Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Exit Polls Overstated DEM Strength Since 1988
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php ^ | 11/19/04

Posted on 11/19/2004 2:27:18 PM PST by traderrob6

The exit polls this year indicated a big lead for John Kerry. But when final vote tallies came in George Bush had earned a decisive victory


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: exitpolls; kerrydefeat
Click on link for Table
1 posted on 11/19/2004 2:27:18 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

You should at least post enough of the story so that readers can decide if its worth following the link.


More of the story..
----
As you can see, the raw exit poll results always overstate the Democratic vote, sometimes by as much as eight percentage points. So the fact that the raw results this year overstated Kerry's actual vote tally is hardly cause for alarm.

Of course, that's not the whole story. In a masterpiece of understatement, Ruy avers that "exit pollsters have never made much effort to publicly explain and document their methods," which is sort of like saying that the Mafia has a preference for holding staff meetings without the media present. As near as I can tell, it's not that they don't make much effort, it's that they actively refuse to explain even the rudiments of what they do, even when the exit polls become a legitimate news story in their own right.

Why does this matter? Because while the 1988-2000 results above are completely raw and unweighted, we don't know for sure if the 2004 results that Freeman lists in his paper are also completely raw. They may already be partially weighted, in which case we'd expect them to be more accurate than the stuff from past years. The exit pollsters — who, you may recall, are contractors to large media organizations that normally value transparency and the public's right to know — could easily explain this if they chose to. And they could just as easily show us proper comparisons with past results.

But if they did that, then there wouldn't be any conspiracy theories left for large media organizations to mock. We can't have that, can we?

UPDATE: It appears that Freeman's data is correct, but Mystery Pollster has a long post explaining that his conclusions probably aren't. And Mayflower Hill has a brief interview with exit pollster Warren Mitofsky, who says (a) he thinks the pro-Kerry bias was due to Kerry voters being more willing to fill out exit poll surveys, and (b) an analysis they've done shows that exit poll deviations weren't any different in precincts with different kinds of voting machines, which means that electronic fraud is very unlikely as an explanation for anything.


2 posted on 11/19/2004 2:38:22 PM PST by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
You know, can we just all collectively say "Duh!"

Of course exit polls favor Democrats - Democrats are much more likely to respond to exit pollsters. Why?

1. Democrats are "causy" people - they not only want to vote, they want to shout it to the mountains and proclaim it to anyone who will listen about their brilliant vote for whatever moron Democrat they voted for. Republicans are more business like - vote, get outta there. No need to tell some moron with a clipboard about it when you're done, just get on with your life.

2. Democrats have no life. Thus, they have time to sit with some pollster answering questions after they have voted. Republican - life havers! So, you know, kids, jobs, etc. - things to get to when done voting.

3. Fear of being accosted by some hippy who has not bathed for several weeks is a factor. I.e., a Republican is less likely going to want to stand around telling someone they voted for a Republican because one of these hygiene impaired Democrats will start screaming that they are Hitler. So, Republicans want to stay silent after the vote and avoid a "visual letting animals vote" bumper sticker being put on their car as they talk to the pollster about how they voted for a Republican.

So - again - DUH!
3 posted on 11/19/2004 2:38:58 PM PST by RWRbestbyfar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWRbestbyfar

visual = visualize


4 posted on 11/19/2004 2:40:21 PM PST by RWRbestbyfar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: konaice

That makes sense because exit polls in Texas in 1994 had Ma Richards beating President Bush by 8 points and he beat her by about 8 points -- Rather called the State for Ma, then too close to call and then five minutes before she was to give her concession speech he lectured us on turning out the "lovely" Ms. Richards. Last time I watched Dan Rather on election night or any other night!


5 posted on 11/19/2004 2:42:07 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Thanks Oklahomans for giving Pres Bush the win in all our counties!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: konaice

I believe that the misrepresentions caused by this year's exit polling can be explained, easily; to wit: A lot of people voted for John Kerry; before they voted against him.


6 posted on 11/19/2004 2:42:52 PM PST by ttdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: PhiKapMom

He actually called it for Richards?


8 posted on 11/19/2004 2:48:18 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RWRbestbyfar

LOL. Good post and so true.


9 posted on 11/19/2004 2:48:57 PM PST by CriticalJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RWRbestbyfar
Also most of the exit polls which were posted were early. I have never seen the numbers for the exit polls at closing time because the reports are then for actual counts. There is a time skewing because Republicans are more likely to vote after work. The 2 pm polls are for Dems to vote once they've gotten out of bed at noon.

On a similar thread another FReeper said that the final exit poll numbers were pretty close to the real numbers, but I've never seen them published.

10 posted on 11/19/2004 2:49:26 PM PST by KarlInOhio (In a just world, Arafat would have died at the end of a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
Even heard Karl Cameron bullshipping about how Kerry was ahead in all the polls leading up to the election until the OBL tape appeared.

What are these people smoking?

11 posted on 11/19/2004 2:53:14 PM PST by OldFriend (PRAY FOR POWERS EQUAL TO THE TASKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
Maybe the pollsters (intentionally?) skew the figures by polling in big precincts in big cities, in order to get the most data per pollster.

I know they never make it to my precinct...

12 posted on 11/19/2004 2:58:15 PM PST by ZOOKER (proudly killing threads since 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

Wait, so Florida wasn't the first time the MSM called a state for Bush's opponent? There is an established pattern, at least in Rather's case?

I wonder if that is on record somewhere. If record exists, I'm surprised conservatives haven't seized on this additional wrinkle of bias.


13 posted on 11/19/2004 3:00:06 PM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

Leftists will do anything to trick the people out of their rights.


14 posted on 11/19/2004 3:10:01 PM PST by PhilipFreneau (Jesus would never use government surrogates to force the people to "help others".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

Notice the discussion is about 'raw data'. The overly-Kerry exit polls this time were posted by leftist bloggers. I think this may be the real difference: in the past the media wasn't obliged to discuss the raw exit-polling data, and the pollsters understanding that their sampling methods (concentrated in cities) had a left bias and compensated before announcing the results.

(With which there is nothing wrong: in social science research, if one works with a sampling method with a known systematic bias, one applies various rules of thumb or hard statistical techniques to compensate.)

This time the raw data got out and the media was obliged to discuss it. Again nothing wrong with that EXCEPT THAT THEY DIDN'T BOTHER TO DISCUSS THE STATISTICAL ISSUES INVOLVED because 1. they probably didn't understand them, and 2. the raw data fit their agenda, wishes and preconceptions.


15 posted on 11/19/2004 6:59:13 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson