One percent error in exit polling data is not great, but quite good.
EXIT POLLS ARE NOT MADE TO PREDICT WINNERS, BUT TO STUDY THE DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE REASONS OF VOTERS.
"Fast counts" (counting a sample of prescincts) are used to predict election results.
Leaking exit-poll data to predict a winner is a mis-use of polls.
Now, pollsters know that exit polling data does not flow at a regular level. That is, early flows tend to differ from late flows. Usually, at least in Mexico -where I have some experience-, it's around 3 p.m when you can have a clearer idea of the final outcome (and in races with 5 points difference).
Why doesn't data flow at a regular level?
2 reasons. Voter reasons and pollster reasons.
Voter reasons: I go again by experience.
Mexicans vote on sundays. People who go to mass, usually vote after service. The earliest results come from people who don't go to mass.
People from hotter regions (our federal elections are held in July) tend to vote early (or late) in the day, to avoid noon heat. This does not happen in temperate regions. A big chunk of the left wing vote comes from temperate regions.
So you have lots of peasants and non-religious people voting in the early morning (PRI votes - plus most of the PRI voter movilization schemes are in the early morning: vote after breakfast), religious people voting later (PAN votes), people from temperate regions voting around noon (PRD votes), and people from hotter regions voting in the afternoon (PRI and PAN).
Plus there's the fact of different hours. We only have 5 states out of 32 in different hours, but it counts.
Something similar must happen in the US, specially taking into account that Tuesday is supposed to be a normal working day. I imagine people who work vote at different hours than people who don't work.
Pollster reasons: Some pollsters want their info in chunks of 5 (every 5 voters, a report); other want it in chunks of 20. And the personell may or may not have the same means (and the will, they're humans after all) to send the information at the same speed and with the same accuracy. There's always a pollster "field slant" (Like "I have to ask the 5th voter, but he looks mean, I'll ask the 6th").
Thanks for the additional explanations, fbaezer!
Cool, fbaezer.
I have only one point to add to nimh's list:
#11: IF the exit polls helped anyone, they would seem to have helped Bush. If they showed that Kerry was ahead, then potential Kerry voters had less urgency about getting out and voting, and Bush voters had more. On a rainy, cold Ohio evening with endless lines, during which far fewer young Kerry voters turned out than expected, it's not inconceivable that the leaks therefore hurt Kerry quite a bit.
I don't think you said anywhere specifically that the exit polls helped Kerry, but the "intentional" stuff seems to indicate that. Whose intent? WHAT intent?
Polls are overhyped.
The average voting change outcome of poll-influenced voters has been calculated below .5%... according <ahem>... to international polls.
Interestingly enough, exit polls have the opposite effect from what you would expect. Generally, whoever appears to be leading will actually get more votes simply because they are ahead. People naturally want to vote for a winner, I guess. People going for the candidate who is behind in the polls are actually less likely to go out of their way to vote, particularly if it looks like a landslide in the direction of the other candidate. This is why, generally, whoever is ahead in the exit polls will leak the information in order to generate more excitement and more votes.
Even if they have to make up the numbers to make their candidate look like he's in the lead maybe?
The reason Bush Won
The reasons Bush won and the Republicans are doing so well is simple:
1. American churches are brainwashing their people to believe that if they don't vote Republican that it's some how a sin. This is why so many people are putting morals ahead of issues.
2. The conservative owners of the AM radio stations refuse to put on liberal talk shows. There are plenty of them out there but they can't get on the air because the owners of talk radio are mostly rich Republicans.
The difference between conservative talk radio and the so called liberal television media is that talk radio hosts are left to spout off uncontradicted, and since they control the airwaves, it's all people have to listen to at work and in their cars.
Republicans aren't as dumb as they look. They built this propaganda powerhouse right under our noses and people are buying it.
It is probable that a substantial percentage of 'church goers' voted Kerry. There are a lot of liberal Christians out there. Radio stations would GRAB a liberal talk show host who could hold an audience, but there just aren't many who can since liberals have virtually no message but criticism to present and that gets old really fast.
I hope somebody was able to come up with a good demographic map that will show how mainstream most the GOP vote is and out of the mainstream most of the Dem vote is.
For instance, the Dem support comes mostly from those who are dependent on government largesse or those liberals on government salaries, left wingnuts who go off the extreme deep end on issues, minorities who have been brainwashed into believing the Dems do have their best interests at heart despite 60 years of experience to the contrary, and large corporations for which Dem policies favor.
