L.A. Times National Exit Poll: Bush 51, Kerry 48. Read and weep - I did.

[mountebank]

There seems to be a general interest in this poll, so I thought I would start a separate thread. This was one piece of evidence among many that led me to conclude that there was not nationwide electronic vote fraud in the election - that, gasp, * actually won the popular vote by a couple million.

If you need to register with the L.A. Times to view this page, go to www.bugmenot.com where you can get user id and password in moments.

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2005-01/14935824.pdf

I posted this about a month ago, but needless to say it slid off the front page in seconds.

Here is their methodology:
How the poll was conducted: The Los Angeles Times Poll interviewed 5,154 voters who cast ballots in the general election Tuesday as they exited 136 polling places across the nation, including 3,357 California voters as they exited 50 polling places across the state. Precincts were chosen based on the pattern of turnout in past general elections. The survey was a self-administered, confidential questionnaire, in English and in Spanish. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all voters, including California voters. For some subgroups, the error margin may be somewhat higher. Fieldwork provided by Schlesinger Associates of Edison, N.J. and Davis Research of Calabasas.

[Darkhawk32]

1. 136 polling places across the nation....

That's not a very good methodology.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Exactly how many would be good methodology?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

2. It doesn't nullify the valid concerns surrounding election, but

I do appreciate your posting none the less.

[merh]

5. You are too kind.

No, really you are too kind.

[mountebank]

7. I agree 100%. There are many, many valid concerns

about the voting process, electronic voting, disenfranchisement, etc. I'm not advocating that anyone doing work on election reform should throw in the towel. But maybe I'm suggesting, as others are doing right now (and the time is right to do it, I think), that each person should reassess their ideas about the election - and perhaps, just perhaps, if the whole nationwide vote fraud issue is comsuming a lot of time that might otherwise be spent doing something (dare I say) more useful (like, say, volunteering for established groups dedicated to vote/election reform), then perhaps s/he should re-evaluate how s/he is spending his/her time. Was that delicate enough? Really - I totally understand the obsession and it ate up a few weeks of my own time (usefully spent, I would say, though it didn't really amount to much; I learned a lot about how votes are tabulated). But I do feel that this forum is getting a little pathetic and depressing. I know, I know, then don't come here. But then I would miss a lot of the GOOD work that does go on here.....

[SnoopDog]

3. LA Times Poll - Bought and paid for by Bush/Chaney Inc.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

41. The LA Times is not

a rightwing rag. It's usually centrist or liberal on most of the issues

[Straight Shooter]

4. Did they ask anyone who had waited in line for 4 to 6 hours?

Nope. Didn't think so.

[mountebank]

9. Disenfrachisement is obviously a HUGE concern.

But I doubt it would have changed the popular vote. My post is mainly directed at those who think there was nationwide electronic vote fraud on Election Day and that Kerry actually won the popular vote.

Clearly there was election fraud in Ohio with its focus on disenfranchisement of minority voters.

[AirAmFan]

40. How could disfranchisement NOT have changed the popular vote?

There are at least three kinds of disfranchisement. Millions are barred from registering to vote at all, by discriminatory Reconstruction era laws specifically intended to prevent African Americans from voting, for example, the 500,000 "disfranchised felons" in Florida. Others have their registrations invalidated by "caging" or by deliberately slppy database work matching hundreds of thousands of law-abiding americans to felon lists.

Then there are those who are turned away from the polls on Election Day, or who see long lines on TV and don't venture out because they can't afford the "poll tax" of lost income from missed work.

Third, there are people who cast ballots that are thrown out because of biased provisional ballot rules (like Ken Blackwell's), hanging chads, using a pencil lead a scanner cannot read, etc. It's only this third class of ballots I believe you are considering when you make your statement that election fraud would not have changed the outcome. You must be thinking only of uncounted ballots that could be recovered and counted thorough court-mandated "recounts" (actually FIRST counts). But election fraud begins long before Election Day and affects many millions of people who never get to cast ballots. Senator Boxer made this point quite eloquently yesterday

From http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S41&dbname=2005_record :

"CONGRESSIONAL RECORD „SENATE S41 January 6, 2005

First, why did voters in Ohio wait hours in the rain to vote? Why were voters at Kenyan College, for example, made to wait in line until 4 a.m. to vote? It was because there were only 2 machines for 1,300 voters when they needed 13.

Why did voters in poor and predominantly African American communities have disproportionately long waits? ...

Why in the Columbus area alone did an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters leave polling places out of frustration without having voted? How many more never bothered to vote after they heard this because they had to take care of their families or they had a job or they were sick or their legs ached after waiting for hours? ...

Why did Franklin County officials reduce the number of electronic voting machines to downtown precincts while adding them in the suburbs? This also led to long lines.

In Cleveland, why were there thousands of provisional ballots disqualified when everyone knew that poll workers had given faulty instructions to the voters?

Because of this and voting irregularities in so many other places, I am joining today with Congresswoman STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES..."

[Poppyseedman]

60. the 500,000 "disfranchised felons" in Florida.

I live in Florida. I followed the Florida election very closely because of what happened in 2000 and I was very concerned about the possible fraud.

Where in the world did you get that ridiculous number of 500,000 disfranchised felons in Florida who could not vote? It's more like 50,000

check it out for yourself: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml

Brother Jeb in all his "ahem" compassion was FINALLY FORCED by the courts to drop the felon list.

The real simple reason we lost Florida, as painful as it might be, is the repukes got more people registered than we did and did a better job of getting the vote out.

The newly registered numbers don't lie.

[seabeyond]

6. the same la times that had outrageous polls for bush n/t

[mountebank]

12. The L.A. Times is a center/left newspaper these days. n/t

[RaulVB]

8. If you want to believe on this construction, be my guest! (n/t)

[Botany]

10. # ?s

A national poll of 5,154 sample of which 3,357 coming from one state?
65% of the sample came from one state (which went to kerry)
but still comes back 51 bush 48 kerry does not pass the smell test.

I bet Rove knows that real exit poll data is coming. That is a "tin foil hat idea."
:tinfoilhat:

[Time for change]

56. Yeah, and according to the same poll

Only 20% of the voters were from the West. It sounds like some "adjustments" were made to this poll.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. That's the problem! Our people didn't Exit - They never got in! n/t

[mzmolly]

20. Great reply!

:hi:

[mountebank]

22. I do believe that if everyone who wanted to vote was able to AND

if every vote that was cast was counted, that Kerry might have won - certainly in the electoral college and possibly in the popular vote. So that is a starting point for productive voting reform. Ameliorate the roadblocks (sometimes literal roadblocks, as in Florida 2000) standing in the way.

But I don't think that there was nationwide manipulation of votes totals. Following this avenue I do not feel is a productive way for many people to be spending their time. We've only got 4 years - I'm as guilty as the rest in procrastinating. Let's focus on making sure electronic vote fraud can't happen in 2008 instead of obsessing over whether or not it happened in 2004.

[IndyOp]

27. Your point that we do not yet have evidence of enough election

fraud to demonstrate that Kerry won the popular vote (or, being very cautious, the electoral college vote) is taken. They had the means, motive, opportunity, a past history of stealing elections, and there is some solid evidence of fraud in Ohio (including fewer signatures in poll books than votes in Republican areas and voters who have sworn that ballots they received were pre-punched for Bush).

The problem with the 'move on' stance, IMO, is that we must investigate the fraud, punish the guilty, and publicize what happened. If bullies are not punished they just get stronger. If we do not do those things we don't have a chance of making productive voting reform happen. The statements of Senators and Representatives yesterday indicate that they worked *really* hard in the last Congress to make HAVA and more happen - but they were consistently blocked or slowed in taking action. The only way we will have voting reform in a Republican-controlled House and Senate is if, at least, every third American makes this their business over the next 1-2 years at the Local, State & Federal levels.

Final comment: Noam Chomsky speaks eloquently about a problem we have in the US -- it's the (paraphrasing) -- "on to the new era" problem. Every few years (often with the replacement of the President) we take a deep breath and decide that we don't need to face any ugly facts from the past because we are getting a fresh start. Because of this the deep issues troubling our country -- such as our place in the international affairs, the role of government in reining in corporate power -- don't get resolved. This is why it is reasonable to argue that Americans have a very serious case of amnesia.

