Pre-election State Polls vs. Exit Polls vs. Actuals: ONE Graph. Look Close

Well, the Pre-election polls and the Exit Polls matched up quite close, actually. Within 0.13% of each other, when averaging the deviations in all the states. That's 1/7th of ONE percent. A hair.
But the actuals, now that's a different story.

But the polls can't be right. Not according to the whoremedia. Not according to NYT, WP and Peter Jennings. No.

Their specious argument is therefore reduced to this:
Trust the voting machines. Trust Bush. To not trust Bush and Rove means you are a left-wing, liberal, conspiracy nut.

Only the votes recorded by the Diebold paperless, audit-free touchscreens, the optical scammers and the punched cards (apart from the one million spoiled in minority precincts) are correct.

The Media mantra is:
****Pre-election pollsters AND Exit pollsters ALL had to be wrong***

Then, we must conclude:
Not only was Exit Pollster Deluxe Mitofsky wrong, so were state pollsters Zogby, Harris, ARG, Survey USA, Mason- Dixon, Gallup, Rasmussen, Strategic Vision, ...

Right.

Wonder why Dan Rather finally quit? Probably couldn't take giving the WH talking points anymore.


View the carnage:

Now you need to create a third bar for "results." You can find the results on uselectionatlas.org.

tia

tia

polls you previously designated as "corporate"?

Also, thx for all your werk!!!!

Probably not gonna find much there judging by this, aside from possibly identifying patterns with certain machines.

from the final published polls and the exit polls in ONE place.

And the pattern is clear. Kerry's numbers declined in the vast majority (80%) of states. The odds of this alone: 1 of 1.7 million.

I show Kerry with 46.16% of the vote in Colorado.

here's an analysis of the swing state exit polls. Sorry if it's a dupe.

Campaign 2004: Swing-State Election Results: By BOB BURNETT
Special to the Planet (11-23-04)

The 2004 presidential exit polls were wildly off the mark in swing states; the difference between the expected and actual results was not randomly distributed, it was all in Bush’s favor.
Because of these discrepancies, I studied the election results in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. What I found were not answers, but more questions.

Because of the amount of data, I made two assumptions to simplify my inquiry. The first was to examine the states in the order of the reported magnitude of the difference between the expected and the actual results; I started with New Hampshire where the difference was 9.5 percent. And, I did not consider anecdotal evidence; I disregarded reports that a voting machine had malfunctioned in a particular precinct, for example, and, instead, looked for systemic failures.

New Hampshire: Kerry was projected to win by 10.8 percent and actually won by 1.3 percent, 9,274 votes. Bush narrowly won New Hampshire in 2000, but this time Democrats expected to win as they had conducted an aggressive registration drive. However, New Hampshire permitted same day voter registration and there were 96,000 registrations on Nov. 2, about 15 percent of the turnout; Democrats accused Republicans of taking advantage of the rules and bringing in questionable new voters. It’s not clear how these voters were profiled by party registration but exit polls indicated that 44 percent of voters said there were Independent, 32 percent Republican, and 25 percent Democrat—fewer Democrats than were expected.

An independent assessment of voting results in areas serviced by optical scanning equipment indicated irregularities. For example, in 2000 Al Gore carried Newton Township by 126 votes, whereas in 2004 Kerry lost by 57 votes. There will be a recount in 11 precincts that produced anomalous results.

Ohio: Kerry was projected to win by 4.2 percent and lost by 2.5 percent—using unofficial numbers. There are have been many reports of voting irregularities; Greg Palast noted some at www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=395&row=0. Most counties in Ohio continued to use antiquated punch-card equipment; the problems experienced were similar to those that plagued Florida in 2000.

Forty percent of Ohioans registered as Republicans, 35 percent as Democrats, and the balance Independents. Kerry got more votes and a higher percentage of the total vote than Gore did in 2000, but still lost. Former Ohio Senator John Glenn said that Republicans won because they did a better job getting out the vote.

Pennsylvania: Kerry was projected to win by 8.7 percent and actually won by 2.2 percent. There were remarkably few voting problems reported in Pennsylvania, which has a mixture of old and new equipment.

While Pennsylvania voter registration roles show that 48 percent are registered Democrats—versus 41 percent Republican and the balance varieties of Independent—exit polls showed that only 41 percent of those who voted said they were Democrats.

This suggests that either fewer Democrats showed up to vote than were expected, or those who did voted as if they were Independents, i.e. crossed over and voted for Bush. Pennsylvania exit polls indicated that voters who made their Presidential decision at the last moment favored Bush, a characteristic that was not true in the other swing states, where last-minute voters favored Kerry.

Minnesota: Kerry was projected to win by 9 percent and won by 3.5 percent. There was an unusually large turnout, 77 percent, and Kerry’s plurality was almost 100,000.

Minnesota is one of the states that permit same day voter registration and this may have been a factor in the final results. Relative to the 2000 election, Bush picked up support among both Republicans and Democrats.

There were no major problems reported with voting equipment—most counties used optical-scan equipment but rural areas still have paper ballots.

Florida: Bush was projected to win by 0.1 percent and actually won by 5 percent, a margin of approximately 380,000 votes.

