Bradblog, 2:47 AM: Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in

[deminks]

This is a hint of the raw data that is not released to the public, and is not adjusted to match the actual results. It is something that Chris Matthews hinted at in his show. This is just a hint. We will not have the raw data, and I suspect we will never have it. I don't know that we have 2004's raw data.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535

Even the Exit Polls showed that Obama should have won, according to Chris Matthews on Hardball today. It's the first specific indication that we've seen that the raw, unadjusted Exit Poll data, which only corporate mainstream media folks, not mere mortals, are allowed to see, confirmed all of the pre-election polling which predicted an Obama win.

He introduced his segment today this way (video at right):
MATTHEWS: So what accounts for Hillary Clinton's victory in New Hampshire? What we don't know is why the victory is so much different in fact, then the polling ahead of time, including what we call the Exit Polls were telling us. Obama was ahead in those polls by an average of 8 points, and even our own Exit Polls, taken as people came out of voting, showed him ahead. So what's going on here?

(snip)

(BTW: They disavow their own Exit Polling from 2004. So, naturally, the MSM news consortium hired the same folks to do the job again in 2008. Perhaps it was the company's apparently spot-on Exit Polling in Ukraine, in December of 2004, cited as evidence of fraud by George W. Bush and Colin Powell, that the challenger should have won, rather than the incumbant, as the election results announced, in contradiction of the Exit Polls...but don't get us started.)

And yet, as all the talking heads continue to use data from those post-election-adjusted Exit Polls, as speculative reasons why Clinton was announced the winner ("higher than expected female turnout" "voters who make less than $50k"), Politico's Roger Simon, at the end of the Hardball segment, asks the question about NH '08, that we've been asking about 2004 for years: "If the exit polls got the results wrong, why do we think they got the demographics right?"

(end snip)

Emphasis mine. My question, too. Why would we know if people over 50 let's say voted for Hillary if the exit polls were wrong? There is no proof yet, just a lot of questions. I find it amusing that we blame the voters that the exit polls are wrong.

Sorry if this has been posted before.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Who'd a thunk it? Oh, wait. Most of us who followed 2004 Ohio.

Thanks/

[Perry Logan]

2. If Diebold is involved, you can't believe a bit of it.

[Lyric]

3. Why is it that we distrust and loathe Chris Matthews when

he's saying what we don't want to hear, and take his word as fact when he's saying what we *do* want to hear?

Just wonderin'....

[deminks]

4. I would quote KKKarl Rove if he let go of a hint like this.

[JackRiddler]

66. I don't trust him - I would trust a hand count of the NH optiscan ballots.

Okay?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. My head is officially spinning. nt.

[KharmaTrain]

6. So Does This Happen Every Time Obama Loses A Primary?

It didn't take very long for the tinfoil hats to come out. When the corporate media didn't declare things for Obama the second the polls closed, out came the voter fraud howls...how somehow Diebold, Hillary and Rove were all conspiring here.

POLLS ARE NOT VOTES...and the polls leading up to the vote was very misleading. Few cited the large number of undecided voters who swung on the last 24 hours. I can relate to those people cause if my primary were held today, I'd be on the fence until the last minute as well. The "Iowa" model the corporate media tried to put on New Hampshire didn't work and the people didn't play with the reality show polling that was going on. If anything, it was this overkill that energized Hillary's voters and supressed the independents who voted for McCain rather than Obama.

Remember, Obama's from Illinois...more specific the Chicago machine. If there are any people who know about election fraud and rigging it's David Axelrod and his staff. If there was any fraud going on, we would be hearing it from the campaigns.

It's starting to get Pavlovian for some to immediately blame voting machines when their candidate doesn't win or meet expectations. The real problem is this constant crying wolf distracts attention and weakens interest in the real voter fraud and suppression efforts going on.

[EFerrari]

8. This has nothing to do with Obama.

The term is election fraud.

Raising questions about the result of a vote on unaudited insecure machines ahead of a general election after we have been robbed TWICE is not crying wolf and it's not Pavlovian. It's logical consequence.

If after all the information we now have on these machines, you still need a tin foil hat, it's because you like the look.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Most Of New Hampshire Had A Paper Trail...

If this system was so flawed, then why do we hear about it AFTER the election? Why aren't the machines being impounded?

No this isn't election fraud...and to paint Obama's loss as such is dishonest to the real voter fraud that does go on. I'm still waiting for the first trial and conviction on a hacked Diebold machine. Yes, it's possible, but there's never been a fail-safe system...it all comes down to the people who operate them. If they're corrupt, it doesn't matter. Why rig an election when its easier to keep them away through voter suppression...picture IDs and other tactics that many here seem to not to be paying attention to. New Hampshire was using Diebold scanners...not Touch Screens...a lot different than the machines in Ohio and Florida.

[EFerrari]

16. It's not a paper trail but scanned ballots.

You hear about it after the election because you don't hang out in the Election Reform forum.

The machines aren't impounded because no candidate will stick their neck out and maybe, shouldn't. Election reform is largely a citizen enterprise.

There have been indictments in OH over 2004. You might want to check it out.

Scanners have memory cards that can be hacked.

The Republicans are working on suppressing the vote and also on kicking people off the rolls all over the place.

