Donate Frequent Flyer Miles to Troops

News  .... ...Opinion

 

	Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part V Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout  Manipulated Exit-Poll Data to De-legitimize the Republican Presidency 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/2005/20y05m02d19-01.asp. [March 5, 2005] [See Editor's Note re Publication Dates]	Col. John H. Wambough, Jr          USAF (Ret.)
	Manipulated Exit-Poll Data to De-legitimize the Republican Presidency - 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), statistical analysis has mainly been 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? See Statistical Analysis of Disinformation Exit Polls (Part IV).   Armed with manipulated exit polls and pre-election polls of choice, senior level Democrats are now on a mission to de-legitimize Election 2004 and hence the Presidency. It is not surprising that some Democrats are in a state of denial and others are hallucinating that they didn’t really lose Election 2004. They will not accept GWB won the election and are now deluding themselves into believing manipulated exit poll samples were correct and actual voting results were wrong.   To satisfy their delusion that the exit polls were correct, Democrats must assert that Real Clear Poll Averages and Automated Polls taken just prior to the election and Actual Voting Results of the election were all wrong or fraudulent. For those that believe this, I commend them to a New York Times article: Who Lost Ohio? by Matt Bai. To cut to the chase, go to page eight and start reading the paragraph "Why wasn't it enough? (And then finish the article). This should help everyone understand how Election 2004 was won by GWB.   If you haven’t done so, read “Exit Poll Outrage” and "Those Faulty Exit Polls were Sabotage" by Dick Morris. Like Morris, I believe that exit polls were gamed to help Kerry win the election. Although there may be explanations for manipulated data, there is no excuse for the Networks' financed raw data (disinformation) being paraded over the Internet on Election Day. After the Election 2000 debacle, Mitofsky said he favored abandoning the release of "waves" of exit poll results to the networks early in the day; so why was his pollster company sending exit-poll results to the Networks as early as  1pm EST ?  (See page 26).     Just as we heard for four years how GWB stole the election from Gore in 2000 (which he didn’t-more disinformation), expect to hear over the next four years that GWB stole the election from Kerry. The reality of GWB winning Election 2004 by around 3 million votes and receiving the largest popular vote in United States history means little to Democrat extremists. The mantra until 2008 will be GWB stole the election from Kerry. Expect that prominent leaders in the Democrat Party will attempt to energize their base by alleging/implying that the election was stolen from them. See the section on “statements and articles to de-legitimize the election” – below.   Before Democrats attack electronic voting machines, suggest that they read "Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote" by CALTECH/MIT Voting Technology Project. The project concludes: "There is no evidence that electronic voting machines were used to steal the 2004 election for George Bush." Also, it asks a provocative question: "Which is more likely -- that an exit polling system that has been consistently wrong and troubled turned out to be wrong and troubled again, or that a vast conspiracy carried out by scores and scores of county and state election officials was successfully carried off to distort millions of American votes? I think the Kerry campaign concluded that the former is what happened."   The “November Surprise” for Election 2004 was the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data showing up on the Internet early afternoon on Election Day. Their purpose was to create a lethal effect on Republican voter turnout and gain Election Day campaign momentum for Kerry. The Internet enabled manipulated data to be disseminated to the American people without overt involvement of the National Networks. Since Kerry’s bid for the Presidency failed, phase two of the Democrat strategy is now being fully implemented (de-legitimize the election). Many of the tactics implemented by Democrat Party to de-legitimize Election 2004, you can be sure were mapped out well before the election took place. Review their tactics: Statisticians sympathetic to the Democrat Party de-legitimize the election by (1) understating sampling errors for Election 2004 exit polls (2) turning a blind eye to a consideration that exit-poll interviews were gamed and skewed to produce disinformation (3) diverting attention away from the "early" exit polls that hoodwinked the American people into believing Kerry would win in a landslide (the election bomb) and (4) focusing attention, instead, on exit-poll data that emerged after the election was over – data with little impact on election results.  Expect Democrat friendly statisticians to assume that the November 2, 2004 exit-poll data was correct (to include the methodology, mathematical models, procedures for collecting the data, etc.) and standing on this false assumption, declare the discrepancies between the exit-poll data and the actual vote results so great that there is a million to one shot (or some other mind-boggling ratio) that such and such could happen. Based on a false ratio derived from manipulated data, they infer or assert that the actual voting results are fraudulent and that voting machines may have been tampered with to favor GWB, etc.  Investigators of Election 2004 should not be misled into the quagmire of exit-poll statistics that emerged after the election was over. They should keep their eye on the ball by backtracking everything that happened leading up to the National Networks’ Exit-Poll "Raw" Data appearing on the Drudge Report at 2:03:32 EST on November 2, 2004 . This is the data that influenced the voting behavior of the National Election. This is the data that impacted voter turnout. This is the data Democrats intended to have the greatest influence on the outcome of Election 2004.   