It's 9pm Election Day. Exit Polls show a Kerry win. Strategery time.

[TruthIsAll]

		Exit Poll 4pm			Actual Results			
		Kerry	Bush	Diff	Kerry	Bush	Diff	BushGain

We have a solid lead here, let it be.
1	AZ	45	55	-10	45	55	-10	0

We have a solid lead here, let it be.
2	LA	43	57	-14	42	57	-15	1

It’s close, so let’s watch it, in case we need it.
3	MI	51	48	3	51	48	3	0

It’s tied, so let’s give it a tiny boost
4	IA	49	49	0	49	50	-1	1

It’s close, so let’s watch it, in case we need it.
5	NM	50	48	2	50	50	0	2

We're toast here. It's only 4EV. We better make it a little
closer.
6	ME	55	44	11	53	45	8	3

It’s close, We’re ahead. Let’s make sure we get this one.
7	NV	48	49	-1	48	51	-3	2

No problem. We can’t lose this one. 
8	AR	45	54	-9	45	54	-9	0

No problem. We can’t lose this one. 
9	MO 	46	54	-8	46	53	-7	-1

We knew we would get killed here. Ignore it.
10	IL	55	44	11	55	44	11	0

We thought we would do better. Let’s bump it up if we need it.
11	WI	52	47	5	50	49	1	4

We thought we would do better. Let’s bump it up if we need it.
12	PA	53	46	7	51	49	2	5

We NEED this one. Close down the Cleveland polls.
13	OH	51	49	2	49	51	-2	4

We NEED this one. Call Jeb, quick. Hack the optiscans. 
14	FL	50	49	1	47	52	-5	6

WE always knew we would not even be close here. Wellstone.
15	MN	54	44	10	51	48	3	7

Oh, God. If we lose by this much, we’ll have no win
credibility.
16	NH	58	41	17	50	49	1	16

Edwards, That SOB. Let’s put this one away.
17	NC	48	52	-4	43	56	-13	9

About what we expected. Let it be.
18	CO	46	53	-7	46	52	-6	-1
								
Avg       50.67	48.20	2.47	48.87	50.20	-1.33	3.80

Do you really think we'll get away with this one?
								

[idiosyncratic]

1. I love the running commentary . . . LOL n/t

[bj2110]

2. Great Read. Maybe you have to just put it out there like that....

... so the average American can understand. Think any heartland newspapers would pick this up? :)

[jsamuel]

3. Interresting that it went exactly as they needed it to from there on...

[anamandujano]

4. I think you've got it!

By George, you've got it!

I also feel that it needed human intervention as it was happening, not pre-programmed, unless they already knew from their own pollsters what they were going to need.

I'll go with human intervention because of that ridiculous TV appearance during election night by the usurper in chief. They did the TV thing during the 2000 election night also.

edit to add--Remember the 18181 (or whatever it was) that happened during 2000 or 2002. I don't think they'd want any coincidences like that again and how could you avoid it with a program. I'm just guessing, I'm not a programmer. Basically I'm saying, they'd want to mix it up as much as possible, make it so random that it looked real.

[savetheuniverse]

6. have they ever been able to make anything

look REAL....?

[anamandujano]

10. well no, but

real enough the let the whore press run with it.

Having a discussion with a friend, she said something like "they didn't over reach", I said they did over reach, they had to do a lot of padding because they wanted Bush to appear to have the popular vote also this time around.

And, that is why they are going to get caught.

In time to prevent the coronation? Probably not, that would be a miracle. You know they always have all the bases covered and are always ready to go to the next level of fraWd.

[CAcyclist]

16. I was a big proponent for an automatic rig

but I am coming around to your point of view.

Maybe there was a really subtle vote rigging operation everywhere and then the human manual override - but I would think they'd still want to be able to change things with the stroke of a finger rather than go in and write in new numbers.

Maybe there was a dormant program that only activated if manually turned on.

[Straight Shooter]

5. Let us praise Sky King that TruthIsAll is on our side!

Sky King, a/k/a God.


a/k/a that pilot on the television of our youth :)

[anamandujano]

11. and Sgt. Preston

"Well King, this case is closed."

Let's close the deal.

[DancingBear]

12. "out of the blue of the Western sky"

comes Sky King!

(flying the Songbird I - and sponsored by Nabisco)

let me just get my walker now... :)

[seaclyr]

7. Seems likely, except .... 9pm? ... surely earlier

It may have been more like 9am than 9pm when the "corrections" were starting to go in - they knew the writing was on the wall early on, I'm sure. No one yet seems to have made much of changes in popular vote tallies that occurred over time, but there's at least one report - http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html - that early tallies published by CNN were strongly for Bush (11% up at 8:50 pm, 9.4% up at 9:06pm) before dwindling down over the night. I don't know whether this could be normal variation in the votes coming in (were similar variations seen in 2000?) but if this is unusual, it could be yet another red flag. By the way, the author of the globalresearch.ca article suggests that a second "correction" was made around 9pm so discrepancies between exit poll data and vote counts weren't too implausible. Any thoughts?

[TruthIsAll]

8. Don't take 9pm literally. It could be any time.

tia

[seaclyr]

9. Yes, but do you think vote tallies versus time is worth tracking?

I'm guessing that there's a "normal" pattern for vote tallies over time, at least for recent U.S. elections (although it's possible eVoting has changed things somewhat), in the same way there's a normal pattern for exit polls. I'm just wondering whether exit poll changes are completely normal, lending support to their accuracy, and vote tallies changes are abnormal, suggesting tampering, with possible discontinuities at specific times, suggesting "heavier" corrections at that point.

[Nederland]

13. Give it up TIA

The early exit polls had samples made up of 59% women and were shit. The horse is dead, just stop.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Where's that link? eom

[Nederland]

24. In Post #20

[TruthIsAll]

15. Nederlan, I won't stop. Until you explain why these 59% women voters

only showed up in states like OH, FL, NC, PA, NM, IA, NH - where the exit polls deviated sharply to Bush in the actual vote .

Where were the 59% women in all those states which were NOT critical to Bush, in which the Exit Polls were exactly right? I guess you will say that they just decided not to turn out. Or maybe you'll say there are fewer women in these states?

Take your pick. Explain the anomaly. If you cannot, I look forward to hearing your novel attempt at torturous spinning.

[Nitro]

17. Add to #14:

People are paying attention to potential problems in FL. If this is anywhere close to within doubt, people will pounce and demand a recount. Let's makes sure the margin is significant.

[Nederland]

18. Explanation

You are mixing the poll sample attributes with the real attributes.

The turnout did not consist of 59% percent women, the NEP chose a sample that consisted of 59% women. They realized their mistake and fixed it in later exit poll releases. There simply is nothing here.

[TruthIsAll]

19. Nederland, you are AVOIDING the question.

Once again. Be specific. Which states? Which samples?

Ohio? Florida?

I am not going to let you get away with slipshod strawman arguments.

[Nederland]

20. Here you go

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6408569/site/newsweek/

The most obvious mistake seems to have been an overly large sampling of women voters, particularly early in the day. In the exit polling NEP released at 1 p.m. ET on the day of the election, of the 5,000 voters who had been interviewed, 59 percent were women. Three hours later, of the 8,349 voters who were interviewed, 58 percent were women. In both of these statistical snapshots, Kerry was winning the election, according to NEP. The organization knew its numbers looked sketchy. It reportedly held a midday conference call with its media partners to alert them to the problem. Still, University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato says the NEP "ought to give its money back to the news networks."

Now as to where the incorrect sampling occurred, I cannot say because I haven't seen the raw data. And neither have you. This is why I have continually ask you on multiple threads if you knew the M/F ratio of the samples. You never answered on any of them, so I can only conclude that you don't know. If you do have the raw data, I'd be happy to look at it admit that I'm wrong if the ratios look good. Until that happens, I'm going to believe the AP reports that say that the M/F ratio was a mess, because they have access to the data and you don't.

[TruthIsAll]

21. You believe the AP . I believe the Professors. I believe the Math.

Well, nice try.

Too bad the AP won't back up their claims with any specifics.

[Nederland]

22. Question

I've answered your question, basically admitting that I don't know the M/F ratio of individual state exit polls. The only thing I've seen reported is the M/F ratio of the 1pm and 4pm samples. I've never seen the results broken down by state.

Now I ask that you answer the same question. What was the M/F ratio of the OH and FL exit polls? Do you know?

[TruthIsAll]

26. Ok, time to capture your Queen.

I'm quite confident that Ohio and Florida had the same gender mix as did the other states. What makes you think they wouldn't?

Is there something special about Ohio and Florida? Do you really believe that women came out earlier to vote in these states than they did in other states in which the exit polls were right on the money?

The fallacy of your argument is obvious. You are grasping at straws, Nederland.

I'll tell you what's different about Ohio and Florida. These are the TWO states Bush HAD to win. That's what's different.

Something tells me you already knew that.

Oh, one other thing. If you want all the raw data, ask the AP. I wish you luck.

[Nederland]

30. Ok

If the M/F ratio was wrong in all states, that means that the Kerry lead was inflated across the board. If you take that into account in the chart in your original post, that means that the Bush gain now falls within the margin of error for all individual states (4%).

[NewYorkerfromMass]

23. Even if the 59% women thing is true

It doesn't hold up to scrutiny because supposedly married women voted more for Bush and I'd think most of these married women would be voting during the day with the kids at school and dads at work and SUV's to fill with petrol etc....

[Nederland]

25. Maybe

My only point here is simple. After releasing numbers at 1pm and 4pm, the NEP told the networks that it had made a mistake and had oversampled women. Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that they may be lying, but what proof do you have?

The bottom line is that until you show me the raw exit poll data, I'm going to say that you can't prove anything.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. I'm just saying it can't explain the discrepancy

in the endless search for an explanation for the discrepancy.

[Nederland]

31. Confused

You don't think over sampling women by 10% would have an effect? How do you figure that?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. Depends if they were married or single women

got a sample?

[Nederland]

35. No

That's my point! All this talk of fraud is way too premature because nobody has the damn data!

[SomthingsGotaGive]

28. Bottom line ?

1st. You didn't answer TIA's question.

Why were the slanted numbers only wrong in some key states ?

2nd. do you think that it is TIA's job to explain all the screw ups or is it the NEP's job.

If it is the NEP that needs to explain are you satisfied with their explanation based on TIA's question regarding the accuracy in key states versus others.

[Nederland]

32. Response

1) I did answer TIA question. I said the samples were the 1pm and 4pm samples, and that M/F ratios in individuals states was unknown. Read my post.

2) Yes, if TIA wants to present a case that will convince people outside the DU niche that is desperate to believe that Bush actually lost, s/he will have to have all the facts. Right now, s/he doesn't have all the fact s/he needs. Here analysis assumes that the exit polls samples accurately reflected the voting population. Given that the NEP has admitted that their samples were screwed up, I don't understand why anyone would consider that to be a good assumption.

[seaclyr]

36. Opinions and evidence

Nederland, yes you're correct that many of the arguments presented here assume that the exit polls are accurate. But, you know, it's likely to be a good assumption and it can be tested. There is a body of knowledge on exit polls and it is clear that in general they are accurate and trustworthy. If you haven't yet done so, read Steven Freeman's article "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy." Add that to the following facts that pertain specifically to this election:
1. there is accumulating evidence that the exit polls in this election are indeed to be trusted. For example, they clearly are consistent with vote counts in non-battleground states, they appear to be consistent with absentee ballots and with votes on amendments in states that had one, etc.
2. there is as yet no shred of evidence that the exit polls were wrong. The opinions that have been presented that they were flawed - some of which seem frivolous, others just plain bizarre - have no facts to support them. That includes the pronouncements from the NEP, AP etc. (And yes, it's true they didn't correct the exit polls, they just changed them to fit the vote counts.) Opinions, even if presented loudly, with great confidence and authority, remain opinions without facts to back them up.
3. I don't need to list the inconsistencies apparent in the vote counts, they're familiar by now.
So, could the exit polls in battleground states be wrong? Sure it's possible. Is it probable? Not the least bit.

[Nederland]

38. No its not a good assumption

In fact, given that NEP specifically said that their 1pm and 4pm samples were erroroneous, I'd say its a rather poor assumption.

[DoBotherMe]

29. TIA you are vindicated

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html


Fix them they did. When the national exit polls were last updated, at 1:36 a.m. EST on November 3, men’s votes (still 46 percent of the total) had gone 54 percent to Bush, 45 percent to Kerry, and 1 percent to Nader; women’s votes (54 percent of the total) had gone 47 percent to Bush, 52 percent to Kerry, and 1 percent to Nader.

But how do we know the fix was in? Because the exit poll data also included the total number of respondents. At 9:00 p.m. EST, this number was well over 13,000; by 1:36 a.m. EST on November 3 it had risen by less than 3 percent, to a final total of 13, 531 respondents—but with a corresponding swing of 5 percent from Kerry to Bush in voters’ reports of their choices. Given the increase in respondents, a swing of this size is a mathematical impossibility.

The same pattern is evident in the exit polls of two key swing states, Ohio and Florida.

At 7:32 p.m. EST, CNN was reporting the following exit poll data for Ohio. Women voters (53 percent of the total) favoured Kerry over Bush by 53 percent to 47 percent; male voters (47 percent of the total) preferred Kerry over Bush by 51 percent to 49 percent. Kerry was thus leading Bush by a little more than 4 percent. But by 1:41 a.m. EST on November 3, when the exit poll was last updated, a dramatic shift had occurred: women voters had split 50-50 in their preferences for Kerry and Bush, while men had swung to supporting Bush over Kerry by 52 percent to 47 percent. The final exit polls showed Bush leading in Ohio by 2.5 percent.

At 7:32 p.m., there were 1,963 respondents; at 1:41 a.m. on November 3, there was a final total of 2,020 respondents. These fifty-seven additional respondents must all have voted very powerfully for Bush—for while representing only a 2.8 percent increase in the number of respondents, they managed to produce a swing from Kerry to Bush of fully 6.5 percent.

[ewulf]

37. Yes! Kerry led with both men AND women

Exactly, Dana. The exit poll data showed Kerry leading amongst both men and women: the gender gap wasn't that big. An oversampling of women by itself could not have swung the poll in Sen. Kerry's favor, and no readjustment to correctly weight gender could possibly show Bush with a lead. (What they did do was readjust according to the tabulated vote totals: removing all information about voters choices and leaving only a vague sense of why they might of voted how they did.)

An aside:
As a physicist who deals with statistical analyses every day, I can't help but feel a little suspicious of any weighting of ones data according to a priori assumptions like the notion that no more than 51% of voters who turn out can be women. Generally, one has to trust ones data, there are times when one might feel justified in throwing out outliers, but mostly, one just reports one's results, along with statistical and systematic error estimates, one doesn't look at one's results, say "oh, this looks wrong" and change the numbers.

Why couldn't more women have actually voted? If one does a random sampling, giving surveys to every 4th voter who leaves the polling place at a selection of precincts, why would that not accurately represent the demographics of voters? As a canvaser in Las Vegas, I know we turned out a lot of women; I saw somewhat more women than men in line at the polls in the middle of the day and at 7:00 and I'm pretty sure I saw more women on the voting lists as-well. At very least, if someone said that 57% of voters were women, I wouldn't discount that statement outright.

[bleever]

33. Kick! TIA doesn't misunderestimate their strategery, but they

really misunderestimated the power of us FICTs (Feverish Internet Conspiracy Theorists).

More great, great work from TIA. :yourock:

[Peace Patriot]

39. Exactly.

But it played out approx. 6 pm to 8 pm, I'd say.
_________

"Do you really think we'll get away with this one?"

Just long enough to purge the CIA.