/grammar

[smoogatz]

23. Paper ballots=paper trail.

They can be recounted by hand.

[The Doctor.]

32. Unfortunately, most recounts need a trigger threshold.

If the machine reports results outside of that threshold, no recount.

In Ohio, where they used opti-scan, a recount was triggered and SoS Blackwell had to illegally manipulate the count by selecting the precinct and limiting the count in order to avoid triggering a wider recount.

It's nice to have the ballots on file, I agree that they can be used to verify the machine totals, but they most often aren't.

The point is that the machine totals are centrally tabulated and therefore very easy to manipulate. Hand-counted ballots are the only way to avoid these problems when there are so many hurdles to triggering recounts.

[EFerrari]

35. Yep. We have a similar system here. But I seriously doubt

there will be a recount. No one wants to go there.

[smoogatz]

46. Well, there doesn't seem to be any real reason to in this case.

If the raw exit poll data were shown to be wildly at variance with the official count, then you'd have something. But there's no indication that that's the case, I don't think. Of course, it's crazy that the raw data is proprietary. You'd think maybe a consortium of left blogs could pool their money and buy a license, so they could actually get a look at the data.

[EFerrari]

49. That's a good idea. This is ridiculous already, n/t

[KittyWampus]

50. No one has seen the raw exit poll data. I beg of you to review the actual facts.

[smoogatz]

52. No one?

Isn't the raw data usually fed to news organizations as it comes in? It was in 2000, and in 2004, I'm pretty sure.

[truedelphi]

65. The news organizations are not at all experienced in analyzing the data

And the news organizations are also more interested in keeping the Corporate State model alive and well, than in this country remaining a democracy...


But voting activists who are experienced in such analysis have asked for the data and been refused any sort of exmination of it.

[KittyWampus]

48. but they weren't recounted were they? Not even a random few as an audit.

[smoogatz]

55. Why should they be?

The results were clear. There's no reason to doubt them, other than the fact that most of the pre-vote polling was wildly wrong. Stewart had John Zogby on last night, and I'm here to tell you—John Zogby is a fucking moron. If he's anywhere near the intellectual standard for pollsters, it's no wonder they're all fucked up.

[KharmaTrain]

28. Any Convictions?

Ohio used Dieblold Touch Screens...not the scanners. For years I was a poll watcher on election day...back in the golden age of the huge pull-lever machines. Those machines were easily hacked...all it took was someone turning a little wheel when no one else was watching.

I used the scanned ballots here...and when the machine was installed for the '04 elections a bunch of us were extremely cynical but were given a demonstration by the county clerk's people (all Democrats)...there was a receipt system inside and the results on the memory card was checked against the paper trail before the votes were certified. Yes, someone intent on hacking the system can do it...but there's other ways that are easier...like hacking the main computers (seems like they sure crash alot).

I see the voter suppression efforts happening before they even come close to a Diebold machine. The ongoing suppression efforts in Indiana and Georgia that may soon be passed in a bunch of other states (all Repugnican) with the blessing of the SCOUTS! If you don't have a drivers license or photo ID, you can't vote. Or the never-ending problem of not having enough machines at certain locations...forcing people to wait in long lines which drives down voter participation.

Sfexpat...I always respect your opinion and if you have a link about a prosecution or conviction involving tampering with a Diebold machine during an election, I'd appreciate it. I don't downplay the problems and was avidly reading all the BBV stuff...Bev and Andy and others back in '04...but I do think there has been some progress made here...and most importantly, there are more Democratic Secretary of States in place this year than there was in '04 (no Blackwells this time).

Cheers...

[EFerrari]

34. Two convictions, iirc. Let's see if I can find a link.

They did 18 months for tampering with the recount, I think.

ETA: And, the convictions came about because Op scan ballots were stacked instead of being randomly recounted per the law. Op scan ballots.

[EFerrari]

37. Link to Free Press article on Cuyahoga Co. convictions:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2379

[KharmaTrain]

43. The Central Office...

Waaaaay back in the 80's, I put on my leisure suit and had the chance to watch the first run through of a new fangled computerized system here in Cook County. It was very similar to how the Diebold system works now...but the memory chip was the size of a brick and had to be driven to a central location and then "modemed" into the main center. The big concern then was how that data was treated as there was little oversight into that system and would be easier to hack one machine than 100 separate ones. It was easier to fudge votes when you're dealing with hundreds or thousands than on the precinct level where it can be noticed and more easily traced.

I remember reading about the stacking case on TPM...and that sounded like a "central office" problem being it was a recount than an actual tampering of machines in the precincts or during the actual election. The fact that people were aware of ways of rigging the system has made pulling this type of stuff more difficult. I'm still looking for someone who was arrested for replacing a memory stick or hacking into a machine to manipulate the results.

[EFerrari]

44. I don't know. In my opinion, those will be harder to get simply

because the case is harder to make to people who don't understand the tech. We're more likely to see cases like this one because it's easier to explain to a courtroom.

[KharmaTrain]

53. I See It Easier To Catch 'Em At The Local Level

Every time I vote I have the same precinct captains...they work for the county (patronage) and get a paid day off to sit around and snarf donuts all day. These people not only know about their precinct but can pretty much tell whose voting for whom...if they did their final count and saw different results or picked up the paper and saw different numbers in there than they saw in the count, I know these people would make a lot of noise.

