Friday, November 17, 2006

Confirmed: We wuz robbed!

A day after the 2006 vote, I warned that we should not discount the likelihood of vote fraud simply because the Democrats carried both Houses. The discrepancy between the actuals and the exits made me suspicious. Actually, "suspicious" is too gentle a word.

Now, the Election Defense Alliance carries that same theme forward. Not only is the exit poll discrepancy real, but apologists cannot claim that Dems were oversampled by the exit pollsters. Don't let a few numbers boggle you; as Q likes to say, "Now pay attention, 007":
The E2006 exit poll itself contains a "background" question which serves as an intrinsic measuring stick to allow us to put this claim to a very objective test. Respondents were asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election.

Because this very telling intrinsic yardstick was included in the 2006 Exit Poll, it provides an objective basis to assess whether Democratic and Republican voters actually were sampled and weighted in correct proportions. In fact it reveals that Democrats won by a 4% greater margin than indicated by the actual vote count.

In the 2004 election, Bush's margin was 2.8%. The 2006 exit poll results as of 7:07 p.m. on Election Night recorded a comparable 2% margin among respondents asked for whom they had voted in 2004, 45% Kerry to 47% Bush. This is a very strong indicator that the exit poll, on the evening of November 7th, accurately reflected the official 2006 outcome as a whole. The 2006 national vote for the House, as captured by this weighted but unadjusted Election Night exit poll, was 55.0% Democratic and 43.5% Republican, an 11.5% Democratic margin.
(Emphasis added.) 11.5%. Consider the implications...

If numbers don't scare you, you'll want to read this take by our old friend, Truth Is All. Once again, we learn, the final exit polls were skewed by being conformed to the "actuals."

Regarding the disaster in Sarasota County, Florida: Nobody in his right mind can look at the results and come away with the impression that the vote was clean. The massive undervote in the House race was unprecedented -- especially since the undervote phenomenon occurred only in the compu-ballots, not in the absentee ballots.

The National Voting Rights Institute and other groups have demanded a full revote. We should ALL make that demand.

Then we should force our congressfolk to fix the damned problem.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

hey, J Cannon, how about some help by calling for a boycott of the OJ book???

Joseph Cannon said...

I need to know more about it. Right now, the whole thing seems sleazy -- and from what I've heard, the lady in charge of the things is a real weirdo.

Anonymous said...

geez, why bother with a boycott? just ignore the damn thing.

Anonymous said...

How about a re-vote for the whole state of Florida while we are at it, and probably Colorado to boot. There seem to be numerous races in at least both of those states that are highly suspect.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone bother to read Mark Blumenthal's four-part series on the 2004 exit polls? Perhaps you think that this Democratic pollster might be a secret Karl Rove operative?
Nobody here ever seems to come to terms with objective reality. Bush led in the final aggregate of all national polls by 2.5 points. He ran ahead throughout the last two months of the campaign. A poll taken one week AFTER the election showed him winning a hypothetical rematch with Kerry by 5 points. Inexplicably, you regard it as an anomaly that the favorite won.

Professionals in both parties looked at the early exit numbers with disbelief. Faced with 20-point Kerry margins in battleground states, people like Dick Morris, Michael Barone, and Bob Beckel understood immediately that the results reflected a heavy Democratic skew. RFK, Jr. famously wrote that the exits "even showed Kerry running neck-and-neck in Republican strongholds like Virginia and North Carolina." Kerry was not competitive in either state; NOBODY thought he was. The exit polls were WRONG. Blumenthal explains in painstaking detail exactly why they were wrong.

In 2006, the exits, as usual, were skewed to the Democrats. In some races, they were quite accurate; in others, the Democratic skew was more pronounced. You can either embrace reality or continue to inhabit a dream world where Republicans exercise magic powers over computers and post specialists in vote fraud, well, everywhere. You must understand that pollsters in BOTH parties regard this internet mania as ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

No doubt I satisfied no one with my call for reason. Nobody here owes me any explanations, but try examining the results from one very Democratic congressional district in Brooklyn, New York. The Republicans didn't bother to field a candidate. All the inspectors are Democrats. The machines are the same pull-lever types that were used in Tom Dewey's day.


Here are the elections results for the 11th Congressional district in 2004:

Major Owens (DEM) 134,175

Lorraine Stevens (IND) 4,721

Sol Lieberman (CON) 4,478

Major Owens (WOR) 10,824

BVS (Blank, Void, Spoiled) 47,829

Total 202,027


What do you make of those "blank, void, or spoiled" votes?