:kick:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. Thanks Indy! I love that man! kick !

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. And let him get away with it ? Not on your life. We are different

I have read almost every post on the fraud. A couple weeks ago, it reach critical mass for me and now I would bet my life on it. There are mountains of evidence of fraud. What we don't know is HOW they did it. It is only a matter of time.

Finding how they did it and an election reform crusade are not mutually exclusive.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. I bet the senators/congressmen had this in hand, just in case

it came up.

[Wabbajack]

14. LOL

It notes that 100% of people who voted for Bush voted for Bush and 100% of people that voted for Kerry voted for Kerry.

[mountebank]

15. Interesting fact about that PDF.

They added that first category in later. The first time I saw this PDF I had to do the math myself from the gender numbers. Got the same result - but it's funny they put it in later. They probably kept the other columns for consistency.

[Time for change]

16. Appreciate your posting this

But I think this raises a number of questions:

These results are quite a bit different than the Mitofski-Edison poll results, which gave Kerry a 2.6% lead, with a sample size of over 13,000. Not only that, but Mitofski-Edison also sampled all of the states, accounting for an additional 70,000 or so combined sample size, and the state polls were consistent were consistent with the national sample, showing Kerry ahead in all the states that he carried, as well as Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio (by 4.2%).

So one question is how to explain the discrepancy between these two polls, and which is more reliable. Who did the Los Angeles Times Poll, what experience do they have in polling, and when were the results released?

Another question is why were there 3,357 California voters in the poll, out of a total sample size of 5,154? That sounds very very strange for a supposed national sample?

[mountebank]

18. I can answer at least one of your questions.

On this page you can see that the exit poll numbers were released two days after the election.

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/

I understand that the L.A. Times has been doing national and CA exit polls for years.

[mycatforpresident]

17. "Precincts were chosen

based on the pattern of turnout in past general elections."

I would like to know the pattern. For instance, they may have selected precincts with steady turnout which may have been predominantly white, suburban, upper class Bush voters.

Notice that 35% make more than $75 thou a year, 80% are over 30, the majority are married, 51% Protestant and only 27% are Union households. All of this indicates to me that they were cherry-picking the interviewees.
That would be fine with a disclaimer.

[mountebank]

19. Alternately, they could have chosen precincts that trended with

the national percentages from past elections, in order to have better predicting power while spending less money on field workers. Who knows? My hunch is the latter, but I'm naturally sort of trusting.

[mycatforpresident]

24. A coupla reasons I believe they are cherry-picked

is because only 36% of the participants were from cities (with more minority/union/dem voters) while the suburban, small town voters completed the remaining portion of the surveys. This seriously skews the results.

Also, it appeared that a disproportionate amount of people were from the South and made more than the average income.

[anaxarchos]

21. What is the Times own assessment of this poll?

It seems like a Hybrid poll. With an MOE of 3% and extrapolation based on California precincts (only 1800 samples at 86 polling places in 49 states), it seems like it would be useless in this close an election (even if it were Kerry 51, Bush 48).

[mountebank]

23. Good question. See my post #19 for a possible scheme whereby

one could get a reasonably good assessment of the national total with few precincts. But, hell, I'm no statistician or census guru. I'm willing to believe that if they print that methodology for everyone to see, and they've been doing national polls for years, then they are probably right: an MOE of 3%. It would be interesting to see how their previous polls turned out. 2000, for instance.

[anaxarchos]

25. I think they use this kind of poll for the survey questions...

What % of Catholics voted for Bush versus Kerry, etc. That is also the intent of the "real" exit polls but those are precise enough to also project actual performance.

How do you adjust to the "real data" (vote count) and still maintain the extrapolation?

I'm curious what the Times thinks it means. I'll try to dig a little.

[anaxarchos]

42. The objective is targeted survey data...

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-histpoll,1,3776189.htmlstory?coll=la-util-times_poll

"Before the creation of the Los Angeles Times Poll, the newspaper relied on publicly available survey data from the Field Poll (at the time called "The California Poll") for election information and other public opinion research. This data was not exclusive to The Times, and there was no opportunity to ask questions of interest to specific newspaper sections."

I still haven't found the methodology to their exit poll. I'll keep looking.

