Is it just me that thinks that the vote count in Ohio and Texas looks decidedly fishy....

[althecat]

Exit polls said...

First Exit Polls:

VT Obama - 67, Clinton - 33
OH Obama - 51, Clinton - 49
TX Obama - 50, Clinton - 49
RI Obama - 49, Clinton - 49

And then the networks count 54% of the vote in Ohio and declare it to Clinton on the basis of exit poll extrapolation.

The result in Texas was similarly declared remarkably early on the basis it seems of exit poll extrapolation.

************************************
MORE ON HOW CNN PROJECTS WINNERS WITH 0% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING below: (from CNN website)
*************************************

(CNN) -- To project primaries and caucuses, CNN and its election experts use scientific statistical procedures to make estimates of the final vote count in each race. CNN will broadcast a projected winner only after an extensive review of data from a number of sources.
CNN editorial policy strictly prohibits reporting winners or characterizing the outcome of a statewide contest in any state before all the polls are scheduled to close in every precinct in that state.
CNN will receive information from the following sources:
The Associated Press: The Associated Press will provide vote totals for each race. The AP will be gathering numbers via stringers based in each county or other jurisdiction where votes are tabulated.
Edison Media Research: To assist CNN in collecting and evaluating this information, CNN, the other television networks and the Associated Press have employed Edison Media Research (EMR). In previous primaries, this firm has assisted CNN in projecting winners in state and national races. EMR will conduct exit polls, which ask voters their opinion on a variety of relevant issues, determine how they voted, and ask a number of demographic questions to allow analysis of voting patterns by group.
Using exit poll results, scientifically selected representative precincts, vote results from the AP, and a number of sophisticated analysis techniques, EMR also recommends projections of a winner for each race it covers.
Projections
The projections for CNN will be made from the CNN Election Analysis Center at the Time Warner Center. An independent team of political analysts and statistical experts will analyze the data that will lead to the final decisions on projections.
CNN will decide when and how to make a projection for a race depending on how close the race is. In races that do not appear to be very close, projections may be made at poll closing time based entirely on exit poll results, which are the only information available when the polls close about how people voted...
(LINK HERE)http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/projection .explainer/index.html

[GetTheRightVote]

1. I was wondering about those myself and yes it is fishy ....

[Horse with no Name]

2. You forget one thing

They don't do exit polls in rural Texas and that is where Hillary won.

[anigbrowl]

3. Don't worry about it

it'll be interesting to find out why, but I doubt there's any evil plot behind it. At the end of the day, the delegate count hasn't actually moved very much anyhow. I'm seeing about a 15-20 net gain for Hillary - she's narrowed the gap a little but she has a lot more to do if she wants to recover the lead.

[casus belli]

4. And who is orchestrating said evil plot?

I am as disappointed as anyone in the results, but ultimately the time for questioning the integrity of the vote is before said vote is held. I just can't see Hillary being in on some backdoor voting scandal that will most certainly swing in the Republicans favor in the GE against whoever is the nominee. There are far too many variables involved to seriously assert that this is some kind of conspiracy.

[althecat]

23. How bout this guy :)

[CalGator]

5. this is why caucuses work

When living, breathing Dems actually have to show up to vote, Obama wins. Hillary seem to win only when Diebold counts the votes. Wonder why? :shrug:

[amborin]

11. when they show up to get their arms twisted, like in Iowa?

[Blue_Roses]

49. I didn't see any arm twisting last night at my caucus here in Texas

everybody knew who they wanted

[MonkeyFunk]

16. nonsense

that's just stupid.

[ClayZ]

26. Yup! Argh!

:wtf:

[elehhhhna]

34. CalGator, you nailed it. But caucuses onlt allot 30% of TX delegates.

Hell, a Reep election judge told Hubby that he was very dissapointed at "all the Republicans" coming in to vote Dem.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. You Mean The Caucus System That Excludes Working Folks, Physically Challenged People And The Elderly

~

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amborin]

9. i was waiting for the vote fraud allegations from the obama crew

just like new hampshire

so childish, such sore losers

what if Hillary had alleged vote fraud in Idaho?

[catgirl]

37. Dennis K. alleged vote fraud in NH

Not Obama. Get your facts straight. You're so hostile.

[Stevepol]

28. No matter who wins any election in the US today

it's impossible to have the slightest confidence in the results when those results are counted by electronic voting machines without verification. This is as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4.

The complaint isn't with who won, the complaint is that, whoever wins, the results are not openly or transparently counted and are not verified as in other countries, such as Venezuela, which unlike the US is actually a democracy.

If Obama had won, the results would have been just as suspect.

[windbreeze]

50. Since at least 2000, every election, primary, etc., has brought

This same sort of discussion, along with anger and dismay...so my question is...since it would obviously be in the best interests of "the" party, to KNOW who really won, and be able to prove it...So WHY hasn't our vote been secured yet??? There's been years to have done something, after investigations, pointed to the vote being corrupt....

It seems to me, that NO ONE wants our vote to be totally secure, including the Democrats...and that tells me, that having it this way benefits someone.....which means there will always be questions about who is manipulating what and who is benefiting from it...Don't the Democrats understand, that w/o a secure vote....it will never matter how many of us voted??? That we could still end up with a Republican president and Congress????? When are we going to understand, that securing the vote was one of the most important things we had to accomplish in the last 8 years??...yet here we are, discussing who, or which Democrat might have benefited from a skewed vote in Texas...I find the situation totally DISGUSTING!! wb

[Kurovski]

29. Eat shit, asswipe. Al has been watching out for fraud for more years

than anyone ever loved you.

Cut the fucking "moron" shit.

[woolldog]

7. Bradley effect?

[MadBadger]

8. Those were first wave numbers. HOWEVER the original Exit Polls fucked up Rhode Island big time

I think they had it a 3-5 point win for Hillary. She won by 18.

[catgirl]

38. Final polls done before the voting even started had HRC up by 5 in RI

That matches the exit polls. RI and OH are baffling to me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. not really "polls"

You're apparently referring to one poll with 400 respondents and a 22% undecided figure. (Pollster.com did post that one result as its 'average' -- there just weren't a lot of numbers to go on.)

Looking at the last eight polls out of Ohio (on pollster.com), all of which ended on 3/2 or 3/3, the average was Clinton +8 and the median was Clinton +9. Lots of people expected Obama to outperform the polls, but I don't know how strange it is that he didn't.

[catgirl]

46. I'm referring to all the RI polls showing Obama closing the gap

Not the poll you're referring to. The 18% win by Hillary in RI is baffling to me.

I guess nothing should surprise me in Ohio anymore.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. "all the RI polls"?

There were fewer RI polls in the last two weeks (four) than there were Ohio polls in the last two days. How can you extrapolate a trend? Or are there other polls that pollster.com doesn't know about?

[dailykoff]

10. The experts at EMR and CNN would tell us if there was anything fishy.

That's what they're paid for, remember?

p.s. this is sarcasm.

[babylonsister]

12. Ohio didn't surprise me, TX did. Clinton was awesome in TX, but I

don't know why.

Let me add, are the caucuses done and the numbers in? :shrug:

[Oilwellian]

14. She wasn't all that awesome

Obama cut into her double-digit lead in just a few weeks. She fully expected to win Texas by a huge margin and didn't do it. In no way did she get a net gain in delegates that would cut into Obama's overall lead.

[blogslut]

17. The caucuses are still being tallied

Right now, 2:22 CST, it's 34% reporting. Obama 55%. Clinton 45%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX

Scroll down. They've also got a great hover map that breaks the primary vote down county, by county.

[LibertyorDeath]

18. Thanks that's great news !

:toast:

[blogslut]

19. Yes, it is

:)

[anamandujano]

27. The caucuses represent a tiny fraction of the people, so you can play

them up all you want but they suck and should not weigh much at a convention or with supers.

[soothsayer]

33. weren't repubs allowed to vote in the dem primary in texas?

I think it might have something to do with that

[rcsl1998]

56. Obama Fatigue

[Skittles]

13. if you haven't figured it out yet

exit polls don't seem to mean shit

[lligrd]

15. Funny, They Used To Work Quite Well

before Diebold. Just sayin...

[BigDDem]

48. Thanks!

You made my prediction from yesterday come true.
If your guys loses - always blame Diebold!!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[babylonsister]

21. Have you figured out who you support yet? Just asking, because

I just don't know!

[BzaDem]

20. Those aren't the final exit poll numbers. The final exit poll numbers put both TX and OH w/Hillary.

[althecat]

22. The final numbers adjust the story to fit the result....

[BzaDem]

24. No No No. I'm not talking about the numbers currently up there.

I'm talking about the numbers up there at the moment the polls close. No result known yet to change the story to.

In those, Clinton won Ohio by 4 points and Texas by 1 point.

The numbers the poster is talking about are early exit polls, released hours before the polls closed. The numbers I am talking about are released at the moment the polls closed. The results you are talking about are the results that have been modified afterwards to fit the result, as you say, but even before that she was ahead.

[althecat]

25. She needed to be ahead in exit polls in Texas as Obama started with a 100k lead in early votes

These results were posted on DU earlier tonight. They are different from what is up now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4889053

Rhode Island -

Male (43%) - 56% Obama, 43% Clinton
Female (57%) - 58% Clinton, 41% Obama

Ohio -

Male (41%) - 52% Obama, 47% Clinton
Female (59%) - 54% Clinton, 45% Obama

Texas -

Male (43%) - 52% Obama, 46% Clinton
Female (57%) - 53% Clinton, 46% Obama

[BzaDem]

31. Argh... so much wrong information.

Obama started with a lead of 35k votes, NOT 100k votes. See http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_state.htm

AND, the exit polls include phone polls of early voters. They have said that several times in different races with early votes.

