Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part I
Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005
Election 2000 and 2004 Fiascos Linked
b
y Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
Election Reform:
Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls
Election 2000 and
2004 Fiascos Linked - Election 2000 is the
starting point for understanding the scandalous exit-polling fiasco of Election
2004. In a joint venture, ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox, and
NBC hired Voters News Service (VNS) to conduct exit polling during Election 2000. VNS produced
misleading exit-poll data that the National Networks then used
to justify calling Al Gore both winner of the election in Florida and winner of the
National Election. In Election 2002, the
VNS computer system malfunctioned but not before "early" exit polls incorrectly forecasted Democrat candidate
landslides. The Networks then terminated VNS and established the National
Election Pool (NEP) consortium to provide tabulated vote counts and exit-poll
surveys for Election 2004. This consortium appointed Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International as sole providers
of exit-polls. Associated Press' role was to tally the
vote.
Shortly after
1pm on Election Day the
National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing
Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the
American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner
of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in
any state. Stringent Network
standards for projecting or calling a state over the national airways mean
little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue
for subverting the electoral process.
In 2000,
NM2002 and
2004,
misleading exit-poll data (disinformation) proved
counterproductive to fair elections for the Republican Party,
interfered with and recklessly endangered the electoral process, produced an
environment of animosity and resentment, and subverted the
legitimacy of our national election process. Presidential elections are too
important to our system of government to risk
future exit-poll fiascos. The practice of indicating winners using
manipulated exit-poll data must be terminated now; this practice has
already done great damage in Elections 2000 and 2004; why
risk catastrophic damage in future
elections?
I live in the Panhandle
of Northwest Florida where Democrats and Republicans in Presidential elections
tend to vote Republican. In 2000 the ratio was 2:1 and 2004, 3:1. In Election
2000, with a voting ratio strongly favoring George W. Bush (GWB), announcements
were made by the National Networks that stopped or curtailed voting in the
Florida Panhandle. The National Networks helped the Democrat Party at a
critical point on Election Day by: (1) Declaring the polls closed all
across the state of
Florida when in fact there was
still a full crucial hour of voting left in the Panhandle and (2) Declaring
Al Gore winner of the state and national election before
Florida
polls closed.
-
Given the closeness of
the election, these inappropriate network announcements could have resulted in
an Al Gore Presidency. Both of these declarations were made under dubious
circumstances: (1) Florida's Secretary of State
reminded the National Networks one week prior to the
election that the polls in
Florida
's Central Time Zone
did not close until
8 pm EST
and (2) Pre-election
polling and actual voting indicated an extremely tight race, one too
close to call. There was no “ethical” way either Presidential
candidate could be declared winner of Election 2000 without a total
vote count.
-
National Network
disinformation tactics (telling the public the polls were closed when they
weren’t and telling the public that Al Gore had won the election when he
didn’t) proved highly effective in curtailing
Florida
voting in Election
2000. Many citizens of the Florida Panhandle know voters who
chose not to vote once the networks (CBS in particular) announced that all
Florida polls were closed and that Al Gore had won
Florida
and therefore
the National Election. According to the Clerk for Elections, Okaloosa
County, Florida: "In past elections, there was usually a rush of people coming
from work, trying to get to vote before the polls closed" Soon after 6 p.m. in the Central Time
Zone, voting volume dropped almost to zero in 361 polling places in
the Panhandle.
-
The beneficiary
of the Network announcements (polls closed - Al
Gore winner) was the Democrat Party. See "Committee for Honest
Politics” testimony before the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee. With Dan Rather, "CBS, for example, made at least 13 explicit
statements during the hour that the
Florida polls were closed, a
number which increases to 18 if the statements calling
Florida for Gore are
included. Moreover, CBS made more than 15 additional statements implying that
the polls were closed ..." "With the exception of Fox, all other
networks repeated the poll closing information throughout the 7
p.m. hour broadcast."
Suggest Reading “Exit Polls Need More
Than a Makeover” By Dr. David Hill
-
Given the 2:1 vote advantage of Bush over Gore in the Panhandle, the minimum effect
was “loss of 12,761 votes for
the Bush campaign.”
