Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

stellanoir

(14,881 posts)
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:13 PM Mar 2016

5 Primaries: Exit Poll Discrepancies and Win Probabilities


"This is a summary exit poll analysis of the March 15 Democratic exit polls. Clinton won the recorded vote in the five elections.

The exit polls indicate that Sanders won MO (80% probability) and IL (74%).

There was a 10% discrepancy in the OH exit poll from the recorded vote. The probability that the discrepancy was due to chance is 1 in 976."

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/five-democratic-primaries-exit-poll-discrepancies-and-win-probabilities/

here's some levity. . .

72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
5 Primaries: Exit Poll Discrepancies and Win Probabilities (Original Post) stellanoir Mar 2016 OP
I guess we're in the denial stage ... nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #1
I usually do not talk to you nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #2
I would say we have a very imperfect democracy, but that doesn't say much geek tragedy Mar 2016 #3
Starting in 2000 we have seen multiple flaws nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #5
"We?" Who's denying exit polls and why? merrily Mar 2016 #52
hey, why bother counting votes when we have exit polls, right? geek tragedy Mar 2016 #53
My candidate? You actually came out as a Hillary supporter and I missed it? Crap! merrily Mar 2016 #56
I changed my mind--it started with the data breach episode geek tragedy Mar 2016 #57
Uh huh. If it makes you feel any better, I never saw you as Bernie supporter. merrily Mar 2016 #58
of course not, I don't hate Hillary enough and am not a narcissistic purist geek tragedy Mar 2016 #60
Bull puckies. That is not the reason and you know it. merrily Mar 2016 #61
Oh, but that is the reason. You are entitled to your opinion geek tragedy Mar 2016 #63
Oh, that's bull puckies, too, gt. merrily Mar 2016 #64
You all really should rename your hate site, it does a real disservice geek tragedy Mar 2016 #66
Flail much? No worries. I'd try to deflect too, in your shoes. merrily Mar 2016 #67
let us just say that it is very little surprise to see the people who have hated Obama geek tragedy Mar 2016 #68
Still flailing! Your posts are full of the hate word, but devoid of anything that applies to me. merrily Mar 2016 #69
Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance MaggieD Mar 2016 #4
Actually, more than anything else I saw depression and acceptance last night. Chichiri Mar 2016 #6
If the shoe was on the other foot I can almost garantee you MaggieD would be having bkkyosemite Mar 2016 #10
Well you'd be wrong MaggieD Mar 2016 #11
Did a solitary post on DU claim voter fraud in the Michigan race? alcibiades_mystery Mar 2016 #20
Zero -- but there is always plenty when HRC wins obamanut2012 Mar 2016 #46
I've seen anger from the get go. n/t cosmicone Mar 2016 #14
Thanks for TIA analysis starmaker Mar 2016 #7
Paper Ballots that are counted with all sides attending...this election is rigged and I am bkkyosemite Mar 2016 #8
lolz obamanut2012 Mar 2016 #47
Funny thing; Bernie doesn't seem to agree brooklynite Mar 2016 #51
Oh good, I was wondering when this embarrassment as an analyst would show up again Godhumor Mar 2016 #9
.... davidpdx Mar 2016 #35
Yeesh, really? Godhumor Mar 2016 #36
BTW I am a Sanders supporter and was juror #2 davidpdx Mar 2016 #37
Well, thank ya. Appreciated. N/t Godhumor Mar 2016 #38
Throw in the fact the author being cited was permanently banned for being a disruptor./nt DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #42
yup obamanut2012 Mar 2016 #48
Yup... SidDithers Mar 2016 #62
My point was that I voted against hiding davidpdx Mar 2016 #71
I was just adding another reason not to hide it./nt DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #72
It's not unusual RandySF Mar 2016 #12
I also imagine that not every voter completes the exit poll as well. I mean, is it required? CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #21
No RandySF Mar 2016 #24
It's a conspiracy !!! cosmicone Mar 2016 #13
Richard Charnin. LOL...nt SidDithers Mar 2016 #15
. MohRokTah Mar 2016 #17
Exit polls are NEVER accurate. MohRokTah Mar 2016 #16
globally stellanoir Mar 2016 #18
x 10000 AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #22
You are wrong. MohRokTah Mar 2016 #23
the EVM's that were manufactured by 3 partisan firms stellanoir Mar 2016 #30
Woo. eom MohRokTah Mar 2016 #31
Yes, because fuck checks and balances. Verification is over rated. Half-Century Man Mar 2016 #55
+1,000,000 ... SalviaBlue Mar 2016 #34
I suspect that the results were close to the Sanders internals or the campaign would Lucinda Mar 2016 #19
Nate Silver forecasted wins for Hillary in Illinois and Ohio RandySF Mar 2016 #25
1 in 976 is better than Bernies chance that win the nomination. Renew Deal Mar 2016 #26
Illinois had early voting, and those likely favored Hillary AZ Progressive Mar 2016 #27
Clue? it was Bill, in the school yard, with the bullhorn. he did it all himself nt msongs Mar 2016 #28
It's just pathetic that we live in a country where you can't either trust or verify the vote!!!!!! highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #29
lol! He's still at it with this nonsense! I am 99.9869465% sure this guy is nuts. tritsofme Mar 2016 #32
"exit poll discrepancies!", says a guy with a wordpress blog Tarc Mar 2016 #33
beyond the simplistic cyber snobbery. . . stellanoir Mar 2016 #39
Exit polls have margins of errors. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #40
margins of error are factored in stellanoir Mar 2016 #43
Ohio real vote DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #44
Exit polls are not 100% accurate WI_DEM Mar 2016 #41
Exit polls showed SBS winning IL and 49-48 and MO 50-49* DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #45
Richard Charnin obamanut2012 Mar 2016 #49
AGainst Clinton, Bernie needs a cheat-proof margin. 51% is not good enough FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #50
So the vote flipping machines worked just right? NowSam Mar 2016 #54
The oligarch's have determined it will be Clinton vs. Trump in the finals. jalan48 Mar 2016 #59
Since when do exit polls determine who won an election? workinclasszero Mar 2016 #65
No one is saying that "exit polls determine an election". . . stellanoir Mar 2016 #70
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
2. I usually do not talk to you
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:18 PM
Mar 2016

