SwiftVets.com

[Paul R.]

A quick thought I gotta sneak in:

Before I hit the hay last night, there was a lot of discussion on TV about how wrong the exit polls were. There was exit polling at my polling place, and I did participate, but I remember first, when I walked up, thinking "who are these people... they look like Dems... oh, it must be exit pollers...."

Then when I came out & they asked me if I wanted to participate, I noticed the identification and that this was AP / CNN / CBS / etc. My initial reaction was that of rejection / disgust (considering RaTHergate, and all), but then I thought "I should do this anyway" to help support GW. This was in the afternoon, and I was already wondering if the early exit poll reporting had affected any afternoon voters -- In another post I've already noted that those early reports on Drudge had me very apprehensive...

Anyway, point being that I think maybe more Bush supporters than Kerry supporters would see or know who was doing the exit poll, have my initial reaction, and walk away? As all these MSM pundits were scratching their heads about it last night, I was telling the TV "You twits are so arrogant that you can't see that a lot of Bushies probably blew you off!"

Anybody concur???

Back to work before I get in trouble....! I'll check in this evening & would very much appreciate opinions on this.
_________________
Paul R.

[WilliamShipley]

I suspect that the people hired to do exit polls have a liberal bias and it slightly, and perhaps subconsciously, affects their selection of who to approach to poll. When the race is down to 1-2% margins a single bias selection per watcher is enough to totally change the picture.

[grumpyBB]

One thing I heard on Fox this morning is that some people think the Dems found out where some of the exit polls were taking place and tried to skew things. Who knows though.

[Anker-Klanker]

I think they'll be talking about the exit polls for weeks, if not months. I've a couple of observations, though.

It's a built-in human bias that we tend to seek out people who look of a like mind. Thus, by definition, the exit polls were probably biased by the pollsters.

And I'm reminded of a story about marketing surveys that I heard years ago. This story is probably not true, but it certainly makes a valid point.

A bookstore chain was planning on opening a new store in a city neighborhood. They commissioned a survey with a very savvy market survey company. The surveyor(s) went to the streets and stopped people who were walking on the sidewalks to ask their opinions about which titles or classes of books would be most popular. Invariably the people who were surveyed replied that they were interested in the classics, the Bible, and high-browed non-fiction titles. The surveyor(s) then pointed to a large box nearby and said "Thanks for your participation. To compensate for your time and trouble in answering our questions, please select a book of your choice from the box." Guess what was selected? By an overwhelming majority the books selected were gothic romances, westerns, sci-fi, bodice-rippers, who-done-its, etc.

The moral of the story is that when people are surveyed they almost always answer with what they think makes them look "good," or what they think is "acceptable" and "popular" with people who might overhear or review the results. In other words, people often do lie to surveyors and pollsters.

[Inatizzy]

Good point Anker Klanker, but I think alot of Repubs were so fed up with the MSM that when they were approached for the exit poll they just told the pollster to "pi$$ off".....but the Dems happily said "I voted for Kerry".....thus skewing the results in favor of him.

The MSM will be wringing it'shands for a long time over this one.

FINALLY the sleeping giant has ROARED and the MSM is trembing in its little booties. They don't know why they can't control us or predict us anymore. boo freakin hoo.

The ARM (alternative rightwing media) has come into its own. Oh yeah!

[Theresa Alwood]

Maybe they only asked the people who had Kerry/Edwards stickers on????

Or they just look at the people and chose those they thought looked like they were democrats...it was a ploy to suppress people's vote...the only way Kerry could win. And it failed. The American people did not buy it.

Go Home John Kerry...go back to MA - we do not want you.

Bush wins OH....ahead of more votes than the actual provisional ballots.
_________________
Born to raise a little hell!

[Nathanyl]

I think it was deliberate. If you look at the press coverage and how much the media despises Bush and how they have tried to sway this election, there's little doubt in my mind they'd be very capable of rigging the exit polls to show Kerry ahead.

I do believe there can be a small amount of bias but the one number that really sticks out is the amount of women polled compared to men. They knew that wasn't balanced, you'd have to be a moron not to, but they went with those polls anyhow knowing that it could have a demoralizing effect on Bush voters and they hoped it would keep some of them at home.

Luckily the media in this country has no legitamicy with public anymore and people ignored those polls. Also the bloggers came through again. They noticed the internals and were on Matt Drudge for reporting the polls within an hour of the time they came out.

I think the lesson the press is going to need to obtain from this election is they ARE being watched and can't get away with their lies anymore.
_________________
Bill Hershey
www.worldwar4.net

[DaveL]

There will be studies about what happened with the exit polls, no doubt, but the lefty loonies will imagine a right-wing Bush conspiracy no matter what may be concluded. Several observations...
1. People like me simply ignore the exit pollers...I just walk away...last thing I am interested in is filling out another form or answering numerous questions after I just finished standing in line and voting...too many other things to go do today, and besides, my secret ballot is secret!
2. I imagine there are people who despise the liberal press and take great joy in simply lying to them.
3. Exit polls have always been fine for determining general trends and understanding the rough breakdown of the vote and the reasons behind it, but there is no historical reason to believe that a random exit poll would be accurate enough to resolve very close races...nobody believes that we could just skip the vote and decide the races based upon a large random poll sample.
4. I am convinced that the press is biased...stories are slanted...polls are selectively weighted...investigative journalism is directed...discoveries are suppressed...so there is no reason to believe that exit polling conducted and reported by these same mainstream press organizations are anything more than one last attempt to sway the electorate to achieve a particular result. I have no specific proof of that final conclusion, but I believe that all of my other observations about the press are plainly and obviously true, so there is no reason to believe that press stops "messing with us" just because voting is under way.

[Orolonn]

Hmmmm... I didn't see any exit pollers when I voted.... maybe they only polled in areas that were thought to be democratic and not republican or 3rd party?
_________________
Orolonn

[JCJR]

A joke-- Pollsters think they can measure the amount of sand in the Sahara by counting the grains of sand in the bottom of a birdcage.

Actually, a properly selected small-sample poll can be very reliable, but perhaps the only way to do a valid small-sample national exit poll, is to random-interview at least 20 folks at every single precinct? That would be way too expensive.