-
Nationally, the loss of votes by the Bush campaign probably was very significant
(nationwide) in that the retraction announcement that Al Gore hadn't won
the state of Florida / National Election was not made until 10pm EST
- just in time for the polls to close on the West Coast (7pm
PST). This is Republican voter suppression at its best;
compliments of the National Networks, VNS, and the Election Decision
Team of Mitofsky and Lenski. Without the National Networks’ voter
suppression tactics in Election 2000, GWB may have won both
Florida and the National popular vote by enough of a margin to
obliterate the election legitimacy issue.
During Election 2000, I was
naïve about how far the National Networks would be willing to go to help a
Democrat get in the White House. I had viewed the actions taken by the National
Networks (undermining GWB during Election 2000) as “possibly” honest mistakes.
Not until Dan Rather’s CBS fraudulent memos scandal, the
380 Tons of RDX and HMX Missing Hoax, and finally the Election 2004
exit-poll fiasco did it become comprehensible that some members of the National
Networks' consortium were using the exit-poll system to help Democrats win
Presidential Elections. In 2000,
the Networks used the broadcast Airways to influence Election Day voting in
favor of Gore and in 2004 they used the Internet to influence Election Day
voting behavior in favor of Kerry. In future elections, recommend we bypass the National Networks'
manipulated exit polls and rely on actual vote counts - no more winner
projections.
Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax
Backfires?" Part II
Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal
Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January
2005
Election 2004 Disinformation Strategy
-- Curtailing
Republican Voter Turnout
By
Col.
John
H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
j-bwambough@cox.net
- www.nsar.us
Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls
Election 2004 Disinformation Strategy -
Democrat campaign
strategists, Democrat National Committee (DNC), Kerry Campaign, Left-Wing Media
(LWM), the National Networks and pollster companies surely comprehended
that Al Gore would have been elected President in Election 2000 (given the close
vote) if only the National Networks had made their inappropriate Al Gore
victory announcement a little earlier on Election Day 2000. The linkage
between Election 2000 and 2004 is that Democrats got validation in Election
2000 that manipulated data (disinformation) could be used to
significantly curtail Republican voter turnout and possibly alter the outcome
of closely contended national elections. Democrat leadership (my view)
had a crystal clear Election 2004
strategy:
Given that the National Networks could not participate in
further overt deception of the American voter (because of inappropriate
declarations in Election 2000 and subsequent Congressional
scrutiny), the Internet became
the vehicle for stopping the re-election of President Bush. The
Internet enabled disinformation to be disseminated to the American people
"early" on Election Day without overt involvement of the National Networks.
Curtailing Republican
Voter Turnout - To achieve the
desired lethal affect on Republican voter turnout, blatantly misleading
exit-poll raw data (disinformation) was paraded before the American people
at about 1 p.m. EST on Election Day just
minutes after Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International sent their
first wave of exit-poll data to the Networks and subscribers.
This early data was to suppress Republican voter
turnout using disinformation.
The Internet blogosphere aided the deception (in some
cases unintentionally) by spreading the buzz / perception that Kerry
was winning and that the election was "effectively" over; no need
wasting your time voting; Kerry will be the winner.
-
The architects of the
“Disinformation Strategy” must be wondering whether their scheme backfired and
contributed to a GWB win. Maybe Democrat voters concluded that Kerry was
winning in a landslide (based on exit-poll disinformation) and therefore it
wasn’t necessary for them to vote. Why wait to vote in a long line (in
Ohio rain) when it
was a sure thing that Kerry was going to win the election? Republican voters
may have been shocked by the exit polls ("Virtuous Victory"
by Larry Kudlow) and concluded that they must help GWB win
by voting (no matter what the exit-poll data showed) and thus turned
out in droves. Or just maybe the exit-poll fiasco caused the loss of
millions of votes for GWB and the Republican Party due to a successful
Democrat voting suppression strategy.
-
How much "early"
exit-poll disinformation impacted voter turnout in unclear. It is not
known to what degree disinformation distorts voting patterns
for the Presidency or impacts "down-ticket" races. However, it should
be clear to everyone that any interference with the election
process that produces only small shifts in voter behavior can make a
huge difference in a national election. In Election 2000 just a little over
500 votes in Florida decided the
Presidential election. Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all
citizens should renounce strategies that rely on "misinforming" the
American people to win national elections.
- A
Congressional investigation should determine (1) who colluded in
generating manipulated exit-poll data (disinformation) on Election
Day 2004? And (2) who colluded in
releasing "raw" exit-poll data to the National Networks and subscribers
on Election Day knowing that disinformation would be immediately leaked to the
Internet, media outlets and American people? Mitofsky, after the Election 2000 fiasco, said he
favored abandoning "the release of "waves" of exit poll results to the
networks early in the day" (page 26 CNN Report) so why was raw
exit-poll data again released to the Networks early Election Day -
given Mitofsky was fully aware of the
consequences?