but yes, the nation mostly is. I accepted a long time ago that we have pretend elections with pretend democracy... so I am good with that... but yes, you are correct, but not for the reasons you think.

Once the crisis is over, we might be able to fix it... and it will be painful...but hey... whatever.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
3. I would say we have a very imperfect democracy, but that doesn't say much
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:20 PM
Mar 2016

because every democracy is profoundly flawed

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
5. Starting in 2000 we have seen multiple flaws
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:23 PM
Mar 2016

and we have way too many indications of stolen elections.

As I said, I made my peace with it a long time ago.

Now back to reading Trump speeches... MSM will not do that...but I need to put together an ideology. And as I said, the MSM will NOT do it.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
53. hey, why bother counting votes when we have exit polls, right?
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:38 AM
Mar 2016

raw exit polls are not terribly reliable, as anyone who's been paying attention over the past few decades knows.

but, if it helps you rationalize why your candidate got his ass kicked in Ohio, go ahead.

Aren't you feeling betrayed that Bernie isn't contesting the fraud in Ohio, IL, and MO?

Maybe because this fraud theory is from fringe Internet kooks rather than having a basis in reality.



merrily

(45,251 posts)
56. My candidate? You actually came out as a Hillary supporter and I missed it? Crap!
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:41 AM
Mar 2016

I miss all the fun.

But, the only thing the OP says is what exit polls said. Why all the bitterness?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
57. I changed my mind--it started with the data breach episode
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:43 AM
Mar 2016

and ended when the Berners started attacking Dolores Huerta--a real revolutionary and activist--and accusing her of bribery--showing that this talk of revolution and sweeping change was pretty much fraudulent.

Having the right voting record doesn't qualify one to be president.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
60. of course not, I don't hate Hillary enough and am not a narcissistic purist
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:46 AM
Mar 2016

Bernie fans are the only people I know who wanted to reject people as not good enough to support Bernie. Quite a mentality.

Of course, the DU Bernie faction are the ones who vote Nader/Green Party in the general elections, so I never fit in with that crowd.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
63. Oh, but that is the reason. You are entitled to your opinion
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:49 AM
Mar 2016

You all just can't fathom that people can disagree with you on anything without being corrupt and stupid.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
64. Oh, that's bull puckies, too, gt.
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:52 AM
Mar 2016

I have never had a problem with honest disagreement.

Poseurs, yes, honest disagreement, no.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
66. You all really should rename your hate site, it does a real disservice
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:59 AM
Mar 2016

to the man after whom it was named.

He was not prone to calling the Democratic base (i.e. the ones voting for Hillary) pieces of dogshit and referring to her as a "bitch."

he was not a foaming at the mouth hater, but rather a genuinely thoughtful progressive, unlike the angry hate mob you've assembled over there.

Very nasty people over there, not terribly different in tone from Trump supporters. Very nasty.

