QUOTE
Friday, January 21, 2005
News: Experts Weigh In on Mitofsky/Edison Exit-Polling Report -- And They're Not Buying It, Either
By ADVOCATE STAFF
The highly-anticipated Mitofsky/Edison report on discrepancies between Election Day exit polls and raw vote tallies has been released.
And it's engendered more questions than answers.
The report, produced by the firm for the benefit of its client, the National Election Pool -- comprised of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC, and The Associated Press -- concludes that the broad disparity between exit-polling and ballot-tallying on November 2nd, 2004, which many have attributed to election irregularities, is "most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters."
Now, for a brief (but relevant) diversion.
In the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition [Houghton Mifflin Company], three possible definitions are given for the word "tautology":
1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words, that is, a redundancy;
2. An instance of such repetition; and
3. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false.
The Advocate is pleased to announce that the primary conclusion of the Mitofsky/Edison report is, indeed, a tautology.
In all senses of the word.
To say that more people "voted" for Kerry in the nation's exit-polling because more people who "voted" for Kerry participated in the exit-polling is to say, in essence, "We blew it -- and we've no idea why."
The report's conclusion is no more probative than is the statement, for instance, "The reason more people got off the train at Union Station today, as compared to yesterday, is because more people decided to get on the train today, as compared to yesterday."
Okay, so?
Is there any proof whatsoever that a higher percentage of Kerry voters participated in the nation's exit-polling on November 2nd, 2004 than voted for the man in the privacy of the voting booth, apart from the fact that more people in the exit-polling indicated they voted for Kerry than voted for Bush?
Couldn't it be that more people voted for Kerry in the privacy of the voting booth, as well?
At the very least, the report leaves this last issue untouched -- amazing, given that the mainstream media, most notably CNN, has reported on the Mitofsky/Edison findings as though they were a gestalt of some sort, rather than an imbecilic tautology suitable only for toddlers and recovering lobotomy patients.
In another hilarious moment, Mitofsky/Edison blamed the youthfulness of its hired exit-pollsters for the inaccuracy of its Election Day data, noting, to quote The Washington Times, "workers polled like-minded voters...[thus]the surveys appeared to overrepresent younger voters."
Did we just fall off the turnip truck?
Mitofsky's firm admits that 50% of its exit-pollsters were 35 or older. Is there some perceptible trend among those in their late-thirties, forties, and fifties that the media of the world -- mainstream and alternative -- have yet to expose?
Baby boomers are largely or even substantially for Kerry, is that it?
Or is the point that only exit polls where the elderly ask the questions can be trusted?
Which, itself, raises the question: is there any polling firm which hires senior citizens to stand out in the cold of November for ten hours or more? Is that what today's exit polls are missing: the geriatric set?
According to statistician Jonathan Simon, the now-published report (see link, below) actually refutes (via a statistical table on Page 37) its own conclusions regarding so-called "differential response" theory -- another point CNN missed while privileging, instead, an article about George W. Bush's new nickname for the Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson (the new, singularly uninspired nickname is "Benny," by the way -- but we at The Advocate find the possibility that this last election was the Crime of the Century a little more titillating. Don't you?).
Says Simon, "[the report] effectively refutes the Reluctant Bush Responder (also known as "differential response") hypothesis, and leaves no plausible exit poll-based explanation for the exit poll-vote count discrepancies."
Even conservative blogger Gerry Dales has now said that he "dismiss[es] the notion that the report has proved...differential non-response as a primary source of the statistical bias."
So if the report's not convincing either progressives or conservatives, who is it convincing?
The mainstream media!
Which is convenient -- given that they're never spilled much ink on election irregularities, anyway.
Some are starting to fight back, however.
According to professional pollster Mark Blumenthal, while the report cannot be cited as conclusive proof that Kerry voters were not more inclined to respond to exit-pollsters, it "certainly challenges the idea that Kerry voters participated at a higher rate than Bush voters."
Mitofsky announced recently that his organization will continue to analyze its results from two of the biggest Election Day 2004 battleground states, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and that this ongoing analysis will involve exit interviews with pollsters hired by Mitofsky/Edison to conduct polling on Election Day.
Stay tuned to this space for the results of that ongoing analysis, as well as the analyses of Simon, Dales, Blumenthal, and others working on this issue.
Stay tuned, that is, because you won't hear about the mile-wide holes in this ground-breaking report practically anywhere else.
See Related Stories:
("Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004," Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, 1/19/05)
Report http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/Ev...onJan192005.pdf
("Report: Exit Pollsters Failed in November," The Washington Times and Universal Press Syndicate, 1/20/05)
Article http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...80748-7257r.htm
("Bush Uses New Nickname for Senator," CNN and the Associated Press, 1/14/05)
Article http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/...e.ap/index.html
("The 'Reluctant Bush Responder' Theory Refuted?", The Mystery Pollster, Mark Blumenthal, 1/21/05)
Article http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/
News: Experts Weigh In on Mitofsky/Edison Exit-Polling Report -- And They're Not Buying It, Either
By ADVOCATE STAFF
The highly-anticipated Mitofsky/Edison report on discrepancies between Election Day exit polls and raw vote tallies has been released.
