Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

KOS Claims SILENCE over SC Primary (Vast differences in polls) but he's WRONG!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:08 AM
Original message
KOS Claims SILENCE over SC Primary (Vast differences in polls) but he's WRONG!
From kos: "Mother of All Whines, with morons across the internet charging fraud without knowing what the hell they were talking about" WHAT AN ASS!

Fraud in South Carolina!
by kos
Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:32:02 AM PST

The pre-election poll average in New Hampshire was:
Obama 36.7
Clinton 30.4
Edwards 18.4
The final results were:
Clinton 39
Obama 37
Edwards 17
So the polls nailed Obama and Edwards, while Clinton picked up the undecided vote. But overall, it was about a 10-point difference between the polls and the actual results.
Of course, this launched the Mother of All Whines, with morons across the internet charging fraud without knowing what the hell they were talking about. But it was Clinton! And she won! And of course, that meant that her victory couldn't have been legitimate.
So let's go to South Carolina.
The pre-election poll average in South Carolina was:
Obama 43.1
Clinton 28.5
Edwards 17
The final results were:
Obama 55
Clinton 27
Edwards 18
So again, the polls pretty much nailed the second and third spots, but ... wait ... what's this? Obama got 12 points more than the polls indicated? Overall, the poll average was 14 points off from the final results, worse than in New Hampshire. So this could only mean ONE THING -- FRAUD!!!!!!!!
Did I mention that South Carolina uses ES&S touch screen machines with no paper trail?
But funny how there's nothing but silence out there. Is there any doubt that if the results were reversed, and if Hillary had outperformed the polls by 12 points, that people would once again be crying about fraud, demanding recounts in the Palmetto State, and concocting all manners of fantastical theories to rationalize their skepticism? Apparently, since Clinton didn't win South Carolina, the voting machines worked perfectly.
-snip
http://www.dailykos.com/

THERE WERE CRIES OF CONCERN ABOUT THE OUTCOME:

ES&S iVotronic Touch-Screens Fail In 100% of the County's Precincts, Voters Reportedly Being Turned Away Without Being Able to Cast a Vote
Virus-Vulnerable Voting Machines Had Been Sent Home with Pollworkers on 'Sleepovers' Prior to Today's Republican Primary...

Guest Blogged By John Gideon, VotersUnite.Org


Local media and CNN are reporting that Horry County South Carolina's ES&S touch-screen votingmachines are in a near total meltdown.

CNN reports:

Poll workers in Horry County tell CNN voting machines have been down since polls opened Saturday morning throughout the county — the machinesare not reading an activation card.

Workers have been giving out paper ballots but at least one precinct has run out of envelopes to seal them in (not a sign of turnout — they had just 23 such ballots on hand). Election workers say that officials have told them they are working precinct by precinct to fix the problem and that a few votingmachines may now be running, but some voters have been turned away and asked to check back later.

Three poll workers also tell CNN the county has about 100 precincts and all have been affected. CNN is awaiting a call back from the county's election supervisor.

Further CNN coverage here: "South Carolina primary plagued by bad voting machines"

Malfunctioning voting machines plagued Horry County, which contains the cities of Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach, according to poll workers. Workers said the machines have been down since polls opened at 7 a.m., and they are not reading activation cards.

Workers were handing out paper ballots, but at least one precinct has run out --- it had only 23 on hand. Poll workers said the county has about 100 precincts, and all of them are affected.

-snip

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5579




updated 9:22 p.m. EST, Sat January 19, 2008


South Carolina primary plagued by bad voting machines, snow



(CNN)

-SNIP

Malfunctioning voting machines plagued Horry County, which contains the cities of Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach. "Human error" put the machines offline in 80 percent of the county's precincts during Saturday's voting, according to county spokeswoman Lisa Bourcier

By 4 p.m. ET, only about four of the county's 118 precincts were without a working machine, Bourcier said. Polls closed at 7 p.m. ET.

