For Bill Bored -

[Internut]

you have been questioning the party identification weighting in 2004 exit polls. You may be interested in this Pew Center paper published in 2003:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

[Bill Bored]

1. Hmmm

If true I think this explains almost all of Bush's victory.
He screwed up on 9/11, the Dems didn't hold him accountable as they eventually should have, he got a pass, and the idiots love the guy!

Sure explains those exit polls, except for one thing:
Why didn't the great Mitofsky adjust his weightings a lot sooner, instead of releasing what, according to his own interpretation, turned out to be bogus and misleading polls?

This whole thing makes me want to puke, or worse, read a voting machine manual. Trying to find election fraud in these polls is like looking for a polar bear in a blizzard.

Thanks for the post!

[TruthIsAll]

2. The final exit polls in 1992, 1996, 2000 were each 39/35 Dem

Did you forget? I posted this way back.

Its too late now, but you can look it up yourself.

[Bill Bored]

3. Didn't forgot, but the party IDs have shifted over the years.

That's what this Pew report is about, among other things.

It all boils down to this:

The Dems should have been all over Bush for allowing 9/11.
Instead they gave him a pass, and if you believe the conventional explanation, this is why we are where we are.

The party IDs shifted after 9/11 toward the party that ignored the warnings and failed to protect us.

[LightningFlash]

4. The party ID shift becomes irrelevant.

Remember, MysteryPollster and his friends are simply trying to distract. When you look at the full case of data, the final "weighting" becomes bogus.

http://www.exitpollz.org/CNN_national1253.html

"
" 1. VOTE BY GENDER

BUSH

KERRY

NADER

TOTAL
2004
2000
2004
2004



Male (46%)
55%
+2
44%
0%



Female (54%)
48%
+5
51%
0%






2. VOTE BY RACE AND GENDER

BUSH




KERRY

NADER

TOTAL
2004
2000
2004
2004



White Men (36%)
62%
n/a
37%
0%



White Women (41%)
55%
n/a
44%
0%



Non-White Men (10%)
31%
n/a
67%
1%



Non-White Women (12%)
24%
n/a
75%
0%






3. VOTE BY RACE

BUSH




KERRY

NADER

TOTAL
2004
2000
2004
2004



White (77%)
58%
+4
41%
0%



African-American (11%)
11%
+2
88%
0%



Latino (8%)
44%
+9
54%
1%



Asian (2%)
42%
+1
58%
*



Other (1%)
41%
+2
54%
2%


13. VOTE BY EDUCATION

BUSH




KERRY

NADER

TOTAL
2004
2000
2004
2004



No High School (4%)
50%
+11
50%
0%



H.S. Graduate (22%)
52%
+3
47%
0%



Some College (31%)
54%
+3
46%
0%



College Graduate (26%)
52%
+1
46%
1%



Postgrad Study (17%)
45%
+1
54%
1%


15. VOTE BY PARTY ID

BUSH




KERRY

NADER

TOTAL
2004
2000
2004
2004



Democrat (37%)
11%
+0
89%
0%



Republican (37%)
93%
+2
6%
0%



Independent (26%)
48%
+1
50%
1%


17. HAVE YOU EVER VOTED BEFORE?

BUSH




KERRY

NADER

TOTAL
2004
2000
2004
2004



No (11%)
46%
+3
53%
0%



Yes (89%)
51%
+3
48%
0%






18. VOTE BY RELIGION

BUSH




KERRY

NADER

TOTAL
2004
2000
2004
2004



Protestant (54%)
59%
+3
40%
0%



Catholic (27%)
52%
+5
47%
0%



Jewish (3%)
24%
+5
75%
*



Other (7%)
24%
-4
74%
2%



None (10%)
31%
+1
68%
1% " "

Can't be had both ways. Around 1.5 million bush voters died since 2000, and the weighting for their vote in 2004 plus the gender switch is impossible. Can't have two crosses on the same X and still make a 'T'.

[autorank]

5. "It's an O'Dell thing, Bill, we wouldn't understand" (haha)

You summed it up.

"Why didn't the great Mitofsky adjust his weightings a lot sooner." Why indeed. How did he suddenly lose his touch. All those New York City voters and DC area residents rushed to embrase their "defender" (not).

Pleeeze, new tactics...threads in honor of users. When's my turn?

We'll close the meeting with a verse:

Luke 11:45-12:3

"Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. <2> There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. <3> What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs."

Thought provoking, isn't it?

[LightningFlash]

6. Shhh! That's called logic.....

It was the same way he lost his touch, during the New Hampshire race in 1992.

When the far, far right republican buchanon lost in the same pattern, because the Bush responders lied.

;)

[autorank]

7. Aren't you worried that you're telling "too much" truth tonight?

:freak: I mean, somebody might get the message.

[LightningFlash]

8. Well, we wouldn't want that...

The internets and their newfaggled pew research reports, just got refuted by the official cencus/exit poll result sheets.

But I guess he(they?) and the mystery pollster, don't really have anything to offer to that.

Maybe when the going gets tough, the tough just picks up its tail and runs?

:o :toast: :puffpiece:

[autorank]

9. Time to apply some discipline, Occam's Razor Strap

:spank:

:toast:

[Chi]

10. Why rely on a phone poll if the actual numbers are available..

I only checked with with California, but it appears the numbers of registered voters, by party affiliation, is available.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror/reg_stats_10_18_04.pdf

Year Dem Rep Other Declined
2004 43.0% 34.7% 4.6% 17.7%

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. I think the q isn't who is registered,

but who votes, and how those voters state their party identification (not necessarily the same as their registration) in the exit polls.

The original screen shot for CA at exitpollz.net doesn't seem to show the party ID breakdown; the weighted split at cnn.com is 39% Dem / 33% Rep / 27% independent. Note the higher proportion of independents in the party ID question. (Probably note also the narrower gap between Dems and Reps, although it may well fall short of statistical significance.)

[Chi]

12. If that's the point, then this poll is useless.

"Q.18 In politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?"

http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=760

Their question doesn't ask whether they voted.
I'm sure they are picking up people who didn't vote at all, and people who arn't registered.
(shrug)

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. not quite useless, but yeah

Even if it did ask whether people voted, there would be no particular reason to believe the answers -- although you could hope that the answers weren't biased.

However, I was interested in Q.5 in the link you posted. It showed (as of October 2003) Bush losing to a generic Democrat by 4 points among all respondents, but even among registered voters. If you average the last five surveys there, it seems to be a general tendency, although it doesn't show up in the two Gallup surveys from March 2003 (I can't tell why -- any theories?), and in the older surveys it seems to go in the other direction. Of course registered voters aren't the same as past voters or likely voters.

[Chi]

14. How bout...useless to the point of this thread 8)

It wasn't my link, just another page from Internut's link.

'Any theories'...Sure, Job failure.
People get tired of hearing about incompetence and death.
Since the media doesn't get into it, the only source was the Dem's campaigns.

[Internut]

15. The absolute numbers do not directly

translate, but the trend over the years certainly shows the narrowing of the gap.

[Chi]

16. If you were asking about the March Gallup numbers....

Here it is...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0210.htm


Bush Dem.
2003 Feb 24-26 46 40

The number with the asterisk (from the Pew study) doesn't match the original poll.

[Bill Bored]

17. See this post in the long thread without my name in the title:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=374482&mesg_id=375836>

[Internut]

18. I am sorry, Bill, did not realize

that it's a faux pas. Just wanted you to see it.

[Bill Bored]

19. I didn't realize it either, but when in Rome...

Also, you can't put "Wally O'Dell" and "Bruce O'Dell" in the same thread either!

[autorank]

20. You just did! I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Bill Bored]

21. The night is still young auto. nt

[autorank]

22. I'm not telling

I'm going to save this one.

[kiwi_expat]

23. Since Mitofsky was just making stuff up, he could as easily have chosen

to modify the Independent/Other Bush vs. Kerry percentages, instead.