Vote fraud: Invention of the "reluctant Bush responder" theory -- in 2000

A reader at Democratic Underground made a great catch, and I just had to pass it along.

As you know, the quasi-official explanation for the exit poll/"actual" disparity in 2004 is the "reluctant Bush responder" theory. Turns out Mitofski used the exact same formulation to explain away some uncofortable poll results in 2000 -- in a Bush-vs-Buchanan primary race. (Since we are dealing with a primary, Elizabeth "Febble" Liddle can't claim that this early reliance on the rBr mythos resulted from an alleged oversampling of Dems.)

First go to cited DU page, then check out the original piece -- which includes these key paragraphs:

Here is a quote from page 88 of Plissner's "The Control Room." In the below passage, VRS is another name for Voter News Service, the exit polling arm of the 4 Big TV networks; Mitofsky is the sinister Warren Mitofsky, longtime mystery man behind Voter News Service. Here's the quote from page 88:

"By early afternoon on the computer screens of the member networks, history seemed to be in the making. In the New Hampshire Republican primary, George Bush led Pat Buchanan by a puny 48 percent to 42 percent. (For some of us with long memories, those numbers seemed spookily familiar. Six New Hampshire primaries back, Lyndon Johnson had edged out Eugene McCarthy by 49 to 42 percent, and a few weeks later Johnson abandoned his bid for re-election.) Those early Bush-Buchanan numbers were never broadcast, but they circulated throughout the day among the coterie of politicians and reporters with access to news unsafe for public consumption. As it turned out, the public in this instance was well served by the embargo. When the real votes came in, Bush had won not by a piddling six but by a solid sixteen percentage points. This was the first appearance of the "Buchanan Bias" in exit poll responses for which Mitofsky in later primaries would try to make adjustments. (In polling usage, it should be noted, the term 'bias' has nothing to do with the politics of the pollster. Survey experts define 'bias' as error -- unlike sampling error, which can be plus or minus – that errs in only one direction. When you find it, it's not always easy to explain. Mitofsky’s best guess is that Buchanan's voters were prouder of what they had done and, hence, more prone to respond, than Bush's were.)"

Well, well, well. Here we have a complete admission that exit polls by the Big TV Networks are not scientific. When they find a Buchanan --- who exit polls higher than his final vote, -- they have to suppress the exit polls as "not fit for public consumption", and then adjust their exit polls in the future based on the "Buchanan bias."

I don't know whether Plissner is a blissfully ignorant useful idiot who is focused on the surface goings on of what he witnessed in his 35 years at CBS, or if he is deliberately masking the realities here, but I have news for all of them: Buchanan BIAS is known as PUBLIC SUPPORT when it happens for any other candidate. In fact, there is no other candidate in the history of "exit polling" that has generated a "bias", according to these manipulators.

Furthermore, the earliest returns were 49% to 49%, and someone who was in the Buchanan inner circles when these results became known, heard Buchanan say, "...we could win this thing." But that’s before the strange goings on began in which Bush stayed at 49% and Buchanan dropped 3% every few hours until he was at 40% at 2 AM. THEN, the next morning, 10,000 ballots were "found" as reported by Larry King the next night – and Buchanan dropped ANOTHER 3% to 37% -- just what Bush was hoping for. In the meantime Bush allegedly rose to 53%..."

Odd, ain't it? The exit polls go nutty only when a Bush is running for high office...