And it's engendered more questions than answers.
The report, produced by the firm for the benefit of its client, the National Election Pool -- comprised of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC, and The Associated Press -- concludes that the broad disparity between exit-polling and ballot-tallying on November 2nd, 2004, which many have attributed to election irregularities, is "most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters."
Now, for a brief (but relevant) diversion.
In the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition [Houghton Mifflin Company], three possible definitions are given for the word "tautology":
1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words, that is, a redundancy;
2. An instance of such repetition; and
3. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false.
The Advocate is pleased to announce that the primary conclusion of the Mitofsky/Edison report is, indeed, a tautology.
In all senses of the word.
To say that more people "voted" for Kerry in the nation's exit-polling because more people who "voted" for Kerry participated in the exit-polling is to say, in essence, "We blew it -- and we've no idea why."
The report's conclusion is no more probative than is the statement, for instance, "The reason more people got off the train at Union Station today, as compared to yesterday, is because more people decided to get on the train today, as compared to yesterday."
Okay, so?
Is there any proof whatsoever that a higher percentage of Kerry voters participated in the nation's exit-polling on November 2nd, 2004 than voted for the man in the privacy of the voting booth, apart from the fact that more people in the exit-polling indicated they voted for Kerry than voted for Bush?
Couldn't it be that more people voted for Kerry in the privacy of the voting booth, as well?
At the very least, the report leaves this last issue untouched -- amazing, given that the mainstream media, most notably CNN, has reported on the Mitofsky/Edison findings as though they were a gestalt of some sort, rather than an imbecilic tautology suitable only for toddlers and recovering lobotomy patients.
In another hilarious moment, Mitofsky/Edison blamed the youthfulness of its hired exit-pollsters for the inaccuracy of its Election Day data, noting, to quote The Washington Times, "workers polled like-minded voters...[thus]the surveys appeared to overrepresent younger voters."
Did we just fall off the turnip truck?
Mitofsky's firm admits that 50% of its exit-pollsters were 35 or older. Is there some perceptible trend among those in their late-thirties, forties, and fifties that the media of the world -- mainstream and alternative -- have yet to expose?
Baby boomers are largely or even substantially for Kerry, is that it?
Or is the point that only exit polls where the elderly ask the questions can be trusted?
Which, itself, raises the question: is there any polling firm which hires senior citizens to stand out in the cold of November for ten hours or more? Is that what today's exit polls are missing: the geriatric set?
According to statistician Jonathan Simon, the now-published report (see link, below) actually refutes (via a statistical table on Page 37) its own conclusions regarding so-called "differential response" theory -- another point CNN missed while privileging, instead, an article about George W. Bush's new nickname for the Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson (the new, singularly uninspired nickname is "Benny," by the way -- but we at The Advocate find the possibility that this last election was the Crime of the Century a little more titillating. Don't you?).
Says Simon, "[the report] effectively refutes the Reluctant Bush Responder (also known as "differential response") hypothesis, and leaves no plausible exit poll-based explanation for the exit poll-vote count discrepancies."
Even conservative blogger Gerry Dales has now said that he "dismiss[es] the notion that the report has proved...differential non-response as a primary source of the statistical bias."
So if the report's not convincing either progressives or conservatives, who is it convincing?
The mainstream media!
Which is convenient -- given that they're never spilled much ink on election irregularities, anyway.
Some are starting to fight back, however.
According to professional pollster Mark Blumenthal, while the report cannot be cited as conclusive proof that Kerry voters were not more inclined to respond to exit-pollsters, it "certainly challenges the idea that Kerry voters participated at a higher rate than Bush voters."
Mitofsky announced recently that his organization will continue to analyze its results from two of the biggest Election Day 2004 battleground states, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and that this ongoing analysis will involve exit interviews with pollsters hired by Mitofsky/Edison to conduct polling on Election Day.
Stay tuned to this space for the results of that ongoing analysis, as well as the analyses of Simon, Dales, Blumenthal, and others working on this issue.
Stay tuned, that is, because you won't hear about the mile-wide holes in this ground-breaking report practically anywhere else.
See Related Stories:
("Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004," Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, 1/19/05)
Report http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/Ev...onJan192005.pdf
("Report: Exit Pollsters Failed in November," The Washington Times and Universal Press Syndicate, 1/20/05)
Article http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...80748-7257r.htm
("Bush Uses New Nickname for Senator," CNN and the Associated Press, 1/14/05)
Article http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/...e.ap/index.html
("The 'Reluctant Bush Responder' Theory Refuted?", The Mystery Pollster, Mark Blumenthal, 1/21/05)
Article http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/