There are many articles on the Internet concerning Florida vote irregularities. The most recent, and damming, was conducted by UC researchers and released on Nov. 17, http://ucdata.berkeley.edu (under “voting”). The carefully conducted study concludes that electronic voting machines—touch-screen devices—appear to have systematically over counted in Bush’s favor. There is another study found at http://blog.democrats.com/florida that shows problems in counties with optical-scan equipment. There are several ongoing investigations in Florida; including one led by Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org.

I don’t have space to chronicle all that I found in the other five swingstates, but in each case there were anomalies; the most worrisome occurred in New Mexico, which has yet to declare its official results.

The bottom-line is that there are troubling problems in at least three swing states and issues in others. The anomalous exit-poll results may have resulted from a very effective GOP get-out-the-vote effort that brought more Republicans than expected to the polls. Unfortunately, the exit-poll discrepancies may also indicate political chicanery in some states. It is in the best interests of the American people for all these matters to be carefully investigated.


Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and computer scientist best known as one of the executive founders of Cisco Systems.

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=11-23-04&storyID=20155

They forgot to hack that one, not being one of the 50 "states".

Is it possible to do this same graph for Bush's numbers??? That would be VERY interesting!

Example:
Assume that for state X, Kerry 48%
then Bush = 52%.

This applies to all three categories. Pre, exit, Actual

but are the actuals Kerry's results, Bush's results or both???

tia

Would it be possible to see the same three data sets divided into two groups:

1) Paper voting

2) Non-paper voting

How many lost votes were there for Kerry nationwide?

Take 5% of 115 million votes and you get a net loss of around SIX million votes.

with the "adjusted" exit poll "data". If its the "adjusted" data, using the actual raw exit poll data in this graph would make the election results look even more ludicrous.

I guess you've seen this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1293911&mesg_id=1293911

Thanks for fighting for democracy.

tia

We already have Zogby, ARG et al.

i wonder how cnn's colonel klink will handle the coming roar

...the source materials are never listed inside the graphics. This is important since the graphics will inevitably become disembodied from whatever text accompanied them. This is also important since the provenance of the data is one of the issues at stake.

We have the "pure" exit poll data from 4-12pm.

And we know of the bastardized,soiled, manipulated data which was fed to the sheeple on CNN afterwards, under cover of darkness.

Too bad for the fascist whores at CNN that patriotic truthseekers saved the "pure" and "impure" exit poll screen shots.

Useful information for many purposes. I am using it in the dKos Diary to help folk focus on the need for an immediate, exhaustive audit of the central tabulating center in every State.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/24/115048/86

Happy Thanksgiving!

I cannot stress enough to the gullible, who cannot wrap their minds around the idea of a tampered election, how important it is to look at states like Oregon, where I live.

final poll - 53%
exit poll - 51%
actual - 52%

Have you sent this to Keith Olbermann and Aaron Brown and buzzflash?
buzzflash@buzzflash.com

tia

excuse me, but I have a question about this graph.

It looks to me like you are not using the raw exit poll data, the data that is in Freeman's paper. I base this on Pennsylvania, where Kerry, by exit poll, was much, much higher than where he ended up. There was a huge discrepancy in Pennsylvania. Could you be using the numbers where they had worked in some of the final totals? So that there wasn't such a divergence? The "fixed" exit polls, I mean.

I am absolutely new at this, so please excuse any naivete or bad manners.

I did not show decimals in order to make the graph easier to read.
The main purpose of the graph was to present the three sets of polling data in a single view.

Focus on the forest. Let others study the trees.

compared to the MOE.

Thanks
tia

A nit; but.

The true "actual" votes are unknown.

You have a valid point. It's no nit.

We don't know what "actual" is.

Kerry's final tally was below the Exit polls in 39 states

Kerry's final tally was below the final poll #'s in 38 states

---

Seems rather suspect to me.

Who should we believe in Oklahoma?
This travesty of our democratic process must not stand!

According to Bob Nichols of the Oklahoma Independent Media Center, Rural Oklahoma Voting machines know how to count backwards. Read it for yourself: http://okimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=344

Then do the research and math.

I took just the first 5 counties (you can do it with all of them)

November 3rd results per the Tulsa World Newspaper http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2004/Final/A_10_11_3_2004.pdf

County Bush Kerry
Adair 2137 3704
Alfalfa 920 1075
Atoka 839 2897
Beaver 807 1114
Beckam 2811 2343


The Updated results that Oklahoma sent in that are being reported on CNN as of 11/28/04 http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/OK/P/00/county.000.html

County Bush Kerry
Adair 4971 2560
Alfalfa 2201 470
Atoka 3140 1946
Beaver 2271 297
Beckam 5454 1931

The difference between the results that the Tulsa World Newspaper reported compared with the 11/28/04 total on CNN?

Bush gained +10523
Kerry lost -3929

Shocking isn’t it? That’s just in 5 counties! How can a candidate lose thousands of votes that show up in the initial tally across the whole state? I can’t find a single county where Kerry did not lose votes from the initial report. This is something anyone can check out. Take the newspaper link above and compare it to the CNN official results.

Pass this on everywhere. If you weren’t angry before or needed more evidence then maybe this will convince you that this election is no better than the one in the Ukraine.

because large population centers (urban areas) are usually
blue and small communities are usually red.

It acts as a screen or "filter".

tia

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I wish someone outside of DU would listen.

As to the GOP talking point that all the polls were wrong outside the margin of error, I'd just like to say that if they wanted the election to be accepted as legitimate, they should have made it open and transparent...