-SNIP

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/19/south.carolina.gop/

VERIFIABLE AND FAIR ELECTIONS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY TO ALL VOTERS. KOS' INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC DOES NOT HELP CORRECT THE PROBLEM ONLY BURIES AND BELITTLES IT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Kos is stupido - the media is owned by Obama - note the censorship of the snub photo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. That sorta sounds like all the fraud charges which turned out to be crap
after Kucnich had to pay to have the New Hampshire votes tallied...gee when Hillary wins...it's crap..when the other guy wins....don't question the king.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. wrong primary
The Horry County problems were in South Carolina's Republican primary, which (weirdly) occurred a week before the Democratic primary.

Kos's rhetoric may be inflammatory, but I think it's a good question: if Clinton had outperformed the polls by double digits in South Carolina, wouldn't there have been more hullabaloo? This has no bearing on whether touchscreens are trustworthy, but it is worth considering anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Same machines used in both primaries. There has been much criticism of SC's election system.
The point is the same regardless of who wins-the machines are not to be trusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. I agree with that
But the fact remains, regardless of what you or I think is the point, that there was a lot more buzz after New Hampshire than after South Carolina. That isn't the fault of people who really do have a consistent message on this issue, but it's hard not to notice it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. yes
and sadly I would be one of the most gigantic of whiners.

But there's the alternate strategy - Like with New Hampshire, I would wonder -
do these people believe in democracy or dynasties?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. What would we whine about? It's not like anything could be done
about the result. :shrug:

And this kos post is another reason to try to put up estimates *before* the voting. Someone could send him the one for SC if anyone posts over there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. what would we whine about?
well, maybe I wouldn't be saying it, but some might say:

They are voting on black boxes where the votes are counted in secret by corporations, and who owns the corporations?

They are voting on black boxes with no paper ballot to show the voters true intent.

They are voting on machines that were decertified or banned in several states because they are so vulnerable to hacking.

If South Carolina gets a pass, so should all paperless touch screen states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I thought we already whined about that.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. well...
I didn't think to link to your estimate, but I did make the point on DKos that the South Carolina primary would be inherently unverifiable. It's not as if kos doesn't get it: I don't think he was being sarcastic when he pointed out that "South Carolina uses ES&S touch screen machines with no paper trail."

This isn't about "we" -- as far as I could tell, the vast majority of ER regulars said sensible things after New Hampshire. That said, if someone had good reason to suspect fraud in South Carolina (beyond the inherent possibility alone), it would make sense to "whine" about it whether or not anything could be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. You're probably right. Right now I'm every bit as concerned
about vote suppression as I am about machine fraud.

Did you see that thread where DUer Window's grandson was initially turned away because the registrations from his high school had not been processed? No one even offered him a provisional ballot. Maybe innocent enough but I feel worried about the youth vote again this time out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I agree with that, too
Sometimes I almost feel as if things are hidden in plain sight: see pictures of voters waiting in the rain for hours, talk about touch screens instead. The right to vote, and have the vote counted, is indivisible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanruss Donating Member (194 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. sincerity of kos?
I have been wary of him ever since he went ballistic over Edwards getting public financing. I have noticed lately that alot of supposedly progressive sites are not behaving in a very liberal way. I have been supporting Edwards regardless of the funding issues. He is a superior candidate who would be very goos for America. Edwards has really gotten very little support at kos, firedoglake and huffingtonpost, just to name a few. I have wondered whether these really were phony sites set up to suck in liberals and then try to sway them. With Edwards' platform you'd think these folks would over the moon, but they are always ready to run or repeat a nasty article or bad picture of him. They are as bad as the msm really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. The traffic on this forum screams Kos is absolutely correct
Check the bottom of page 1. As I type this, the thread at bottom of the page 1 had its most recent post on January 19. That's a full week prior to the South Carolina primary.

:rofl:

Do you have any idea how that compares to the paranoid nonsense after New Hampshire? I never consider fraud, other than pre-election suppression. But a couple of days after New Hampshire it dawned on me that the pro-Hillary tilt of actual result to poll consensus probably inspired some outrage here. Now, I don't visit this forum often anymore, but I've been here enough to know it's slow, a handful of threads a day, a slow drift off the bottom of page 1.