[karynnj]

41. Even these numbers indicate Clinton wins to me

Multiply these estimates out - it shows Clinton wins. Clinton in each case does better among women, than Obama does among men - and there were more women voters.

Look at RI - the estimate would be:
Clinton - (.43)(.43) + (.57)(.58) = 51.55%

This is NOT 2004, where Kerry had won both men and women in the early exit polls in Ohio and lost!

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. not necessarily sound for TX

Since most polls closed at 8 Eastern while some remained open until 9 Eastern, there may or may not have been some precinct-level vote counts available to adjust the exit poll tabs. (Some early vote results were posted just before 9 Eastern -- I don't know whether those could have been factored into the tabs.)

Also, everyone should keep in mind that the exit poll tabs incorporate pre-election expectations. So we really don't know what the exit poll interviews 'said' in any of these states. Based on Super Tuesday, there's a good chance that a bunch of them overstated Obama's vote shares -- as seems to have happened in RI.

[BrightKnight]

30. .

[MiniMe]

32. Do they count early voting in the exit polls?

Since the people were not at the poll I don't see how the early votes could be included. Unfortunately, that muddies the exit polls.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. often the pollsters do telephone interviews

to tap those early voters. It isn't clear exactly what they did in TX -- but whatever it was, the first TX projection to be posted is not far from the official count right now (narrow Clinton lead).

(Oops, I see I'm repeating someone else. What I don't know is how many calls they did, or how many assumptions they had to make in combining the two sets of data. But Texas closed at two different times, so they would probably have a lot more info about turnout by 9 Eastern when they posted the tabs.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. what, are you KIDDING?

The networks very clearly did not call Ohio based on an exit poll extrapolation. They waited and waited and waited for some big-county votes to come in.

:eyes:

[catgirl]

36. MSM reported that RI, OH and TX were going to be very close

according to the exit polls.

Regular polls before voting started had Obama down by 5 in RI, tied
or ahead in TX and back by 6-8 in Ohio. The results are very odd,
especially since Obama's ground team is excellent at GOTV.

Did Republicans listen to Limbaugh and come out for Hillary in Texas?
It was reported that was little cross over. And the fact that Obama's
election monitors were turned away in Ohio is a little disquieting.

[MoonRiver]

42. Yawn, how predictable.

:boring:

[dailykoff]

52. As a matter of fact I've been predicting it for weeks.

The only way Clinton wins is by rigging the vote. :shrug:

[ShaneGR]

43. Ok, so if they vote for Obama they want change, HRC its vast conspiracy?

Give it a rest already, different states are going to vote differently. Also, Obama didn't campaign as well over the last week as he had in the last month.

[LostinVA]

44. Knock it off

[suston96]

47. The first numbers posted in Texas were hundreds of thousands of votes - some 700, 000...

...and they had Obama ahead by amost 100,000 votes. They were the early votes - cast days before - and they were counted as one precinct. This was explained by one of the pundits.

The marvel of the evening was Hillary Clinton closing that gap and pulling permanently ahead.

Wow - two comeback kids in the same family.

[Kurovski]

53. Clinton pulled ahead? Of Obama? I'm confused...

could you please post a link showing this? And how did this occur "permanantly"? How do you calculate these things?

Thank you.

Edit: Never mind, you mean in Texas. And I guess we still don't know about the caucus, last I heard Obama was ahead in that.

[rcsl1998]

54. I Can Only Comment On RI...

...exit polls of 49 - 49? That's the only thing fishy. A lot of excitement for having a primary that actually counted for something, but although Obama was inching up in most polls, he never had the lead in any of them with the closest poll being 5% with 22% undecided - most polls were double digits for Clinton - So 49 - 49? I don't think so...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Can We Put Raw Exit Polls To Rest?

President Dukais (sic) beat Bush Pere in 88 in raw exit polls...

[NMMNG]

58. May I suggest tin-foil-hats and Haldol?

Jeebus people. Hillary won. Get over it. Are we going to have this shit every time she wins a state? :eyes:

[Kurovski]

59. Some Obama stuff is looking odd as well,

The problem is that the way elections are these days, we have to question everything.

We have little to no transparency, for starters.

We're going to have this "shit" for every election. Settle in. Maybe some Xanax, or if you prefer, a six-pack of your favorite brew? :-)

[NMMNG]

60. Oh no, Obama would never do anything utoward!

:sarcasm: :P

I think I'll have some wine and lots of :popcorn: This is going to be very interesting.

[Kurovski]

61. When is it NOT interesting?

:shrug: :D