Shortly after
1pm on Election Day the
National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing Kerry
winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the
American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner
of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in
any state. Stringent Network
standards for projecting or calling a state over the national airways mean
little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue
for subverting the electoral process. The practice of indicating
the Presidential winner using manipulated exit-poll data must be
terminated now. If Election 2004 shenanigans aren’t addressed by
Congress now, they will be at a later date
when disastrous consequences result from the
Networks' interfering with voter behavior during National Elections.
Read "Exit Poll Outrage" and "Those Faulty Exit Polls were Sabotage" by Dick Morris.
Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part III
Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005
Gaming National Election Pool (NEP) Exit-Poll Interviews
By
Col.
John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
Election Reform:
Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls
Gaming National Election Pool (NEP) Exit-Poll Interviews –
Shortly after 1pm on Election Day the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing
Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the American voter, this data was
projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in
any state. Stringent Network standards for projecting or calling a state over the national airways mean
little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue for subverting the electoral process.
Voters have alleged that there has been no explanation
why exit polls were so far off on Election Day. So here is an explanation. Gaming NEP exit-poll interviews may have
had a lot to do with it. The exit-poll system is easy to game. Just as misleading data (disinformation) was quickly leaked to the
Internet,
hypothesize that a list of exit-poll interviewer locations
(usually 40-50 per swing state) along with
the planned sequencing of interviews were
leaked to the DNC, Kerry
Campaign and 527 groups before Election Day. With this information, exit-poll
data collection could be manipulated to favor Kerry by flooding known
survey locations with Kerry operatives early in the morning on Election Day.
·
Kerry
supporters would have been pre-briefed on tactics for getting
exit-poll interviews (how to be an anxious volunteer). See Warren
Mitofsky’s (co-director of NEP) comment “that the Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit
polls than the Bush voters.” It is not reassuring to Republicans
that the manipulated data was the result of anxious participants
(Democrats) in early exit-poll interviews?
·
All these
years of polling and no one ever came across "the anxious exit-poll
participant phenomenon" until Election 2004, amazing! What good is
exit-poll data if tactics are being used to skew data into
disinformation to help win elections for the Democrat Party? See Michael
Barone Article (4th paragraph on Exit
Polls).
If the effort to deceive the American people were more
sinisterly contrived than flooding swing-state polls with anxious
participants (Democrats) that like to do exit-poll surveys, then further
chicanery would have included the enlistment of Kerry
friendly interviewers to
conduct the surveys.
·
To do the
surveys, interviewers would have to know the precinct names, polling
locations and interview procedures. This information could be passed along
to Democrat operatives.
·
Either flooding pollster locations with Kerry supporters (anxious to
participate in exit-poll surveys) or use of Kerry
friendly interviewers to conduct the surveys (or a combination of both
tactics) would result in manipulated exit-poll data early on Election
Day.
In addition to anxious exit poll participants, over
surveying Kerry voters and under surveying Bush voters (in each swing state) are
unambiguous indications of manipulation. How do you under represent Bush
voters across the board except by design or incompetence in what
you are doing?
- Dick Morris wrote: “But this
Tuesday, the networks did get the exit polls wrong. Not just some of them.
They got all of the Bush states wrong. So, according to ABC-TV’s exit polls,
for example, Kerry was slated to carry Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing
state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points. To screw up one exit poll is unheard
of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation
that more than honest error was at play here.”
- Getting the sampling
wrong in one state is a huge issue; getting the sampling
wrong in each swing state substantiates a well coordinated
effort to generate misleading raw data (disinformation) to
influence the outcome of Election 2004. In my view, tilting of data in
favor of Kerry was done at the exit-poll interviewer level.
Exactly how this was done remains unclear; investigation should tell us
the answer.
-
Results of exit polls
lie in the hands of twelve experts" - possibly all
Democrats. Where were the checks and balances to
insure blatantly misleading raw data (disinformation) was not used
(once again) to influence the outcome of a
Presidential Election?
Congress needs to investigate: (1) how the
collection of exit-poll data was being gamed and manipulated to benefit Kerry
and the Democrat Party (2) Who were the willing accomplices to this deception?
