CNN exit polls MATCHED the actual results of the New Hampshire Primary. (UPDATED 5PM -- PLEASE READ)

[Skinner]

Here are the CNN exit polls for New Hampshire Democrats:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM

The page shows all sorts of breakouts for all different groups and how they voted. But unfortunately, the CNN page does not show just a straight total for all voters combined (presumably because if someone wants the totals, they can just look at the official election results). But don't despair! If you use a little math, you can easily figure out the total vote predicted by the exit polls.

Here is how I figured it out. (Note: If you cannot follow this relatively simple math, then you have no business claiming the election was stolen.)


HOW I FIGURED OUT THE ACTUAL VOTE TOTALS, USING THE CNN EXIT POLLS

Again, here is a link to the CNN Exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM

In the top-right corner of the page, it shows how many people were polled in the sample:

1955 respondents

Just below that, we see a section entitled "Vote by Gender," which shows the percentage of men and women included in the sample:

Male (43%)
Female (57%)

Using simple math, we can use these percentages and the total number of respondents to figure out how many men and women were polled:

Men: 1955 * .43 = 841 men
Women: 1955 * .57 = 1114 women

Now go back to the exit poll page, and go across each row to see the percentages of each gender that voted for Clinton and Obama:

Percentage of men who voted for Clinton: 29%
Percentage of men who voted for Obama: 40%

Percentage of women who voted for Clinton: 46%
Percentage of women who voted for Obama: 34%

By multiplying the total numbers of men and women with the percentages for each candidate, we can figure out the total number of men and women who voted for each candidate:

Men who voted for Clinton: 841 * .29 = 244 men
Men who voted for Obama: 841 * .40 = 336 men

Women who voted for Clinton: 1114 * .46 = 512 women
Women who voted for Obama: 1114 * .34 = 379 women

By adding men and women together, we can figure out the total number of respondents who voted for each candidate:

Total votes for Clinton: 244 men + 512 women = 756
Total votes for Obama: 336 men + 379 women = 715

And by dividing the gender totals by the total number of respondents, you get the total percentage vote predicted by the exit polls:

Total percentage for Clinton: 756 / 1955 = .387 (39%)
Total percentage for Obama: 715 / 1955 = .366 (37%)

Now compare those numbers with the actual election results, which are here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH

Actual vote for Clinton: 39%
Actual vote for Obama: 37%

Q.E.D.

UPDATE ADDED 5:00 PM ET, WEDNESDAY:

As you may know, I consider myself to be someone who values accuracy, and try to hold my fellow DUers to high standards of accuracy as well. After considering all the responses to this post, both here in this thread and in my email, and after reading some other material on this subject, I realize that this is one of those times when it is appropriate for me to hold myself to the same high standards that I expect from others.

Since I posted this thread this morning, I have been informed that it is a common practice to adjust or weight exit polls after official election results become available, so that the exit polls match the actual result. I do not know the details about how this weighting is done, and my understanding is that it is not something that is made public. But as some people have correctly pointed out in this thread, the bottom line is that one possible reason why the exit polls matched the actual results of the primary is that they may have been adjusted to match. Which, if it happened in this case, would make my entire argument moot. I would add that we do not know to what extent they were adjusted -- if indeed they were adjusted at all. Some have argued here and elsewhere that they do not appear to have been significantly changed, but I am not in any position to make such a judgment myself.

Having now explained the error in my thread, I would like to make one additional point: The fact that I made a mistake is not evidence to support the claim that fraud happened in the New Hampshire primary. The fact remains that if one is to make a claim of fraud, then the burden of proof is on those making the claim, and as far as I am aware no credible evidence has yet been provided to support the claim of fraud.

I apologize for my error.

[Zynx]

1. Yeah. Even the early exit polls showed it just about tied.

The later ones only moved about a point each way.

[peabody71]

180. STOLEN!

Who your Daddy,
does she wear panty hose?

[Imagevision]

188. The fact the NH. election is unverifiable, how about in November?

[laconicsax]

264. Exit polls are used by international observers

to monitor elections because they have a tendency to show the actual vote within a very small margin or error. We know something was wrong with the vote counting in 2004 largely in part to the fact that the exit polls were way off from the 'official' tally. If the exit polls closely mirror the official tally, then it is more than likely that the election was fair.

[acmavm]

2. Don't strain your fingers. So far this morning I've learned that it

was either stolen or it was racism.

Go figure.

[Skinner]

3. For all we know, it could have been racism.

The math says nothing about motivation. All it shows is what the exit polls predicted.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. And the Clinton Iowa loss could have been sexism

We do not know motivation of anyone.

[indimuse]

181. but we knew the media motivation...and...

It BACK FIRED!

[acmavm]

9. Well, if you don't know then it's wrong to chalk it up to that, isn't

it? I don't like Barrie. I don't like him at all. I hate his politics and I can't find a single issue that I believe him on. One day he says one thing, the next he says the opposite. I don't care if he's black, white, or sky-blue pink. And just maybe that's how the voters felt.

[Skinner]

15. You really don't help your cause when you call him Barrie. (nt)

[acmavm]

46. I don't have a cause. I just can't believe that even now people

are whipping out the all-time favorite excuses of racism and mysoginy when they don't know why anyone voted the way they did. Odds are that some did vote because they didn't want to see a black man take the nomination. But I find it odd that those same people would vote for a woman. That type of person would find that appalling as well.

And as for calling him Barrie. I have no respect for the man and his duplicitous politics. He's not the second coming regardless of what some people would like to believe. And he's straddled both sides of the fence so often on so many issues that I'm wondering if he wears a steel cup.

edit: to make my point clearer in the last paragraph

[MADem]

297. I don't know if the poster realizes this, but he was called Barry in school in Hawaii

They called him Barry O'Bomber when he was on the basketball team. Most of his HS friends still call him Barry.

[Tiggeroshii]

80. sorry, wrong reply

[AzDar]

88. Self-Delete....

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. Very good point.

It seems that female voters are racists.

Who knew?

:sarcasm:

[whopis01]

122. Oh... I had thought it was reverse sexual discrimination.... n/t

[ruggerson]

4. Thanks for some sanity

shouldn't all the posts accusing DEMOCRATS of election fraud be moved somewhere so that sane DU'ers don't have to see them?

[Bonobo]

6. Are 2,000 voters out of 200,000 a large enough sample? Just asking.

[shadowknows69]

8. for radio ratings it's more than enough

[Skinner]

12. I am not a statistician. I do not know what a statistically significant sample is.

My point is to inject some facts into this discussion. Whoever wants to claim this election was stolen has to explain why the exit polls were right.

I am myself a believer in election reform, and I believe electronic voting machines are dangerous. But the election reform movement loses credibility if they simply choose to ignore relevant facts. That will HURT the cause.

[Political Heretic]

19. I am. And yes.

Er... I don't know what certificate you need to be officially a "statistician" but I am working toward my doctorate, and assisting university staff with research projects, and I have been through multiple tiers of graduate research education and done my own research projects.....

Does that count?

[ProfessorGAC]

103. Sounds Like It Should Count

Welcome to the club!
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

77. The Answer Is Maybe

It depends upon how the sample was selected, whether is was stratified random sampling, whether the strata were properly determined.

But a 1% sample when the population is this large can be enough as long as the sample is validly random.
The Professor

[Maribelle]

24. Yes it is. But the size of the sample is only one of the facets that makes a poll scientific.

There are other facets just as important.

[northzax]

64. no poll has more than that

national polls, and New Hampshire ones people keep referring to are often in the 1,100 people neighborhood.

[L. Coyote]

87. YES. That is a huge sample.

Inferential statistical results should be accurate with a random sample size of just 30. Increasing the number reduces the margin of error in the prediction.

[grizmaster]

267. In a word, yes. Here's a mini explanation

do a quick search on margin of error if you want more

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/01/basics_margin_of_error.php

When we start to look at a statistic, we start with an expectation: a very rough sense of what the outcome is likely to be. (Given a complete unknown, we generally start with the Bayesian assumption that in the presence of zero knowledge, you can generally assign a 50/50 split as an initial guess about the division of any population into exactly two categories.) When we work with a sample, we tend to be less confident about how representative that sample is the farther the measured statistic varies from the expected value.

Finally, sometimes we know that the mechanism we use for our sample is imperfect - that is, we know that our sample contains an unavoidable bias. In that case, we expand the margin of error to try to represent the reduced certainty caused by the known bias. For example, in elections, we know that in general, there are certain groups of people who simply are less likely to participate in exit polls. An exit poll simple cannot generate an unbiased sample, because the outcome is partially determined by who is willing to stop and take the poll. Another example is in polls involving things like sexuality, where because of social factors, people are less likely to admit to certain things. If you're trying to measure something like "What percentage of people have had extramarital affairs?", you know that many people are not going to tell the truth - so your result will include an expected bias.

Given those, how do we compute the margin of error? It depends a bit on how you're measuring. The easiest (and most common) case is a percentage based statistic, so that's what we'll stick with for this article. The margin of error is computed from the standard error, which is in turn derived from an approximation of the standard deviation. Given a population of size P; and a measured statistic of X (where X is in decimal form - so 50% means X=0.5), the standard error E is:

[SidDithers]

7. K&R for sanity...

but it won't stop the tinfoil loons from squawking about the how the notoriously innaccurate pre-vote opinion polls weren't close to the actual results.

Sid

[blondeatlast]

10. Sanity for breakfast! Yummy! k/r nt

[mondo joe]

11. Oh precious oasis of sanity....

Thank you.

[dailykoff]

13. The problem is that networks adjust exit polls to reflect voter tallies.

Whether CNN does, did, or didn't last night, I can't say, but I do recall hearing Warren Mitofsky explain to Jim Lehrer or somebody on NPR that that's how it works back in late 2004. The rationale is that the tallies represent additional polling info. So take it for what it's worth. If I get a chance later I'll add a link.

[robbedvoter]

42. But this was not just a 2 numbers exit poll - it was a detailed, demographics poll

Your difference from earlier polls comes from this: 57% women. Angry ones.Not crying, but voting.

[Gormy Cuss]

137. I don't know your reference, but what you've described sounds like an adjustment of the weights.

That would not affect the actual data gathered in exit polls but it would change the way the overall projection is made.

[truedelphi]

253. Those of us following the 2004 election and the exit polls did screen shots

And there was considerable adjustment.

In some cases, the network adjusted it around 2Am the morning after.

In others cases the adjustment came later.

Zogby never adjusted. Mitofsky did and he also never allowed the data that he fed to those employed by his firm to be made available to the public.

In any case, the adjustments made my head spin. It was a substantial adjustment, and then just like a totalitarian governmnet likes to do, those of us tracking it were told how awful things were in the friggin' Ukraine! Where the adjustments of exit polls to final vote tally would have been smaller!

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. Thanks.

All the stolen election stuff is sick. Even more so since the numbers match up.

[robbedvoter]

16. Did those pre-election polls question 57% women in their sample? The Tweety factor

(or NY Post, or "pranks", or Edwards answer or...well, DU)57% women - that should tell you something. I remember reading a lot of voters decided that very day.

[Rock_Garden]

17. Thanks for this. I still say this is one great race.

[Dorian Gray]

18. Thanks for bringing

sanity to the discussion.

[Marrah_G]

20. Thank you Skinner

I was getting ready to walk away from here due to the insanity going on since last night.

As a New Englander these election results do not surprise me a bit.

There was no fraud, just democracy in action and a wrench thrown into the works by a large number of registered Dems who came out and voted. These voters were never included in the polls because they were "unlikely voters".

No fraud.....just Democracy working as it ought to.

[LostinVA]

21. Thanks for the post

[onehandle]

22. Thanks for that. nt

[LynneSin]

23. God forbid we actually post something that makes sense to this crowd

:eyes:

[truedelphi]

255. The post helps you understand how to use ratios in terms of

Arriving at numbers of people of specific gender polled.

It doesn't explain more than that.

If it was stolen, and I am saying, "IF", breaking down the numbers is not all that meaningful.

The biggest problem in any stolen election is that there are no meaningful numbers.

Some votes may have been switched. But some votes may never be counted. So if an election is stolen, you have no way of knowing what the final tallies are.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. But Skinner, after 2004 EVERYBODY said exit polls were inaccurate!

[endarkenment]

30. Uh no.

We rightly claimed that 'adjusting' the exit poll data by adding in the reported ballot count screwed the utility of the exit poll data as a cross check on the reported ballot count.

[robbedvoter]

39. Not everybody. Only the election stealers. They wanted exit polls banned.

In the 2002 congressional elections they had them destroyed before publication....

[cherokeeprogressive]

250. I have never told the truth to an exit pollster about my vote OR my demographic.

And I'm not about to start. Wanna know how I voted? Count my vote by hand.

Other than that it's no one's business. We do practice SECRET BALLOTING in this country afterall.

I even told one pollster that while in the voting booth, I decided not to cast a ballot.

Trying to be first to call the result of an election has caused the MSM to implode. I like to think I helped.

[Mark E. Smith]

26. But wait! Obama got 36% of the vote!!!

Just kidding.

Thanks for the great analysis.

[Maribelle]

27. An extremely important factor that seems to be overlooked by MSM ...

how many registered democrats in NH voted for Hillary vs. the rest of the field.

At one point yesterday, I heard on CNN that 60% of the registered democrats wanted Hillary before the voting began. I'm wondering if that's how they voted?

On edit: 60% of registered democrats IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

[endarkenment]

28. One point however.

If the exit polls are using the dubious post election adjustment methodology used in 2004 they lose validity as checks on the actual reported ballot count. It is the exit poll data before it is polluted with the reported ballot count that needs to be compared to the ballot count.

[creeksneakers2]

241. At exactly 8:00 PM, the moment the polls closed

ABC reported exit polling had the race too close to call. That's how it turned out. So they had it right before weighting.

[RagingInMiami]

29. Now you had to go and ruin a good conspiracy theory

[jbnow]

31. CNN? That's funny They didn't do their own.

Here is one of many places that show one firm did it for everyone in this NH primary.

Source: National Election Pool Exit Poll, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky. National Election Pool members are ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC

[Skinner]

32. The issue here is not whether the exit poll was conducted by CNN or Edison/Mitofsky.

If you look closely, you will see that the data provided at your link is identical to the data provided at my link:

1955 respondents - THE SAME

Male (43%) - THE SAME
Female (57%) - THE SAME

Percentage of men who voted for Clinton: 29% - THE SAME
Percentage of men who voted for Obama: 40% - THE SAME

Percentage of women who voted for Clinton: 46% - THE SAME
Percentage of women who voted for Obama: 34% - THE SAME

The proof still stands.

[jbnow]

53. The exit poll numbers we got

were already weighted. That's not conspiracy, just true.

