Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<em6462-h3j.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> I've never seen an election where the exit poll didn't forecast the
> result correctly, even our very close to call last election (3 seats,
i.e.
> 0.5% difference between red-green and black-yellow). The exit polls were
> correct, the predictions from partly counted votes were off by up to 2%,
> some hours later. In the early morning, it was clear that the exit polls
> were right.
I don't know about German exit polls, but in this year's US election
the pollsters explicitly warned before the election that their results
would have a large margin of error and were designed to be descriptive
rather than predictive. Perhaps the US pollsters were using different
types of questions and a different methodology? Or perhaps the US
polling firm should hire some German pollsters next time?
> Ok, I've now seen two elections where the exit polls did predict
something
> different: The 2000 Florida ballot (exit poll: Gore wins), and the 2004
> USA-wide ballot (exit poll: Kerry wins). It took 10 months to conclude
> (inofficially, though) that Florida really had more Gore votes than Bush
> votes (though very close; too many confused voters thought they had
voted
> for Gore, but pushed the wrong button and such)
Do you have a source for that assertion? US newspapers performed a
review for all Florida counties. Using Gore's vote criteria statewide,
Bush actually picked up votes:
<http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/>
> but this time, they made
> sure that noone will be able to recount. They left no paper trail
behind.
Which "they" are you talking about? Are you aware that the most
problems in Florida's 2000 election process were found in counties
that were overwhelmingly Democrat? Or that the so-called "confusing"
butterfly ballots had in fact been previewed and approved by both the
county's Democratic party officials and the public at large?
Pollster John Zogby, a Kerry sup****ter who also forecast a narrow
Kerry victory, has remarked "the exit polls were terrible."
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002081763_exitpolls04.html>
Jack Corrigan, a Kerry advisor in charge of their lawyer/recount
brigade has dismissed the Internet conspiracy claims: "There were a
few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there
is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they
got them in the states that mattered."
<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/10/internet_buzz_on_vote_fraud_is_dismissed/>
The simple fact is that Kerry's team knew they were below Gore's
sup****t level among women as well as Hispanic and Jewish voters.
They were counting on two things to win: an increase in young voters
which didn't happen (on a percentage basis) and that the small
percentage of undecided voters would break heavily for Kerry
(they narrowly went for Bush).
> As European, I'm not really sure if I want Kerry instead of Bush. Here
in
> Europe, we have only one plutocrat, that's Berlusconi in Italy. In
America,
> there's only the choice between several plutocrats, and both parties
even
> run with a plutocrat as vice president candidate. All non-billionares
are
> excluded from the election process in early stages by making sure that
> these early stages are so expensive noone without a billionare in his
> family can get through. Plutocracy is definitely a form of Aristocracy,
and
> the founding fathers are rotating in their graves.
Actually, given both the influence of the rural ("red") states
in deciding the election and the fact that Germans aren't allowed
to decide who leads Italy or the US, I rather suspect they'd be
pleased. (Hessians weren't beloved in the US 200 years ago.)
Tyler
|