(3) Did the DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527 Groups suggest any sample precincts or
polling locations used by the pollsters? (4) Did the DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527
Group people play any part (with the pollster companies) in the recruitment of
exit-poll interviewers? (5) How thorough was the training of exit-pollsters
(and other people working in the system); who trained them and what were
their instructions? (6) Did the DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527 Group people have any
role in survey data tabulation or in the data gathering / handling process
either at the polls or at the Edison-Mitofsky polling companies? (7) Did the
DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527 Group people have any communications with the
National Networks asking them not to announce states for GWB and
did the National Networks comply with their requests? (8) What role was played
(in the exit-poll scandal) by the National Networks, subscribers to the pollster
service, pollster companies, DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527 Groups? (9)
Why didn’t pollster company executives put an immediate stop on exit-poll raw
data that was highly suspect, that looked unreasonable, that was so out of whack
with pre-election poll averages and that was so clearly prejudiced in favor of
Kerry? (10) Of the twelve experts that make exit-poll data decisions, how
many are Republicans? (11) What safeguards were in place to
preclude misleading exit-poll data (disinformation) being presented to the
American people early on Election Day – on the Internet blogosphere
and media outlets? (12) Who were the leakers of exit-poll data?
(13) What should the American people expect during Elections 2006 and 2008?
Since exit-poll raw data has been repeatedly used to influence
Presidential Election outcomes in favor of Democrats, should exit poll
forecasting of the Presidential winner be continued? This is a
question for Congress should address.
Exit polling in Elections 2000 and 2004 gave great
advantage to Democrats at the expense of GWB. On Election Day 2004, the National
Election Pool (NEP) sent out six separate releases of exit-poll results to the
National
Networks and subscribers – each one showing Kerry in the lead. The last wave of national
exit polls showed Kerry winning the popular vote by 51 percent to 48
percent (these numbers are symbolic of a systematic bias favoring
Kerry in nationwide exit polls).
-
Polls are statistical calculations, not factual
realities. Pre-election poll averages, automatic polling (taken just before
the election) and actual voting results established that NEP sampling
data was inaccurate for the swing states and the nationwide exit poll.
Democrat Party friendly demographics (skewed samples) provide a
partial answer as to how methodology corrupted data. Over or under
sampling of demographic factors by pollsters created sampling errors. In
plain language exit-poll numbers were not derived from random
samples of the voting population. Skews in each swing state favored Kerry.
Investigation is required.
-
It made no sense that NEP exit-poll interviewers would include too
many unmarried women and not nearly enough men unless pollsters
wanted to skew results (the early sample of 5,000 voters was
based on a 59-41 women to men ratio but interviewers/pollsters know very well not to interview disproportionate
numbers of a group, so why too many unmarried females
?), too many
Democrats and too few
Republicans, too many people in the Blue States and not enough in Red States, too many coastal state people
and not enough Westerners, too many people
in urban areas and not enough in suburban areas except if this was
by design or one other alternative, the companies
performing the surveys are incompetent in doing what they profess to
do very well. Which is it? Congress needs to sort it
out.
The practice of indicating the Presidential winner
using manipulated exit-poll data must be terminated. If Election 2004
shenanigans aren’t dealt with now, they will be at a later date
when disastrous consequences result from the Networks' use of
manipulated exit polls to interfere with voter behavior during National
Elections. Read "Exit Poll
Outrage" and "Those Faulty Exit Polls were
Sabotage" by Dick
Morris. Gaming NEP exit poll interviews, Democrat friendly
demographics (skewed sampling) and a deficient pollster polling methodology –
all combined to produce manipulated exit-poll data on Election Day. Our National
Elections involve the trust of our people in an open and fair system. Having the
National Networks and its Pollster Company's interfere (in a very significant
way) with Election 2004 via disinformation is alarming but then to declare what
they did proprietary is truly insulting to the public conscience. What
we are witnessing is a collision between Public and Private Interests that
need to be reconciled by Congress in favor of the American people.
Count votes - no more winner
projections using manipulated exit polls.