In 2004 some raw data got out. They don't allow it now.

Exit polls are weighted to match the results. It's not as convincing as it should be.

[northzax]

65. how do you weight a poll

before you have the final numbers, to match the result? (unless, of course, the pollster is in league with the counters to rig the election completely) you can do it after the fact, but since live exit polls (and those announced at 8 exactly, before the final vote counts were even close to in) matched the results well within the margin of error, it's as good as you can get, right?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

110. "unless, of course, the pollster is in league with the counters"

Bingo. National Election Pool Exit Poll, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky. National Election Pool members are ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC

[Maven]

111. How does that show they're "in league" with the counters?

Where is Diebold in that list?

[creeksneakers2]

243. If those networks were out to fix it for Hillary

why did they spend the last five days running her into the ground and calling her campaign dead? If they were going to fix it, wouldn't they have said she might win?

[northzax]

312. shh

don't mention such things, it's all a trick to get us used to the idea of Voter fraud. they even used weather machines to make sure the 'turnout' would be high to see what they could get away with.

and don't get me started on the Chemtrails.

[Blarch]

33. Well,...

If CNN says so ... :rofl:




In all seriousness, I don't think it was fixed, so go lay down you attack dogs.

[foo_bar]

34. any thoughts on moving this stuff to the 9/11 or ER dungeons?

I don't see much difference between Kerry stole the Iowa Caucus!11 and "Zionists control the world"/MIHOP/tsunami machine discussions; the true believers can never be swayed, the same circular debate impedes signal:noise without ever reaching a plausible hypothesis, and it tends to displace politically oriented discussions in favor of solipsistic "failing Intro to Philosophy" conspiracies. That and the "makes us look ridiculous" meme, but that's harder to get worked up about given a certain baseline ridiculousness.

[Skinner]

36. It should die down on its own as more people see the actual facts.

I believe that most people, if presented with data refuting their baseless claims, will back down.

If this doesn't go away in a couple days, we may consider moving it out of GD. But for now I'd rather see it die on the merits.

[Robb]

40. LOL!

I believe that most people, if presented with data refuting their baseless claims, will back down.

:rofl:

(wipes tear)

:rofl:

What, you just get here? :D

Thanks for the numbers, chief. :patriot:

[OnTheOtherHand]

98. yeah, what you said and emoted n/t

[Marrah_G]

102. Somehow I don't think that is going to happen

Some folks are already hysterical and it seems to be snow-balling no matter how many times it is explained.

[LostinVA]

227. It's gotten worse all today as went on

Godo grief, I was called a RWer because of it.

[MADem]

298. I was called a REPUBLICAN! nt

[JMDEM]

51. Yes, yes! Let's ban all talk some people don't like.

Then this place would truly earn the name "Democratic Underground".

[foo_bar]

72. I didn't suggest a moratorium on ludicrous topics, just proper classification

If your next question is "who gets to decide what is or isn't ludicrous?", the answer would be DU's owners.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. Thank you, Skinner! I feel so much better now.

If she won fair and square, KUDOS to her! I'm THRILLED that Tweety's head exploded and the RWers are foaming at the mouth. Bring it on...Hillary's ready. There's NOTHING they can throw at that woman that they haven't already slung her way and I have no doubt that she will fight the onslaught of garbage they have planned for her.

[Annces]

47. Yep

She has seen it all.

[robbedvoter]

37. Check the returns in real time on these threads I posted - no anomaly here

First numbers I saved:

Clinton 8,298 (38 percent)
Obama 7,892 (36 percent)
Edwards 3,710 (17 percent)
Richardson 938 (4 percent)
23 of 301 precincts (8 percent) reporting

earlier numbers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3998529&mesg_id=3998529
and later
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3999787&mesg_id=3999787
I started a third
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4001394&mesg_id=4001394

Too much transparency amd consistency. Keep your eyes peeled in the GE. Not in the primaries.

[anamandujano]

73. I hope you can have a sticky thread

for this sort of information whenever votes are coming in.

I didn't see your threads last night and got a little upset that maybe they were already messing with results, even though the results were pleasing.

[Marie26]

38. A welcome dose of reality.

If people start screaming "Diebold" whenever they don't get the election result they want, it becomes like the boy who cried wolf. No one will take it seriously anymore & it'll undermine the real issues with election fraud.

[Hoof Hearted]

89. And THAT is the real danger! If we scream "rigged" "stolen" "unfair"

at every other election and primary we're shooting ourselves in the foot for any real chance at election reform. The woman won fair and square and you would think she was caught setting election boxes on fire or something.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. Skinner, with all due respect....The only thing relevant about the

exit polls (for the point we are making) is that the people who made up their minds at the
last minute (according to the same exit poll you cite) broke ever so slightly to Obama. So, if the data you cite is assumed valid, then why not the last minute decision aspect?

Taking the worst case scenario on the night before -- Obama up 5 -- plus the winning margin of 2 - equals at least a 7% overnight shift (11% if you use the average 8.3% lead). This further translates
to close to 20k votes that accrued to Clinton - that were unpolled and withheld from exit pollers.

The disparity we refer to is the difference between all the pre-election tracking polls (including both Clinton and Obama internals), which were spot on for every other candidate, including Obama and Republicans, except Clinton. This unpolled variance, for Clinton alone, is worth analysis, if we are to believe that our system is valid.

[robbedvoter]

43. Did the pre-election tracking polls have 57% women in their sample?

:shrug: Just asking

[Skinner]

45. With respect, you are completely wrong.

Exit polls are infinitely more reliable indicators of final results. For one thing, your sample is made up entirely of people who actually went out to vote. Second, they catch people right before they cast their vote, so they are much more likely to have made their final decision. Also, there are no disparities based on things like willingness to answer the telephone when a pollster calls.

If you are serious about claiming fraud, then you CANNOT brush away the exit polls. They are the key piece. If you do not have a rational explanation for the fact that the exit polls were accurate, then your entire claim of fraud is bogus.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

59. With respect, I am not claiming fraud just trying to show that

there is an abberation that warrants examination. Yes, I know full well that exits
are more reliable. BUT, if that is true, then how do you explain the piece of the
exits that told them that people who made up their minds at the last minute broke
slightly to Obama? Are you saying that only that part of the exits was wrong? Or that
7-11% of the voters lied to the pollsters but then told the truth to the exit
pollers? Got to be one or the other. And you have to have the belief that
this happened ONLY with Clinton voters and to no other candidate - because pre-election polls
for all other candidates were within the margin of error.

And one other point. You have to believe that internals from Obama AND Clinton were wrong
as well - to the tune of 20,000 est - UNPOLLED POLLSTER LIARS at a time when everyone agreed
that NH was pivitol.

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. misplaced concreteness, I think

Imagine someone who thought one week ago that he or she would vote for Clinton, then considered voting for Obama, then voted for Clinton after all. This person might show up as "undecided" or "Obama" (or "Clinton") in a late pre-election poll; s/he might show up as "decided today" in the exit poll -- or might show up as "decided over a month ago."

There is simply no way to apply the "decided today" result as an adjustment to the late pre-election polls.

What we can do is look at the figures (three of 'em) for decisions in the last week, and see not much evidence of a huge bounce. So in that sense, the exit polls do again tend to be consistent with the official result. But this is all very mushy.

"And you have to have the belief that this happened ONLY with Clinton voters and to no other candidate - because pre-election polls for all other candidates were within the margin of error."

I think that's pretty much meaningless if we are trying to assess possible miscounts, since there is no way to vote for "undecided" in a primary. If you think otherwise, maybe you can post some numbers illustrating what you have in mind.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

104. Thanks for your courteous response. Refreshing.

Yes, I agree, you don't know what category the back-and-forth voter was in in the last pre-election polls. But you would have to admit that surely there would be some evidence or some sort in the exit poll data of the portion that was in the late decider category and there was none.

But...you do know they weren't in the Obama column - because he got the votes he thought he was going to get (in total) and that pollsters thought he would get.

All I am saying here is that every unlikely, un-pre-polled voter went to Hillary. She somehow found 20k votes of people who did not make up their minds at the last minute nor showed up in her own internal polls.

peace

[OnTheOtherHand]

107. I'm not sure what you're saying in part of this

This is serious stuff, you wrote thoughtful posts, and I sure hope I will respond in kind. Sometimes people end up "fighting the last war," if you know what I mean.

"But you would have to admit that surely there would be some evidence or some sort in the exit poll data of the portion that was in the late decider category and there was none."

I'm not sure what this means.

"All I am saying here is that every unlikely, un-pre-polled voter went to Hillary. She somehow found 20k votes of people who did not make up their minds at the last minute nor showed up in her own internal polls."

OK, here I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. Forgive me if this sounds facetious, but it isn't as if 8% (or whatever) of NH Dem voters woke up yesterday morning with a U for Undecided on their foreheads, and had to scrub it off before voting for Hillary en masse. It's more fluid than that. Some Obama leaners came back to Clinton, some people didn't vote, some voted who weren't sure they would, some voted for McCain instead.... It's very messy. (small edits for clarity)

Based on 2004 and 2006, I can predict: People who spend all their time looking at polls generally will try to figure out why the polls got it wrong -- not necessarily because they assume that the vote counts are perfect, but because they are used to polls being wrong. Some people who think they know more about polls, because they know less, will have lots of snarky stuff to say about the first group, and there will be snark wars.

I support mandatory routine post-election vote count audits. I see no reason to think the scanners were hacked, but I also see no reason not to check some of the results (or all, if there turned out to be a good reason to do that).

[Laura PourMeADrink]

175. thank you

I am exhausted, but let me try to explain what I can not reconcile:

I understand the fluidity of indecision during the lead up to the election. But, we have to start at some point. My premise is that because all pre-election polls showed Obama ahead - and the polls were proven right for everyone but Clinton, I am starting with the assumption that the avg of the last pre-election poll is as accurate as you can get. 8.3% (RealPolitics.com). Undecideds averaged 7.7%. Hillary's final election margin 2%.

Based on these numbers, Hillary has to make up 10.3% (8.3 + 2). What I can not reasonably believe is that she could have gotten every last undecided plus 2.6% more. All other candidates matched their pre-election polls - the votes didn't come from there. Hillary's own internals showed Obama leading by 8 suggesting she didn't even know where she'd get the votes either. People that decided at the last minute broke relatively even, according to exits - so she didn't get them there.

The only explanation anyone has offered to all of this is that a contingency of women (20k),who evaded the pollsters, showed up unannounced and voted for Hillary en masse. Your point about fluidity at the poll itself, would make sense to me IF other candidates did not get what they had expected.

[avrdream]

182. Fox news, the only 24 hour American channel we get here in Oz, said

that they had a pre-voting poll that showed it very close. They bragged about being the most accurate poll. I haven't seen it but you may be right that a lot of women weren't polled ahead of time (probably too busy with the kids, the cleaning, the working etc.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

198. let me just try again to point to a faulty premise

I'm not offering this by way of saying what did or didn't happen.

My thought is that (assuming for the sake of argument that the count is accurate) in the parallel universe very close to this one in which Obama wins, we would see people who decided in the last three days break sharply for Obama. That would be the bounce. In this universe, a bunch of those people decide to vote for Clinton instead, so we see the last-three-day deciders (two groups) dividing pretty much evenly.

So, the exit poll result isn't evidence against a late break to Clinton; it is evidence for it, since otherwise we would expect a sharp break to Obama in keeping with the bounce.

I think it's probably also true that turnout among women surged at the last moment, but I don't think it has to be 20,000 women.

[mirrera]

266. Thank you...n/t

[creeksneakers2]

247. A common misperception pushed by conspiracy theorists

The false idea that because one can't explain what happened then the conspiracy theory must be true. This is furthered by the theorist's description that no other explanations exist. Few listeners bother to think about other possible explanations.

Another possible explanation = Hillary voters keep silent about their leanings. Lots of people hate Hillary and I can tell you I sure keep my support for her a secret. I don't want people to hate me or chew me out. Its quite possible that women, out of habit, told pollsters they weren't voting for Hillary when in fact they were. Especially if they had husbands or kids listening.

Sound crazy? The silence of Hillary voters is shown right here. Countless Hillary opponents write, "I don't know anybody who is voting for her." Yet she gets votes.

I could come up with lots more alternative explanations for the swing beside vote rigging.

[grizmaster]

270. Actually exit polls are notoriously inaccurate

It is very difficult to get a truly random sample

[SIMPLYB1980]

48. Clinton won fare and square last night.

Get over it, move on to the next one. Plenty of more primaries to go.

[northzax]

69. this only works if you have the exact same sample

and remember, Obama was riding a wave of press and public adoration, he was first in people's minds on Monday night. So look at the actual numbers. 57% of voters were women, and 60% of women supported Clinton. in order to check this on the previous poll, you would have to see what percentage of likely voters surveyed were women, and skew the poll to show that.

New Hampshire polls are notoriously bad at predicting winners in close races. pretty much the one constant is that the winner of Iowa doesn't win New Hampshire.

[MADem]

299. Unless your name is Kerry. NT

[EFerrari]

119. I don't really understand this. I wish you'd post it as an OP

in the Election Reform forum so someone can explain it to me in small words. lol

[creeksneakers2]

293. Before Iowa Hillary was slightly ahead among a majority of voters

The exit polls showed only a slight lead among last minute deciders for Obama. The slight bounce Obama got wasn't enough to offset Hillary's original lead.

The traditional polls from the last few days showed a big bounce for Obama. The exit polls said there wasn't one. So we can speculate on which one was right but since the exit polls matched the election results its likely that a false bounce was detected. There are dozens of possible explanations for this, courtesy of all the people who got the whole thing completely wrong. I have one myself.

I'm still trying to figure out where the 20,000 number comes from. I heard on the radio that turnout was double what was predicted. So that's more like 100,000 unpolled voters. Hillary only won by 2%.

[RB TexLa]

44. But, but, Rove ... and his Illuminati powers and his machine that controls the weather

that had to have something to do with it.

[SIMPLYB1980]

52. LOL!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :yourock:

[TwilightZone]

49. Thanks, Skinner. It was pretty clear as soon as the exit polls came out that Hillary was ahead.

Women 46-34 Clinton; Men 40-29 Obama

Clinton: +12 with women
Obama: +11 with men

57% of the voters were women. Game over.


Edit: early exit poll reports had it 47-30 Clinton; Men 42-34 Obama. Same situation as above.

[tomp]

50. some other "facts"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads

[Skinner]

55. That's a link to the DU Greatest Page.

:shrug:

[tomp]

167. take 2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4008396

[Vektor]

203. Tee-hee...

I have no idea why I find that so funny.

But I do.

:rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

54. Well this blows the shit out of the chances for another good conspiracy theory

Skinner ...... you're a party pooper.