Yeah, right. When I checked in after New Hampshire this forum was almost like the Lounge. The entire front page had "most recent post" dates on the same day. So deny all you want, but the posting facts scream otherwise. There is not a single thread in this forum that even threatens the type of fury, or length, or level of so-called scrutiny that greeted the New Hampshire result.

Desperately posting two or three obscure links from the likes of CNN and BradBlog is laughable. If your point was legit, all you had to do was allow the frenzy on this forum to speak for itself. Except there was no frenzy.

This forum has admirable possibilities. But too many of the regular posters damn their own supposed cause by completely tilting the approach, based not on possibility/evidence of fraud, but whether the result was favorable. And I can't think of a more pathetic reality, in any forum of any website I've ever posted on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Page 1? I don't understand what you are referring to in your 1st paragraph
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 01:49 PM by mod mom
but if you believe there were not comments regarding SC since Jan 19-you're wrong. I posted this yesterday after a SC elections commissioner responded to an Ohio blog. If you go to the link and read the comments, you'll find EI folks very critical of SC election system and his comments make apparent our cause for alarm. As in Ohio with the GOP BOE officials, ease of use appears to be more important than reports indicating problems with electronic voting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x496126
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. You don't visit this forum very often, do you?
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 01:53 PM by sfexpat2000
I don't even know how most of the posters to this forum vote because we generally talk about ELECTION REFORM here, not candidates.

And the reason this forum was moving so quickly after NH was because the mods were moving threads here like crazy and most of those were OPs by people who never or rarely post here any way.

So, you are wrong in your assumptions.

ETA: This is a link to estimate of SC made before the primary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=493832&mesg_id=493832

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. actually, I'd love to see a study of this
I wasn't tracking ER in 'real time' at that point (after NH), but in fact my perception was much like sfexpat's. It's strictly anecdotal, but I thought the regulars were generally reasonable.

That said, however much or little the difference in reactions reflects upon ER regulars, I agree that the difference is stark, and I don't see any point in griping at Kos for pointing it out.

"possibility/evidence" is exactly the distinction that election integrity advocates should be careful to make. I think it's appalling that Mark Crispin Miller said there is "no doubt" that the NH scanners were manipulated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. And let's not forget the incident in Michigan. A programming error
had machines reading "uncommitted" as "write in". I don't think any of us cared so much that "uncommitted" likely lost live votes because we were thinking ahead to November and trying to figure out what the "error" might mean down the road.

I finally don't know what to think about NH. I probably don't know enough to form an opinion. But, I have noticed that the media is warming up to the idea of a great number of "late deciders".

That pretty much invalidates the pre-election polls, doesn't it? So, if this becomes a national "phenomenon" we're left with adjusted exit polls after an election on hackable machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. one thing about NH...
"Late deciders" are pretty much a given, if you give the polls any credence at all. Lots of people appeared to move from Clinton to Obama in the last five days -- but then, people who said they decided in the last week divided relatively evenly. So, a lot of them seem to have 'un-moved.' That is more likely in a primary -- especially an early primary -- than it is in a general election.

That said... polls pretty much suck for election verification. Actual verification is much better!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. Two words - Exit polls (not pre election polls)
Exit polls were off in NH. That is what triggered questions. It would not have mattered who got more votes than who else. Exit polls can be an indicator of fraud. They are used world wide as an indicator of fraud. Why do you think Pakistan has banned all outsiders from taking exit polls at their upcoming election? Why was there turmoil in Kenya and other places? The exit polls were off. Pre-election polls are junk. Pre-caucus polls are even worse. They are nice to look at, but the exit polls mean more. That is why the exit polls are privatized and sold as a commodity here to only the elite media. We the people will never see them. Never. The exit poll results are handed to a pundit with his own show like Tweety on a piece of paper but never never shown to the public.

