POLITICS: Exit Poll Results Explained

Therefore, you Reap what you Sow.

I hope you don't vote at random too.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Occam's razor points readily to fraud in this case...

How? George Bush did better in almost all voting districts nationwide. This would have to be a conspiracy that involved thousands upon thousands of election workers everywhere of both political parties. Bush even did better in New York City -- where the polls are completely controlled by Democrats and we have old mechanical machines -- than he did in 2000. Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually correct, clearly points to a problem with the exit polls.

Maskedavatar
The voting I take very serious.
Its the young and gulible outside the booth I may misinform

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar


(1) How would that be possible?

(2) Why would exit poll people breach their ethics and professional standards? Are they selected or supervised in a way that enables them to lie about what voters have said?

(1) How? Very easily. The Kerry voters could simply go to several polling places, walk in and then walk out without actually voting and then talk to a pollster. Admittedly, it's a another conspiracy theory, but much simpler (Occams Razor again ...) than the ones you propose.

(2) Why? Why in your world are exit pollsters placed so high on your ethical pedestal? Higher, it seems than elected officials, priests, etc. Do you not see the error in your thinking? You've decided that they couldn't possibly breach their ethical standards solely because you need them to keep your conspiracy theories alive. Not because it isn't possible for them to have their own agendas.

I did not decide anything about exit polling people. I asked why they would compromise ethical standards.

Kenneth Blackwell, head of the Bush-Cheney campaign and chief electoral official for Ohio in 2004, had plenty of motive for compromising standards, in the form of personal reward and potential governorship.

I question what motive an exit poller would have.

Fraud is fraud. When it's systemic and not auditable (because of stonewalling and lack of papaer trails) it's very easy to explain.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by syntaxer
To verify the legitimacy here i think we should sit back and question why Kerry voters out numbered Bushies when it came to exit polling.

Questionable reasons,

1. Kerry/Dem voters care more for their country?

2. Kerry/Dem voters have the extra time it takes to poll?

3. Kerry/Dem voters out number Bush/Rep but faced voting obstruction?

4. Bush/Rep voters do not enjoy participating in polls?

5. Impossible to get fabricated votes to show in person to take real-life polls?

6. Other?

My choice is 6. Other

If you know, for instance, that women voters are more likely to vote for Kerry, and you selectively choose more women than men to exit poll, then your results are likely to be skewed. Couple that with doing (and leaking) your polls during the time of day when more women than men are likely to be voting, and you "validate" your self-fulfilling prophecy.

Occum's Razor?

Wow....really?

as posted by Memory Shock
Do you just pick and choose the posts you read? There is no evidence presented here!!

Oh wait, you mean like the alledged "evidences" of voter fraud and intimidation that was brought before the Ohio Supreme court, all 37 cases, and they were shown to be " inadequate"? Yeah, thats called bringing forth that alledged voter fraud and intimidation and its "evidences" of, huh?


As for those exit polls numbers and results, seems that the women certainly had no problem letting them there pollsters know who they voted for, huh? probably why it has been asserted that the "Kerry going to win" exit pollings were weighted heavily by women....



seekerof

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I did not decide anything about exit polling people. I asked why they would compromise ethical standards.

I question what motive an exit poller would have.

Ethical Standards? So is there a license for poll taker? A certification? Are they sworn in? What kind of rigorous training do you have to go through to ask someone you don't know who they voted for? Every person who has asked me to take a poll was a kid who looked like they were making $6 per hour and looking for something better, or was a volunteer.

Maybe the dedicated poller thinks that if early exit polls show Kerry winning, many Republicans might decide not to bother to vote, and while you might get fired from your poll taker job (which is probably part time anyway), I don't think there is any law against skewing an informal, anonymous exit poll, and hell, if it will help save the country from those *&%$#! Republicans... ya know. If you apply Bill Clinton style sliding ethics to the problem, I'm sure there are many on the left who could justify it to themselves.

On the paper trail. Remember, if a machine can be made to print something once, it can be made to print it twice.

Is it just me? What am I missing here?

The reason more people said they voted for Kerry in the exit polls is because more people in the exit poll voted for Kerry.

Well damn. Mystery solved.

I'm sure each individual interviewer did their best, but as I recall in the aggregate there just happened to be more women, which trend Democratic. Also I'll further speculate a educated hypothesis that the traditional test markets used the past 100 years that always go the way the election does, no longer apply considering the huge geographic divides employed in Rove's wedge strategy. This election was a first in many regards.

And pollsters used time tested methods, which was the problem. This election was different.

My remaining doubts however (which I never expect to be answered) include the statistically assessed differences in paper vote counts (which trend Kerry and reflect exit polls) and the DieBold counts which overwhelmingly went Bush.

Nothing we can do about it. But it's there. Something quite strange in those Ohio and Florida counties with electronic voting to make them differ so from the norm.

Also, this leak talk is all backwards in my opinion. It wasn't Democrats singing from the rooftops Bush was losing. It was conservative radio and TV pundits as if on que. I've seen the tape of Hannity berating viewers in the final hours of voting that Bush was losing and to get out there and change it.

If anything, the polling and media "leak" helped Bush and came from his camp. If it was manufactured and overblown by anyone, look to Rove. Seriously, if the Democrats really ran everything like Republicans always say, wouldn't they... (ahem) run everything?

Seekerof:

What are you talking about? My post was in relation to the supposed evidence illustrated in the article. There was no evidence to explain the difference in exit polls and the voting results - everything could easily be dismissed as speculation or a construing of fact, i.e. omission.

I was not presenting evidence, I was disputing the so-called evidence.

The possibility of Voter Fraud is not that implausible.Voter Registration

The introduction of electronic polling potentially makes the job of voter fraud easier.

As for the Ohio controversy, I wasn't stating one way or the other. IMO, Bush stole the election.

And IMHO, seems that all the "evidence" to convince that "Bush stole the election" is still listed as "inadequate," as so stated by the Ohio Supreme Court, along with those thousands of lawyers from the Democrat legal teams, and from Mr. Kerry and his lawyer and campaign.

Interesting, huh?
"Stole" must be definately one of those relative terms, unlike the Washington State Governor's race that was "stolen," won by a Democrat after three recounts, and the unmentioned by the mainstream liberal media factoid that Kings County had more voters than registered residents. But as par, no 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' about this, huh?



seekerof

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by RANT

www.cnn.com
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Exit polls overstated John Kerry's share of the vote on November 2, both nationally and in many states, because more Kerry supporters participated in the survey than Bush voters, according to an internal review of the exit-polling process released Wednesday.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Is it just me? What am I missing here?

The reason more people said they voted for Kerry in the exit polls is because more people in the exit poll voted for Kerry.

Well damn. Mystery solved.

While this may be true, it does not mean that more people in the election voted for Kerry. It does mean that more people that voted for Kerry were polled, which can be selectively done.

Originally posted by Seekerof
And IMHO, seems that all the "evidence" to convince that "Bush stole the election" is still listed as "inadequate," as so stated by the Ohio Supreme Court, along with those thousands of lawyers from the Democrat legal teams, and from Mr. Kerry and his lawyer and campaign.

Interesting, huh?
"Stole" must be definately one of those relative terms, unlike the Washington State Governor's race that was "stolen," won by a Democrat after two recounts, and the factoid that Kings County had more voters than registered residents. But as par, no 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' about this, huh?

seekerof
[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Inadequate, suppressed, whichever word you would choose to describe it feel free. Kerry and Bush are both Billionaires, is it too difficult to acknowledge the possibility that their agenda does not coincide with that of the average american?

No wailing and gnashing of teeth, please, we could argue all day long on the issues that we are presented with and always find inadequate evidence on both sides, I choose to think beyond the stated facts because it is a fact that information is omitted, suppressed, biased, manipulated, etc.. I have issue with both liberal and conservative agendas; I'll support your views if they are presented well. The author of this thread did not present his arguement well; he didn't even acknowledge my post. You immediately jumped at me with the assumption that I would argue your views. Relax there, you got some good points. Maybe you could show me the evidence contained in centurions post that I missed?