Hell...I have this picture of some chickenhawk in mom's basement hacking into the HAL9000 and moving numbers.

:hi:

[helderheid]

25. Paper trail means jack shit without meaningful audits. n/t

[The Doctor.]

27. Historically, Exit Polls are accurate to within a 2% MOE, that's a 4% 'swing'.

The more people are polled, the more accurate the EP is.

Only in two types of cases have exit polls significantly exceeded the MOE;

1) Where there is fraud.

2) Where electronic/centrally tabulated voting machines are used.

That's it.

Now, you asked, "If this system was so flawed, then why do we hear about it AFTER the election? Why aren't the machines being impounded?", which proves you have absolutely no idea what has been going on with these machines.

We have been fighting for years, many since before the 2000 debacle, to get rid of these machines. Everyone who is pointing to this discrepancy has known about these machines and likely mentioned it somewhere before this election. People all over the country have been trying to get rid of these infernal devices in every state that has them, and they have been decertified in some places after very long, very hard battles.

If you have to ask why it's been so hard to get rid of them, then you are certainly naive... but I'm sure someone would be willing to fill you in.

[KharmaTrain]

36. And Polls Are Infallible?

Yes...if there are elections that are being stolen by Diebold machines, why haven't there been challenges and prosecutions? Why aren't machines impounded? Is this company soooooooo powerful that it scares every candidate?

I didn't see an exit poll until after the results came flowing in...all the polls prior to that were before the election and many were seriously flawed. Few noted the large number of undecided voters...others weighted in favor of a similar turn-out model to Iowa where more young people voted than were expected in New Hampshire. The numbers were rushed and the corporate media played with the numbers that made Senator Clinton look the worse...leaving out the 15-20% who went in undecided. They totally ignored polls prior to Iowa that showed Senator Clinton with a similar margin over Obama as we saw on Tueday.

So where's the fraud? It's with the corporate media weaving a narrative and manufacturing and manipulating numbers to fit it. Now they're weaving a new narrative...like Tweety saying that people lied to pollsters cause they're really racist...and other nonsense...that destroys their credibility further.

Now how many remember the exit polls of 2004...some here in the early hours of that election were predicting a Kerry landslide. It didn't happen and it wasn't just because of Ohio.

Voter suppression is a far greater problem now than Diebold. If you're not paying attention to that issue right now, then you're missing the real story. It doesn't make much sense to complain about the machines when there's an effort going on to keep people from even getting into the voting booth.

[The Doctor.]

39. Go educate yourself. Here's a link;

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

I simply don't have time to educate someone today. Yes, there is supression, it's huge. The machines are utilized to skew results as well, and if you don't think so, then you are ignorant of quite a bit of information. Go into the forum and ask questions, you'll be amazed at how serious this is... if you're sensate that is.

"The election? It's over... we won! It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting." - Peter King (R-NY), White House lawn, spring, 2003, with beer in hand.

[KharmaTrain]

45. And How Does This Relate To New Hampshire???

I've said that I consider voter supression a far greater problem than rigged machines. You can't rig votes of people who are being kept away from voting. THere was a SCOTUS hearing the other day about what's going on in Indiana...and it appears the court will codify some of the Rovian games...that's a far greater outrage in my book and little was mentioned here.

Let's not lump all the efforts to steal elections in one broad stroke...supression is far different and more systemic than technically flawed machines. I've seen a lot of good work that has been done over the past couple years to alert voters to the hazzards of Diebold and several states that have dropped the system. It didn't seem to hurt Democrats in '06.

One big change in the past couple years has been the changeover of state governments to Democrats. There's no Ken Blackwell in Ohio this year. Electing more Democrats on the state level will ensure even more tranparency and accountability of elections...and will be a major advantage in the next redistricting.

Again...I'm still looking for an actual conviction of someone tampering with a Diebold machine during an election. With the thousands of elections that have been held all over the country with the machines you'd think there'd be something there.

My concern is to put the focus on the suppression efforts right now that will hurt ALL Democrats this fall...one of the few tricks the GOOP has in their playbook.

[OnTheOtherHand]

81. good points

As far as I can tell, disenfranchisement mattered more in 2004 than vote miscount did. It just doesn't have the same tug on the imagination.

I think it's important to deal with the machines, but not to be monomaniacal about them.

[foo_bar]

58. speaking of education...

Your gut feeling:

Only in two types of cases have exit polls significantly exceeded the MOE;

1) Where there is fraud.

2) Where electronic/centrally tabulated voting machines are used.

Consensus reality:

To be more specific, the report shows that:

* The average WPE this year (-6.5) was almost as high (-5.0) in 1992 and favored the Democrats in 2000 (-1.8), 1996 (-2.2) and 1998 (-2.2 - p. 31).
* Within states, the degree of error in 2004 at the state level tended to correlate with the degree of error in past elections, especially 2000 and 1992 (p. 32). As the report put it, "seven of the ten states with the largest WPE in 1992 were also among the fifteen states with the largest WPE in 2004 (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont)" (p. 32).

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/01/the_war_room.html

In the 1992 general election, the final opinion polls gave the Conservatives between 38% and 39% of the vote, about 1% behind the Labour Party. In the final results, the Conservatives had a lead of 7.6% over Labour. As a result of this failure to 'predict' the result, the Market Research Society held an inquiry into the reasons why the polls had been so much at variance with actual public opinion. The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error could be explained by Conservative supporters refusing to disclose their voting intentions; it cited as evidence the fact that exit polls on election day also underestimated the Conservative lead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor

[The Doctor.]

63. So, there is no difference between "Within Percent Error" and "Margin of Error"?

MOE defines 'percent variation' in +/- terms.

WPE would be 'swing'.

That would mean, unless I'm wrong, that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.


A 3% MOE is not much more 'significant' than a 2% MOE.


The other questions are "how are these averages arrived at?", "Was fraud investigated where the MOE was so far off in 1992?" (Unless you forgot, we determined there was election fraud in the Ukraine in '04 for less a MOE than in Ohio... and we turned out to be right.), and, most importantly, "Are there examples of such great margins of error using paper ballots where it was determined NO fraud occured?"

If the respective answers are "Not sure"/"No"/"I don't know"... then you haven't really made a point at all.

I know that in the most recent elections, paper ballots were very close to the MOE where used, where the count was significantly deviant from the MOE, DREs were used, and all but one of the most extreme deviations on DREs favored Republicans, most notably Bush.

Then there's this sloppiness from Wiki; "The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error could be explained by Conservative supporters refusing to disclose their voting intentions"

Assuming this is correct, this means that they allowed non-answers to weigh in the poll? If so, they were building error into their polling.


So, the crux question is; "Are you saying that DRE machines were not used to commit fraud in the 2004 elections?"

Yes or no eh?

[foo_bar]

68. to the contrary

MOE defines 'percent variation' in +/- terms.

Since you don't know what "margin of error" means (it has nothing to do with "variation", but rather describes an estimate of random sampling error at a given confidence level) you might leave "education" to someone with a passing familiarity of the subject.

The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey. One example is the percent of people who prefer product A versus product B. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

The margin of error is an estimate of a confidence interval for a given measurement, result, etc. and is frequently cited in statistics.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarginofError.html

That would mean, unless I'm wrong, that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.

You're wrong, but WPE is a lot like what you think MOE means:

"Within Precinct Error (WPE)
Within Precinct Error (WPE) is an average of the difference between the percentage
margin between the leading candidates in the exit poll and the actual vote for all sample
precincts in a state. The signed WPE gives the direction of this error; in this report a
negative WPE represents a Democratic overstatement in the exit poll and a positive WPE
represents a Republican overstatement in the exit poll. The absolute WPE represents the
total error."

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/01/media_whore_ale.html

So, the crux question is; "Are you saying that DRE machines were not used to commit fraud in the 2004 elections?"

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
<...>
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting

[The Doctor.]

69. LMAO! Pseudo-intellectual condescension does not become us.

"The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey."

Ummm... yes, and it's expressed as a 'percent variation'. :silly:


Did you not read this part? "The absolute WPE represents the
total error."

"Total error" would be the "swing" I mentioned.

Therefore +/- WPE would be equivalent to MOE, and 'AWPE' would not.


But then there's this bit;

So, the crux question is; "Are you saying that DRE machines were not used to commit fraud in the 2004 elections?"

With your 'response'; "The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something."

My question was intended to find out if you've made up your mind. If you want "proof", there's enough evidence in the forum I linked to to prove The Virgin Mary was a prostitute. So unless you've already made up your mind on the subject and no amount of fact or data will change it, I urge you to avail yourself of the 'Election Reform' forum here; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203 , and educate yourself.

Have fun.

:patriot:

[The Doctor.]

70. self-delete, wrong place.

[foo_bar]

72. you not only lost the argument, you're making stuff up to pretend you didn't

"Total error" would be the "swing" I mentioned.

Therefore +/- WPE would be equivalent to MOE, and 'AWPE' would not.

Can you explain, in your words, what you believe a "margin of error" represents? Because the preceding paragraph (you just invented the term 'AWPE' in a statistical context) is the equivalent of stating "I've never taken a stats course in my life, and I'm hoping there's nobody here to call me on it." I've already cited sources that contradict your magical beliefs about what statistics would be like if you ever cracked a book on it, and you've discarded the concept of proof itself to relieve any implications of these technical meanings that you improvised definitions for, so all I can do is try to teach in spite of the epistemological chasm.

That would mean, unless I'm wrong, that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.

There wouldn't be much need for a WPE variable if it were always 2*MOE, would there? A margin of error represents the theoretical boundaries of random sampling error at any non-100% confidence, while Within Precinct Error measures the average of two candidates' spread using an actual vote compared to the predicted result, so equating the two in a single formula is akin to "Fish = Bicycle" (paraphrasing Gloria Steinem).

f you want "proof", there's enough evidence in the forum I linked to to prove The Virgin Mary was a prostitute. So unless you've already made up your mind on the subject and no amount of fact or data will change it, I urge you to avail yourself of the 'Election Reform' forum here; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I seem to remember when it was 'Election Reform and Discussion', but anyway, providing a link to a forum page is always a lame cop-out when someone asks you for, well, anything but a link to a forum page.

[The Doctor.]

73. Lame.

If this isn't evidence of Psuedo-Intellectual Condescension; "(you just invented the term 'AWPE' in a statistical context)" when it should have been obvious I was using the extant term "absolute WPE", which would read "Absolute Within Percent Error", and turning it into an acronym for brevity's sake, then no such thing as PIC exists.

I'm very familiar with what MOE means. I was using it as an index as the function of the WPE is comparable to the funtional basis of the MOE. Either you couldn't figure that out, or you're just looking for something to be a prick about.


You wanted proof, I gave you the link, your response is "I didn't ask for a link".

It's apparent that, for whatever reason, you want to dismiss much of the uncomfortable facts and focus on a point of barely pertinent minutia.

You say that 'exit poll have been wrong before' without knowing for certain whether there was fraud on those occasions, forget the fact that in the last 8 years, my statement seems to hold true.

You would rather avoid going to one of the best resources for information than educate yourself, and your lame excuse is that it's a "link". I suppose if someone provides a link to anything, you will be just as dismissive if your aim is condescension.

Go learn some stuff. If you have specific questions, I'll answer them until you've proven you're really not interested in election fraud.

[foo_bar]

74. "I was using it as an index as the function of the WPE is comparable to the funtional basis"

Hopefully another sane human being will confirm to you that you're inventing gibberish on the spot, such as "That would mean, unless I'm wrong, that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.". If not, it's probably your loss.

You would rather avoid going to one of the best resources for information than educate yourself, and your lame excuse is that it's a "link".

You posted a link to the ER forum. This is the ER forum.

[The Doctor.]

76. So you don't realize they use the same function.

No surprise. Yes, "MOE" is 'established', but it needs to have a function in order to mean anything. You really don't get that?

Sad.

You rode this thread to the ER forum from GD. Stay here and learn something.

Otherwise I'm done with you.

B'bye.

[foo_bar]

78. Your hovercraft is full of eels?

No surprise. Yes, "MOE" is 'established', but it needs to have a function in order to mean anything.

Continuum transfunctioner? Oral pleasures?

that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.

I don't believe you sincerely believe this, at least if you read one of the Wiki/mathworld links (except they would make little sense to you in your current state), but I've seen worse examples of both prevaricators and the deluded, so I haven't formed a theory. It needs to have a function, man!

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. at foo_bar's request, or whatever...

MOE is an estimate of the expected variability in a sample statistic due to random sampling error. WPE is the calculated difference between exit poll sample margin and the official margin. You appear to be so confused about this that I don't even know what I could say next. The first approximation is that they are totally different.

Anyone who can write, "Was fraud investigated where the MOE was so far off in 1992?" will have a hard time convincing me that s/he understands what MOE means. But I will try to keep an open mind. Maybe you could give another example?

You would do well to stop haranguing foo and start paying closer attention. I don't expect you to believe this, but maybe eventually you will.

[The Doctor.]

86. I merely misphrased it. It should have read; "So far off FROM the MOE"

I'm quite familiar with the differences and likenesses. Do you not recognize that the MOE uses the same functional standard as the WPE? Do you not understand what I'm saying?

I'm beginning to think I'm dealing with people who think they know more than they really do. So far no one's told me anything I don't already know.

When I tried to figure out where foo was coming from, he went 'condescending asshole' on me, so fuck him.

I'll ask you; "Do you understand the discrepancies (deviation from MOE in this case) tend to be greater where there is either A) Fraud. or there are B) DREs/central tabulating computers?"

If the answer is 'no', then I know I'm wasting my time because the facts are pretty conclusive on that question.

NOW... I know that I used an absolute when I said "It only 'ever' happens when...", and I know that it must be possible for EPs to be off where no fraud has occured, but foo came at that exactly wrong in two ways;

1) Without definitive evidence, ie; vindication of methods where the MOE was significantly exceeded, no one can know that my statement is wrong. In the case of the statement I made, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to back up what I said. Otherwise I acknowledge my error in the use of an absolute... I seldom make that mistake.

2) Accusing me of 'deception' when the facts do more to support my assertion than detract from it.


If he didn't go asshole on me, we might have got to the bottom of it.


Now... do you understand what I just said?

[The Doctor.]

71. Oh, so you DO spend time there. That's good.

Although it seems you have only been going there sporadically until recently, and only to poo-poo the people asking too many questions.

Are you there just to poo-poo fraud? Or are you just a Hillary supporter? Either way, I recommend you study up more.
I'm a bit rusty on the subject since I burned out on it '06, but I'm well acquainted with the basics.

What is your particular special understanding of election fraud?

[foo_bar]

75. you're having trouble with the concepts of "there" and "here"

Oh, so you DO spend time there.

There is here. Since this represents the Piagetian development level of an average 2 year old, I fear you've learned enough for the evening.

[The Doctor.]

77. There's that PIC (Psuedo-Intellectual Condescension) again.

This thread started in another forum. It is obvious that being a conceited asshole is most important to you, so kindly fuck off.

Bye.

[foo_bar]

82. that's the Making Up Acronyms again

I've never bothered to mention this, but I trained HTH with a guy out of the Rangers. He was recon in 'Nam. One of the things that I'll never get out of my system is the incredible 'high-alert' state that I was always in while training.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=942587&mesg_id=945170

In a posting title, "A Message From A Real Republican", thirty-year Republican party member, Dr. Garth Eldritch easily claims the latest "BRAD BLOG Intellectual Honesty Award".

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:YuPDDFJSIkAJ:www.bradblog.com/%3Fcat%3D194
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x194341

I am a Republican because I believe in states’ rights, fiscal conservatism, and limited global involvement where we are not threatened. This administration has demonstrably violated real Republican values on enough levels that I cannot consider them or anyone who supports them a real Republican anymore.
<...>
We are on the side of law, order, and justice. We are on the side of a free and Democratic America…

And you are either with us or against us.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Dr_eldritch

Normally I don't recommend supplements, but Es and Omega3s are good here too.

Since I'm not a MD, always consult one first, but I've yet to have one disagree with that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2320813&mesg_id=2323803

[EFerrari]

41. I posted two threads about that last week. You are right.

The RW is really ramping up voter suppression operations all over the place.

[smoogatz]

60. Maybe I'm misreading this, but Matthews seems to be saying the raw exit polls

showed Obama winning by as much as 8%; if the final count shows Hillary winning by 3%, isn't that an 11% swing? If that was the case, it would raise alarms indeed. Even the dumbass corporate journalists might sense that something had gone wrong, no? Two things trouble me about using Matthews as an election-fraud alarm: first, he's notoriously full of shit. He could well be making up a narrative that makes him look like less of a moron than he appeared to be on Tuesday night. Second, he's being very imprecise with language here. Look closely at what he says: "What we don't know is why the victory is so much different in fact, then the polling ahead of time, including what we call the Exit Polls were telling us. Obama was ahead in those polls by an average of 8 points, and even our own Exit Polls, taken as people came out of voting, showed him ahead. So what's going on here?" I think what he's saying is that the pre-vote polls showed Obama up by 8, and that MSNBC did some informal exit polling ("our own exit polls") that showed Obama ahead—but who did they talk to? What methodology did they use? I have a hard time taking any conspiracy theory seriously that relies on Chris Matthews to make its case. And another thing: both the Governor and Sec'y of State of NH are Democrats. Were they in on the tabulation fix? New England Democrats conspired to fix a presidential primary? To what end? You'd have to have some pretty serious evidence to back up that claim before I'd take it seriously.

[creeksneakers2]

83. Brad blog is spreading a misinterpretation of what Matthews said

Preliminary exit poll data had Obama up by 1%. That fits exactly with what Matthews said.

"What we don't know is why the victory is so much different in fact, then the polling ahead of time, including what we call the Exit Polls were telling us. Obama was ahead in those polls by an average of 8 points, and even our own Exit Polls, taken as people came out of voting, showed him ahead. So what's going on here?"

When Matthews said "ahead in those polls by an average of 8%" he was referring back to the subjects "polling done ahead of time" and "exit polls." So there's when he says "ahead by average of 8 points" its not clear whether he was referring to the exit poll or the pre-election polls. Matthews goes on to distinguish "even our own exit polls" showing when he said "8%" he wasn't talking about the exit polls, he was talking about pre-election polls. Matthews only states that the exit polls "showed him ahead." That's perfectly consistent with a one point lead.


A 1 point lead is well within the margin of error of the final result. Bradblog is whipping up a storm by distorting the meaning of what Matthews said.

[KittyWampus]

47. It happens ever damned time an election is held on electronic voting equipmet and no paper ballots

are counted to audit that election.

Don't you get it?

And the "Exit Poll" info that is now released after every election is NOT the actual raw data. It's been retooled to reflect the numbers gotten from hackable voting machines.

[Kip Humphrey]

7. Watching on election night, it was OBVIOUS! All of MSM remained silent for over 1 hour

as Hillary's vote totals defied what they all apparently knew of the raw exit poll data. You could see it on their faces. It was shades of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. They ALL avoided the biggest election story happening in real time... waiting until the exit poll data were "normalized" to match the reported vote totals. We watched it. We witnessed it! Let's hand count the ballots!

[EFerrari]

9. What tripped my alarm wasn't that because I was busy.

It was the orgy of fictions floated afterward to explain the discrepancies which I barely understood at the time. The way they were talking. It was just like that weekend after Ohio, exactly the same. They were making stuff up in overdrive and they all knew it.

[Usrename]

67. It's not just the orgy of fictions that makes me suspicious..

it's the fact that nobody in the media EVER floats the notion that the vote count could be totally screwed up.

And it is the most OBVIOUS possibility, no matter what the powers that be have to say about it.

[quickesst]

10. Looks like...

the Obama supporters are fed up. They have now kicked off their "Bitchin', Pissin', Moaning, and Cryin 2008 Election Drive". Here's the great thing about this. They are not going to let a little thing like no comment from Obama, or his election staff, get in their way. Thanks.
quickesst

[KittyWampus]

51. this has shit all to do with who you support. It's about transparent elections. Simple audits

of random paper ballots to acertain the machine tallies is a REQUIRMENT to validate results.

That you and a lot of other DU'ers now don't give a damn about transparent elections either because you don't like Obama or support another candidate says volumes.

[Marrah_G]

11. Tweety is talking out of his ass

I was listening to New England talk radio and it was CLEAR to them all evening that the exit polls coming in were putting Hillary ahead and they were going nuts trying to figure what happened.

Tweety is a little bitch- citing some hidden evidence he cannot prove.

He despise Hillary and it shows.

He is lying, plain and simple.

[Blarch]

14. of course you have no proof to offer.

[Marrah_G]

17. Just what I and anyone listening to new england news heard

But I should forget that and believe what Tweety says. I should cover my lying ears and just go with what some newscasters trying to cover their own asses are saying.

Do you not find it strange that the people in NH aren't the least bit worried about this and neither are the candidates? Maybe it's because the results are no surprise to them.

[Blarch]

20. Fuck that.

If the people in NH have no problem with diebold counting their votes, then fuck them.

All Dems ahve a problem with this.

[Marrah_G]

22. The people of NH care what you think...........

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

29. All Dems have a problem with this? Why aren't any of the candidates calling for a hand count?

?

[EFerrari]

38. Because it would be political suicide? Why should they --

Wasn't the distribution of delegates just about even between Clinton and Obama? And Edwards numbers stayed about the same all night long.

How would they benefit from doing such a thing? It's not going to happen or, not that way in any case.

[mondo joe]

54. Wow, so not ven one Dem candidate cares enough about fair elections to call for a

count on a vote they believe was shady?

[EFerrari]

62. In the years I've been trying to follow and work on these issues,

people like us lead, not the politicians. They're job is to get elected and stay elected.

Our job is to protect our elections. We're the growns up here. :)

[Marrah_G]

56. Do you think if there was evidence of fraud the peole of NH would be quiet about it?

Knowing NH, I highly doubt that.

Mandatory Audits need to be part of election reform- but contesting every single primary left is not the answer either.

[helderheid]

13. 5th rec

[book_worm]

15. really? how come ABC News bloggers which were reported on their site on election day as the voting

was going on was saying 1) the youth vote is not turning out as expected and that turnout is up "across the board" and 2) that women seem to be turning out more strongly than in Iowa for HRC which may be helping her. It's so predictable that some DUers who don't like the results will automatically call "Diebold."

[EFerrari]

18. You dismiss the legitimate concerns of people who have

worked on election reform for years. What does that typify?

[Marrah_G]

21. How does this dismiss legitimate election reform

I want to see reform. I want NO touch screen machines. I want counts audited randomly to ensure the machines are functioning. I want any asshole interfering with voters in any way (Ohio '04)to be locked up for a very long time.

I also see no evidence of any kind that leads me to believe there was anything screwy in the NH Primary. I will continue to speak out against what I believe are lies and twisting of facts by some people here.

I would welcome a recount but that needs to be requested by a candidate and so far none of them have asked.

[Marrah_G]

57. self-delete

[deminks]

26. They were not quoting the raw exit polls. They would get into big trouble.

They were reporting the adjusted polls that are public. What Chris is saying here is that the raw data showed a heft victory for Obama. Their own raw data exit polls showed a victory for Obama. He is wondering what happened. The raw data is a subscription that usually only a big corporate news service can purchase. They are so secretive that 2004's raw polls have not been released yet. Read the article, please.


Edited to make sense.

[creeksneakers2]

84. We already have two links to prove that at 8PM

The exit polls only had a 1 point lead for Obama. That's well within the margin error. Matthews didn't say anything that was inconsistent with a 1 point Obama lead. Even if he had, we have the links to prove what the score really was at 8PM.

[Bitwit1234]

19. Lord have mercy on us....of all people...Chris Matthews is THE authority.

how damn low and common and stupid are Obama supporters going to get. It gets worst and worst. What in the hell kind of people are they? God only knows and the more he losers the more paranoid they are going to get.

If Hillary Clinton is so damn powerful, that she can program machines NOW so she can win, why in hell doesn't she just declare her self winner and take over. After all. The machines worked for everybody else. The republicans got their votes, the Independents well they voted, BUT THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE WAS ALL WRONG AND the doodle boppers leader should have won.

S.O.B what are they going to blame his lost on next. MAYBE IT SHOULD BE, NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WANTED HIM TO BE THE CANDIDATE. But I suppose the air brained minds couldn't think of that it is too complicated.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Same with the part of the exits that showed last minute deciders

split relatively even between O & H. Just can't help but thing this
indicator would have showed some sign to account for her late surge.
Remember she had to make up at least 10-12+ points (last poll plus
her winning margin).

[PVnRT]

30. So Tweety is an asshat...except when he's not?

I'm getting confused by DU lately. Is Matthews a corporate shill for the status quo or a crusader fighting against election injustice? Someone help me out here.

[deminks]

33. Tweety hasn't changed. He just let go of a big one. nt

[Marrah_G]

40. depends on which way the wind is blowing

[deminks]

31. This is rage against the machines, people, not Clinton or Obama or Kerry or Bush or Rove or...

They do not work. This has been shown over and over and over and over again. They can be tampered with. This has been shown over and over and over again.

[creeksneakers2]

85. I can't believe if Hillary suffered a surprise dramatic loss

that so many people on DU would think there was fraud. That idea probably wouldn even be brought up.