[TwilightZone]

56. Oh, there will still be plenty of conspiracy theories thrown about.

Don't despair! ;)

[suston96]

57. Exit polls have caused revolutions in recent history......

The Ukraine in 2004(?) and just days ago in Kenya. And maybe others.

In 2000 and in 2004 in this country exit polls were ignored or morphed to look like the actual results, hence their unreliability back then in THIS country.

Obama would not have conceded unless his internals had not been close to the exit polls which reflected the actual results.

[Junkdrawer]

58. Who did the exit polls?

:shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

60. I heard it was

Bev Harris

Or was that Katherine Harris

Or Ed Harris?

Hell, I don't know ............

[walldude]

177. It was that water thingy Ed Harris came in contact with in The Abyss

the water thingy hates Obama.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

116. ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC

National Election Pool Exit Poll, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky. National Election Pool members are ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC

[Junkdrawer]

123. THE Edison/Mitofsky of "correct the exit poll with actual results" fame?

Great.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

61. Geeze. You, sir, are what we would call a spoil sport where I come from

You've nipped all the flame-wars, the poo slinging, and the eventual banning of otherwise good posters right in the bud. Now we'll never get to see the full bloom of DUers cannibalizing each other over an issue that would later have been proved to be false.

Good work! :thumbsup:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

62. Please explain #41 and #59

[Marrah_G]

63. It's been explained a number of times but you will not listen.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

66. no, it hasn't. if you are serious, please answer point by point in

response to 41 and 59. All I hear from you is a generalized "shut up" which makes me
think you can not explain specifically.

[Marrah_G]

94. One last time

The polls are based on Likely Voters- Meaning voters who have voted in past primaries.

MANY voters, especially middle aged women who do not usually vote came out and voted for Hillary.

These voters were NEVER included in the pre-primary polls.

Therefore these women who came out in big numbers and voted for Hillary were never included in the pre-primary polls.

THIS explains the difference in the pre-primary polls and the Results.

If the EXIT polls did not match (as happened in Ohio) THEN there would be cause for concern.

The EXIT polls match the final results.

Do you understand now?

P.S. For note I am NOT a Hillary supporter, but I am a woman from New England and I can easily understand how this happened.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

106. Please, Your condescending tone is not helpful

20k women that every pollster and even Hillary didn't know about in her internals?. Keep on
believing that when the same thing happens in the general. BTW, I am from CT,
and I understand that people believe whatever they want to believe despite
the fact that the chance of happening are one in a million.

[Marrah_G]

115. I am not being condescending

At least not intentionally. I am frustrated by post after post citing inaccurate information and accusing one of our Dems of committing Voter Fraud.

Yes I think they didn't know those 20,000 were going to vote because they never asked them. They only poll LIKELY voters. The influx on not-likely voters is what caused the poll differentials.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

126. As long as you think that it is perfectly logical that ALL

the "unlikely" - 20k - went to Clinton and Clinton alone - no one else - and I think it
is highly unlikely, to say the least - that at least some of them wouldn't have broken to Obama - we are at an impasse. Peace out.

[Marrah_G]

130. I wish you well

[HughMoran]

133. This is ridiculous

I'm putting you on ignore.

[wpdanny]

67. Exit polls are more accurate than actual results!

Thanks for putting this together. Since the 2000 election, media outlets have been scared of (or remiss in) publicizing these results. The republicans railing against exit polls was a key talking point in the theft of that election. All over the world, exit polls are used by monitoring organizations to check for fraud. "Actual" results are invariably those announced by those in power. Hence, as we well know, they may not actually be actual results. The logic is fairly simple: a predictive poll is an inherently speculative exercise before the event happens. An exit poll is a qualitatively different thing, which is why they are so reliable. Most people have no problem telling samplers whom they just voted for (and they're not guessing anymore!). It would take an enormous and coordinated effort to skew a sample by lying to the statisticians, and so it usually doesn't happen. Exit polling proved the fraud in the Ukraine as well as in other well-known cases. It is only in this country that the bad rap put on them by the cheaters has managed to stick.

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. umm, not exactly

Actually, the Carter Center has recommended against using exit polls to check for fraud.

And it's just not that hard for an exit poll to be off.

[Raffi Ella]

68. ah,nice.Thank You.

I'ma keep kicking this the rest of the day if ya' don't mind :bluebox:

[mhatrw]

70. The reason the exit poll matched the actual results is because Edison/Mitofsky

waited for the actual returns to start rolling in and then fine tuned their exit poll percentages to match the early returns. They aren't ever going to make the mistake they made in 2004 (releasing the raw exit poll data to the public while the election was still in doubt) again.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

75. LOL - too neat and tidy NOT to be suspicious

:toast:

[Skinner]

79. Well then, your job is clear.

You need to prove to us that that happened last night in New Hampshire, and that the alleged fine-tuning changed the result of the exit poll.

[Junkdrawer]

82. Will CNN release the raw data?

:shrug:

[Imperialism Inc.]

145. Considering they did exactly that in 2004 I think the burden of proof

is on anyone claiming they aren't doing that any longer.

[mhatrw]

146. All I'm doing is calling the results into question.

If you want to believe that exit polls with a confirmed history of being tweaked to match the results prove there is no question about the accuracy of the black box machine count, feel free.

I have full faith in the hand counted results:

38.73% Obama 22,151
34.81% Clinton 19,907
17.51% Edwards 10,012
05.59% Richardson 3,196
01.84% Kucinich 1,053
01.37% Other 785
00.14% Gravel 80

The machine counted results and the exit polls that are routinely tweaked to match them are suspect. This doesn't mean that the machine counts are necessarily inaccurate. However, it would be nice to have these results confirmed. Wouldn't it?

[youthere]

230. Well isn't it obvious Skinner? Hillary used her mind powers to persuade voters and switch the tally.

DUH.

[JAbuchan08]

272. Sorry skinner, I'd be happy to do just that, and prove myself and every other skeptic wrong

Just, you know, mail me whatever identification I need tomorrow.

[OnTheOtherHand]

81. actually, they waited for the polls to close

because they would be pilloried if they didn't. There is precedent -- okay, not literal, but congressional hearings and all.

The polls in cities closed at 8, and the tabs were posted almost instantly thereafter. Moreover, media outlets were picking facts from the tabs even before 8, so if you seriously think they were mangled between 7 and 8, you should have a shot at finding supporting evidence. If you do that sort of thing.

By the way, also in 2004, the tabs (which are not raw results -- see my post below) were posted almost instantly as polls closed in each state, which was absolutely "while the election was still in doubt." Let's be real.

[mhatrw]

143. No, the polls in the VAST majority of NH cities closed at 7:00.

http://www.sos.nh.gov/polling.htm

And I didn't see the exit polling data go online anywhere until AFTER the election was called.

Remember what Edison/Mitofsky did on election night 2004. They posted the exit polls showing Kerry winning by 3% points, then quickly adjusted them to match the actual election results.

[OnTheOtherHand]

151. the "VAST majority of NH cities" actually are towns

From what I saw, under 10% of the vote was in at 8:00. If you have evidence otherwise, by all means present it.

I don't know what you were looking at, but people were blogging the exit poll tabs in real time.

That said, there probably was time to adjust the tabs to some of those early data before they were posted. All I can say for sure is what I already said: CNN posted the tables very soon after 8:00. (I wasn't monitoring MSNBC in real time, but I know it posted very quickly as well.) And I imagine you can see why they would avoid posting them before the polls closed.

[mhatrw]

169. Well, I didn't see the exit poll tabs blogged in real time myself.

If you have any examples of these blog posts handy, I would love to see them. Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

170. here's one

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/nh_results_thread.php

I didn't have time to look around beyond that.

[mhatrw]

176. Thanks.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/looking_for_new_hampshire_exit.php

By the end of the night, the tabulations will be weighted to the official count.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/exit_polls_what_you_should_kno_1.php

Once the polls close, the interviewer will attempt to obtain actual turnout counts, and if possible, actual vote returns for their precinct from polling place officials. One of the unique aspects of the NEP exit poll design is the way it gradually incorporates real turnout and vote data as it becomes available once the polls close. The exit pollsters have developed weighting schemes and algorithms to allow all sorts of comparisons to historical data that supports the networks as they decide whether to "call" a race for a particular candidate. When all of the votes have been counted, the exit poll is weighted by the vote to match the actual result.

National Review gets it wrong as usual:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjA1YmVlNjc3M2Y3Mzc0MWM2ODc0ZjEwNWQwZDdjNjc=

http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/node/3092

7:21 PM The Clinton campaign says that it doesn't expect a victory tonight and the only question now is the size of the loss. How things have changed in the last month...

7:29 PM With 6% of precincts reporting the Dem numbers are: Obama, 36%; Clinton 36%; Edwards, 17%, Richardson, 5%; Kucinch, 2%

7:42 PM With 8% of precincts reporting here are the Dem numbers: Clinton, 38%; Obama, 36%; Edwards, 17%; Richardson, 4%; Kucinich, 2%

8:04 PM With 11% of precincts reporting here are the Dem numbers: Clinton, 38%; Obama, 36%; Edwards, 17%; Richardson, 4%

8:26 PM With 14% of precincts reporting here are the Dem numbers: Clinton, 40%; Obama, 36%; Edwards, 17%; Richardson, 4%; Kucinich, 2%

9:18 PM With 39% of precincts reportering here are the Dem numbers: Clinton, 39%; Obama 36%; Edwards, 17%; Richardson, 4%; Kucinich, 2%

9:33 PM Interesting fact from exit polling: of the almost 40% of voters who say they made their decisions in the last 3 days, 38% voted for Hillary and 38% voted for Obama. What does that say about Obama's Iowa bounce? What does it say about Hillary's teary moment?

10:19 PM I'm fading. How long do I have to stare at the 39%/36% split between Clinton and Obama? 63% of precincts are reporting and the numbers have remained stable.

10:32 PM NBC is projecting a win for Hillary because of all the lady voters with their pink ballots and adorable dedication to the cheer-ocracy

[OnTheOtherHand]

178. it might also be useful

if you posted the exit poll results (ETA: tabulations, not raw results) that you seemed to think didn't exist. But hey, whatever.

[Imperialism Inc.]

84. That is what I was wondering about.

I'm not all that surprised that a candidate that had been polling way out in front won in NH. I see no need and no evidence for conspiracy theories about it. That said it is pretty well established that Mitofsky "tweaked" the poll results to match the reported outcome in 2004. If that happened here then the analysis in the original post is useless. I suspect that is the case. There was nothing from 2004 that indicated that Mitofsky saw anything wrong with what was done in 2004 and I doubt the practice was changed. I could of course be wrong and I have not done any research on the matter. My only point is lack of transparency in the exit polling process renders any analysis based on it as useless.

[Peace Patriot]

193. Thanks for this, WakingLife. That is my problem, too. Were the exit polls that

Skinner is relying on doctored to fit the results of Diebold's "trade secret" vote counting formula?

In Comment #176, above, Mhatrw posts info that says that Edison-Mitofsky did doctor the exit polls to fit Diebold's results. This makes the exit polls as unreliable as the official results.

--------------

To answer someone's question above, about different demographics in the handcount vs. Diebold/"trade secret" count discrepancies, it is my understanding that Diebold's optiscan system in NH is mostly in urban areas, and that at least some rural areas handcount the vote. I don't know how prevalent handcounting is in the rural areas, and I don't have hard info on this. VerifiedVoting describes NH's system as "optiscan - precinct-based." But I have been unable to find out if this means that the optiscan ballots are actually counted--or just scanned in and turned into electrons in Diebold's highly riggable electronics, with only a 1% check, as in most optiscan states. (1% is miserably inadequate in a "trade secret" vote counting system, with the code owned and controlled by a rightwing Bushite corporation.)

--------------

On another topic, I am astonished at DU posters' willingness to trust either Edison-Mitofsky or Diebold, or any NON-TRANSPARENT process by private corporations in which you are TOLD what the results are, but the public is forbidden to review how that result was achieved.

Let me just briefly explain what happened in FL-13, in '06, with Diebold's brethren corporation ES&S. (ES&S was a spinoff of Diebold--similar computer architecture--with the initial funder and major investor being far rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things.) ES&S optiscan machines 'disappeared' 18,000 votes for Congress in Democratic areas, in an '06 election that was 'won' by the Republican (naturally) by only about 350 votes. When the lawyers for the Democrat (Christine Jennings) took the matter to court, and asked to review ES&S's "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY code, in order to figure out what happened to those 18,000 votes, ES&S REFUSED and argued that their right to profit from our elections (and, evidently, to steal our elections) trumps the right of the voters to know how their votes were counted, even in a highly suspicious election such as FL-13. And the Jeb judge agreed--not surprisingly, I suppose. ES&S and Diebold now OWN our elections, and we have NO RIGHTS ANYMORE WITHIN OUT ELECTION SYSTEM. Zilch. Gone. Diebold and ES&S rule.

These are bad, bad people--whom some DUers are trusting to count our votes with secret code. But the most bewildering part of it to me is that our so-called Democratic Congress--which has the power to right this wrong, in FL-13, as well as in our election system in general--has done nothing--NOTHING!--about it. They let it stand--18,000 'disappeared' votes! They, too, apparently feel that corporations' "trade secrets" trump the right of voters to transparent vote counting. I find this mind-boggling. And it explains a lot of our difficulty in restoring transparent vote counting. It was a bipartisan coup against democracy. We are having to fight Democratic powers, as well as Republican powers, to restore bottom-line election integrity.

To get back to the immediate situation, it is, of course, in the interest of people who share Hillary's Clinton's pro-corporate, pro-war views to ridicule anyone with reasonable and justifiable objections to 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting by Bushite corporations--and to try to marginalize us, and ban us, and silence us, for our suspicions about this 'Stalinist' vote counting system. This doesn't surprise me. But ridicule, marginalization and silencing don't answer our reasonable questions, and clearly evade the big question....

WHY is there any uncertainty?

Why do we have a vote counting system in which most of the votes are never counted, thus contributing to vast uneasiness--ESPECIALLY in the circumstance of a surprising win by a rightwing, pro-corporate, pro-war candidate, in a country in which 70% of the people oppose the war, and a party in which 80% to 90% oppose the war, with big numbers also, within the party, on issues of corporate rule?

It is a highly suspicious circumstance. And nothing that Edison-Mitofsky could say about it would ever allay my suspicions of both their exit poll practices and Diebold/ES&S's "TRADE SECRET" code. Both processes are secret, private, corporate activities.

