Naysayers:If exit polls showed Bush won, would you say they were accurate?

Would you also question THAT result, as you are questioning THIS result, which shows that Kerry won?

Would you be saying that Mitofsky is a world-renowned exit pollster who is ALWAYS right?

Would you call anyone who disagreed with you a conspiracy buff, ignorant about historical exit polling accuracy, in deep denial of the FACTS?

Would you point to the exit polls in the Ukraine and Germany as proof of their robustness?

Be honest. Would you?

And the reason for that would be "just to piss you off".

any of that. there is only one poll that counts.

go to the bank to deposit you paycheck and tell them to keep the receipt, I trust ya.

Or how about an Airline ticket, oh no I don't need a confirmation number don't worry about it.

Makes alot of sense

I don't doubt that there were problems with the voting. Silly you. I just don't think an exit poll can outrank the actual vote.

If all the early exit polls showed shrub winning and then at the 11th hour the votes starting dramatically shifting and calling for Kerry to win...yes, I would question that; however, that didn't happen did it..just like it didn't happen in Florida in 2000...I am sure that all of the crap will lead us nowhere...shrub will still be planted in the white house lawn...but he is not my president and never will be.....

the cheater got away unpunished the first (or second or third) time around!

And Kerry is a man of "integrity, integrity, integrity."
Kerry won! The polls prove it! Now let's quit debating it, and get him in the White House NOW!

At least as accurate as any poll is. I'd admit that * won, and just decide the American public are the most mind-meltingly stupid sheep in the history of human culture. Actually wait, I already have decided that... :)

There are, near as I can tell, about a thousand different ways the vote was counted on election day. Imagine the mess created from a thousand different ways of bookeeping, and that's what we have with the Nov. 2 election. A huge mess.

Heck, there are trillions of dollars missing in the pentagon's budget, considering that, what makes you think the data from a thousand different government officials is gonna be accurate?

It's precisely why exit polls are so important: They scientifically establish the data. The best data we have available establishes that Kerry won the popular vote. Get over it.

Get over what exactly? Are you alright?

If you are over it, like me, then you can disregard the message.

The message was not directed personally at you, Nimrod, or was it? Are you confident that Kerry won, or are you not? If you think Kerry lost, well, you aren't over it, are you?

It asked the hypothetical question of if the exit polls had showed * winning rather than Kerry would we continue to have faith in them. I answered in the affirmative, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.

until Hell freezes over. But on January 20, * will be inaugurated. Even if fraud is proven, etc. later and * is impeached, Kerry will not be President. I don't know how you can define that as a win.

With people turning away from 8 hour long lines in the minority areas, with tens of thousands of absentee ballots being lost, with all the attempts to target and disenfranchise democratic voters, yes, I would question the results.

As far as I know, the exit polls only survey those who were allowed to vote, and we all know that doesn't include everyone who was eligible and tried to cast a vote.

Aside from the disenfranchisement, it's hard to have full faith in an auditless system where known partisan and corrupt officials and company reps have open access to change the numbers at will.

so we are all crazy?.....

Outgoing Congressman To Assist Constitutional Challenge of Electors

Outgoing Representative Peter Deutsch (D-FL) is joining forces with the sore losers of ReDefeatBush and other organizations that are working on a Constitutional Challenge of Electors in Florida, Ohio and possibly other states.

According to a press release, "Preparations are underway for a public forum on Wednesday afternoon at the Capitol at which Deutch will publicly question some of the key witnesses to activities that may have surpassed the boundaries of normal partisanship and crossed over into illegal activity in Florida."

Of course, it was only days ago that it was reported that Florida was said to have few election challenges—63 out of 7.6 million votes cast. Similarly, in Ohio, no evidence of fraud, suppression, or tampering was discovered.

I think we can safely say that these people are mentally ill. This charade has gone on long enough. They can't even lose with dignity.

Sadly, I think this kind of mental instability is going to be a regular occurrence in the future. Leftists are unable to understand that they can, they have, and they will lose elections fairly. Instead, they waste time, energy, and taxpayer dollars challenging the results of every contest they lose. Most liberals and Democrats I know don't question the results of the election. The morons who do are just a tiny number of fringe liberals who are so radical and desperate that they need these baseless challenges to hold on to in order to find meaning in their lives.

Matt Margolis blogged for Bush in category Election at 02:03

You fascist are the most cry baby bunch of sore winners I've ever seen.

QUOTE FROM OTHER POSTER...
"I think we can safely say that these people are mentally ill."

HEY....ever climb on an airplane??..if you do you better watch yourself....i am one of those ...mentally ill ...who you put your life in my hands !!
think about it!!
yes siree...i am one of those mentally ill who have been fighting so hard to protect your life from the murderers and negligents in this White House, who have put your life and mine at risk!!
p.s....i am subject to drug testing while working..and in 33 yrs i have never ever had a problem.....so with my newly aquired mental illness...i better lay off my prozac while working ..wouldn't you say??

happy flying!!

fly

they "believed" should not be able to cast a vote. Conversely, The Democrats are challenging THOUSANDS of votes that ELECTION OFFICIALS were responsible for counting accurately (and didn't.)There is an enormous difference between holding authorities responsible for their malfeasance and trying to prevent individuals from casting a vote, for whatever reason.

with those and the final totals I would say we had a fair election.

That is how elections usually work out.

Also have to factor in the issues involved, since certain issues are more likely to mobilize certain voters. The issues involved in this election were of the type that were likely to mobilize Democratic voters---economy, health insurance, fears of a draft. The issues in this election were very much like those in 1992, for all of W.'s vow that he wasnt going to be his daddy.

but rather as a cynic (about pretty much everything having to do with humans), and before I would consider whether or not any poll was other than coincidently accurate, I would need to study the model (which entails considerable knowledge of the modeled population, if this is other than most simplistic) and the methods used -- and I would study in detail things like the percentage of refusals, how incompletes where treated and whether or not the data was extracted from impartial, generally accurate sources or relied upon whatever "information" people happened to volunteer -- particularly when confronted face to face.

I have never participated in a poll unless forced to, and I see no assurance generally that "refuseniks" would have provided the same data as those that agreed to participate. And, of course, there always is the question of whether the participants lied when asked certain questions -- just like I almost always do when forced to provide "data" for things like online registrations.

And that the "poll" is/was conducted by some "expert" means absolutely nothing to me. I have come to expect incompetence, bullshit and coverup in just about everything, and from just about everybody. (Like I said, I am a cynic.)

Moreover, I cannot rule out the possibility that the (leaked) "polls" were, at least in part, an attempt to rally * supporters and further suppress Kerry voters. Indeed, this would make a great deal of sense in the context of the massive voter suppression that occurred. Of course, I do not know the "truth" of this either.

Was there fraud -- in addition to massive vote suppression and an absolutely disgusting campaign using the most vicious, lying and base voter manipulation -- sure. Am I satisfied that any of the statistical analyses of the historical or polling data constitute "hard evidence" of fraud, sufficient to "overturn" the election -- sadly, no.

Besides, this is a tough case to make to the largely mathematically-illiterate American people, particularly in the absence of the usual media feeding frenzy (most people do not understand that it is the absence of such a frenzy, that is, these days, more telling on such a subject).

And while mathematical analyses can point to the potential problems that bear closer examination, when dealing with something as complex as the highly fragmented, ill-formed (indeed, mesmerized) American voting public, I have to wonder what constitutes an accurate model -- except by coincidence -- or direct information on vote totals from "representative" low level voting "units".

...And it would also be nice to know the degree to which the fix was "in" (ie, "working").

Now, I do not mean to denigrate the work that has been done, it has its value, but I do not see it as having sufficient "weight" to justify any and all "recourse".

Hey, you asked. Until now, I have said little or nothing on this subject, although I have become increasingly concerned that "faith" in this matter is becoming a litmus test, both here and in larger forums, for whether or not a person is "with us or against us".

If this is the case, I see this as being short-sighted, divisive and dangerous -- there is room for honest doubt -- and I have to wonder whether this litmus test mentality is driven by passion or perhaps something darker (in the general case, specifically).

And no, I wouldn't put much faith in the exit polls if they showed that * won. Polls are just another "product" that someone is peddling -- and as the ancient Romans said: "Caveat Emptor".

...that it doesn't really matter what we think here at DU. Mitofsky is a world-renowned exit pollster. He will be recognized as a world renowned exit pollster by courts, congress and MSM. He is on record saying that the exit poll numbers can't be used to prove fraud. Presumably, he will testify to that under oath. What is your plan to get around all this ?

NOTE: accusing me of being a freeper or having a low post count won't help convince anyone that Mitofsky is wrong. You need to come up with real arguments if you want to play in the big league real world.

Now, please defend your work in light of the fact that Mitofsky invented exit polls (Arnebeck 04-2088 paragraph 66), has been conducting exit polls for 38 years, and has claimed recently that exit poll numbers can't be used to prove fraud.

Remember, it's not me or DU members that you have to convince. It's all those experts out there who disagree with you that you have to convince. They are the ones who will testify for the other side if this case ever makes it to a court or congree.

tell that to the people in the Ukraine.

While you've been trumpeting the notion that exit polls are accurate because German exit polls are always accurate, the Mystery Pollster actually called the German firm that conducted the exit polls you reference. Guess what ? Unlike the US, German exit polls are actually random samples. See this:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_about_thos.html

because I've always operated under the assumption that "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck."
However, this 2004 duck quacks more like a turkey.

I hated Reagan but at least he really won and the polls concurred.

NGU.

The exit poll data was wrong. If you suspect otherwise, I suggest you present hard evidence to the contrary, not statistical manipulation.

You are making statements for which you have no basis in fact.

Very dissapointing coming from you, a long-time favorite DUer of mine.

I'm sorry. I'm a realist and until you have hard evidence, you have nothing at all.

What you've got is enough to LOOK for hard evidence. Until you have hard evidence, there was no fraud.

That's reality.

I don't understand your premise. But I do believe the exit polls were more accurate than the voting results, and I think Kerry probably won.