Now, as for South Carolina - the silence is surrounding any problems with the electronic devices, as well as the exit polls. The media have learned, or not. I don't know. But just say the exit polls were off. Way off. In South Carolina where they are almost exclusively touch screens, there could be no recount. Nada. Zip. No one could pay for one because you cannot physicially do one. Pop quiz - what would YOU do as SOS?

So, before anyone goes off the handle, I suggest one reads and tries to keep up, because without 1-human=1 vote that can be physically counted, democracy is just a game. A game where whoever counts the votes wins.

/rant off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. three words - same day registration
its easy to flood the polls with lots of voters, or easy to make a fairly quick change in registration.

But seriously, Hillary seems just like the type of candidate folks in NH would love, and one of the co founders of Democracy for New Hampshire endorsed Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. like Venezuela?
OPPONENTS of President Hugo Chávez have claimed that fraud thwarted their recent attempt to remove him from office in a recall referendum. Venezuela's election agency declared that Mr Chávez won the referendum by 59% to 41%.... (A)n exit poll supervised by Penn, Schoen, and Berland Associates (PSB), an American polling firm, and conducted by volunteers from Súmate, an opposition civic group, showed the opposition winning by 18 points.

http://www.hacer.org/current/Vene79.php

I think it's debatable whether exit polls are, or should be, "used world wide as an indicator of fraud." The Bush administration might think that's a good idea (although even the Bush administration hardly mentioned the exit polls in Ukraine), but so what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. We probably paid for that Sumate poll. lol n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. sfexpat, you'll find this interesting RE: Mark Penn's polling firm:
In August, exit polling figured in a bitter fight in Venezuela over what amounted to competing landslides for and against a recall of the sitting president, Hugo Chávez, a socialist with ties to Fidel Castro.

The recall's proponents sponsored an exit poll, supervised by Penn, Schoen & Berland, an American firm whose clients have included Bill Clinton and Michael Bloomberg. Sometime before the polls closed on Aug. 15, Penn, Schoen reported that 59 percent of Venezuelan voters had said yes to throwing the president out of office.

A few hours later, the official count, by an election commission under Mr. Chávez's control, declared him the winner, with 58 percent of the total. Both the Organization of American States and the Carter Center, the Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by Jimmy Carter, said that their observers had seen no irregularities at the polls. In response to the exit poll, they called for a random audit at selected polling stations and again found nothing suspicious.

Mr. Schoen acknowledged in an interview that the poll's field workers were recruited by a group that helped organize the recall, but he said the volunteers had been trained to conduct the poll professionally, and that his firm would have no reason to put its reputation at risk by participating in a fraudulent poll. The recall's supporters continue to believe the election was stolen.

-snip
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/weekinreview/17plis.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Omg. The world really is tiny, isn't it?
Thanks, mod mom. :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Penn-as in Mark Penn (Hillary's Chief Strategist):
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 06:52 PM by mod mom
Isn't it Time for Mark Penn to Leave Burson-Marsteller?
Posted November 12, 2007 | 11:18 AM (EST)


My colleague at The Nation, Ari Berman, has done more than any journalist to shine some light on how pollster-strategist Mark Penn, head honcho at PR giant Burson-Marsteller, and perhaps the most important figure in Hillary Clinton's campaign, poses a real dilemma for the candidate. Penn heads a firm that has represented everyone from union busters to big tobacco, and more recently Blackwater. (According to a Marsteller spokesperson, it was a subsidiary, BKSH & Associates, run by GOP operative Charlie Black, which helped Erik Prince prepare for congressional hearings after his employees killed civilians in Iraq).It would seem difficult to find a more controversial client than Blackwater but Penn's firm has just been retained by Spin Master.

Who is Spin Master? It turns out that Spin Master distributes Aqua Dots, a toy that was recalled last week because it contains a glue ingredient that when ingested is broken down by the body to make GHB, the "date rape" drug, which can cause unconsciousness and even death. (The Consumer Product Safety Commission says the number of children sickened by Aqua Dots has risen from two to nine in the past week.)

