 2000.

In a preliminary exit poll released on CNN at 12:22 a.m., the results for the query about 2000 were 41% Bush, 38% Gore.

Two hours later, the final exit poll was released. At that time, the respondents said that they had voted in 2000 in a ratio of 43% Bush, 37% Gore.

Have you found the oddity yet? Feel free to re-read the last two paragraphs. And when you do, ponder this little factoid:

Al Gore WON the popular vote in 2000!!!

How, prithee, can the NEP and the SSRC (not to mention Dick Morris and innumerable other GOP propagandists) ask us to believe that the exit polls were skewed in favor of John Kerry? If such weighting existed, then the question about the 2000 race would have resulted in a demonstrable preference for Al Gore.

If you scroll further down in the DU forum, you will note that one reader suggested that 2004 respondents may have lied about who they voted for in the year 2000. But this "explanation" explains exactly nothing. If, as alleged, the exit polls were weighted in favor of the Democrats, why would Kerry supporters make false claims about having voted for George W. Bush in the previous cycle? Logic and experience tell us that people are usually reticent to mention that they once voted for a candidate who has since left them feeling disenchanted and ill-used.

But once we allow ourselves to consider the possibility that the exit polling was actually weighted in favor of Bush -- well. Much is explained.

Obviously, any party attempting to rig the election would also have to think seriously about ways to shade the exit polls.

"Truth Is All" further points out that if the 43% "I voted for W in 2000" figure is correct, then we can extrapolate that number into a figure of some 52.5 million voters. In fact, Bush received 50.5 ballots in the year 2000 -- and a number of those voters must have died or switched parties. Here we have a further indicator that that the NEP results were indeed manipulated -- against Kerry, not for him.

So: According to Warren Mitofsky and those wacky folks at the SSRC, the exit polls were marred by an over-abundant supply of "chatty Dems" who -- for God knows what reason -- bragged about voting for Dubya. And this, we are told, is why we must weight the 2008 exit polls more heavily favor of the G.O.P.

These people are not only rationalizing the 2004 vote theft, they are laying the groundwork for an even grander heist in the future.
Comments:
Provocative as the data is, the original post you link to doesn't provide enough information to justify drawing the conclusion that the exit polls actually queried more Republicans than Democrats.

The 43% and 41% figures for Bush 2000 (assuming they're accurate) may not be "raw" -- they could reflect the same sort of "adjustments" made to the 2004 data, as the night wore on, and pro-Bush votes got more weight than pro-Kerry ones.

Until we know how these figures were generated and arrived at, not much can be said.
 
Hi, here are 2/26s of my comments:
The abducted election, the aberrant election, the abnormal election, the abridged election, the abhorrent election, the addled election, the abominable election, the abracadabra election, the abrasive election, the abscessed election, the absconded election, the abstruse election, the absurd election, the abusive election, the abysmal election, the abyss election, the acquiescent election, the accused election, the addled election, the adjusted election, the ad nauseum election, the adulterated election, the aggravating election, the agonizing election, the ailing election, the alarming election, the alchemy election, the alleged election, the altered election, the ambiguous election, the ambushed election, the anathema election, the anemic election, the anesthetized election, the angering election, the annoying election, the anomalies election, the another stolen election, the antacid election, the anti-American election, the apocalyptic election, the apocryphal election, the appalling election, the apparition election, the appropriated election, the arbitrary election, the arcane election, the Armageddon election, the arrested election, the arrogant election, the arrogated election, the arthritic election, the artificial election, the ascribed election, the askew election, the asserted election, the assassinated election, the assigned election, the artfully-dodged election, the artificial election, the atavistic election, the autocratic election, the awful election, the AWOL election.
The bad-joke election, the baffling election, the bagged election, the balderdash election, the bamboozled election, the Banana Republic election, the banditry election, the baneful election, the bastards-stole-it-again election, the batty election, the beclouded election, the bemocked election, the benighted election, the besmirched election, the besmirked election, the bestowed election, the betrayed election, the big-lie election,

Yours truly,

James K. Sayre
www.bottlebrushpress.com
 
Since I have an affection for surrealism, I will let Sayre's response remain in all its glory. As for the first observation...