The corporate rulers and war profiteers have every reason in the world to want Hillary in the White House, and to prevent anyone who even hints at real reform from achieving that powerful position. They have a problem--the $10 trillion deficit they've run up, with their heinous corporate resource war and multiple tax cuts for the super-rich. The question is: who is going to pay for this deficit? Their problem is: how are they going to make the poor and the middle class pay for it, without a serious rebellion? Answer: put a Democrat in the White House, with a veneer of liberalism, who will fool people long enough to protect their ungodly profits.

That's my political outlook on the situation, and, yeah, my political views do, indeed, contribute to my suspicious about what Diebold would do for its fascist brethren--entirely apart from what Hillary herself or her aides, advisers or big contributors might do. (Note on her adviser Penn & Schoen: They did a false poll on Venezuela's last presidential election, that was supposed to be used in combination with another rightwing coup attempt. The plot got exposed, and even the rightwing opposition candidate had to publicly disavow it--but I just wanted to mention it as an example of the lack of ethics of some of Hillary's advisers.)

Is it not reasonable to be suspicious when rightwing voting machine companies, using secret code, turn out a result that favors rightwing polices of war and corporate rule? I think it is. But beyond this, WHY IS THERE ANY DOUBT? WHY? I think it's nuts NOT to doubt, given the lack of transparency. Politics aside, it's common sense. I would probably be less suspicious if Edwards had won--and maybe if Obama had won. But, as I've said elsewhere today, it would give me pause. I would wonder if they had sold out to the corporate rulers. I would want to know the facts. And I would side with Hillary--despite my big political disagreements with her--if I concluded that Diebold had cheated her on their behalf. I want TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING. I want every vote counted IN PUBLIC VIEW. There is only one purpose for non-transparent, secret vote counting, and that is to defraud the public of their rightful choices. There is no other reason to have such a system. It is a fraudulent SYSTEM. And it appears to me, from what I've read so far, that it has, once again, produced a fraudulent result.

And the "middle aged women who never vote" who supposedly came out for Hillary, making up the magical difference, are just too much like Dick Cheney's and Karl Rove's "invisible get-out-the-vote campaign in the churches" in 2004. No evidence for it, as there is no evidence for these 20,000 mysterious women voters--and yet it is swallowed hole by the media, and by some DUers.

And here we are again, eh?

WHY is there any uncertainty?

Answer me that. Show me the counting of the ballots in public view, and I will shut up. How can Democrats defend anything less?

[Tiberius]

197. I could not have said it better myself

PLEASE, DUers who are accepting the exit polls and machine counted votes, PLEASE WAKE UP!

[balantz]

209. Secret shit doesn't cut it with me anymore.

I have every right to be suspicious and to want openness and accuracy after what has been going down in this country!

[mirrera]

268. Thank you...n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. Skinner, I'm sorry to have to disagree a bit

The first exit poll tabulations posted gave Obama, not Clinton, a small lead.

However, this does not mean that Obama "led in the exit poll." The initial tabulations should be weighted to match a "composite estimate" that combines exit poll data with pre-election expectations. The pre-election expectation probably was that Obama would win by 6 points or more.

At this moment at least, I do not know what the 'raw' exit poll data actually showed, and probably no one else posting to this damn* thread knows either. However, it is quite plausible that the raw data showed Clinton with a narrow lead; "splitting the difference" between that and pre-election expectations would give Obama a narrow lead.

Regardless, an exit poll sample is not a precision instrument. The difference between, say, Obama +2 and Clinton +2 is well within the survey's margin of error even if everything goes perfectly -- which, in New Hampshire, I've seen no evidence that it ever does. NH exit polls have often been way off -- including in the 2004 general election, where a manual recount of over 50,000 votes supported the original result (and where the exit polls' double-digit Kerry "win" never did make sense).

*ETA: No offense to you; I just like to imagine a world beyond this particular argument, over and over and over....

[Hoof Hearted]

76. Don't confuse us with LOGIC. We're too busy rounding up scapegoats, witches and boogeymen.

space aliens
chemtrails
bigfoot
ghosts
flouride
the Loch Ness Monster
mind control rays

You know, IMPORTANT things.

[rudy23]

201. If those things had all happened in '00, '02, '04, and '06, you bet we'd be rounding them up

as it stands, the difference between those things, and a Diebold manipulated election, is that the elections are REAL EVENTS that have happened continually over the last 8 years.

Or do you think the Gonzo DOJ Atty firing scandal was a big conspiracy, too.

[Joe Chi Minh]

311. Don't force them to think.

[Tiggeroshii]

83. The exit poll numbers weren't released until after the results were in, right?

Don't they change these numbers around to reflect the actual results traditionally? And isn't that what they did in Ohio after the exit polls didn't match?

Here's something from Bradblog that caught my eye:

UPDATE 9:40pm PT: While the talking heads are trying to figure out what happened here on MSNBC, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, while paging through a stack of papers said to be Exit Poll data, just said: "Of those who made up their mind in the last three days, there was a slight favoring for Obama. If there was a huge difference in a move to Hillary, in the last three days, it doesn't seem to be reflected in the Exit Polling."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530

[Junkdrawer]

86. The announced job of exit polls is to analyze voter trends...

It would make perfect sense, then, for the polls to be "corrected" by actual results.

This would, of course, make them useless for verifying the legitimacy of the official results.

[OnTheOtherHand]

96. mostly wrong (with respect)

The first tabs were posted almost immediately after polls in the big cities closed at 8. Some vote totals were in at that point, but the vast majority were not. Skinner doesn't have those first numbers, which gave Obama a slight lead -- consistent with Clinton being ahead in the interview data while Obama had a considerable margin in pre-election expectations. AFAIK no one here knows just what the raw data show, but all evidence I've seen indicates that they showed a close race within the margin of error.

Likewise in Ohio in 2004, the first tabs were posted almost immediately after the polls closed (except for the ones that stayed open due to special injunctions).

Arguably a huge break to Hillary is shown in the lack of a big Obama bounce in decisions in the last week. Look at the three categories together. Maybe a few-point break to Obama, crudely consistent with where the polls were before Iowa. Looks like lots of people who were about to decide late for Obama decided for Clinton instead.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

90. What on earth... ?

Are the conspiraloons accusing the Democratic Party of stealing its own Primary Elections?

[Junkdrawer]

91. The Democratic Party doesn't count its own votes...

Common misconception.

[AngryAmish]

92. What are the odds of that??

10000 to 1??

A little too perfect if you ask me.

[BigDDem]

93. Coming soon:

Diebold fixed the exit polls!

[uppityperson]

95. But that's not fair! You ruined my fears, wahhhhh. (thanks for this post) nt

[Khaotic]

97. CNN Wouldn't Talk About Exit Poll Info ...

until after the voting was over.

What the hell?

We know that the 4 p.m. EST exit polls had Kerry way ahead in 2004. Then they put an end to that.

To this day we STILL haven't seen the raw exit polls from after 4 p.m. The data that was released was mixed w/ the skewed data from the hacked machines in 2004.

So, today we no longer get ANY info until after the polls are closed. Just pre-election polls.

In a nutshell, CNN purposely matched the exist poll info to match the hacked results from the Diebold machines.

It's coming unhindged on Brad Blog.

Check it out.

It's going to be up to the legions of Obama supporters who know for a fact that they voted for Barack, not Hillary.

Someone will have to expose this.

It's no more acceptable in the Democratic Party than it is in the Republican Party.

No way, no way, no way, no way, that HUGE crowds turn out for Obama, the pre-election polls are spot on for EVERY candidate EXCEPT for Obama and Clinton.

It makes no sense and is illogical. To try to make sense of it you have to toss logic out the window. You have to try to convince yourself that hacking didn't happen.

Even Clinton thought she was going to lose.

But I guess she'll take what she can get regardless of how she gets it, even if it's handed to her in an underhanded way.

If there are ANY DU'rs out there that were posting up Anti-Diebold graphics here, and now since you're a Hillbot, there's no way hacking could take place for your candidate ... let me tell you, it has taken place.

No way hacking took place here in Iowa where warm bodies are counted by real people, not Diebold machines.

Straight up ... people need to get their heads out of their asses and see reality.

[Marrah_G]

101. "Straight up ... people need to get their heads out of their asses and see reality."

Yes... please take your own advice.

:eyes:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

105. Spot on. See #104.

[EFerrari]

108. Am I getting this right?

We don't get any exit poll information until there is a result to match.

And, NH exit polls have a bad track record.

And, the pre election polls were right for everyone but Clinton.

I don't think I understand what Laura is saying about the 20K people yet.

[creeksneakers2]

249. They didn't substantially change the results of exit polling

because ABC News announced at 8:00 PM, the moment the polls closed, that it was too close to call. It ended up being too close to call. If data was recalculated after results started coming in, it would weight to correct the sample, not change individual precinct vote counts.

Say they polled in two precincts and believed 100 people would vote in each. Say the first precint was 60/40 Obama and the second precint was 60/40 Hillary. So the race would look like a tie. But they find out that actually 200 people voted in the second (60/40 Hillary) precinct. Recalculating, they'd double the weight of the Hillary precinct and come out with projected:

140 Obama / 160 Hillary.

I don't have a clue where the 20,000 number comes from either. It makes no sense to me. I know that turnout was way way higher than the pollsters expected. One couldn't determine how many extra people showed up without knowing how many the pollsters initially predicted would show up.

[mondo joe]

113. I wish more people would take off their tin foil and see reality.

Get out in the world. Expand your horizons.

[EFerrari]

135. You mean, like the New York Times?

Can You Count on Voting Machines?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

[mondo joe]

138. Good point! Maybe Diebold overstated Obama;s votes and Hillary's win was

really MUCH MUCH bigger.

[EFerrari]

140. How would we know? We trust them?

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

141. No, we just believe whatever we want and anything that runs contrary to our

opinion is a conspiracy.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

144. Why do we need to rely on belief? This an election

not a religious service.

[mondo joe]

147. But what seems to happen is a reliance on belief regardless of anything else.

Exit polling parallels the vote? Must be part of the conspiracy.

For the record, I hate Diebold, and I think a countable paper ballot is a must.

But that's not what we have in some locales at this time. But I'm less antsy about it when the results are aligned with other data - like exit polls.

People who don't want to accept the results would do the same with hand counting - they'd accuse the reporters or counters with being in on the scam.

[EFerrari]

150. Remember that the exit poll in 2004 was so far off,

the vote was recounted?

[foo_bar]

157. no, you're actually remembering a fictional narrative (repost)

A manual recount of eleven precincts was completed on Tuesday, November 30, 2004. The differences between the original machine counts and the hand counts were minimal and statistically insignificant. Sometimes "odd numbers" reflect reality, and in New Hampshire, apparently that's just the way things are: larger population centers appear to be trending conservative (Republican), while the rest of the state appears to be trending liberal (Democrat). There are a few more things that should be double checked (just as a matter of eliminating the obvious), but it appears the will of the majority of people was appropriately represented in New Hampshire.

This double check would not have been possible if it weren't for the systems New Hampshire has in place, with the most important thing being A PAPER TRAIL, followed closely by a clear system that involved double and triple checking each step of the recount. Every official I spoke with made it perfectly clear the goal of a recount was to make sure every candidate was comfortable with the results, no matter what the results ended up being. As both an observer and a participant, I was impressed with the dedication and deliberate transparency built into the recount process by the New Hampshire Secretary of State and his team. It was frankly extremely tedious work, but every person worked to insure the voter's intent was honored. It was one of the most inspiring displays of patriotism I have ever seen in my life; I watched democracy in action, and it was ... beautiful. Tedious, but beautiful. <smile>

I don't know how to ever thank Ralph Nader and his team; without them, the whole thing would never have happened, and I believe questions would have been left in the minds of many (as questions still remain for some regarding an election in 2002, and results of the 2004 presidential primary). While this exercise does not mean equipment in other states is free of defect, it validates the integrity of the voting systems in New Hampshire. I personally appreciate the fact the Nader ticket stepped up to do something that hadn't EVER been done in New Hampshire before: validate the results of a presidential election. If there is a perception of a problem, there's a problem, and only Ralph Nader was willing to address this issue. Oh, and one of his people observed a potential weakness in the recount process, provided a simple suggestion for correcting it, which was immediately adopted, and I think is now going to become standard practice -- how is that for being around when history is made? Again, THANK YOU RALPH NADER!!!

http://web.archive.org/web/20041206114456/http://www.in... (DUer InvisibleIda)

[OnTheOtherHand]

158. well, it's true that there was a partial recount

And it's probably true that it was partly because of the exit polls, although the exit polls surely didn't dictate Ida's analysis about which returns were suspicious.

What puzzles me is: Does sfexpat interpret the recount results as evidence that the exit polls were wrong? If not, why not?

[EFerrari]

168. Which part is fictional? Your post shows there was a recount.

What triggered the recount?

[foo_bar]

171. I didn't dispute the existence of a recount, only "they had to do a recount"

In 2004, the NH exit poll was so wrong, they had to do a recount. n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218#2641316

This statement is only correct if "had to" is changed to "wanted to" ("New Hampshire was chosen for the study due to the relatively small sample size" -http://www.invisibleida.com/New_Hampshire.htm">Ida), and "they" is expanded to mean "Nader et al." and not the state of NH as implied by "the NH exit poll was so wrong, they had to do a recount". A more accurate statement would be, "the NH exit poll was so wrong, some people became suspicious, culminating in a Nader-sponsored recount which found no statistically significant discrepancies".

What triggered the recount?

Nader’s recount request came in as a fax at 4:59 p.m., one minute before the deadline.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041106/NEWS02/111060040/-1/news

If I may be so bold:

Does sfexpat interpret the recount results as evidence that the exit polls were wrong? If not, why not?

[EFerrari]

174. I have no problem with your revision. It does seem more accurate to me, too.

"the NH exit poll was so wrong, some people became suspicious, culminating in a Nader-sponsored recount which found no statistically significant discrepancies"

with the end of the statement being "between the original vote count and the recount".

Now, I have to go back and read because I wasn't really paying attention to New Hampshire at the time. It would be nice if Ida checked in.

My stake in this isn't the primaries but the GE. The candidates I prefer will likely not get the nod, so I won't be working a campaign but election protection, fyi.

[Joe Chi Minh]

313. So you think voters should prefer to believe in Diebold than in what

they KNOW with irrefragable certainty about Diebold's fraudulent role in past elections. How dumb is that?

If they did that with hand-counting, assuming the integrity of the chain of custody and every other aspect (which, in the US, might indeed be unduly sangine), then they might arguably be ridiculed on the basis of partisan judgement. But in non-transparent elections - never mind about Diebold's contribution - only a dolt would seek to ridicule a doubter-in-principle. You've got some learning to do about matters which should be pretty elementary to all DUers by now. It is absolutely, incumbent on the government to prove the integrity of elections under their aegis. As Peace Patriot pointed out, any non-transparent election is inherently fraudulent by definition.