[smoogatz]

42. Both the Governor and Secretary of State of NH are Democrats.

So I'm having a hard time figuring out how Karl Rove got his hands on the "Hillary Wins" button. I think it's somewhat more likely, pending further information, that Chris Matthews is talking out of his ass regarding the exit polls. He does that, once in a while.

[foo_bar]

59. Bradblog needs to hire a researcher/fact checker

BTW: They disavow their own Exit Polling from 2004. So, naturally, the MSM news consortium hired the same folks to do the job again in 2008. Perhaps it was the company's apparently spot-on Exit Polling in Ukraine, in December of 2004, cited as evidence of fraud by George W. Bush and Colin Powell, that the challenger should have won, rather than the incumbant, as the election results announced, in contradiction of the Exit Polls...but don't get us started.

The "Apparently spot-on Exit Polling" (sic) was the very opposite of apparent:

A key part of the media game has been the claim that Yushchenko won according to "exit polls". What is not said is that the people doing these "exit polls" as voters left voting places were US-trained and paid by an entity known as Freedom House, a neo-conservative operation in Washington. Freedom House trained some 1,000 poll observers, who loudly declared an 11-point lead for Yushchenko. Those claims triggered the mass marches claiming fraud. The current head of Freedom House is former CIA director and outspoken neo-conservative, Admiral James Woolsey, who calls the Bush administration's "war on terror" "World War IV". On the Freedom House board sits none other than Brzezinski. This would hardly seem to be an impartial human-rights organization.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GA20Ag01.html

Two separate exit polls showed a clear victory by Mr. Yushchenko. One poll showed him ahead by 4 Percent, and the otherby the Exit Pollconsortium, supported by European governments and private Western foundations -- showed Mr. Yushchenko winning by 11 percent.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/112204.htm (the horse's mouth)

Western-funded exit polls showed Yuschenko was gonna win, Russia-funded that Yanukovych was gonna win. We only heard about the former tho.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/2004/12/302679.html

More provocatively, the US and other western embassies paid for exit polls, prompting Russia to do likewise, though apparently to a lesser extent. The US's own election this month showed how wrong exit polls can be. But they provide a powerful mobilising effect, making it easier to persuade people to mount civil disobedience or seize public buildings on the grounds the election must have been stolen if the official results diverge.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1360297,00.html

Pro-Yanukovich television stations used Russian exit poll results to vouch support for him as outcries against falsification increased and the CEC stalled in delivering official results. In addition, the exit poll did not really exist in Ukrainian political culture before 2004. Voters, who already believed the vlada would falsify the election months in advance, had a new tool at their disposal to reconfirm their suspicions. Steele posits that the exit polls, funded by the US and Russia, influenced the voters to take to the streets.

http://leopolis.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_leopolis_archive.html

---

Politico's Roger Simon, at the end of the Hardball segment, asks the question about NH '08, that we've been asking about 2004 for years: "If the exit polls got the results wrong, why do we think they got the demographics right?"

I can forgive Roger Simon not knowing dick, but Brad T. Blog ought to have learned something about his life's work by now:

I learned early in my Washington Post career that exit polls were useful but imperfect mirrors of the electorate. On election night in 1988, we relied on the ABC News exit poll to characterize how demographic subgroups and political constituencies had voted. One problem: The exit poll found the race to be a dead heat, even though Democrat Michael Dukakis lost the popular vote by seven percentage points to Dubya's father. (The dirty little secret, known to pollsters, is that discrepancies in the overall horse race don't affect the subgroup analyses. Whether Dukakis got 46 percent or 50 percent didn't change the fact that nine of 10 blacks voted for him, while a majority of all men didn't. The exit poll may have under- or over-sampled either group, producing an incorrect national total, but the within-group voting patterns remain accurate.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64906-2004Nov20.html

One thing I can explain is the special challenge exit polls face when it comes to small subgroups like Latinos and Jewish voters. The reason is the whole issue of "cluster sampling." Exit polls must sample voters in clusters: They randomly sample precincts first, then voters at precincts. In a cluster sample, characteristics or opinions that tend to "cluster" geographically tend to have higher rates of sampling error.

The reason is not all that mysterious. Consider the example of Jewish voters in Ohio (a demographic that once included the Mystery Pollster and still includes all of his family, so he speaks from some experience). Most Jews in Ohio live in a few suburbs east of Cleveland and few neighborhoods near Columbus and Cincinnati that cumulatively represent (at most) 3-5% of the state. If the Ohio exit poll sampled only 100 precincts, then most of the Jewish subsample would have come from, at most, 3-5 precincts. Now throw in a kicker: Orthodox Jews tend to be more politically conservative and tend to live among other Orthodox Jews in even more concentrated geographic areas within the Jewish Community. Thus, the odds are good that the exit poll sample will either over or underestimate the share of Orthodox Jews depending which 3-5 precincts get randomly selected. The same problems occurs with Cuban and non-Cuban Latinos in Florida.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/week49/index.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. man, you have just been in the zone! n/t

[deminks]

61. I, for one, like my new home.

Now, where was I?

[Bonobo]

64. Yup, no reason to be suspicious here. Guess that Mod with the great vocab is right after all!