Penn has repeatedly stated that he has no direct contact with controversial clients like Blackwater or unionbusters. But what about the good old-fashioned American principles of responsibility and accountability -- principles which his candidate likes to invoke on the campaign trail? As Ari Berman has pointed out, the dilemma for Clinton is that Penn's firm represents many of the interests whose influence she has vowed to curtail. But as kids get sick from poisonous toys, how can Clinton keep in her corner, as her chief strategist, a man who has even limited involvement with a firm like Burson-Marsteller? Isn't it time that Clinton ask Penn to choose: my campaign to make this a safer country or a PR firm which has too many clients undermining that agenda?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katrina-vanden-heuvel/isnt-it-time-for-mark-pe_b_72206.html

"In '06, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57% of Campaign Contrib to GOP"



Polling Czar



After the 1994 election, Democrats had just lost both houses of Congress, and President Clinton was floundering in the polls. At the urging of his wife, he turned to Dick Morris, a friend from their time in Arkansas. Morris brought in two pollsters from New York, Doug Schoen and his partner, Mark Penn, a portly, combative workaholic. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said, 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-chips and school uniforms,'" says a former adviser to Bill. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest."

Penn, who had previously worked in the business world for companies like Texaco and Eli Lilly, brought his corporate ideology to the White House. After moving to Washington he aggressively expanded his polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland (PSB). It was said that Penn was the only person who could get Bill Clinton and Bill Gates on the same line. Penn's largest client was Microsoft, and he saw no contradiction between working for both the plaintiff and the defense in what was at the time the country's largest antitrust case. A variety of controversial clients enlisted PSB. The firm defended Procter & Gamble's Olestra from charges that the food additive caused anal leakage, blamed Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically modified foods for Monsanto. PSB introduced to consulting the concept of "inoculation": shielding corporations from scandal through clever advertising and marketing.

In 2000 Penn became the chief architect of Hillary's Senate victory in New York, persuading her, in a rerun of '96, to eschew big themes and relentlessly focus on poll-tested pothole politics, such as suburban transit lines and dairy farming upstate. Following that election, Penn became a very rich man--and an even more valued commodity in the business world (Hillary paid him $1 million for her re-election campaign in '06 and $277,000 in the first quarter of this year). The massive PR empire WPP Group acquired Penn's polling firm for an undisclosed sum in 2001 and four years later named him worldwide CEO of one of its most prized properties, the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M). A key player in the decision to hire Penn was Howard Paster, President Clinton's chief lobbyist to Capitol Hill and an influential presence inside WPP. "Clients of stature come to Mark constantly for counsel," says Paster, who informally advises Hillary, explaining the hire. The press release announcing Penn's promotion noted his work "developing and implementing deregulation informational programs for the electric utilities industry and in the financial services sector." The release blithely ignored how utility deregulation contributed to the California electricity crisis manipulated by Enron and the blackout of 2003, which darkened much of the Northeast and upper Midwest.

Burson-Marsteller is hardly a natural fit for a prominent Democrat. The firm has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which thousands were killed when toxic fumes were released by one of its plants, to Royal Dutch Shell, which has been accused of colluding with the Nigerian government in committing major human rights violations. B-M pioneered the use of pseudo-grassroots front groups, known as "astroturfing," to wage stealth corporate attacks against environmental and consumer groups. It set up the National Smokers Alliance on behalf of Philip Morris to fight tobacco regulation in the early 1990s. Its current clients include major players in the finance, pharmaceutical and energy industries. In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates.

