Reply #68: I disagree

[Mistwell]

"Your last link used numbers that were "completely unweighted", yet you have no problem using them to contradict weighted numbers, curious."

I disagree. You are reading the article with the link, and not the link itself. We do not know if the data is partially weighted or truly raw. We don't have anything to go on one way or the other, as we have no idea what was meant by "raw" in the comment. It's not that I have "no problem" comparing them, it's that they are closer to being a direct analogy than comparing TIA's partially weighted numbers to FINAL numbers from prior years, and him claiming that the FINAL numbers from prior years always matched the election results (duh) which proves exit polls are accurate. It's an inane claim he makes over and over and over again.

"At what time were this years exit polls 'fully weighted'? Unless you know that you can't be sure that TIA's numbers aren't fully weighted."

The final numbers are fully weighted. We know that for sure, as final weighting INCLUDES THE FINAL DATA TO ADJUST THE POLL BY THE ACTUAL VOTE. Yes, we know TIA's numbers are not fully weighted...he will tell you that himself, as he himself went to great lengths to explain to everyone that final weighting adjusts the numbers BY THE ACTUAL VOTE.

"Sure, I'll consider anything. Where the data that reflects that conclusion."

So, given that prior data from prior elections, of a nature that might be totally raw or might be partially weighted, shows that Democrats ALWAYS appear more willing to speak with the pollsters, why do you not draw the conclusion that the same thing happened this year? Any way you look at it, whether the prior numbers have weighting or raw, they show the FACT that the Democratic vote is exagerated by the exit poll prior to the final exit poll adjustment for the actual vote.

"It's my experience, that BushBots have absolutely no problem being outspoken, or getting polled."

Sure, someone who can be considered a "BushBot" might be that way, but I think it is safe to conclude that most Bush voters are not outspoken, just as most PEOPLE are not outspoken.

"Hell, go to FreeperLand and search "freep that poll", tell me how many polls you find they targeted."

So you seriously think ALL Republicans are as radical and outspoken as Free Republic? Come on man, are you not the one chastising me to compare apples to apples?

"Second test, next large gathering you go to, bring up the name Micheal Moore, and see how many negative reactions you get vs. positive ones."

Again...comparing apples to oranges. This is a simple question to voters as they exit the poll of who they voted for. It isn't as controversial as Michael Moore or Free Republic. And, given the example we are working with and not the exageted extremes you are working with, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect Democratic voters to be a bit more open with their opinion. And, again, it's no question that the prior data bares that out - no matter whether it is raw or partially weighted...it shows without question that they got more answers from Democrats.

"But if you have other data that clarifies that position, I'm more than willing to look at it."

Hey that part is just my guess. Maybe it is them polling in urban areas more than rural. Maybe the earlier the poll, the more it skews to the east coast. Maybe pollsters like to speak with women more than men. Maybe Republicans lie to pollsters about who they voted for. Maybe Democrats lie out of embarassment as to who they voted for. I don't honestly know WHY the polls deviate to Democrats, but the data bares it out that they DO deviate that way, every single time.

"Just as long as it isn't an email response from some guy name Jim G (or whatever) like you have done previously (and thanx for getting back to me on that one).
That isn't proof, it's hearsay."

Huh? I have NO idea what you are talking about. Email response? Getting back to you on what? I think you have me confused with someone else.