While I was looking, I found this:

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2004-10/14837171.pdf

This is the L.A. Times Poll from October 27th (5 days before the election). It is an opinion poll with an MOE of 3%, same as the "Exit Poll". Take a look at Ohio. It claims a 12 point lead for Kerry that is cast in stone and MUCH larger than in Pennsylvania with a good deal of backup analysis.

[spooked911]

54. This is why I was VERY surprised when Bush "won" Ohio

So many pre-election polls had Kerry winning there by very comfortable margins.

This also lends creedence to the idea of fraud.

[Time for change]

26. Another question

As we all know, the CNN display of the Mitofski-Edison exit polls were all "adjusted" around 1:00 a.m. to reflect the "official" vote count. If so many of us hadn't obtained the screen shots and much other information on the polls prior to their adjustment, especially the information obtained by Jonathon Simon, we never would have known that they were "adjusted", and we would have therefore thought that they indicated a Bush win.

So what reason do we have for believing that this LA Times exit poll was not "adjusted" to fit the actual vote count?

[understandinglife]

48. When I saw CNN changing the data between midnight and 1am, ...

....3 Nov 2004, I decided I would not believe anything the media or Mitofsky or Zogby or anyone else 'released' unless it was obtained through subpoena and that all individuals associated with collecting the data, analyzing the data and distributing the data were questioned, under oath, about every aspect of what they knew, what they discussed internally and what they did.

Peace.

[peacetalksforall]

28. Simple for me - the LATimes has no credibility with me. I regret that

there are followers and swallowers who don't know that the LATImes is a right wing operative and partner.

[Kansas Wyatt]

45. You are correct....

I noticed a few months before the election, that the LA Times seemed to prop-up and pad Shrub, but had no problem at all pointing out all of John Kerry's alleged flaws. They were always on Kerry's ass for not doing something right, and gave Shrub a free pass.

It reminded me of a poll the LA Times conducted back in the 2000 Republican primary, between Shrub and McCain. The woman from the LA Times that called me wanted to know if I could only choose between Shrub and McCain for President, who would I choose? I responded by saying there was no way that I would ever choose Shrub. She kept pressing me to say Shrub and propped him up by trashing McCain, but I refused to pick Shrub because for some reason I knew Shrub was full of it, he was nothing but trouble, and I thought he was only riding Poppy's back (never liked Poppy either). Finally the woman was irritated that I would not pick Shrub and asked why I wouldn't, and I was tried to be polite by saying that 'he was just a bunch of talk.' This woman didn't understand what I meant and questioned me about the statement, and I told her that she needed to ask around what it meant and ended the call. This woman was angry at me, because I would not pick Shrub back in the 2000 primary poll. I had forgotten all about that phone call, until a few months before this election and watched how the LA Times propped-up Shrub.

[waz_nc]

31. Isn't this within the margin of error?

I think the 3% margin of error means that Bush's % could have ranged from 48% to 54% and Kerry's could have ranged from 45% to 51%. So from a statistical point you can't say the results of this poll are statistically different (within a 95% confidence interval) from the 48% Bush 51% Kerry in the Edison/Mitofsky exit polls that you're suggesting these results contradict.
Bill

[waz_nc]

34. sorry I need to correct this

I think the 3% margin of error would range from 49.5% to 52.5% for Bush and from 46.5% to 49.5% for Kerry. Of course we don't know about any rounding, but I still think the difference between Bush and Kerry in the poll is within the poll's margin of error so you shouldn't infer from it that Bush actually beat Kerry.

[Carolab]

32. There is a lot wrong here

For one thing, what does this mean: "precincts were chosen based on the pattern of turnout in past general elections". What does that mean? Without knowing where these precincts were/are located, how do we know whether they were democratic/republican or otherwise?

Also, if you look at the totals under "party ideology", 46% were "conservative Republicans, other Republicans, conservative independents". But the rest were labeled "liberal Democrats, other Democrats" which totals 40% and 13% identified merely as "independents". If we assume independents split 50/50 in the unidentified precincts, that would equal 46.5% left-leaning and 52.5% right-leaning. Looking at "Party Affiliation", we see 39% Republican and 40% Democrat. The balance, 19% is independent. Again, were these precincts evenly split along right- or left- leaning? Did they lean more in one direction or another overall or were they "clustered"? Look at income. Over 50% made in excess of $40,000, 53% made over $60K, and 54% made over $75K. That's a higher income overall than the average Kerry voter in the Mitofsky-Edison polls. Also, more of these respondents, 32%, were from the south than from any other geographic region (24% E, 24% MW and 40% W). Most were from the suburbs, small towns or rural areas; only 36% were from the "city". I am sure there are others who can pick it apart on more bases than this.