-snip
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman



NOW HERE IS SOME INFO ON PSB:


PSB and the 2004 Venezuelan recall election

PSB received negative attention for polling it did during the August 2004 Venezuelan recall election of President Hugo Chavez:<8>
"Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for Chavez" the survey, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, asserted even as Sunday's voting was still on. But in fact, the opposite was true - Chavez ended up trouncing his enemies and capturing 59 percent of the vote.
PSB's Venezuela poll raised eyebrows for several reasons: the opposition to Hugo Chavez seized upon it as proof that "the results from the vote itself were fraudulent"; the poll results "were sent out by fax and e-mail to media outlets and opposition offices more than four hours before polls closed," in violation of Venezuelan law; "members of Sumate, a Venezuelan group that helped organize the recall initiative, the fieldwork for the poll"; and remarks to media went beyond poll results and analysis to election commentary - Mark Penn told Associated Press that Doug Schoen "believes there were more problems with the voting than with the exit poll."<9>

PSB and the Serbian elections in 2000

Interestingly, PSB was involved in similar charges of "American political interference in Serbia, locus of a $77 million U.S. effort to do with ballots what NATO bombs could not--get rid of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. In the run-up to national elections on Sept. 24, U.S. aid officials and contractors are working to strengthen Serbia's famously fractured democratic opposition. They have helped train its organizers, equipped their offices with computers and fax machines and provided opposition parties with sophisticated voter surveys compiled by the same New York firm that conducts polls for President Clinton" -- PSB.<10>
Jonathan Mowat has a more incisive appraisal of PSB as follows:
Penn, Schoen and Berland (PSB) has played a pioneering role in the use of polling operations, especially "exit polls," in facilitating coups. Its primary mission is to shape the perception that the group installed into power in a targeted country has broad popular support. The group began work in Serbia during the period that its principle, Mark Penn, was President Clinton's top political advisor.<11>


PSB and the expected Italian elections in 2006

At the beginning of 2006, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi ordered PBS (via his party Forza Italia) to conduct a survey on the next Italian elections (of April 9, 2006). The results showed Berlusconi's coalition winning, while all other surveys by Italian pollsters showed the opposition winning. The Penn, Shoen & Berland Italian survey results can be seen here. Other news reports on this contested survey are here and here.

-snip
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Penn%2C_Schoen_%26_Berland
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. yes indeed, Penn
But how does this work? Are we supposed to trust exit polls unless they're conducted by Penn?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. That might not be a bad idea. Sumate is as corrupt as they come.
It's basically the sector of the Venezuelan oligarchy that is willing to co-operate with Bush and Co. There is a lot of work in Latin America if you want to help rig an election.

Anti-Chávez leader under fire
Maria Corina Machado is due in court Wednesday on treason charges.
By Mike Ceaser | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

CARACAS, VENEZUELA – Maria Corina Machado doesn't hesitate when asked her feelings about the possibility of going to prison for up to 28 years for "treason to the nation" and conspiracy.

"I'm scared, I'm very scared; I have three kids," the political activist says softly, sitting in her small office in the Caracas headquarters of Sumate, the organization that led last year's unsuccessful bid to recall President Hugo Chávez from office.

Mr. Chávez's landslide victory in that vote only added to the troubles of Ms. Machado, Sumate's vice president and the woman who has come to symbolize the anti-Chávez opposition. Machado is facing criminal charges for allegedly endorsing the April 2002 coup which unseated Chávez for 48 hours, and for Sumate's having accepted US government funds. She is due in court Wednesday for a hearing.

Machado has become a cause célèbre for Chávez's opponents and a demon for his supporters. So when Machado met with President Bush in the White House May 31, it raised a firestorm of government criticism back in Caracas. Venezuela's foreign minister called the meeting "a provocation," and the interior minister charged that Machado was a puppet of the CIA, continuing the heated rhetoric that has characterized the relationship between the Bush administration and Venezuela's leftist leader.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0705/p06s01-woam.html

This is the only Venezuelan that has been to the White House during the Bush regime that I know of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I'm not suggesting to trust Sumate or Penn
I'm just commenting on the weird circularity I encounter among certain exit poll devotees -- 'they're so accurate, they're used around the world to verify election outcomes' -- and it seems like no number of counterexamples even fazes them. It's a loyalty worthy of a better cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. kos really doesn't know what he's talking about. Again. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonn1997 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
31. In SC, only the *margin of victory* not the *victor* is in dispute...
of course the former is going to get less attention than the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC