Donate Frequent Flyer Miles to Troops

News  .... ...Opinion

 

	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   Permanent Link:  http://WrennCom.Com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m02d05-01.asp. [February 5, 2005]	Col. John H. Wambough, Jr          USAF (Ret.)
	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 Florida , 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.   Permanent Link to Part I:   http://WrennCom.Com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m01d07-01.asp.  Permanent Link to Part II:  http://WrennCom.Com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m01d31-01.asp. Part IV to be published soon.  (Editor's note: The delay in publishing Parts II and the remaining parts is attributable to scheduling problems of the Editor rather than any delay on the part of Col. Wambough.  Editor apologizes for these delays.)