Finally, it was "self-administered". How does that constitute an "interview"? People picked this up and answered it on their own.

[mountebank]

36. These are pretty good points and it's not my purpose to defend

this exit poll point for point. My point in posting it is that it's data independent of the other exit polling data. So, good points on the methodology - I don't know how the administrator of this exit poll would answer those points you raise. I'm assuming exit pollsters find ways to correct for not being able to get a perfectly representative picture of the U.S. in their sample. Weightings, etc. I don't know if it was done with this poll - but my assumption is that the L.A. Times knows how to conduct an exit poll. Maybe that's a huge assumption.

The question is whether the exit polling done by Mitofsky-Edison was wrong, or the vote tallies were wrong.

It seems a little more believeable to me that Mitofsky-Edison got it wrong - somehow, I don't know how - than that the vote tallies were wrong and the L.A. Times exit poll screwed up their methodology but somehow landed on the wrong numbers. (And if someone were going to manipulate the L.A. Times exit poll, why wouldn't they just do the Mitofsky-Edison poll while they were at it?)

How do you explain the recount in NH, which found no evidence of fraud, despite wild disparity between M-E exit polls and the vote tally?

[euler]

35. Same old forum. Nothings changed. Apparently nothing learned.

Carry on.

[missouri dem 2]

37. I wonder if your are aware of the definition of your chosen name?

5 entries found for mountebank.
moun·te·bank ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mount-bngk)
n.
A hawker of quack medicines who attracts customers with stories, jokes, or tricks.
A flamboyant charlatan.

v. moun·te·banked, moun·te·bank·ing, moun·te·banks
v. intr.
To act as a mountebank.

v. tr. Archaic
To ensnare or prevail over with trickery.


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



Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: moun·te·bank
Pronunciation: 'maunt-i-"bak
Function: noun
: an itinerant hawker of pills and patent medicines especially from a platform : QUACK <bought an unction of a mountebank —Shak.>


Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


mountebank

mountebank was Word of the Day on October 30, 2000.


Source: Dictionary.com Word of the Day


mountebank

n : a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. Very interesting. If you read his #22. about -- nothing here, move on

so why bring up an exit poll now?

[mountebank]

44. You might also look up "irony."

Here I thought irony was practically a plank of the Democratic Party and the bane of rural arch-conservatives everywhere! Guess I was wrong. I guess someone really would conceal their intent to mislead everyone right in their name where no one would look, just like in Poe's The Purloined Letter. Ah, but there I go being a book-readin' latte-liberal again......

[spooked911]

38. How do we know this poll wasn't "adjusted" with vote tallies like the NEP

poll?

We really don't know if this is a pure poll or not.

[anaxarchos]

43. Thank you...

Take a look at the second link in post #42 above (The L.A. Times October 27th Opinion Poll) under Ohio...

It is an amazing read.

[mountebank]

46. Wow - there was good reason to be optimistic on Election Day.

I know I was. Well, I do believe, in a slightly modified form of my post from above, that if everyone from Ohio who wanted to vote had cast a ballot, and that every ballot cast were counted, that Kerry would be President. I think the fraud was in moving voting machines, the provisional ballots, etc. We KNOW the fraud was there, in fact: there IS hard evidence. I don't believe there was nationwide manipulation of vote tallies and I don't believe the Mitofsky-Edison exit polls were accurate. So, call me weird, but I guess I believe Kerry should have won the Presidency and lost the popular vote....

[Time for change]

49. Can you tell us why you don't think the Mitofski-Edison polls

were accurate? Nationally they had Kerry up by 2.6%. In Ohio they had him up by 4.2%. Can you cite one instance when they were ever that far off? (5.4% nationally, 6.7% in Ohio). Have you read Dr. Freeman's 39 page paper about the exit polls?

