The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy: Explained

[TruthIsAll]

As Mitofsky has stated, exit polls have always been weighted to match the actual vote. Now we know the reasons why. His statement, though literally true, is a canard. In fact, the vote count should be re-weighted to match the exit polls.

Mitofsky would have us believe that the vote counts are correct and therefore preliminary exit poll numbers must be re-weighted to match the actual vote. That's why his final, weighted exit polls match the votes - but they are wrong, because they assume that the vote counts are accurate, which is not true.

The re-weighted exit polls are "correct" only if one defines correct as exactly matching bogus vote counts.

Mitofsky never suggested that the vote counts could be anything but perfect. Yet we know that millions of ballots are spoiled in every election, especially in minority precincts. We learned about that from Greg Palast in Florida 2000.

We must assume that if the final exit polls are weighted to match bogus vote counts, then the preliminary exit polls (like the 2004 NEP of 13,047) must be very accurate indeed. In fact, Mitofsky/Edison claim that the preliminary 13,047 WP poll was accurate to within a 1% MOE.

Looking at the last five elections, the preliminary exit polls, which reflect the true intent of the voter, have been "re-weighted" to match bogus vote counts. And it's always the Democrats who lose the majority of the spoiled votes. As many as 4-5 million are estimated to be spoiled, of which probably more than 75% are Democratic votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=341940

Let's assume that of 4 million spoiled ballots, 3 million are Democratic, 1 million Repub. That's 2 million net votes lost to the Dems, or 2% of 100 million votes. In a close election, it makes all the difference.

But we have not even considered BBV, the 21st century equivalent of a punch card undervote/overvote - but without a paper trail to recount. We can therefore conclude that, in the last 5 elections, the preliminary Democratic exit polls exceeded the actual votes by 2-4% - and were very close to the true intent of the voter.

The NEP/WP site displays the pristine National exit poll of 13,047 respondents. The demographic category weights indicate a 51-48% Kerry victory, confirmed by state exit polls which showed Kerry winning most of the battleground states, including Ohio and Florida.

The 2004 preliminary (13,074 respondents) PartyID mix of 38/35/27 matched the final exit poll (39/35/27) in 1996-2000. The fact that this was changed to 37/37/26 in the final (13,660) NEP poll is what we used to call finagling - or cooking the books- to match the Bush 51-48% tally. THAT IS A MAJOR SMOKING GUN.

BUT SMOKING GUN #1 IS STILL THE 21 MILLION NEW VOTERS WHICH KERRY WON BY 59-39%. THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL KERRY COULD HAVE LOST, SINCE HE STARTED WITH A MAJORITY BASE OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS TO BEGIN WITH.

The argument the naysayers and even so-called Democratic polling bloggers have used, that the exit polls are not random samples and that the votes counts must be 100% correct, is logically and factually false, by definition. On the contrary, we know that the recorded votes do not include those lost to ballot spoilage or machine "glitches", 99% of which favored Bush.

We must therefore conclude that Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry all did better than the vote counts indicated, because millions of their votes were spoiled ballots - not to mention the unknown number stolen in cyberspace.

And finally, what about those who were disenfranchised by corrupt Secretaries of State, who never had the chance to vote and exit- polled?

So that's it.
The unexplained exit poll discrepancy - explained.

[Lucky Luciano]

1. kick

i will read later.

[TruthIsAll]

17. Why was this correct prelim. exit poll weight changed in the final poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x343168

[TruthIsAll]

18. Who won 59% of the new voters: Kerry or Bush?

The Preliminary National Exit poll says it was Kerry.
The national recorded vote total says it was Bush.

How could the preliminary National Exit poll be off by 20%?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x328711

[TruthIsAll]

19. Nat. Exit Poll: Kerry 51-48% (13047 respondents) to Bush 51-48% (13660)

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. Speaking of smoking guns, what's next for this aspect of the investigation

The corporate media seem to have largely buried the whole question of election fraud and generally don't object to Rethug statements that exit polls are unreliable guestimates. This, of course, fits the Rethug plan to outlaw them so they don't cause any more embarrassments the next time they steal an election. Do you know of any developing stories that might succeed in getting this exit poll discrepancy issue back into the national discourse as a red flag for fraud?

If it is possible, I would love to see a comparison of localities showing exit poll discrepancies with the on-the-ground reports of observed "irregularites" of all the various types, like the ones Berniew1 reports on. That would be a massive undertaking with many frustrations due to incomplete data, but I think it would be worthwhile. Do you know if anyone has attempted it?

As always, thank you for everything you've done.

