I hope Micheal Moore had fun taping......

show me the reports of the samplings. Right now I have only your say so.

I agree! We host our Saturday night shows on their servers! Hudson and his partner rock!!

My STATEMENT is that I have not seen a reasonable answer for the discrepency.
Of course we'll never know will we. Diebold made the machines without a verifiable paper trail. Handy huh.

Can you not admit that perhaps the exit polls became flawed in 2000 independant of Bush arriving on the scene? I know the samples were flawed this year, i could look and we'd probably find that they were flawed in 2000 and 2002 as well. Or you could remain ignorant (note I'm not calling you stupid, but you are looking another possible explanation in the face and keeping your eyes shut because your blind hatred of Bush won't let you think anything else) and ignore another possibility.

JV

Here is an article in support of the exit polls which basically admits how even a well meaning sample can be flawed. I am working on digging up the statistics of who was actually sampled.

Posted on Wed, Nov. 03, 2004





How the Wisconsin exit poll was conducted

Associated Press


The exit poll of Wisconsin voters was conducted for the National Election Pool - The Associated Press, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC - by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.

The survey was conducted at a randomly selected probability sample of 45 precincts around Wisconsin.

As people left the voting booths, Edison/Mitofsky interviewers asked them to fill out a confidential paper questionnaire prepared by NEP representatives. The interviewers selected voters at a set interval - such as every fifth person - so that each participant had an equal chance of being picked.

The results were adjusted to reflect the different probabilities of selecting a sample precinct and people attending each, as well as by the observed sex, race and estimated age of voters who refused to participate.

As with any survey, the results could vary because of chance variations in the sample. For this poll of 2,321 respondents, there was one chance in 20 that sampling error would cause the results to vary by more than 3 percentage points from the opinions of all Wisconsin voters.

Sampling error also depends on how many poll sites have voters with the characteristic of interest. For example, black or high-income voters may be found clustered in only a few sample precincts. Sampling error may be up to three times larger for clustered characteristics. Polls are subject to other sources of error, such as from question wording or order

Well yeah they could have been flawed independant of his coming on the scene... but then that would mean that they just randomly deviated from the accurate telling that they have given every time since they were started. Statistically, that doesn't happen... ceterus paribus.


Edit: sorry, not everyone takes econ classes... that means "all else held equal"

I can admit anything if you show me a quantifiable reason to shift my opinion.
You haven't, but I certainly invite you to try. I would like nothing more than to learn I'm wrong and this wasn't another stolen election by the Bush administration.

Unfortuneatly --with paperless voting I am left with only the exit polls as the "verifiable" form of data. Sorry, I can't go on just say-so.

X - you may as well give up any hope of "debate" or rational discussion here. Kendra is obviously so wedded to his position that no appeal to rationality will get through. It's too bad that this is not the only person who has taken such a stance.

Don't forget too how close these elections have been, that throws the polls off even farther since hte margin of error of the polls is big enough to swing it from one candidate to another.

JV

her position

show me data. not opinion.

*yawn*

Kendra, to start with there were hordes of dem lawyers at the polling sites who upon seeing the exit poles favor Kerry proclaimed that there was absolutely nothing fishy going on with the elections and that all of the votes were being counted and cast correctly. I am paraphrasing obviously. Only after it started to swing for Bush and became obvious that the exit polls were flawed did they plant seeds of discord.

Have some guts and stand up for what we all know. The elections were fair no matter who won. If Bush had lost I would not be sitting here and whining about how unfair it was. Do something positive, quit spreading hate and discord just because your guy lost. There were just as many dems as there were reps at the voting sites. To say that the voting machines were rigged to toss out votes is just asinine. Show some proof if you are going to continue with that reasoning. Stop with all of the partisan BS and just get over it. If what you said was true there is NO doubt that it would be found out and would be the biggest scandal in the history of the United States.

An equil case could be made for a dem conspiracy but I am not claiming foul and saying that the exit polls were skewed to show an early Kerry lead. I am not sitting here and saying that it was a liberal ploy to excite Kerry’s voters to go vote for a winner and demoralize Bush voters to stay home because their candidate had already lost. I am not sitting here saying that it was orchestrated to come out in the middle of the day even though they knew that more conservative voters would vote after 5pm because they had to work. I am not saying this even though statistically it is a fact that an early prediction of a Kerry victory will generate more votes for him. I am not saying this at all. Do you know why? Because it didn’t happen. THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY!

Haven’t we seen enough of the hate and divisive rhetoric from both sides in this campaign? This is the time that we as Americans need to put this race behind us and come together behind our President with our support. (And yes, I would say the same thing if Kerry had won) You will do nothing whatsoever to help our country if all you have to contribute is more of the same ole tired bitching and moaning. Show a little class and respect and promote unity, not discord and hate.

whatever, coppertop.

We will when the administration does ^_^

Like I expected you to be a reasonable and positive person. It is sad that this is all you have to offer.

So, your argument is that if the other guy acts bad that justifies your bad behavior? Enlightening isn't it.

Well my argument is that if he can do it and not get in trouble for it, then we should be able to do the same. Otherwise there is some kind of favoritism going on.

You offered me irrational emotional blather. I gave you a pithy retort.
I'm a very reasonable and very positive person.
I also think anyone who voted for Bush is either a traitor or hopelessly stupid.
I'm an American. It's my right.

We should all be held accountable for our actions. To say it is ok for me to act inappropriately because someone else did first is a weak argument indeed.

Give it up already. You REALLY need to go read your posts and then ask yourself if you are being "reasonable and positive". Heck... never mind that... just read you contradicting yourself in this post.

"I also think anyone who voted for Bush is either a traitor or hopelessly stupid.
I'm an American. It's my right." Reasonable and positive... right.

I am sure it will do no good whatsoever but I ask you as a fellow American to just stop with all of this and work to unite our country, not further divide it.

Saying it's ok for a person in power to act inappropriate while turning around and telling someone else who is just giving their opinion and not influencing anyone that it is wrong for them to... well that's just hypocracy.

Tell ya what. Since I'm part of the 80% of the country that DIDN'T vote for George W. Bush --why don't you try and work with US. Otherwise --cram it.

I am not saying that at all. I was saying that taking an attitude that Joe Schmoe did me a wrong so that justifies me to do him a wrong is not a very good justification.