[anaxarchos]

62. Good enough...

So much for debate producing only heat and no light. I learned something too.

[bemis12]

47. The odds of that are

7 to 1, or

112,000 to 1.

No wait. I mean 750 TRILLION to one.

[Cha]

50. I don't believe anything by msm.

From what I've read on DU from the la times..it has no cred with me.

[Bill MI]

51. Don't get mad, get LOUD!!!

We need to flood the Judiciary Repuglicans with e-mails, letters, and phone calls in order to get them to understand how important this is. They MUST hold FULL investigations with subpeona powers.

<http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx>

The idiots have megaphones, but we have numbers!

The Senate Democrats were cowed, this time by their constituents, into doing what they should have done in 2000. We can't stop now. The Fight has only begun!

[TruthIsAll]

52. OBVIOUSLY BOGUS. LOOK AT WHO, WHEN, HOW & WHERE THEY POLLED.

5,000+ WITH 3000 FROM CALIFORNIA?

WHO HIRED 'EM?

[anaxarchos]

61. TIA, look again...

The L.A. Times "exit poll" is a funky hybrid that is focused on the survey questions. It's not very important. But look at it's companion: The L.A. Times Opinion Poll 4 days before the election (October 27th, 2004).

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2004-10/14837171.pdf

It is a very deep analysis of the underlying trends with a few days to go.

Just a sampling:

"The poll shows Bush gaining in Florida, losing in Ohio and splitting the vote with John Kerry in
Pennsylvania. The Times poll explains why this is happening. It shows that Florida voters are on the more
positive end of the scale for Bush, while Ohio voters on the more negative end of the scale and
Pennsylvania voters are somewhere in the middle (often splitting their vote)."

"This time, Florida voters are split on this, while Ohioans adamantly want a new course for the country,
while Pennsylvania voters also think the country needs to proceed in a new direction (although not as
vociferously as voters in Ohio)."

"Ohio voters are more pessimistic about the country and are negative toward the
president. So it is not surprising that among likely voters Kerry is leading Bush by six points (50% to 44%
for Bush) in a two-way horserace."

"Demographics: At least nine out of ten Democrats and Republicans are supporting their candidate,
while 45% of independents (including voters who identify with minor parties) are behind Kerry. More
liberals (86%) than conservatives (79%) each are supporting their respective candidates and three fifths of
moderates are backing Kerry. The younger voter, 18-44 years old, are splitting their vote as are the baby
boomers. Elderly voters are strongly behind the Democratic challenger. White voters who make up a core
group for Bush nationally, are divided, while nearly three fifths of minority voters support Kerry. The
more affluent voters (households with earnings of $60,000 or more) are backing the president, while the
less affluent (less than $40,000 household income) supports Kerry. The middle income voters are split.
More than half of married voters support Bush, while a huge 69% of unmarried voters are behind the
challenger. Voters who live in a city or suburb support the Democrat, while small town voters are
somewhat split but leaning toward Bush, and voters in rural areas are solidly behind Bush. Ohio voters do
not register by party, but looking at their party affiliation in this poll, it breaks out:
RV LV
Democrats 43% 42%
Republicans 37% 38%
Ind/Other 20% 20%
Interest in Voting: Three quarters of the voters in Ohio are ‘very’ interested in this presidential
campaign and they are strongly supporting Kerry by 12 points over Bush. As in Florida, virtually all
voters in the Buckeye State are certain of their vote."

It's a standard poll but with significant depth.

What are the chances of this being SO FAR off the "real results"?

[Time for change]

53. If Bush won Ohio

And if they don't have anything to hide, why are they trying so damn hard to prevent a full recount in Ohio?

[spooked911]

55. yep.

they're hiding something no doubt.

[rdmccur]

57. Sounds like another of those

exit polls corrected for the vote count like Freeman discusses
and dismisses as meaningless.

[regularjoe]

58. Please don't attack mountebank

Mountebank has already shown a great deal of openmindedness and patience despite begin accussed for being influenced by reading an exit poll. Discussing the merits of the exit poll is great but please don't attack people that clearly are NOT trying to cause problems or just rant.

regularjoe

what are they hiding?

[rdmccur]

59. Not an attack just another perspective