GOP support comes from everybody else including entrepenours, small business owners, the religious and others who don't want time honored traditions that have benefitted EVERYBODY to be torn down and who believe if it ain't broke, don't fix it, minorities who realize they aren't poor step children who have to be protected and supported by Big Daddy government, and families who want the ability to reach for the best opportunities in education, health care, environment, and economic prosperity for their families.
foxfyre wrote:For instance, the Dem support comes mostly from those who are dependent on government largesse or those liberals on government salaries, left wingnuts who go off the extreme deep end on issues, minorities who have been brainwashed into believing the Dems do have their best interests at heart despite 60 years of experience to the contrary, and large corporations for which Dem policies favor.
Ever heard of farm subsidies and welfare? These things are pretty prevalent in many of those red areas you are talking about.
Steppenwolf (my hero) knows more about this than I do.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37997&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=110
On another thread we talked about farm subsidies--those are a very VERY bipartisan issue. Do you pull them and risk putting the U.S. (and world) food supply at risk? Or are they a necessity. This is a worthy debate.
As far as welfare, a moral society takes care of the truly helpless. Everybody else should pay their own way as much as they are able. In the red states, people believe enabling people is the compassionate way to go. In the blue states, votes are bought, in part, with welfare.
Foxfyre wrote:On another thread we talked about farm subsidies--those are a very VERY bipartisan issue. Do you pull them and risk putting the U.S. (and world) food supply at risk? Or are they a necessity. This is a worthy debate.
As far as welfare, a moral society takes care of the truly helpless. Everybody else should pay their own way as much as they are able. In the red states, people believe enabling people is the compassionate way to go. In the blue states, votes are bought, in part, with welfare.
I don't have an opinion on farm subsidies. What I do have an opinion on is any assertion that people who vote democratic are freeloaders for receiving government benefits, but people who vote republican are not. I'm no big fan of giant wasteful government programs, but I see the reasoning behind them and I'm not prepared to make big sweeping generalisations about the people who receive help from them.
I agree most Democrats aren't Freeloaders, Freeduck, but you almost have to agree that most Freeloaders are Democrats.
No, I don't have to agree to that. I would say that most people who are 'freeloaders' in the truest sense are apolitical and don't vote.
And one other thing about the farm subsidies, we should understand that the bulk of these do not go to hardworking family farms who are a dying breed, the bulk goes to corporate farms.
You're probably right about the farm subsidies. But it is the subsidies that reduce the enormous risk and keep anybody in farming. At least our elected officials here have explained that the U.S. is pretty well self sufficient when it comes to feeding ourselves and we export and give away huge quantities of food. Without the subsidies, we could quickly become dependent on other countries for basic foodstuffs and many people who are not starving because of our generosity would have their food supply cut off entirely. Neither scenario is acceptable.
I could make economic and national interest arguments for all 'entitlements'. It's in the nations interest to not have children grow up homeless and without basic nutrition and healthcare. It's in the nations interest to provide our elderly with a means to retire without burdening their children (the economic heavy lifters). In fact, it's hard to believe these programs would even exist if they weren't in the nations best interest. So I find it somewhat hypocritical and stereotypical to assert that one set of benefit recipients is somehow morally superior to another.
The difference in vote patterns is pretty easily described as so: people who live in urban and densely populated areas tend to vote democratic. People who live in rural and less densely populated areas tend to vote Republican. There's really nothing more you can say about it.
Freeduck write
Quote:I could make economic and national interest arguments for all 'entitlements'. It's in the nations interest to not have children grow up homeless and without basic nutrition and healthcare. It's in the nations interest to provide our elderly with a means to retire without burdening their children (the economic heavy lifters). In fact, it's hard to believe these programs would even exist if they weren't in the nations best interest.
This part I agree with completely. I just think one side wants national policies in which people can provide these things for themselves while the other side engenders support (and votes) by purporting to give these things away while in the process causing fewer opportunities and in some cases creating permanent underclasses.
It doesn't take rocket science to know which side I'm on in that fight. Gotta go to work now but will be back later.
I guess I take issue with the 'sides' part. Most people know that these programs need work, including the recipients of them. The who wants what of it is just partisanship. Reps and others assert, as you do, that Democrats are offering us permanent goodies -- which isn't true. And Dems and others assert that Republicans want to completely eliminate the programs -- which I sincerely hope isn't true.
Which 'side' has increased government staffing and spending 13% in 4 years? ahhhhhhhh, yes. <nods> The 'side' after the 'side' that increased government spending under 4% in 8 years. Yes. That 'side'.
Gotta love factcheck.org
Bush, he's the man when it comes to growing bigger government.