[aquart]

3. Too tired and dispirited to comment.

I believe in punishing thieves.

[kobeisguilty]

4. while i disagree with a bit of your post...

Your smoking gun #1 is a very very interesting statistic, can you provide a source (i'd like 2 to cross-check) that verifies this?

[TruthIsAll]

5. You have a lot of catching up to do.

This WP site (13047 sample) says its 57-41
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=265121

The CNN site (11027) has it at 59-39
Scroll 3/4 down the site
http://www.exitpollz.org/CNN_national2.htm

[kobeisguilty]

6. i know both of those links

just didn't know that specific statistic.

[Peace Patriot]

11. TIA, where is the 57-41 reg stat at the WP site? Can't find it. n/t

[TruthIsAll]

12. Look on the right side under 2000 presidential vote

[TruthIsAll]

16. The 7:38pm exit poll on CNN (11027 respondents) had it 59-39.

.

[Senator]

7. I would suggest you make use of the term...

...Offishyl Vote Counts.

---

[DELUSIONAL]

8. "There is no way in hell that Kerry could have lost. . . "

"BUT SMOKING GUN #1 IS STILL THE 21 MILLION NEW VOTERS WHICH KERRY WON BY 59-39%. THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL KERRY COULD HAVE LOST, SINCE HE STARTED WITH A MAJORITY BASE OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS TO BEGIN WITH."


And yet he walked away without a fight -- I am not beating up on Kerry -- I am sadly just stating a fact.

Edwards came out and told us that they would stay until every vote was counted -- and Kerry threw in the towel.

Either they have something on Kerry -- or ????

I just don't understand why he gave up without a fight.

I don't know if any of us will live long enough to get the answers to our question -- WHY???

[m.standridge]

9. Even Edwards only said "we've waited this long, we can wait another DAY

to get this result".
Kerry didn't know if he had a Popular vote lead--only that the Electoral College was in dispute.
In other words, even if he could have worked with the authorities in Ohio--dominated by the GOP--and gotten an accurate result, he'd only have been readily able to demonstrate that he'd won in the Electoral College only.
Given all the DNC rhetoric about Electoral-only winners in the past few years, Kerry was probably under some level of pressure from the DNC itself not to argue about the Electoral College.
And, while this info. presented in this thread is useful and insightful, might I remind all that this is a distinct possibility in any of the previous five elections cited? That is, that the Dems would have won but only in the Electoral College.
I mean, after all, simple odds would suggest this might happen after some hundreds of years. It's happened for the GOP several times now--it would have been bound to have happened for the Dems at least once by now. JFK came close, so did Carter. They both did considerably better in the Electoral college margin than in the relative Popular vote margin.
But I think it's also possible Kerry was getting some throw in the towel encouragement due to the sheer impossibility of working with these GOP Ohio state-level people--which we've, indeed, seen were difficult--nay, impossible-- to deal with.

[DELUSIONAL]

10. Kerry also won the popular vote

I don't understand what you are rambling on about.

As TIA stated -- Kerry had the majority of the Democratic base PLUS the majority of the new voters -- therefore Kerry won the popular vote and the Electoral College Vote.

Apparently the DNC is just a branch of the RNC -- because it has been obvious since at least 2000 -- that the GOP is rigging the vote.

This time they stole the election in plain sight -- The EXIT POLLS gave the election to Kerry until they were "adjusted" and suddenly at the very last minute mysterious white males showed up in overwhelming numbers and voted for bushie -- but then they were too shy to tell the exit poll interviewers who they voted for.

Another neon flashing light -- 99.9% of the "errors" and "anomalies" were in bushie's favor.

Kerry and Edwards are smart men -- it is impossible for them not to know that this election was stolen.

The question is WHY did they stand down and WHY are they allowing the bushie gang to trash America??

[Peace Patriot]

13. Delusional, Kerry's concession is one of the most mystifying events in...

...modern political history. And I've thought of all kinds of scenarios that might explain it (including threat to his daughters--I mean, who knows?). I think the truth of it is probably quite messy in some respects--multiple factors--but generally points to the DNC and Kerry campaign advisors, who failed Kerry and us long before the election, when HAVA got passed in Congress with no auditing (paper trail provision), and BushCon companies began to sell their secret, proprietary programming code wares to the states.

The result was a fraudulent election SYSTEM. Non-transparent, unverifiable--controlled by Bush partisans! The Dems should have screamed bloody murder about this inherently fraudulent election SYSTEM. And didn't. Total silence from the Dem leadership. And you can't tell me they didn't know what it means that Wally O'Dell was counting our votes in secret. It's their JOB to know how votes are counted.

So I was asking myself: How could the Dem leadership have NOT screamed bloody murder about this election SYSTEM? What's wrong with them? And I think, really, the war in Iraq is at the bottom of it. Many Dem leaders supported invasion--voted FOR it, and failed to put any controls on Bush. Why? a) they're just plain corrupt--so into the military-industrial pigsty they can't see out of it; and/or b) they wanted a big US military presence in the Middle East for various reasons (among them, oil--the Dems are into oil, too, not just the Bush Cartel; and desire to surround and protect Israel--the big elephant in the room that nobody talks about).

The Dem leaders were not really into winning the 2004 election--until antiwar candidate Dean and the grass roots came along. Then they pushed a tepid (on the war) candidate upon the electorate, Kerry. Not a bad guy. Would have made a good Prez (may still). But wouldn't have upset the applecart ($$$$$$) as Dean would have. The majority of Americans opposed the war (and still do--nearly 60%!). But neither candidate did. We were denied an antiwar choice--which I'm sure would have been the preferred choice of the majority of Americans.

And having the election determined by Wally O'Dell & the Bush Cartel made it all the easier for these compromised, corrupt Dem leaders. They can come in some day (so they think--maybe '08) and say, "We didn't create this mess. We're your saviors." And people will vote for them because they will run the bread lines more compassionately than the Bush fascists would.

You might say Kerry should have known what this election system setup meant. And it's true. He should have known, and probably did. But he is just one actor in a very complex picture of Dem collusion. And once you're in a Prez campaign you're very dependent on advisors. I don't blame him personally. I think the mess we're in is much bigger than this one candidate and his concession speech. The problem (or part of the problem) is who wrote the speech and why--and how did Kerry get into that corner?

And now we have the problem that many Dems at the state level have been corrupted by Diebold & friends (it's what we're seeing in California), and are all entrenched with these electronic voting systems, and we're having to fight DEMOCRATS to restore our right to vote.

Recently I was thinking about the Spanish Civil War. If Bush is Franco, then who are the Dem leaders? They are certainly not the good guys (those trying to defend a democratically elected government, as were the Spanish patriots who opposed Franco). And I decided that the Dem leaders are very much like the Catholic Church in Spain in that war. Mostly, the Church was acting to defend its special privilege and entrenched financial interests. But there was some conflict within, due to the ancient teachings of the religion's founder--love thy neighbor, give away your riches, and so on. Some nuns, priests and monks at the grass roots level surely hated the war. And even some church leaders can't have been easy in their conscience, siding with the rich--and ultimately with Mussolini and Hitler. Still, they could not extricate themselves from their association with the bad guys--neither institutionally nor personally (and of course most of the Church leaders supported Franco).

That's our Democratic Party leadership (Nov. 2, 2004): Some conflict within, due to the ancient teachings of the Party about sharing the wealth, opposing big business, creating world peace, etc. But they cannot extricate themselves from their entrenchment in the military-industrial complex which wants and needs war, nor from the global piracy that funds their campaigns. They pay homage to civil rights and social liberalism--but even their homage to these progressive values is beginning to ring hollow. (The Dem Party's behavior vis a vis the outrageous, illegal disenfranchisement of black voters in Ohio and Florida is a good case in point--almost complete disengagement from it.)

The Party says one thing, and does another. It promised to count every vote, and didn't--and some of its leaders never had any intention of doing so. They don't want majority rule any more than the BushCons do. They are OBLIGED to say certain things (i.e., love they neighbor--or, we must defend Social Security), because of ancient tradition, but they don't really believe these things any more. Because THEY'RE all millionaires, and living privileged lives; THEY benefit from tax cuts for the rich; THEY will benefit from the infusion of the elderly's Social Security pension funds into the stock market, because THEY all have stock; THEY all have great salaries and excellent medical insurance. What do they really care any more what happens to the cannon fodder and the lowly peons--the majority of people in our country?

Just like the Catholic Church in Spain, in the early 1930s. For some (but not a majority) of ordinary Spaniards, the contradiction between compassionate Christian teaching and the Church's actual behavior in defense of its financial interest and its worldly power must have been very confusing. And the same is likely true of many ordinary members of the Democratic Party--confusion. The leaders say the right things (or, on some issues, sort of the right things), but then they vote for...the Iraq war! And vote to give Halliburton billions and billions of dollars to freely play with around the world. And vote for the Patriot Act (end of our Constitution). And let the most gross illegalities--the torture of prisoners, massive violations of the Voting Rights Act--just go on by. And permit Wally O'Dell & friends to gain control of our election system, without a word of objection.

This is very deep, my friends. I'm not advocating for a third party (not yet anyway). I'm not saying we can't reform it. (I think Dean as DNC chair is a hopeful sign.) I'm just saying we need to understand--really, deeply understand--our situation.

...so that, when we come up against a situation like California right now--with DEMOCRATS advocating for paperless Diebold 'voting,' and driving a good, anti-Diebold Sec of State out of office--we know what we're up against, and don't get depressed or derailed by the shock of it all.

So...how to reform the Catholic Church? (Ha!)

-----

Note: I was a young woman in college when the Catholic Church DID get reformed--very significantly. Unfortunately, those reforms did not go deep enough into the structure of power (a monolith). Thus, the Patriarchy survived that onslought of reform, and its fundamentally anti-Goddess bigotry prevails today. A good lesson. Reform on lesser items (such as women being forbidden to enter the altar sanctuary during Mass in any capacity--now they can, as assistants to the priest) must be accompanied with structural reforms that ensure equality, protect advances, create a balance of power, and address corruption. To just get the Bush Cartel ousted is not enough. We need to prevent such a coup ever happening again. And that means creative thinking about our own Party--how to restructure it, and how minimize collusion and corruption? (The Republicans can worry about the pickle THEY'RE going to be in, when these thieves and mass murderers finally get thrown out.)

[abbiehoff]

14. Excellent post!!!

I'm not so sure about Kerry's concession. I really don't believe that he could have done anything else on November 3. He could maybe have waited a couple of days, but without absolute proof of fraud, he would just have looked silly.

I do believe that practically everyone in Washington is beholden to what we used to call the military/industrial complex. Unfortunately it takes so much money to actually run for office, and even more to win, that all politicians are at risk. As long as it costs $200 million, or whatever these people have been spending, to win a presidential election, there is little chance of electing anyone who isn't just a pawn in the bigger plan of the corporate society. Even if everyone who wanted to could vote and the votes could be counted accurately, it might not be possible to elect a populist. The people just don't have enough money.

[DELUSIONAL]

15. Thank you -- you've put a lot of things in a historical context

I do feel that what is happening is very complex -- and that those in power don't want to know what the will of the majority is.

The corporate media is a very big player in this con. Without the help of the passive, steno pad for the bushie propaganda, -- this coup can not happen.

Kerry did win -- but it is the job of the media to convince the American people that green is red and up is down.

Both Kerry and Edwards are very intelligent -- they cannot help but know that the Americans are being conned. Unless they are involved in the con -- and I really thought that Edwards was a better person than to buy into a con.

I guess our job is clear -- start at the very beginning -- make sure that the system is changed from the bottom up. Make sure that every vote is counted and that everyone can vote.

We know we can win elections - that's not the problem.

I'm doing my part -- I stopped watching corporate media TV.

[mistertrickster]

22. Wow! Great letter, and I heartily concur (that means "agree" for you

FReeper lurkers).

The Democratic leadership has sold out to special interests for so long, they've gotten very wobbly on their base.

And we, the people, are paying the price.

Election reform has to be job 1 for the democratic party. When you've got Bush Campaign Chairs running the voting machinery in Ohio and Florida, you don't have a free and fair election. Period.

That's even without opening the BBV can of worms.

[Pooka Fey]

23. Fantastic post. Wonderful historical analysis. Thanks.

[TruthIsAll]

26. Kicking for this history lesson from the magnicent Peace Patriot...

.

[TruthIsAll]

27. M-a-g-n-i-f-i-c-e-n-t

.

[glitch]

24. That is the question that will haunt me to my end.

"The question is WHY did they stand down and WHY are they allowing the bushie gang to trash America??"

[papau]

20. An excellent post as always! :-)

:-)

[mistertrickster]

21. I wonder what would happen if someone were to hack into the vote

and make it register 60 million votes for Micky Mouse or something?

Is that what it will take for people to finally see that the results must have been tampered with?

I get the feeling that as long as Republicans keep winning with a dirty system, nothing is going to change.

Unfortunately, the only way the other side could point up the flaws of the system would involve the violation of many laws with bad consequences . . .

[berniew1]

25. Exit polls are useful, but you still have to show where the irregularities

were.
Here is documentation of touch screen switching in 18 states, systematic(illegal) dirty tricks in more, manipulation of registrations, absentees, provisionals, # of machines per precinct,
broken or faulty machines in minority precincts, other fraud, malfeasance regarding voting rules and regs to deny large numbers right to vote.

http://www.flcv.com/summary.html
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html
http://www.flcv.com/studentv.html