[LostinVA]

228. Yes, and that's a GOOD thing

Exit poll results posted prematurely can affect voting.

Clinton won fair and square.

[DeepModem Mom]

99. Thanks again, Skinner -- K&R.

[sojourner]

100. thank you very much for this.......n/t

[Maven]

109. THANK YOU

Now maybe the partisans trying to hijack the anti-fraud effort will give it a rest.

[malaise]

112. 100% correct

That's why I called the election for Hillary last night. Exit polls are accurate but don't tell MSM and Bushco re Ohio 2004.

[EFerrari]

117. In 2004, the NH exit poll was so wrong, they had to do a recount. n/t

[eowyn_of_rohan]

131. Damn! Good thing they didn't let THAT happen again!

;)

[defendandprotect]

280. FIXED it right this time!!!

Suspicions, but no solutions like recounts!!!

[defendandprotect]

281. FIXED it right this time!!!

Suspicions, but no solutions like recounts!!!

[foo_bar]

152. correction: Nader wanted to do a recount, and exit polls were never cited as a reason

A manual recount of eleven precincts was completed on Tuesday, November 30, 2004. The differences between the original machine counts and the hand counts were minimal and statistically insignificant. Sometimes "odd numbers" reflect reality, and in New Hampshire, apparently that's just the way things are: larger population centers appear to be trending conservative (Republican), while the rest of the state appears to be trending liberal (Democrat). There are a few more things that should be double checked (just as a matter of eliminating the obvious), but it appears the will of the majority of people was appropriately represented in New Hampshire.

This double check would not have been possible if it weren't for the systems New Hampshire has in place, with the most important thing being A PAPER TRAIL, followed closely by a clear system that involved double and triple checking each step of the recount. Every official I spoke with made it perfectly clear the goal of a recount was to make sure every candidate was comfortable with the results, no matter what the results ended up being. As both an observer and a participant, I was impressed with the dedication and deliberate transparency built into the recount process by the New Hampshire Secretary of State and his team. It was frankly extremely tedious work, but every person worked to insure the voter's intent was honored. It was one of the most inspiring displays of patriotism I have ever seen in my life; I watched democracy in action, and it was ... beautiful. Tedious, but beautiful. <smile>

I don't know how to ever thank Ralph Nader and his team; without them, the whole thing would never have happened, and I believe questions would have been left in the minds of many (as questions still remain for some regarding an election in 2002, and results of the 2004 presidential primary). While this exercise does not mean equipment in other states is free of defect, it validates the integrity of the voting systems in New Hampshire. I personally appreciate the fact the Nader ticket stepped up to do something that hadn't EVER been done in New Hampshire before: validate the results of a presidential election. If there is a perception of a problem, there's a problem, and only Ralph Nader was willing to address this issue. Oh, and one of his people observed a potential weakness in the recount process, provided a simple suggestion for correcting it, which was immediately adopted, and I think is now going to become standard practice -- how is that for being around when history is made? Again, THANK YOU RALPH NADER!!!

http://web.archive.org/web/20041206114456/http://www.invisibleida.com (DUer InvisibleIda)

[Elspeth]

114. Thanks, Skinner.

It is amazing that we have the Obama fans claiming all kinds of voter fraud when there is no problem with the exit polls. I was listening to NPR last night, and there were towns where CLinton beat Obama by only 2, 3, or 4 votes in small towns of 100 or 200 people. This falls right into the 2% figure that we saw last night. It's a tiny win, but it's a win.

[book_worm]

118. Thanks for sanity

[Didereaux]

120. Now if only conspiricists would take their meds!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

128. right and the "keep you head in the sand"'s take some uppers. nt

[eowyn_of_rohan]

129. You mean like the rest, who take their SOMA like good citizens?

"...Soma provides a mindless, inauthentic "imbecile happiness" - a vacuous escapism which makes people comfortable with their lack of freedom. The drug heightens suggestibility, leaving its users vulnerable to government propaganda. Soma is a narcotic that raises "a quite impenetrable wall between the actual universe and their minds." (Brave New World - Aldous Huxley)


...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

[Hatchling]

121. k&r

[Freddie Stubbs]

124. Isn't that just proof that CNN is in on this scam?

;)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

127. Nope. I think that is why they held out on a declaration. They

didn't believe 20k unlikely voters suddenly all decided to vote and all decided to
vote for Clinton and no one else.

[ProudDad]

125. "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"

No matter. The fix is still in and the 2008 election will be won (again) by the corporate capitalist masters.

Work locally to survive the coming collapse.

[Blue_In_AK]

132. Thanks, Skinner...

Some people have been a bit irrational around here. I for one am rather pleased that someone other than Obama won this round. It gives some of us later voters more incentive to turn out and vote our consciences. I for one was feeling steamrolled by the Obamamania. It's good to bring him and his followers back to earth a bit, IMO.

[ThePhilosopher04]

134. Exit polls prove nothing...

considering they can easily be manipulated as well. I've lost all confidence in our ability to hold a fair election in this country.

[defendandprotect]

283. and that may be the beginning of solving this problem of stolen elections --- !!!

I've lost all confidence in our ability to hold a fair election in this country.

[madokie]

136. I'm glad to know that, thanks

[helderheid]

139. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2640000&mesg_id=2640000

[HughMoran]

142. Thanks so much for posting this

Someone posted this last night in GD:P but apparently it didn't get enough exposure.

[Time for change]

148. Are you sure those aren't "adjusted" exit polls?

In 2004 (and as far as I know, in all elections), the exit polls that are presented to the public are "adjusted" to fit the official election returns when the vast majority of the returns are in.

The CNN exit polls presented on TV in 2004 showed Kerry ahead in Ohio all day, until shortly after midnight. Then suddenly, they switched by several percentage points and showed Bush ahead, reflecting the "adjusted" polls, i.e. the official results. The unadjusted polls were taken off line and were then permanently unavailable.

[Marrah_G]

153. No- even the earlier exit polls were surprising

I know people desperately want the results to be wrong, but they aren't. NH is a funny place when it comes to votes.

This is very different from '04.

There are 48 states left. People are acting as if she has stolen the whole thing. They don't care what accusations of voter fraud does to our party, just as long as THEIR guy wins. Well, I for one am staying on the side of reality and will continue to support John Edwards in his fight for the WH.

[Time for change]

156. I wasn't making any accusations

I was just asking if the exit polls that Skinner referred to could have been "adjusted" ones. That would not imply fraud, it's simply the way that exit polls are presented my major TV outlets. Adjusted exit polls do not reflect the percentage of the vote that the unadjusted exit polls initially indicate. They are adjusted to fit the official count, so their only value is to show the relative demographic preferences, not as a check on the official count, as the unadjusted exit polls are.

[Marrah_G]

162. Sorry for being so short tempered.

I think I just ran out of patience earlier this morning. I apologize.

:hi:

[Time for change]

164. No problem

I didn't note much temper there anyhow.
:hi:

[OnTheOtherHand]

155. Tfc

The results I saw at oh 8:02 or so had Obama up maybe 1 1/2 points. At that point, something under 10% of votes were in. That could be enough to do some reweighting. Certainly not "the vast majority of the returns." By 9 or so the tabs were weighted the other way. (Still not "the vast majority of the returns." ETA: But enough to see which way the numbers were heading.)

So, the premise of the OP is incorrect.

(As you know, I don't think there is anything sinister about the original tabs being unavailable -- whatever one makes of the exit poll discrepancies.)

[Time for change]

160. If I understand you correctly OTOH, you're saying that you believe that

the exit polls that Skinner referred to were adjusted to fit the official count?

[OnTheOtherHand]

161. more or less, yes

I think the tabulation was updated, probably soon before 9 PM, to reflect a projection based on the vote counts available at that time. (ETA: And I think those are Skinner's numbers, unless Skinner is using slightly different later numbers. But qualitatively, anyone who checked CNN after 9 would have seen about what Skinner describes.)

[Usrename]

163. Do you have any idea why they couldn't make a projection?

There is a three percent spread and they couldn't make any projection until over half the votes were in.

Why do you think that is?

[OnTheOtherHand]

166. because that is very close

A three-point margin? Even the nominal margin of error if we pretended this was a simple random sample -- and assumed that it was unbiased -- and used 95% confidence -- would be much bigger than that. If you're referring to the exit poll data.

Why did they need to wait for half of votes to come in? I'm less sure of that because I wasn't trying to model the vote in real time. But why rush to call such a close race?

[unc70]

187. That is my guess, too.

I was posting about this late, late last night. I don't know what happened last night and hope that there is a benign explanation. But I have the credentials, experience, and enough objectivity (I support Edwards) that I can testify that the exit-poll data I can found are inadequate to make _any_ statement concerning the validity and reliability of the election. If the exit polls have been weighted to match the tabulations and some of the electorate profile (gender, race), then the exit polls would too-closely match the final results. This has always been the problem with adjusted/weighted exit polls.

I heard MSNBC (?) comment as Obama was coming in for his speech that Obama was not experiencing what Kerry experienced, believing up until the very last moment that he was winning only to lose. (I suspect his surprisingly-upbeat speech was written expecting a large victory and modified at the last minute.) While Obama spoke, I did a quick search and found that the election integrity activists in New England have been shouting their concerns about NH (and MA and CT) because a single "Diebold" affiliate (LSH Associates) through outsourcing controls the counting of 81% of NH ballots with almost no oversight. The scanners they use are the same model hacked in the movie "Hacking Democracy".

Now fully awake, I spent several hours looking more-closely at the counts and the polling, but was stymied because all the exit polls I could find appeared to have been "adjusted". I am just getting back to DU, so maybe others have already sorted this out. I don't have enough information yet to even guess what happened, but prudence requires further auditing and validation. If I see something like this in reasearch or SCADA data, double-check everything in each step until I was certain what was going on.

I have great respect for the OP, but strongly disagree that the exit polls prove or disprove anything. We need to calmly and methodically examine the polls, the election process, and everything else. At the least, the voters made a strong statement that was undetected by the polling or which happened quickly and at the last second.



Below is a bit more from last night:


I agree that the NH results seem strange, but we don't yet have enough data to determine whether the NH voters (particularly
Independents) changed their minds at the last minute somehow, or all the polls including exit polls were flawed, or there is
something seriously wrong with the tabulation, or maybe there is something else. For the moment, I want us to examine these
results very carefully and with adequate skepticism.

My background is software, security, data analysis, and data validation and I have been active in ensuring election
integrity for some time. I support Edwards and did not expect him to do much better than he did tonight so this isn't sour
grapes for me. Something really strange happened today, something very important, and something we must identify quickly.
Whether the election was hacked or the voters just told us something important; either way, we ignore this at great peril.

We really need access to the raw exit poll data. That would allow a variety of cross validation rules to check for anomalies
-- sampling biases at the precinct level, time-of-day differences, reasonableness checks against precinct rolls and results.

SNIP

Did the percentages match before final results reported, or were they "adjusted"
to match the final results. That has been a problem many times; the exit polls are "forced" to make the totals match the
final vote results with the goal of removing certain sampling biases. For example, if the percent of women in the poll
sample differ from that of the poll signin, then you might weight the polling data to "correct" for this difference between
the sample and the population.

Unfortunately, they also adjust these weights so that their sample results by candidate are forced to match the tabulated
votes; this results in the adjusted exit polls suddenly matching the tabulated results. This would be a valid adjustment if
you are looking at the opinion questions. But it completely frustrates any attempts to detect election fraud while providing
plenty of "reasons" to explain what might have happened. That is why you really need the raw exit data in order to do any
serious auditing of the anomalies.

[OnTheOtherHand]

239. hi, I didn't see this before

I place a much higher priority on jurisdiction-level analysis of the vote counts, historically, than on exit poll data. In NH that might be somewhat less true, but there are just a lot more vote counts than there are exit poll data, and the exit poll data are subject to all sorts of noise. I'm not sure how many precincts were exit-polled -- perhaps 40 or 50 -- that might give some hints, but add a few confounds, and you are in for a rough time of it.

I haven't had time yet to 'inhale' the data and form any back-of-the-envelope opinions.

ETA: Whoops, I'm tired and distracted -- I forgot to say, that's the one thing in your post I didn't agree with. Otherwise I'm pretty much in agreement, although honestly I have somewhat less sense of urgency than you do. But unexplained anomalies aren't good.

[unc70]

301. Totally agree. Urgency because they are used everywhere this cycle

The exit polling system used in NH is what we will be seeing through the GE. Because of the various adjustments/weightings it makes (incrementally), we aren't likely to see even partial results that are unadjusted. In 2004, I don't think they adjusted to reported results until maybe 90% reporting. I remember it was late when the reported counts and the exit polls suddenly changed in ways that could not be explained by the relatively few additional votes being included. Now they will be adjusting all through the evening as results are reported for polled precincts. No abrupt changes, no messy loose ends, every crosstab just where it "should" be, nothing to worry about, nothing to see. Now move along with your crackpot theories.

Agree about preferred place to audit. Just knowing the demographics at the precinct level can help identify suspicious results. Explaining a 6% red shift in results (all Dems at state/local, while voting Bush for Pres 2004) as being Reagan Democrats just doesn't ring true for a precinct that is over 80% black.

BTW Have you looked at the 2005 revisions to NC election law? Any thoughts? Because in 2004 NC had almost every type of failure and some hurt the Repubs, we were able to fix a lot of problems. We still allow DRE with VV paper trails (plus opscan and handcount), but NC requires mandatory audits, disclosure of source code to state and party officials, and various other safeguards. Still have some issues with DRE even with VVPT, and I wish for more-aggressive auditing and recount rules. But think we did pretty well.

(have enjoyed the discussion)

[OnTheOtherHand]

302. a few loose ends

As I was saying to someone else, the fact that the polls close in NH at different times is pretty consequential for what we will see in the tabulations. After what happened in 2000, I doubt any network would post Florida tabs before polls close in the Panhandle; I equally doubt that any network would post NH tabs before Nashua closes. That means, in both cases, that there is time to update the projection and, subsequently, the tabs before they are posted.

However, on a general election night (and perhaps on Super Tuesday), with many state elections in play, updating projections and deciding whether/when to make calls probably takes most of the available brainpower. Updating tabulations is a lower priority. In NH in 2004, it appears that the tab wasn't updated until much later. The tab that is archived at exitpollz.org appears to match the composite estimate (Kerry +11) -- it is a compromise between the exit poll data (Kerry +15) and the pre-election expectations (I don't know exactly, but Kerry by a bit). Already in the afternoon, the pollsters had warned the subscribers that they didn't trust a bunch of their numbers including the NH ones, but they still ran their tabs off the composites.

Now, you wrote:

The exit polling system used in NH is what we will be seeing through the GE. Because of the various adjustments/weightings it makes (incrementally), we aren't likely to see even partial results that are unadjusted.

I disagree with that, if the adjustments you have in mind here are adjustments to vote counts. I think we will continue to see tabs posted when the last polls close in each state, as we did also in 2006. In most states, which have uniform poll closing times, that timing affords no opportunity for adjustments. (Note, however, that the tabs run off composite estimates, not Best Geos, so they never provide a window directly into the exit poll data alone.)

As to whether they will update the tabulations more frequently, that may be; I don't think it matters much.

I find it ironic that the networks are sometimes subjected to cries of "cover-up" because we have more access to exit poll results than ever in our lives. Lots of people pontificate about how accurate exit poll results used to be, but the fact is, we weren't sitting around in 1992 watching the exit numbers come in. There's a weird situation where some people who have never in their lives seen exit poll data in real time are far more sanguine about their accuracy than the people who conduct the exit polls. Unfortunately, even Skinner is on the wrong side of this. A little more realism about the exit polls would go a long way!

----

I haven't read all the changes to NC law. The audit provision seems very subjective to me, but from what I've seen, the sample size and design decisions have been reasonable. I think there are some concerns about how the sample is drawn; IMO it should be done in public, using transparently random methods, very soon before the audit counts begin.

[unc70]

320. Incremental adjusting exit polls as precincts report

The point I was trying to make was wrt just when in the evening the exit poll data would be re-weighted to make the polled sample match the tabulated vote counts. In 2004, most of those adjustments were done well past midnight with nearly all precincts reporting.

If I understand the new system, it is doing somes type of reweighting of sample results incrementally, probably some at the sample-precinct level (maybe gender, party, tabulated votes) and others as votes are aggregated (county, district, state). I assume that they now use non-uniform weighting, maybe derived by multi-dimensional-scaling techniques to reduce and deform the N-space. Or maybe they just run some crosstabs. :)

No matter how they are adjusting it, none of the exit polling data is very useful once it is contaminated by the tabulated results.

[OnTheOtherHand]

322. just to make sure one point is clear

In a state with a uniform poll-closing time, if the tabs are posted as polls close, it (presumably) isn't possible for them to be contaminated by vote counts -- no matter how often they reweight the tabs. Of course that was not the situation in New Hampshire.

If you're trying to use the tabs to verify the election outcome, then indeed they aren't very useful once the vote counts start to mix in. Since even the first tabs also incorporate pre-election expectations, there never is a tab that is very useful for verifying election outcomes. Personally I don't think this is a great loss, but at any rate, there it is.

[unc70]

332. We might have a slight confusion with the terms we are each using

I am confused by what you mean by "tabs" in this context.

As I use the terms, "tabulated results" are the counted votes of actual ballots produced by a population of the voters that day in a jurisdiction. It that jurisdiction is exit polled, you have a sample drawn from that population (non-uniformly and with biases) which could be adjusted in various ways to compensate somewhat for obvious difference between the sample and the population.

If the sample data is ever adjusted to more-closely match the proportion of tabulated votes by candidate, then the exit polls are made useless wrt election integrity.

[OnTheOtherHand]

338. OK

What I mean by "tabs" are the tables, posted on various network sites, from which we outsiders attempt to glimpse what the underlying estimates are.

Your "tabulated results" influence the contemporaneous estimates or projections, which in turn intermittently influence the tabs.

I wasn't time-stamping vote counts or anything, but there were already more than a handful available at 8:00. I have to assume that those influenced the contemporaneous estimate. Whether they influenced the tabs that were posted on the networks, I cannot tell.

Bottom line:

If the sample data is ever adjusted to more-closely match the proportion of tabulated votes by candidate, then the exit polls are made useless wrt election integrity.

Well, the data are the data, and we don't see them (until later, when they are archived). The tabs are the tabs, and they are never based on exit poll data alone -- but they certainly can't be used to analyze discrepancies once they are adjusted to match the official count. So, I think we basically agree.

[screembloodymurder]

149. Why were so many more women included in the sample?

Is that representative of the voting population? Just asking, I would have expected a 50/50 split, but I don't have any statistical background.

[grizmaster]

269. More women are in the population and are weighted to match

If I remember right it's 57% women in the NH Dem party

[NeedleCast]

154. Awwww, Come on Skinner!

With logic and facts like that you don't leave much room for the 100-ish threads that will claim election fraud, space alien manipulation or whatever the tin foil soup de jour is.

[balantz]

159. I'd like to believe all is fairly and accurately conducted,

as we would all like to have that security. But with all of the terrible misinformation and right-wing skew by the corporate owned media over these last several years, I have a vey difficult time accepting anything they conduct as being the truth. Who can tell me absolutely that the exit polls, or any of the polls, can be verified as being truthful? Is there any non-corporate group that has no financial interest in the outcome of elections monitoring these polls for accuracy? Or is it solely the operation of CNN and the others listed?

[sam kane]

165. Skinner, why so much faith in Edison/Mitofsky?

As someone already said, "Remember what Edison/Mitofsky did on election night 2004. They posted the exit polls showing Kerry winning by 3% points, then quickly adjusted them to match the actual election results".

Why not a 50/50 gender split? What would the same results look like with a 50/50 gender split? How, if they didn't know the results yet, did they know to weight the sample so heavily in favor of women? Scientists don't just guess by looking do they?

I wanted Hillary to win this one, but this is strange...

[Orangepeel]

184. why would there be a 50/50 gender split

if more women voted than men?

:shrug:

I don't know if the posted exit poll results are weighted or not. They might be. But if I am going to place a bet on whether the pre-election polls are wrong or the exit polls are wrong, I'm going to bet that the pre-election polls are wrong. Even if I don't have access to raw exit poll data, I am confident that a lot of people do (including people associated with Obama's campaign) -- too many to avoid somebody blowing the whistle.

[OnTheOtherHand]

303. a few answers

In 2004, the tabulations (at least the ones of which I'm aware) weren't updated until well after midnight. I would not call that "quickly adjusted."

The exit poll interviewers record the apparent age (3 categories), race, and sex of each person they are supposed to interview, whether the interview is completed or not. So, the pollsters would not need vote counts in order to have a decent estimate of the % women. (How good would depend on how much it varied across the state.)

[kster]

172. We could just Hand Count the Paper Ballots, after all

this is what the Paper Ballots are there for, NO?

We shouldn't be trying to explain to each other what happened with the exit polls, we are all Democrats, break out the ballots and count em, don't matter who is right or wrong.

For years we have all been fighting to get Paper Ballots, so we don't have to debate exit polls, there is no reason to fight each other, HAND COUNT THE BALLOTS.

[Catherine Vincent]

173. for later...

:kick:

[peabody71]

179. And you trust them why?

Fuck, what the hell have you learned here?

[rucky]

183. We used exit polls to uncover fraud in 2004

so now, all the sudden, people are saying the exit polls are bogus and the tracking polls are more reliable?!

Which leaves us with two choices:

1) Hillary won - fair and square... like she was leading every day but two or three according to the tracking polls everybody's getting all religious over.

2) There is a vast Left-and-Right wing conspiracy among the global elite, pollsters, secretaries of state, and the media to fix a primary in one state (with 48 to go), so they can give momentum to the person they choose in their deciding over who rules America.

[L. Coyote]

192. Where did that happen, and who is we?

[tom_paine]

202. It is all over the Web, L Coyote, and while that in and of itself doesn't make it true

(as you well pointed out on your excellent PsyOps thread)

it is still worthwhile to examine the data

It happened in nearly a dozen swing states, all electronic (non-electronic states, I believe, conicdientally did not suffer similar discrepancies)

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/pdfs/TheUEPDv00l.pdf

There is no "we", but one can forgive the rhetorical sloppiness, as WE are ultimately all on the same side, for Liberty, and Trustworthy Transparent Voting, and against Tyranny and "in the dark" privatized voting.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

262. A Primer: 2004 Election Fraud - Slideshow

http://www.electionfraud2004.org/presentation/index.html

This is a good place for you to start. Information on exit poll discrepancies can be found in slides 14-22, and slide #30

[kenfrequed]

296. Well

The Minnesota secretary of state Mary Kiffmeyer tried to rig our elections...

So why not?

[BlackVelvet04]

185. More people need to see this....

kick.

[mhatrw]

186. Of course they matched. They are routinely adjusted to match the actual returns.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/looking_for_new_hampshire_exit.php

By the end of the night, the tabulations will be weighted to the official count.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/exit_polls_what_you_should_kno_1.php

Once the polls close, the interviewer will attempt to obtain actual turnout counts, and if possible, actual vote returns for their precinct from polling place officials. One of the unique aspects of the NEP exit poll design is the way it gradually incorporates real turnout and vote data as it becomes available once the polls close. The exit pollsters have developed weighting schemes and algorithms to allow all sorts of comparisons to historical data that supports the networks as they decide whether to "call" a race for a particular candidate. When all of the votes have been counted, the exit poll is weighted by the vote to match the actual result.

[BadgerLaw2010]

189. Excellent post. Now can we ban this stupid subject?

[Skinner]

190. IMPORTANT UPDATE ADDED 5:00 PM ET, WEDNESDAY

As you may know, I consider myself to be someone who values accuracy, and try to hold my fellow DUers to high standards of accuracy as well. After considering all the responses to this post, both here in this thread and in my email, and after reading some other material on this subject, I realize that this is one of those times when it is appropriate for me to hold myself to the same high standards that I expect from others.

Since I posted this thread this morning, I have been informed that it is a common practice to adjust or weight exit polls after official election results become available, so that the exit polls match the actual result. I do not know the details about how this weighting is done, and my understanding is that it is not something that is made public. But as some people have correctly pointed out in this thread, the bottom line is that one possible reason why the exit polls matched the actual results of the primary is that they may have been adjusted to match. Which, if it happened in this case, would make my entire argument moot. I would add that we do not know to what extent they were adjusted -- if indeed they were adjusted at all. Some have argued here and elsewhere that they do not appear to have been significantly changed, but I am not in any position to make such a judgment myself.

Having now explained the error in my thread, I would like to make one additional point: The fact that I made a mistake is not evidence to support the claim that fraud happened in the New Hampshire primary. The fact remains that if one is to make a claim of fraud, then the burden of proof is on those making the claim, and as far as I am aware no credible evidence has yet been provided to support the claim of fraud.

I apologize for my error. I have added this update to my OP, above.

[Coexist]

211. thanks for the update.

I don't think it was rigged, but - as of yet, I have no skin in the game, so I'm not looking hard.

[Peace Patriot]

225. "the burden of proof is on those making the claim"? No, no, no, NO!

The burden of proof is on the election officials to establish who won beyond any reasonable doubt, and there is only one proven method of doing so, and that is hand-counting every ballot.

Skinner, I know you're beset, and you probably haven't slept in days, and now you have the problem of having posted a controversial post that left out a crucial fact (--unlike in most other countries in the world, where exit polls are used to check for fraud AGAINST the official results, the exit polls here are matched TO the official results--in this case official results derived from 'TRADE SECRET' code--making the exit polls useless for verifying results, and the corporate guys who do this have vowed never to let us see the undoctered exit polls again, after 2004).

I do sympathize, and do appreciate all the work you do at DU, to keep things civil at DU and to maintain high standards. And I think it is magnificent of you to admit this mistake.

But, Skinner, PLEASE, re-think this statement. WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF TRANSPARENCY? The people who laid out billions of our tax dollars for these goddamned, insecure, highly riggable, 'TRADE SECRET' systems run by Bushites, or the poor voters and general public, who are excluded at every stage, and are told, 'NO, YOU CANNOT REVIEW THE SECRET CODE', and 'NO, YOU CANNOT SEE YOUR VOTES COUNTED,' and "NO, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ELECTRONICS--IT'S TOO SOPHISTICATED FOR YOU--YOU'RE JUST A VOTER'?

Who has to prove that the vote count was accurate? The election officials, whose job it is? Or the public, which has no resources to do so, and is EXCLUDED BY LAW FROM REVIEWING THE SECRET CODE? (See my remarks above on the court ruling on FL-13.)

We've tried, Skinner. Thousands of activists all over the country, putting out maximum effort, since 11/2/04. We've tried for four years now to restore a vote counting system in which the election officials have to prove who won, out in the open--as it should be, with the burden of proof on THEM. But this horrible system just got entrenched too fast, and we have met with resistance and corruption in the system at every turn, and have been unable to guarantee transparent vote counting for 2008.

I want to weep, having to say this. You gracefully admitted your mistake. And I will admit our failure. Every primary is going to be like this. The general election is going to be like this. Our election system has been destroyed, and there has not been enough time--or will or support from our own party leadership--to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

In any decent election system, there should be no uncertainty. And the burden of proof is on the government, on the system, on those in power, and on the officials whose job it is to hold clean, transparent, verifiable elections.

The burden is not on me, because I smell a rat (and I do). The burden is on New Hampshire, and on Democratic Party officialdom, and on those with the money and resources who are supposed to be defending our democracy.

One of the problems we have is that our candidates are afraid to challenge it--they are afraid of these powerful corporations who control the vote--and the rules, written by corporate lawyers, make it extremely difficult, and often impossible, for ordinary people to challenge a result, even if we could gather the money and lawyers to do so.

But, Skinner, why should it be up to us? Why shouldn't it be obvious who won? Why shouldn't the ballots be out there, counted, one by one, from the get-go, and recountable, if necessary? Why all this secrecy and obstruction of this very simple thing: COUNTING EVERY VOTE IN PUBLIC VIEW? 1,2,3,4--it's fundamental. It's elementary. Visible vote counting is the bottom line of democracy, and we have lost it. It's gone. Thus, the uncertainty, the guessing, the suspicions, the red flags when weird anomalies show up. You know, it reminds me of Rumsfeld's deliberate creation of chaos and looting in Baghdad, and the Bushites' obstruction of aid to New Orleans, creating chaos there as well.

Is the sabotage of our democracy the uncertainty itself--so that we are all at each other's throats?

I am furious about the non-transparency--and the private corporate secrecy of both the official count and the exit polls. And I'm sad at our failure to reform it in time. And I don't know what to do. What the hell do we do?

[Peace Patriot]

238. More sadness...

To Hillary supporters, and to those who are impatient with us weirdos who want transparent, verified elections....

I have not declared for any candidate. I favor Kucinich and Edwards (hard anti-corporate policy). And I oppose Hillary Clinton, very much so on policy, although I'm inclined to sympathize with her because the fascists have been so vile to her, and because she IS woman--the first woman with a chance at the White House. But I was thinking about this triumphant photo of Hillary on the front page of my paper today. My first thought was sour. I don't support her. And she didn't beat Obama by much--it was by no means a rout. It was very close. What's with the triumphant photo? So I went through that. And then I caught up with the election fraud/election reform news out of New Hampshire, and the photo began to make me angry. Fraud again! Oh, God!

And thus I went up and down the roller-coaster today. And here is the abiding wish upon which I have settled, this evening:

I wish, before I die, to see a photo of a winning candidate on the front page of my newspaper, whose vote has been transparent and verified, and about whom there is no cloud of suspicion raised by uncertain results and weird anomalies, and "trade secret" code and Bushite voting machines, and in whose joy I can have a little share, whether I voted for him or her, or not, because democracy is the winner. I want a little share of that celebration. I want to smile at it. I want to feel happy for him or her, in their short sweet moment of victory--and I want to feel happy for all of us, that we did our job as citizens, and that we are passing a better democracy along to the future. And it doesn't matter to me if that person is Hillary Clinton. In fact, if it is, I can be happy from a femnist point of view, if not on other policy.

I DON'T WANT there to be suspicion. If Hillary won, I want her to have that victory. And I want to share in it, as an American and a Democrat.

I hate this cloud over our elections. We have enough to worry about, without this. Corporate campaign contributions, the horrible corporate media, and all the rest. War. Poverty. Our Constitutional rights. Our country's behavior in the world. Our children's future. The fate of the planet. It seems unfair that we can't count on anything, not even the bare bones of fair elections.

Please believe me. I want fairness. I can get very partisan and very rough and opinionated about my views. But if someone wins because my chosen candidate or views have not been persuasive enough, and we haven't done our job of educating voters, and changing minds, if it's a fair and square vote, and open and aboveboard, that's okay with me. For a long time, I was holding out for Gore/Kerry ticket, even though I had serious beefs with both of them, on policy. But I wanted the AMERICAN PEOPLES' choices to prevail--not mine, everybody's. I wanted a restoration of the rightful winners. I thought that the energy and refreshment of that restoration would take us along way toward reform, and toward getting our country back. It's not about me. It's not about enforcing my views--of Hillary, or Kerry, or anyone else. It's about fairness and the health of our democracy.

And although I think there may be a relationship between Hillary's pro-corporate, pro-war policies and election fraud that may have happened in New Hampshire --that is, someone tweaking the vote in her favor--if she won, she won. And it is a terrible thing that we don't know--and maybe can't know--if she did. It doesn't look good, and I know our election system well enough to realize how easy it is for rightwing forces to steal it, because rightwing corporations control it with secret code. That is the situation. Hillary now has the election fraud cloud over her head, in my opinion. And I am NOT happy about that. Not in the least.

I want the smile of electoral triumph to be genuine, and free and clear of any suspicion. For Hillary. For all candidates. And how do we get there, with this broken system, this year? That is the question. And it is a very important one. We have had an illegitimate and godawful government for almost 8 years now. We need a legitimate, transparently elected government that is in general accord with the American people, and acts in our interest--whoever the leader of it may be. And we need proof of the peoples' consent: the counting of every vote. That's the victory I want.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

246. Wishing I could recommend these posts.

As usual, brilliant thoughts very well presented. :thumbsup:

[annabanana]

245. Thank you Peace Patriot. Your response echoes my despair.

THEY are the ones that have to prove it to US. It is the Vote, the franchise, the "consent" in "consent of the governed"...It is the only thing we have that makes us more than servants.

I don't know what to do either. What the hell do we do?

[Twist_U_Up]

307. You just cant refute that. Perfectly stated.

hand counted, paper ballots. I dont care if it takes a month.

[L. Coyote]

191. Bottom Line: "no credible evidence has yet been provided to support the claim of fraud. "

[HCE SuiGeneris]

194. Fair enough. However, there is little to explain the anomaly,

and having Diebold Premiere gather, record, and tabulate our votes remains a grave concern.

[Tiberius]

254. Why are we being asked to prove it?

And by "we" I mean those that believe something fishy happened here.

Can't we just agree to disagree about that, because fraud as you know is never proven. Let's move on to the more important point:

Why has our country handed over the vote counting function to secretive corporations? And why are so many in DU willing to accept that in 2008 when the skepticism was rampant here from 2000 to 2006?

[Sancho]

195. The good news is that IF the election was stolen, then ...

we FINALLY have a Democratic candidate who can compete with the repubs in Florida and Ohio!

[Joe Chi Minh]

314. Oh, indeed. It's an ill wind... Just a pity it wasn't old Joe Lieb who won

in NH.

[derby378]

196. We appreciate you more than you'll ever know, Skinner

:hi:

[tom_paine]

199. Regarding your 5:00pm update, Skinner, thank you for your level-headedness

in this hour of "crisis" (such as it is)

All of this flaming cyclone ignores the real problem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2640123

[yardwork]

200. kick for some facts

Some of the people hollering "stolen election!" around here have never, ever posted about stolen elections before. Convenient for them.

[LostinVA]

229. EXACTLY my point today!

[spanone]

204. yep. last night they were claiming that the news folks failed to mention 17% Undecided

[nadinbrzezinski]

205. and all I am saying Skinner is that the wild gyrations in the poll numbers

give the impression of some hanky panky occurring... especially given the history of the last six years... Cleeland. 2004 (that had some folks going to the pokey for election fraud at Cuyahooga Co, OH... the same place where many here laughed heartily that nothing happened... but now conveniently forget) the fact that the DEM majority in 2006 should have been larger... there is hanky panky and until elections can be verified... our collective sense of outrage must go up... We must demand transparency. This is not about ONE election or ONE candidate, but the system itself.

[Lars39]

208. I can't get past having to trust CNN's polls.

The same CNN that wanted to be more like FOX news.

[balantz]

217. Why should we accept CNN to be non-biased and fair in all of this.

I just think we should keep a careful watch on entities like CNN rather than trust them outright. I have seen what I perceive to be bias in their reporting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

218. There is that, but them adjusting to match results is a practice that

should NOT exist

One that gets me going hmmm

[truedelphi]

256. I'm with you on us fighting the good fight until there is transperency

The good people over at Digg seem to be wanting this also.

[The Magistrate]

206. The Adjustment, Sir, Is Simply Inclusion Of A Proportionate Sampling Of Absentee Ballots

Which were running strongly in Sen. Clinton's favor.

[OnTheOtherHand]

304. probably not simply that, unless you have positive evidence

We know that projections are updated incorporating vote count data.

We know that the tabulations are intermittently updated to match the latest projections.

We know that the pollsters only had two races to look at, so they could update the tabs more often. (In fact, the tabs were updated on CNN within an hour after they were first posted.)

We know that CNN (and I'm pretty sure MSNBC -- I don't know about other subscribers) posted the tabs shortly after 8, when the last polls were scheduled to close.

We know that at least a few dozen vote counts were available before 8.

I think we can only conjecture whether those vote counts were reflected in the tabulations posted at 8.

In no way am I trying to stir some fraud pot. I just think it's best if we all share all the best factual information that we have access to.

[sam kane]

207. Skinner, some evidence: Obama won in hand-counted precincts

Rural voters are not known for their young, more liberal population (those who usually vote for Obama). Maybe there are lots of communes in NH that I haven't heard about, though.

I disagree with your claim, because after all we now know about Diebold, the burden should be on them to prove the legitimacy of the vote. As we all know, Diebold makes "proving" fraud virtually impossible.

[Marie26]

210. OK, Iowa uses Diebold too.

So why is that the Diebold optical scans in Iowa gave an overwhelming win to Obama, and the optical scan machines in NH gave a narrow win to Clinton? Is Diebold confused?


Diebold Optical-Scan System Fails in Iowa GOP Straw Poll! - http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4946

[balantz]

212. Remember, there is a third viable candidate in this race.

If there is any case for fraud he must be figured into the scheme of things.

[Marie26]

215. Well, that's what the Paulites say too.

It's all a conspiracy to keep Paul in third place. But from the outside we know it's cause he's not mainstream. I'm an Edwards supporter as well, but he's consistently been in third place in polls around the country (except Iowa). And he came in second in Iowa. His message is probably just too populist & left-wing for centrist Dems. It's quite a jump to conclude that this is a massive cunning conspiracy against Edwards, though I'm sure people are willing to make that jump.

[balantz]

220. Explain why his second placing in Iowa, however small the margin was,

was virtually disregarded in the media? He has been a viable third candidate, not so far back in numbers as to be ignored as much as he has.

[Marie26]

224. Ignored, yes.

The media has focused on Clinton & Obama as the shiny new, interesting, popular candidates. That's got nothing to do with voter fraud! Acckkk!

[balantz]

226. But we are talking about exit polls and CNN and such.

So the media is involved throughout the process of giving us information. I'm not trying to get all carried away in conspiracy, I just think we shouldn't trust ANYTHING blindly here without full scrutiny to the point of obsession. I want to know that this system is either fair to us citizens or not. And yes, the media is very involved.

[helderheid]

214. Iowa uses PEOPLE. Not machines.

[Marie26]

219. Uh, no

Seems like they use the same optical scan vote counters that NH uses. And Iowa gets most of their equipment straight from Diebold. Distinction?

"All Iowa counties have equipment from either Diebold Election Systems of Canton, Ohio, or from Election Systems and Services of Omaha, Nebraska. Here are lists of failures and miscounts for Diebold and for ES & S"

http://iowavoters.org/iowa-voting-machines/

[helderheid]

221. How does this work with the caucuses?

How do you optiscan bodies? Is there some step on how they tally the precincts I missed? I'm not being snarky, I'm just trying to understand and it seems you know more on this than I do.

[youthere]

232. Because there are no voting machines at caucus.

After the counts are made (and EVERYONE IN THE ROOM MUST AGREE THE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT) everyone stays to "witness"the precinct captain call in the numbers.

[helderheid]

233. No Diebold involved then. That's what I thought.

[youthere]

231. Not for caucus we don't.

Vote counts for candidates are taken by counting heads then everyone remains in the room while the precinct captain phones in the results. NO diebold.

[helderheid]

252. THANK YOU

[helderheid]

213. Thanks for the update!

:hi:

[Imagevision]

216. MSNBC: Mathews with a panel of 3 just announced the exit polling didn't match, so who do I believe?

[helderheid]

222. oh REALLY? God, if there was some hanky panky, PLEASE let it come out now and not in the General !!

[Orangepeel]

223. Chris Matthews keeps saying the exit polls were WAY off

on Hardball

:shrug:

[jbnow]

234. He said the raw data showed Obama

with a substantial lead at %:30 election night and that the pre-election polls matched the raw data.

Of course he thinks it indicates the Bradley effect, someone else said the workers doing the exit polls were too young and disorganized.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

235. kick

nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

236. Remember, Skinner, fraud is ordinarily proved not by any "smoking

gun", but by circumsantial evidence. I believe it was Paul Lehto, our own DU "pro bono" attorney who has now specialised in election law for several years, as well as being a clean elections advocate, who posted about the subject on here. Apparently, he specialised in business law and consumer fraud.

[Peace Patriot]

242. A very important point. When you have non-transparent vote counting conditions,

all you have is inferential evidence--which is valid in a court of law in cases of white collar crime in which evidence has been shredded.

But elections are like no other process in a democracy. They must be pristine, and the burden of proof that the results are accurate is on the government, not on the citizens. Elections are guilty until proven innocent. Election officials must show, up front, that every vote was counted, that the count was accurate and that the will of the people has been transparently expressed.

Further, a non-transparent vote counting system is INHERENTLY fraudulent. Fraud must be presumed, if the accuracy of the count has not been verified. Guilty until proven innocent doubly so, because of non-transparency. The great power and money at stake in elections are the givens. Motives for fraud abound. And election officials are guilty of it if they cannot prove otherwise.

This is such a basic, no-brainer principle of democracy that it is difficult to articulate something so simple. It's like having to prove that most people have two legs. Do you have to photograph everybody on earth to establish something that everybody knows, that common perception and sense tells us?

Non-transparent elections are NOT elections. They are tyranny. And the burden of proof is on the government to prove, up front, that the tyranny of election fraud has not been committed.

The amount of inferential proof that was accumulated on the 2004 election SHOULD HAVE RESULTED in Congress rejecting those results. But, of course, Congress was complicit in creating the non-transparent conditions. They were not about to indict themselves, and their OWN elections. What do we do with that? The only thing we can do: fight, fight, fight, at the state/local level for restoration of transparent vote counting. Maybe this controversy will help boost those efforts. I hope to God something does, so that we have verified primaries in other states, and a verified general election. This uncertainty is bad for everybody, except those who thrive on chaos, disorder and the illegitimacy of the government: Bushites, our corporate rulers and war profiteers.

[truedelphi]

258. Thank you Peace Patriot

Something important and needed to add to the discussion.

And if the powers that be would have their way, yes, every single person would have to photographed walking on two legs. If there was a proven advantage to having the fact remain uncertain.

[defendandprotect]

284. Not only should we have paper ballots counted by human beings . . .

but we should get copies of our votes ---
and I'd suggest they all be sent to Jimmy Carter --- !!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

310. That is an absolutely brilliant exposition of the truth of this matter, Peace Patriot.

Perfect. Absolutely clear and pointedly concise. I've not seen its equal. And that's just the first three paragraphs.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest. You've got to share the laurels with Paul for teaching us about the fundamental criteria underpinning proof of fraud, in particular in relation to elections.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

237. Great information. Always appreciated Skinner.

Thank you :)

[RadiationTherapy]

240. Skinner, are you comfortable with the Diebold electronic voting system? n/t

[defendandprotect]

274. Could stolen elections be a "tin foil hat" issue at DU --- ???? ??? ????

[RiverStone]

331. The plot thickens ---- wow!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2656014&mesg_id=2656014

[Rex]

244. Hey you gave it a good try, hard to get mad about that.

My only complaints are all of our complaint - Diebold must go, they are not a reputable business. Having said that, we will never know if elections are fair or not, we have no idea if election fraud happen in the near or far American past.

It wasn't an true issue until it happen in 2000.

I will vote for the primary winner. Stab away.

[truedelphi]

248. Could I mention that IF an election is stolen, then

There is no way to determine the TOTALS??

Elementary My Dear Watson.

If a crime has occurred, one of the things that may possibly be missing is any way of knowing how many votes there really were.

Some votes may be switched, if an election is stolen. Or some votes may just be UNCOUNTED and at the bottom of the well. Or both!

[defendandprotect]

275. Right . . . the GOP has most recently been STEALING Hispanic and African-American votes --- !!!

THEREFORE . . . the polls had to suggest --- before and after the scam --- that Hispanics and African-Americans were moving to the corporate-party . . . !!!!

Was that believable, folks --- ??? !!!

[TriMetFan]

251. Hey Skinner, Great job.

Now people just need to get over it. The people in the first two State's have spoken. Obama 1 Clinton 1. It is time to move on. If anything we in Democratic Party should be very proud that so many people have come out to vote. What was the count in Iowa? Over 200,000 voted. In New Hampshire from my understanding that over 80% of the people voted. Ladies and Gentleman this is huge! Just think any of the top 3 Democratic can and will :kick: Republican ass.

[Tiberius]

257. "Get over it"????

I will never "get over" the lack of transparency in our election system. :mad:

[TriMetFan]

260. Yes get over it.

Time to move on. You would think that Clinton just became the President or that Obama should be crowned the New King of the U.S. the way some are acting. Hell this election is far from over.

[defendandprotect]

276. Why in the hell should we do anything but NO "get over it" . . . ???

We'd be dummies not to continue to press this issue and to get computers out of our elections!!!

[progressivebydesign]

259. Thank you.. perhaps that will calm this place down and focus on the primary SEASON. n/t

[balantz]

261. With due respect to Skinner and everyone here

it is interesting to this plain and politically uneducated citizen that there seem to be two views at odds here. It appears to me to boil down to these: 1) An acceptance that the system is not corrupt, and organizations like Diebold are not unfairly influencing anything in our Democratic process; and 2) This voting system of ours has been corrupted for years now, has not been corrected, and cannot be trusted to give us fair and accurate information.

My concern here has nothing to do in particular with any one candidate, but everything to do with trusting, or not trusting our voting system.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

263. It's unfortunate some see this incorrectly as sour grapes over a particular candidate losing -nt

[balantz]

265. Yes.

The sour grapeness should be directed at those responsible for the corruption, if that is indeed the case, not at the other candidates. If a candidate were involved in corruption (and I'm not implying such a thing) that would also be an issue, bur not the issue we should ALL be concerned with first.

[defendandprotect]

286. That, too, IMO, is another way to try to ignore the steals of the last decades --- !!!

If there's no corruption, you don't have to deal with it --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

287. I don't believe Americans this far into Iraq are voting for corporate candidates --- !!!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

289. Waking up is so painful sometimes.

We might go insane if we face the truth that there is no longer a democracy!

[defendandprotect]

278. Who would be dumb enough to trust this voting sytem?

You've stated the situation very clearly ---
so clearly that we would have to be insane to to trust this government --- !!!

On what?

On Iraq - WMD --- ?
Attacks on the Bill of Rights---?
Torture --- ?
Patriot Act---?
Halliburton--?
Bechtel---?
KBR --- ?

2,000,000 Iraqis dead since we invaded and occupied Iraq?

PLEASE . . . SOMEONE . . . name an issue we can trust this administration about????

[ladywnch]

271. I remember hearing about "weighting" in polls during the last

presidential election. I found it extremely convuluted and I couldn't explain it if my life depended on it but understand why it gets done. I'm not sure I agree with it though.

[defendandprotect]

273. WAIT --- !!! We're all pretty confident of steals in 2000, 2004 and 2006 . . . right?

We're all pretty sure that there is full time right-wing propaganda to distort reality, right?

Like the BS that Hispanics were voting for Repugs --- right?

Or that African-Americans were voting for Repugs ---- right?

We know that these people will do and say ANYTHING to win ---

but you believe the polls?

And you believe last night results?

Why???


In fact, the computers came in during the mid-1960's . . . when everything went nuts ---
so I'm suggesting that we've had steals since then ---

See VOTESCAM --- PLEASE . . . SOMEBODY GET CAUGHT UP ON THIS!!!

[robbedvoter]

277. All GENERAL ELECTIONS - stolen by GOP-ers - ON THEIR BEHALF.

democrats don't owe machines - and to suggest they are more interested in our primary than theirs is a bit..farfetched.

[defendandprotect]

279. Is the corporate-media interested in a Repug win?

PLEASE . . . see VOTESCAM . . .
I really don't think that many here understand the connections between the parties
which provide for these kinds of "events" with outcomes which suit them all ---

that includes both parties which are united as one in corporate interests ---
and the corporate-media ---

It's a private party --- !!!

[robbedvoter]

294. Yes. The corporate media is interested in a GOP win. No doubt about that.

There's a profit motivation too - hence egging candidates with money to attack each other and excluding the ones without from debates. But in GE - it's always GOP. Media, machines owners - all dirty tricks - are for the GOP. Without them they'd be gone for 20 years now. That's how long since they last won a national election - l988.

[Bonobo]

282. It is asking too much to expect "evidence". The specter of a doubt should be enough

to go "to the tape".

Fraud has been clearly demonstrated in recent elections and it has been clearly demonstrated that the machines can be hacked.

That would be enough for a grand jury to determine the case should go to trial.

In this case, the "trial" can only be a recount.

Case closed.

[defendandprotect]

285. Correct --- and I think any attempt to "come to terms" with doubts suggests a

desire not to recognize what is going on in America the last decades ---

PLEASE ... see VOTESCAM ... Jim & Ken Collier . . .
this has been going on since the machines came in during the 60's --- !!!

[goforit]

288. I just couldn't believe the results when I got home from work. Rigged all the

way.
Thanks for the reality check Skinner.

[Warren Stupidity]

290. The humans here who can admit their mistakes are the good ones.

I agree with your revised and edited post.

The exit polls, absent information on if and how they have been 'adjusted' do not constitute an independent verification of the vote count. The fact that honest people can have genuine concerns about the validity of vote counts in every election of importance in this country is beyond troubling: it is a symptom of the collapse of legitimate political institutions here. The losers of any election as important as yesterdays, in which proprietary computer equipment was used to tabulate the votes, have every reason and every right to demand an independent verification of the official results. Demanding such verification is a reflection of the collapse of legitimacy, and it is only through the institution normalization and standardization of verification mechanisms that the legitimacy of our democratic institutions can be restored,

[dougolat]

291. Live Free Or Diebold

Faith based elections?  It's not too much to want trustworthy
results, now, is it? Or are we ignoring the the last two
Presidential elections? Or what happened to Max Cleland, Don
Siegelman, or Clint Curtis, among others. It's only the
foundation  of our civilization, but so was Habeas Corpus.

[Bonobo]

292. So now you are saying the exit polls did NOT MATCH necessarily as they were adjusted.

Shouldn't you change the thread title? It is misleading since you directly state the opposite.

[Warren Stupidity]

305. Not what I read.

Skinner said that we don't know if the exit polls are or are not contaminated with the offical tally, thus without that information we cannot use the exit polls as evidence either for or against the validity of the offical results. That is what I got out of his revision.

[Bonobo]

319. In that case, this thread title should be changed.

[ooglymoogly]

295. Exit polls are extremely reliable

We can never falsely claim they are not because that gives us no weapons in the future to gage when an election is indeed fraud as it has been in the last two elections when exit polls did not match the vote tallies. Making false claims against exit polls which have always proved reliable except in the case of the corporate media revising its polling to fit a false premise particularly in the last election. IMO we must always respect the exit polling until it is clear it has been jimmied with and it has been fixed to a fraudulent outcome otherwise we are lost. IMO Exit polls are near infallible and we must use them to put a searchlight on the truly fraudulent elections and not cast doubt on elections where the exit polling and the outcome are the same. We should celebrate them as the true measure of an election even if our particular candidate did not win. Otherwise we may as well be pugs.

[balantz]

300. Okay

Can you tell me what organizations perform the polling and how they collect the data. Is the data fed into a computer program? Is all of this verified and by whom? Etc.

[Warren Stupidity]

306. Did you sleep through 2004?

What we learned is that a standard exit poll methodology adopted in this country is to adjust the exit poll data with the actual official vote count after the polls close - thus making the exit poll data useless as an independent verification of the official vote count. Only the pre-adjustment data is independent of the reported vote count, and only that data can be used to validate the vote count.

Adjusting the poll results by the reported vote count appears to be a standard technique - it is not fraud or 'jimmying'. But doing so makes the poll data useless for purposes of election verification.

[ooglymoogly]

317. I SAID EXIT POLLS, I DID NOT SAY DOCTORED EXIT

POLLS TO MATCH OUTCOME! How can you be so obtuse.

[ooglymoogly]

318. And furthermore in a dishonest election Jimmying, doctoring

or to (propagandisticly) "adjust" the truth of the exit polls to match an agenda and nullify the truth of those exit polls effectively nullifying the true winner is election fraud and furthermore treasonous in the truest meaning of those words.

[Warren Stupidity]

325. Exit polls are bought and paid for by the media.

They are not intended as vote verification tools. The adjustments are fine if one wants to profile voter decision making, and fine for what the media wants: quick predicitions of the official vote count. The adjustments destroy the utility of the exit polls for use as a verification of official results, but that was not what these exit polls were intended for.

[ooglymoogly]

333. That is as it is but if they are "unadjusted" when they are collected, they

are the only real proof for policing an election with all the disparate voting machines and apparatuses in this country as in their unadulterated state they are accurate within an acceptable margin and are conducted within a short distance from the voting Place. Others beside the bought and paid for corporate media can bring on an exit poll and that must be what happens. Other countries manage to collect exit polls and many times the people are willing to stand up and fight when they do not match the "official" outcome. The mere fact that "fine tuning" as you so kindly put it makes them useless as verification tools is pretty good double speak since that is what they are essentially used for though other reasons come into play. A long time ago when we had an honest media (because they were held to a high standard and because of competition) exit polls were the primary way to predict the outcome of an election before the votes were counted and they were accurate.

For monitors going to other countries to make sure they have an honest election, exit polls are an important tool that truly projected the outcome.

[Warren Stupidity]

335. only real proof? not in this case.

Anyhow it seems that the unadjusted numbers, as they did in 2004, confirm the opinion poll forecasts, and most oddly match almost exactly the hand counted results. Red flags should be considered raised.

NH, as it at least has paper ballots, can do a statistically valid random sample hand recount to validate the official tally. They did this in 2004 and the recount did validate the results. They should do it again.

[ooglymoogly]

336. I make no judgment about the NH election.

My alarm is that the media is trying to tell us that exit polls are meaningless and thereby destroying the last real test of the crookedness of elections.

[OnTheOtherHand]

309. "IMO Exit polls are near infallible"

Please, by all means, the floor is yours. I need to do something else...

:banghead:

[Vinca]

308. If there was election fraud in the New Hampshire primary -

and there may very well have been - it didn't need to involve the voting machines at all. In any state that allows crossover voting, all you need to do is get a percentage of Republicans to change to Independents prior to the election. They go to vote, take a Democratic ballot, vote for whichever candidate they're instructed to vote for, and change their party affiliation back to Republican on their way out the door. I saw people doing this on election day - it's legal. This is the same state with the Republican phone jamming scheme that most likely got John Sununu elected. They're well organized and it isn't a stretch to believe they legally manipulated the election outcome. This wouldn't have been reflected in the exit polling because anyone filling out the poll would continue the charade. Hillary may have won fair and square and she may not have. We'll never know unless a Republican operative comes forward and shares the goods.

[Joe Chi Minh]

315. Bingo! A war on TWO massive fronts. What a gaping flaw in the system!

Really, unbelievable. Yet scarcely addressed on these threads, I believe. Haven't we got enough on our plate with Diebold!

[ooglymoogly]

321. Bingo no. 2 Truer words were never spoken

Vinca.....minor. Ha Ha...I laugh at this lame attempt at humor Vinca minor ha ha...sorry got carried away with holiday mirth.

[Warren Stupidity]

323. If you actually did some research you would know better.

Here in New Hampshire you are either a declared or undeclared registered voter or an unregistered voter. The only people who can vote in the Republican primary are registered declared Republicans and the only people who can vote in the Democratic primary are registered declared Democrats. If you are registered and undeclared you may delcare your party affiliation at the polls (and undeclare on the way out if you so choose.) We do allow you to register at the polls as well, so unregistered voters can also decide which primary to participate in. Registered Republicans cannot vote in the Democratic primary.

We happen to like our system just like it is, thanks, although many of us would be happier if either all the ballots were hand counted or if there was a standard random and statistically valid hand counted audit of the tabulated results.


http://www.sos.nh.gov/vote.htm

[Vinca]

339. That's what I meant - you are talking to me . . . right?

If a number of Republicans changed their affilitations prior to the elections (and I forget how many weeks before this has to be done, but I remember seeing the notice on the wall at the post office a while back) and became Independents, they could appear at the polls and take a Democratic ballot. These people organized the phone jamming scheme so I would never put it past them to delegate party faithful to change their affiliations for the purpose of voting for the Democratic candidate they want to run against. It doesn't matter how many times the votes are audited after the election. If they've followed the law they were legally cast. When I first moved to New Hampshire (and before I was a Democrat) I did this very thing in order to vote for the candidate of my choice. In any case, something fishy happened here. People don't drop double digits in the polls overnight. My theory makes sense because the exit polls would correspond to the actual vote. In addition, I thought I heard the voting on the Republican side was not in the numbers one would expect given the Democratic vote. Of course not if some of them had switched to Indy to vote for Hillary.

[helderheid]

316. I thought these threads were being moved

:P

[helderheid]

324. wow, STILL in GD!

[Warren Stupidity]

326. Skinner acts like he owns this place.

Where does he get off?

[EFerrari]

327. He's got an in with the mods. You can just tell.

lol

[helderheid]

330. !! DUZY !!

:rofl:

My mistake! :P

[Bluerthanblue]

328. I believe the results, and I believe the exit polls give creedence

to the relative correctness of the final results.

In my opinion it is the opinion polling- the pre-vote "polling" that is suspect.

And also that is a very good tool to manipulate people subliminally.

:hi:

thanks Skinner.

[RiverStone]

329. The results not withstanding...

Diebold counted 81% of the NH votes.

Do we really want them doing the counting? That is the real question about NH and future primaries.

Why does that point seem to get lost in the fraud talk?

[DainBramaged]

334. Bumpty bump bump for the 48 remaining states

[John Q. Citizen]

337. Thanks for your update Skinner. I haven't the foggiest if the reported official

totals are correct or not. My guess is they are correct. But it's pure guess work. Until the hand recount is conducted, who can have confidence either way. We audit businesses, we audit government entities, and we should audit our elections. Fortunately, New Hampshire has the paper ballots to audit.

And that's the issue in my mind, not who officially won or lost.

To the best of my knowledge based on the research I've done on the top two candidates (based on their voting records, speeches, their official website information) I can't see a dimes worth of difference between Obama and Clinton when it comes to most of their issues and solutions.

They do have different personalities and styles, and to a lesser degree different campaign themes, but based on issues the two top Dem Candidates are almost indistinguishable.

So my support for a hand recount isn't driven by dismay or unhappiness with the reported results, but rather from the desire to have as clean, fair, and transparent elections as is possible under a system where money spent is the #1 factor in predicting who will win any given election. Occasionally a candidate does win who is substantially out spent by the opponent, but it's a fairly rare occurrence in America.