Bernie's campaign will end within 3 months. Then what will you do?

merrily

(45,251 posts)
67. Flail much? No worries. I'd try to deflect too, in your shoes.
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:09 AM
Mar 2016

Painful

"He was not prone to calling the Democratic base (i.e. the ones voting for Hillary) pieces of dogshit and referring to her as a "bitch."

Unless you have a link to a post of mine that does that, you should understand that replying to me with your gripes about humanity in general or 900+ posters who are not me is both inappropriate and pointless.

Since you seem to love reading at what you call hate sites, though, maybe you should go to hillarysupporters.com and jackassradicals, though why a site would self identify as jackasses is beyond me.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
68. let us just say that it is very little surprise to see the people who have hated Obama
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:11 AM
Mar 2016

since he was inaugurated now hating Hillary Clinton.

And I will also note that it is your fellow travelers who pollute DU with links to rightwing propaganda outfits like The Federalist, World Nuts Daily, Infowars, Daily Caller, etc.

As well as promoting Donald Trump's health care plan as better than the ACA and Hillary's suggested improvements.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
69. Still flailing! Your posts are full of the hate word, but devoid of anything that applies to me.
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:18 AM
Mar 2016

As previously stated, replying to me about things that other people do is both inappropriate and pointless.

Poor geek.

Chichiri

(4,667 posts)
6. Actually, more than anything else I saw depression and acceptance last night.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:24 PM
Mar 2016

I think most of them came to terms with it days or weeks ago -- we just have some late bloomers is all.

bkkyosemite

(5,792 posts)
10. If the shoe was on the other foot I can almost garantee you MaggieD would be having
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:28 PM
Mar 2016

a topsy turvy fit.

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
11. Well you'd be wrong
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:29 PM
Mar 2016

I was a Hillary supporters in 2008 that happily voted for Obama. And never once smeared him.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
20. Did a solitary post on DU claim voter fraud in the Michigan race?
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:53 PM
Mar 2016


I seriously don't know. Maybe there were several. I didn't see any personally. Did you?

Or did Clinton supporters simply accept that they had lost that election? It takes a bit of grace, I grant you. But it is doable. Sometimes you lose an election and it...wasn't even stolen GASP! I know, right? Cuh-razzy.

starmaker

(541 posts)
7. Thanks for TIA analysis
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:26 PM
Mar 2016

If one does not believe the political machines do not tamper with the vote counts they are in denial

bkkyosemite

(5,792 posts)
8. Paper Ballots that are counted with all sides attending...this election is rigged and I am
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:27 PM
Mar 2016

standing by my opinion.

brooklynite

(94,502 posts)
51. Funny thing; Bernie doesn't seem to agree
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:32 AM
Mar 2016

Point to any complaint he's filed about the final vote count.

Godhumor

(6,437 posts)
9. Oh good, I was wondering when this embarrassment as an analyst would show up again
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:27 PM
Mar 2016

I always love whackadoodles with access to Excel.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
35. ....
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:44 PM
Mar 2016

On Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Oh good, I was wondering when this embarrassment as an analyst would show up again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1508320

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling a long time DU contributor an "embarrassment as an analyst" is rude and against the rules against calling out a DU'er. UNACCEPTABLE!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:38 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am worried if I allow this post to remain it may be looked upon as allowing an attack to remain in view so I vote to hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see anything over the top about this. This is a bad alert.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

RandySF

(58,768 posts)
12. It's not unusual
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:30 PM
Mar 2016

Supporters for one candidate may sometimes be more likely to respond to interviewers than others. Also, interviewers can be biased in whom they choose.

RandySF

(58,768 posts)
24. No
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 07:07 PM
Mar 2016

voters in key precincts are randomly selected after they walk out of the polling place and offered the opportunity to fill out a questionnaire.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
16. Exit polls are NEVER accurate.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:38 PM
Mar 2016

Never have been. Never will be.

All exit polls ever do is allow the networks to call races early if trends from exit polls are close to what is reported.

It allows the networks to call a race the second the polls close in races that are a blowout.

Otherwise, it's too close to call as both MO and IL were until nearly every vote was counted.

stellanoir

(14,881 posts)
18. globally
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:45 PM
Mar 2016

Exit polls are considered a tried & true safeguard on elections.

We don't even allow UN election observers on our elections.

Exit polls here are often adjusted by the networks to match the vote tallies.

Networks have disparaged exit polls since results have had all sorts of anomalies.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
23. You are wrong.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 07:01 PM
Mar 2016

Exit polls never have been and never will be an accurate predicter of an election. UN Election watchers only use the when things turn out wildly off and they are still not enough of a predicter without further evidence.

After 2000 an industry grew up to bilk people out of their money over "black box voting". The entire movement developed into nothing more than a greedy money snatching scam.

stellanoir

(14,881 posts)
30. the EVM's that were manufactured by 3 partisan firms
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:09 PM
Mar 2016

were ushered in hastily with HAVA after the '00 debacle.

Those were immediately deemed insecure & unreliable by plenty of IT geeks & wizards. The manufacturers pretty much said that the machines had an approximate 9 year shelf life. We're several elections past their expiration dates.

So the highly hackable, insecure machines are now degraded even further.

Sure there are a few grifters in any movement. Many, many more people did copious amount of research, sacrificing time, energy, & money for no financial gain whatsoever.

Plenty of people were convinced that Kerry won in '04, and votes were shaved off totals in many states, but it was blatantly obvious in Ohio.

So if you really think this is a functioning democracy and our elections are completely secure, then fine.

Given the advances in encryption & security over the last decade, just think we're in dire need of a long overdue upgrade.









Half-Century Man

(5,279 posts)
55. Yes, because fuck checks and balances. Verification is over rated.
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:38 AM
Mar 2016

Common sense regulation and the means to confirm compliance mean nothing. Just ask the short term lending industry.

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
19. I suspect that the results were close to the Sanders internals or the campaign would
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:50 PM
Mar 2016

have spoken out by now.

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
33. "exit poll discrepancies!", says a guy with a wordpress blog
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:02 PM
Mar 2016

We don't determine elections by exit polls, we determine them by counting the votes. If there is an identifiable problem(*) with the vote-counting, ten the Sanders campaign is well within their legal right to investigate that.




(*) "The vote didn't go the way I wanted/hoped" is not a valid concern.

stellanoir

(14,881 posts)
39. beyond the simplistic cyber snobbery. . .
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:27 AM
Mar 2016

His info from his site :

"After graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, I was hired as a numerical control engineer/programmer for Grumman Aerospace Corporation. GAC was a major defense/aerospace manufacturer which built the Lunar Module, Navy fighter jets and commercial aircraft.

I obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University in 1969 and an MS in Operations Research from Polytechnic Institute of NY in 1973.

In 1976, I moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for White Weld & Co, an old-line investment bank that was acquired by Merrill Lynch in 1978. When personal computers first became available in 1982, I converted many of the mainframe FORTRAN application programs to Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets – and years later to Excel.

As an independent software consultant, I specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations.

I never imagined that years later I would be posting election analyses on the Internet. After the 2000 fiasco, I was motivated to develop a robust forecast model. In July 2004 I began posting weekly election projections based on state and national pre-election polls.

The corporate media and politicians avoid the subject of systemic election fraud like the plague. But unadjusted state and national exit polls have been confirmed by the True Vote Model. The Democratic true share has consistently exceeded the official recorded share. I have written two books proving systemic election fraud. . ."

more on his site

WI_DEM

(33,497 posts)
41. Exit polls are not 100% accurate
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:30 AM
Mar 2016

especially given the narrowness (particularly in Missouri) of those two victories

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
45. Exit polls showed SBS winning IL and 49-48 and MO 50-49*
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:23 AM
Mar 2016

Those aren't far off from the actual vote.



*from memory

FlatBaroque

(3,160 posts)
50. AGainst Clinton, Bernie needs a cheat-proof margin. 51% is not good enough
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:30 AM
Mar 2016

it needs to be near 65-70%. The CLinton FOundation has paid off a lot of people; they have a lot of favors they can call in. Just like the mafia.

NowSam

(1,252 posts)
54. So the vote flipping machines worked just right?
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:38 AM
Mar 2016

Because between coin flipping, ace holding and diebold, this sure seems like the fix is in.

jalan48

(13,859 posts)
59. The oligarch's have determined it will be Clinton vs. Trump in the finals.
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:45 AM
Mar 2016

The public is tricked into believing a Republican billionaire is a populist and a conservative Wall Street Democrat is a liberal. Enjoy the show America.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
65. Since when do exit polls determine who won an election?
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:56 AM
Mar 2016

This is as stupid as saying Bernie wins all the online polls...therefore he should be President!

stellanoir

(14,881 posts)
70. No one is saying that "exit polls determine an election". . .
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:15 PM
Mar 2016

nor is anyone thinking that online polls could possibly mirror voting totals.

see post # 18

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»5 Primaries: Exit Poll Di...