Remember the main point (strangely de-emphasized by TIA himself): The entire "mainstream" argument about the exit poll discrepancy rests on the belief that Democrats, not Republicans, were over-represented in the sample.

Once we toss that claim into the garbage pail, as we now safely can, then the case for vote fraud becomes damned difficult to refute.
 
That's the problem -- there's no knowing whether the data cited actually proves more Republicans were actually polled, or whether the figures were adjusted after vote tallies starting coming in.

We know that "exit polls" cease to be real exit polls as the night wears on. As best I understand it, the adjustments performed on these polls can effect other measures as well, as (for example) Bush exit polling votes are given more weight than Kerry votes, because Bush is showing a lead in the official count (right or wrong).

There's just too little to go on now. You can't launch a campaign based on one anonymous and unverified post.
 
I'm basing my observation on the numbers released by NEP, not on someone else's post.

Look, casuistry should not blind us to a point which is simple, important, and almost impossible to counter. Let me lay it out in the briefest terms:

1. Pretty much the sole official defense ofered for the pro-Kerry exit poll results is that the poll favored Democratic respondents.

2. In fact, we know that the poll was NOT skewed in that direction -- in fact, the skewing went in the other direction. How do we know? Because, by a wide margin, the respondents in this same poll also said they had favored Bush in 2000. Bush was actually the less-popular candidate then.

3. Having demolished the official explantion for the exit poll discrepancy, vote fraud is our only option.

My only problem with TIA's work on the Democratic Underground is that he is making the issue needlessly complex. The three facts above are all we need to make the case that fraud occurred.
 
.
.
.
Joseph:

Thanks for help keeping this issue alive! I still can't believe they haven't released the raw numbers yet!!! That new report numbs the brain with it's lack of insight, doesn't it?!! YAAAWWWNN.

Let me just rehash important points that were discussed earlier in this affair.

1. Mitofsky's hypothesis that there was an oversampling of Kerry supporters metamorphized into fact in his report.

Early in the report:

“While we cannot measure the completion rate by Democratic and Republican voters, hypothetical completion rates of 56 percent among Kerry voters and 50 percent among Bush voters overall would account for the entire Within Precinct Error that we observed in 2004.”

Later in the report:

“It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.”

2. Mitofsky failed to analyze an extremely important statistic. The accuracy of "hand-counted" votes vs. "machine-counted" votes.

USCountVotes.org produced a follow-up analyses and showed that, in fact, the hand-counted votes were significantly more accurate than the machine-counted votes. This is especially important when considering what happened in Ohio.

3. Newsclip Autopsy has yet to hear from anyone who disputes it's observation about the variables which Mitofsky claims shows influencing variables that skewed the exit polls (by oversampling Kerry supporters). In every one of these variables: THERE IS STILL A SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCY IN "IDEAL" CONDITIONS. For example, if the exit poll survey was conducted immediately beside the actual polling booths (ideal condition according to Mitofsky), there STILL is a discrepancy (or negative "within precinct error").

For more on the above see:

HALF-TRUTH: Mitofsky Solves The Mystery of the Exit Poll Discrepancy

and

TRUTH LEFT OUT: MSM Fail to Report an Important Exit Poll Study By Prominent Experts That Invalidates Mitofsky's Explanation
.
.
.
 
A friend just showed me this neat website full of kid joke
I cant believe the quantity an quality of humerous kid joke it contains
Heres one of the jokes i found on it:
Bob brought some friends home to his apartment one night after they had been out painting the town. One friend noticed a big brass gong in Bobs bedroom and asked about it."Thats not a gong" Bob replied "thats a talking clock. Watch this!"
Bob struck the gong and sure enough a voice on the other side of the wall screamed "Hey your jerk its 3 o'clock in the morning!"
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?





























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind