Pressure Networks to Release 2004 Exit Poll Data to CONYERS: Suggestions Please

[McCamy Taylor]

In Michael Collins' excellent two parter from Scoop about the unanswered questions from the 2004 presidential election, he points out that John Conyers is still trying to get the networks to release their raw exit poll data.

And what about this question, perhaps the simplest of all with the greatest potential for understanding just what happened in 2004? Why does the network consortium refuse to release the raw data for 2004? The raw data has been closely guarded by the pollsters and the networks despite at least two requests for examination of this data by now Committee on the Judiciary Chairman, John Conyers, Democrat, Michigan.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0708/S00284.htm

Here is a link to one of Conyers' requests.

Recall that all through election day 2004, exit polls had showed John Kerry leading. Presidential adviser Karen Hughes even told W. he had lost and went home. However, late that day, the "official" polls did a flip flop--not unlike the flip flop that one west Florida precinct did in 2000--and the election was called for W. The networks then sat on their exit polls and refused to let anyone examine them, except Warren Mitofsy, who came up with his mighty peculiar "reluctant responders" theory which claimed that Republican voters lie to exit pollsters (but only in precincts where paperless voting in used!).

The networks had cause to be happy about a W. win, since his FCC had promised to appeal a lower court ruling against administrative rule changes to federal media ownership law changes designed to put Viacom/CBS, Fox, the Tribune in compliance with the law and allow the NYT Co. and other to grow. John Kerry had criticized these federal media ownership law changes which the Bush FCC had enacted over the objections of Congress and the courts.

This promise by the Bush FCC would later turn out to have been a big fat lie. A few days after W. was safely sworn in for as second term, Michael Powell, outgoing FCC head and son of Colin Powell (and probably disgruntled as hell) revealed in the WaPo that the administration had never planned to appeal the lower court ruling against the federal media ownership laws, signaling to the networks that they had been used like two dollar whores.

However, the networks have their pride, and they are refusing the release those raw exit polls to Congressman Conyers, which raises the question What do they have to hide?. That in turn raises a second question How can the public put pressure on then to turn over the exit polls?

It is not as if any of the big networks will touch this story with a ten foot poll. Even Olbermann, Stewart and Colbert can be counted upon to stay away from something this potentially embarrassing to their parent companies. Since the people who are sitting on the exit poll results are the same ones who are responsible for getting the news to the American people, how do you get the news about the story to the American people? I believe that the mainstream media's culpability in the crimes committed during the 2004 election--like the ones Ken Blackwell committed in Ohio--has been a major reason why the networks have been afraid to discuss the election, even election theft activity that has nothing to do with exit polls, like voter caging and lack of equal access to machines. They want the whole topic to be forgotten about.

Anyway, here are a few ideas I had off the top of my head. Organization is not my specialty, so I am sure that others can think of better ones:

1. Use the rivalry between print and television news. If a print news source such as McClatchy were to pick up the story, then it might get some momentum. If some of the nations' better newspapers were to write about how the news networks will not release their raw exit poll data, this would make people wonder.

2. Ads in some of the nation's larger newspapers of the type that MoveOn.org does might also catch people's attention

3. If enough people started emailing the more reputable news networks en masse, would it catch their attention? I don't know. It might.

4. If an independent TV news program could be persuaded to write about the topic, or if radio stations like AirAmerica made it a topic of discussion this would also draw attention.

The thing that the news networks are afraid of is attention. They do not want people to point fingers and say "They lied to us about the exit polls in 2004." However, it could be just as bad if enough people are pointing fingers and saying "What are they hiding from us?" If the second situation got bad enough, it might be worth their while to turn over the raw exit polls, especially if Conyers made it clear that he was not on a witch hunt to get the networks.

Anyone have any other suggestions?

[spirald]

1. Subpoena?

Let's see the networks try to assert executive privilege. Then we'll really know we're in trouble.

[Peace Patriot]

2. Har-har! Good one, Spirald! nt

[Peace Patriot]

3. What they did with the exit polls is THE big bad secret of 2004.

They will never give them up, cuz THAT'S the "smoking gun."

I'm never against trying, though. But we need to be clear on goals and strategy. The point should NOT be to AVOID embarrassing the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. The point of all pressure and demands for this data should be TO embarrass them. It's kind of like why people bother to go stand outside a Bush event with antiwar signs. The Bush Junta could not be more deaf to the American people. Their PURPOSE is to have their Mideast armageddon IN SPITE OF US. So why bother to protest? It is for the benefit of other Americans--to hearten them, to inform them, to show the more demoralized folks that people care, and sometimes just to provide moral witness. We should have the same attitude toward the traitorous corporate press. They have NO good intentions toward us. None! And they never will. They are dictated to by 5 rightwing billionaire CEOs in cahoots with war profiteers and rabid fascists. And they will NEVER willingly reveal what they did to us on November 2, 2004.

So, if we do such a campaign--to liberate the exit poll raw data--we should do it for educational and morale purposes.

A word about McClatchy: Yes, McClatchy is going for the REAL journalism market. It's very noticeable. And what a wondrous thing it is! McClatchy could do news stories and commentary on this matter--on the exit poll fiddle, and all the rest of this tragic and shocking story. But it won't move the corporate 'news' consortium to bare the details of their collusion on the 2004 election theft. As with protesting, such coverage by McClatchy would serve good purposes, but it won't spring the data loose.

We have got to understand that the illegitimacy of that election calls into question the legitimacy of all Congressional and other elections in 2004 and 2006, and, indeed, the entire legitimacy of our corporate-run government. Not just the Presidency. But also the Diebold I Congress, and the Diebold II Congress (the current one). And all Supreme Court and other court appointments. And all actions of the government. The election system of 2004 WAS DESIGNED to put in power an ILLEGITIMATE government--a government that was NOT elected by the people--and it is the job of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies to maintain the ILLUSION of its legitimacy, the ILLUSION of valid elections, and the ILLUSION of democracy.

They are NEVER going to provide us data that breaks that illusion. So, the goal should be to alert the people to what happened, and to inspire more election reform activism. Election reform is snowballing. Debra Bowen's strong actions in California are one indication of that. So the goal of demanding the data should be to HELP that snowball gather momentum.

Just a for instance: Instead of just writing letters or whatever to war profiteering corporate news monopoly outlets, get some statisticians and professors and election reform leaders together and hold a press conference at a strategic moment, say, Sept. 20, when Bowen will be hold a hearing on the ES&S decertification. Invite--and do prep on--ALTERNATIVE media. Invite the corporate jerks, but don't pander to them particularly or expect them to cover it. And if McClatchy covers it, great! They feed news stories to many newspapers and other outlets in their network. But it is useless to aim at getting a rivalry going, on this story, that will dislodge the consortium data. It's not going to happen--or, in any case, it's very unlikely--so it shouldn't be the primary goal.

I'm in no position to organize such a press conference. And it's just an example. We also have to consider the political ferment that such a campaign--to get release of the exit poll raw data--would be in the middle of. The primaries, coming soon. The wild uncertainties of the presidential and other campaigns. How does a campaign on the '04 exit poll data fit in? What is its goal? Perhaps the goal--for the political context--should be to push someone (the DNC?) to fund independent exit polls next year (starting in the primaries would be great!).

That's a good strategic goal. Edison-Mitofsky's statement that they are never going to let the public get ahold of their real exit poll results, ever again, NEEDS TO BE KNOWN, and it can be used to inspire some OTHER pollster to act, or some progressive group to hire other pollsters, to do real exit polls. Make a list of all potential pollsters and sponsoring groups, and cc them on everything. Or organize a net campaign appealing to other pollsters and potential groups, to do the patriotic thing, and--in view of the unreliability of our election system--to provide us with this independent verification (real exit polls) of Diebold/ES&S's "trade secret" vote counting.

As with all things to do with election reform, I think our most hopeful venues are states and counties. It is very expensive and difficult to mount nationwide exit polls. So perhaps the goal (of an '04 exit poll data campaign)--if one of the goals is to inspire real exit polling--should be tailored to that reality--say, to inspire a SAMPLING of real exit polling in scientifically chosen localities, not to verify the entire presidential election, for instance, but to test the reliability of the "trade secret" vote counting, on a selective basis. That's a more realistic goal than national exit polling--if no major entity, like the DNC, comes through. Thus, the campaign to liberate the '04 exit poll raw data would be LOCAL, in chosen places. LOCAL groups would be solicited to help.

You have the problem that a focus on the 2004 election theft--in a campaign to liberate the '04 exit poll data--during the hottest months of major campaigning, may clash with the campaigns. It may be perceived as depressing to voter turnout. But if the goal of the exit poll data campaign is to verify CURRENT elections, by inspiring/demanding real exit polling, then it GELS with the political campaigns--or at least with those campaigns that are not counting on Diebold/ES&S to (s)elect THEM. (I won't name names here.) The honest politicians will WANT verification. Whereas few if any politicians will want bad news about election theft while they are trying to get out the vote.

The evidence is that past election thefts have MOTIVATED voters, not discouraged them. (God, I love my fellow and sister Americans! I really do!). This may not last, however. One stolen election after another, and it could get to people. But, for now, Americans are very riled up, and have shown (in '06) that they CAN outvote the machines, in some cases. So I think the better Democrats are DEAD WRONG in 'blackholing" information on these rigged machines (never talking about it, never warning people, never suggesting strategies to overcome it--I think only Edwards and Kucinich have mentioned it). They should be shouting it from the rooftops. Ordinary Americans would love it! They would LOVE being asked to outvote the machines. They all know it's rigged, by now. They hate what has happened to our election system and our country. They WANT to be rallied to DO something about it.

Possibly one or more of the campaigns should be solicited to, a) call for release of the '04 exit poll data, and b) request that some funder, or group, or pollster come forward to do real exit polling to verify the primaries and general elections next year.

It would be risky for them. The corporate news monopolies would go after them with tooth and claw, for sure. But THE PEOPLE would love it! In the case of Kucinich, what does he have to lose? In the case of Edwards, BOLDNESS will win him the nomination, not fear. And he was a direct victim of the 2004 election theft--as the VP candidate to Kerry. He knows what went down. He seems to have decided on a bold course, as it is. Could he be convinced to lay it all out--the whole truth, with the positive goal of inspiring an exit poll verification effort in 2008?