Election 2004
- "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part
IV
Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican
Voter Turnout - January 2005
Statistical Analysis of Disinformation Exit Polls
By
Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
Election Reform: Count
Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls
Statistical Analysis of Disinformation Exit Polls -
Whether the CACTECH/MIT Voting Technology Project (and
December 5th Addendum) or analysis being done by statisticians such as
Stephen F. Freeman (who likely
understates sampling errors for Election 2004 exit
polls), their analysis is mainly focused on the backend of
the exit-poll controversy (on data that emerged
after polls closed). My concerns are at the front-end with the
early disinformation data (before any polls closed) that hoodwinked the
American people into believing Kerry would win the election. Why would any exit-polling company circulate data to the broadcast Networks that
Kerry was winning in a landslide in Pennsylvania by 20 points, Minnesota by 18 points, Wisconsin by 9 points
and New Hampshire by 18 points? Which National Network was this data suppose to help in its Election Day
analysis? What were trained election statisticians suppose to do
with false data?
The National Networks use of exit polling in Elections
2000 and 2004 suggest that their primary purpose for exit polls is to assist
Democrats win elections. Election Day exit-poll analysis appears
secondary to getting a Democrat in the White House. Influencing the
outcome of National Elections via early exit-poll disinformation has become
the Election Day modus operandi of the Networks. To
understand exit-polls, visit "Mystery Pollster - Demystifying the Science and Art of Political
Polling" and "Exit-Polls: What You Should Know" and Have the Exit Polls Been Wrong Before? - By Mark Blumenthal. For
those concerned about voting machine accuracy, suggest "Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote" by CALTECH/MIT Voting Technology
Project (and the December 5th Addendum). Also, suggest reading: "A Tour of the 2004 Exit Poll: What it Says and What it Doesn’t” By Roy Telxeira.
Comparing National
Election Pool (NEP) Exit-Poll Data and Data Indicating a Kerry Landslide
With
Pre-Election Poll Averages and Actual Voting Results:
-
Table 1 – NEP Exit-Poll Data (Disinformation),
Shown on Drudge Report, Tuesday, November 2, 2004 at - 2:03:32 EST
-
Table 2 – Early Exit-Poll Data (Disinformation),
Indicating a Kerry Landslide to the American People (Uses Table 1
Data)
- Table
3 – Pre-Election Poll Averages 10/25-11/1, 2004 –
Real Clear
Politics.Com
- Table
4 – Actual Voting Results – CBS News. Com - Campaign 2004 - Nov 2nd
Election
Table 1 - NEP Exit-Poll
(Disinformation Data) – Published on Drudge Report, Election Day,
2:03:32 EST
|
|
AZ |
CO |
LA |
PA |
OH |
FL |
MI |
NM |
MN |
WI |
IA |
NH |
TOTAL
POINTS |
|
Kerry |
Lose
45 |
Lose
48 |
Lose
42 |
Win
60 |
Win
52 |
Win
51 |
Win
51 |
Win
50 |
Win
58 |
Win
52 |
Tie
49 |
Win
57 |
W8,T1,L3
615 |
|
Bush |
Win
55 |
Win
51 |
Win
57 |
Lose
40 |
Lose
48 |
Lose
48 |
Lose
47 |
Lose
48 |
Lose
40 |
Lose
43 |
Tie
49 |
Lose
41 |
W3,T1,L8
565 |
Table 2 - NEP Early
Exit-Poll (Disinformation Data) - Indicating a Kerry Landslide to the
American People
Table 3
-
Real Clear Politics.Com Pre-Election Poll
Averages (10/25-11/1, 2004)
*Actual
Voting Results were used for AZ and LA. To review poll averages and the
pollster companies used to construct those averages, click on the state
abbreviation
|
|
AZ
*
|
CO
|
LA
* |
PA |
OH |
FL |
MI
|
NM |
MN |
WI
Note |
IA |
NH |
TOTAL
POINTS |
|
Kerry |
Lose
44.0 |
Lose
44.8 |
Lose
42.0 |
Win
48.2 |
Lose
46.7 |
Lose
47.6 |
Win
48.7 |
Lose
46.4 |
Win
48.7 |
Lose
46.8 |
Lose
47.1 |
Win
48.5 |
W4 -
L8
560 |
|
Bush |
Win
55.0 |
Win
50.0 |
Win
57.0 |
Lose
47.3 |
Win
48.8 |
Win
48.2 |
Lose
45.2 |
Win
47.8 |
Lose
45.3 |
Win
47.7 |
Win
47.4 |
Lose
47.5 |
W8 -
L4
565 |
Table 4 - Actual Voting
Results –- CBS News. Com - Campaign 2004 - Nov 2nd
Election
To
review election results, click on the state abbreviation