Anonymous witnesses are used to de-legitimize the election: (1) Democrats fabricate/imagine/rig stories about how voting equipment was tampered with and then attribute the story to an anonymous witness. See "Ohio Papers Getting Nowhere on Vote Fraud Allegations" by Joe Strupp and (2) Democrats have witnesses detail accusations but the person/company that they are alleging against have no opportunity to respond.  All you hear is the Democrat witness’ expose of extraordinary events to shock the public into thinking Election 2004 was unfair to Kerry. Statements and articles are used to de-legitimize the election by: o       Equating our elections to those of Third World countries (but not as good).  Manipulated exit polls support their case. o         Alleging that exit polls are infallible thus the election must have been stolen by GWB. o         Alleging that the voting machines were tampered with and that this is how Republicans stole the election (Recount 2004). o         Having statisticians state that the exit polls were accurate. Some Democrat statisticians will consider exit polls accurate unless presented with irrefutable proof of manipulation. o         Accusing voting machine manufacturers of conspiring with right-wing politicians to steal the election. o         Blaming Republicans for everything that didn’t go well for the Democrats on Election Day. o         Blaming Republicans for not having sufficient voting locations and voting machines for Democrat high population voting areas. o         Blaming Republicans for manipulating the tabulations.  Read a counter article: "The Democratic Coup in the State of Washington" and "Ohio Recount Finally Over". Court challenges are used to de-legitimize the election using manipulated exit-poll data to support charges;  claiming disenfranchisement (see Election 2000 claim), voter fraud, voting irregularities, unverifiable computerized voting, voting machine tampering, voter suppression, voter intimidation, voter misinformation, obstruction, nefarious activity, etc. See: Uphill Battle Predicted For Voters Filing Complaint with Ohio Supreme Court. "The complaint also questioned how the actual election results could show Bush winning the election when exit-poll interview findings on election night indicated that Kerry would win 52 percent of Ohio 's Presidential vote." Expect every challenge to the election that Democrats can muster. This is why the Democrats went out and hired so many thousands of lawyers. The manipulated exit polls for Election 2004 are now playing a key role in post election court challenges. Democrat strategy is fully supported by manipulated exit polls and pre-scripted/manufactured allegations. Read: “Internet Post-Election Rumors Missing One Little Thing: Evidence” by Howard Troxler.  A Constitutional Insurrection to drive GWB from power on January 6, 2005 is the latest tactic for de-legitimizing the election. Instead of facing up to the fact that GWB received the largest popular vote in United States history and then helping to celebrate the inauguration of a new duly elected President, ardent Democrats are intent on undermining our Democracy and de-legitimizing the Presidency.    Reasonable Democrats may appreciate that: (1) there are excellent reasons for every citizen to question the credibility of exit-poll data displayed to the American people on Election Day; (2) the Democrat Party disenfranchised their own people (if you can call it disenfranchisement) by failing to ensure the correct number of voting machines were placed in their districts and that they had sufficient voter locations; (3) the Republicans waited in polling locations as long as Democrats - seven plus hours; the record turnout of voters took everyone by surprise (Democrats, Republicans and Independents); (4) Democrats, Republicans and Independents have many similar voting challenges and issues; (5) voting machine errors / problems / irregularities / waiting on lines affect Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats; (6) court challenges to Election 2004 was the post-election strategy of the Democrat Party – that is why there were thousands of lawyers this election. (7) Even the punch card voting system came under legal challenge; and (8) there were complaints of no paper trails with electronic voting - something Democrats knew before the Election (8) there are multiple checks and balances in place to preclude voting fraud.      Voters concerned about the integrity of our voting system should support some form of National Voter ID. Everyone that votes in a National Election should have a National ID (National Identification Number) that would insure they vote only once in elections. Every vote can then be tracked back to an ID number which, in effect, validates that the person who is voting is a citizen of this country and eligible to vote in the National Election.   The need for such a system is validated by an article "Exposed: Scandal of Double Voters" by Russ Buettner which states: "Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both New York City and Florida , a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections. Registering in two places is illegal in both states, but the massive snowbird scandal goes undetected because election officials don't check rolls across state lines.” A National Voter ID would fix this problem. “Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party."  When extrapolated nationally, dual registrations are a significant problem; no person should have more than one vote. If Democrats are concerned about election fraud, they should support a National ID; it would help give the audit/paper trail they want and it would make electronic voting even more reliable. The issue of being able to verify and audit electronic votes is a key issue for all political parties. A National Voter ID would go a long way to solving the verifiability issue.  Democrats lost more than an election at the polls. (See "Democratic Disaster" by Robert Novak and "The Election 2004" by Cal Thomas). Some reasons why Democrats lost were addressed by Democrat Zell Miller in "A National Party No More" and Audio. Before anyone seeks to de-legitimize Election 2004, they should first understand what the exit polls say and why people voted the way they did. Knowing the shifts in the voting behavior of the population should be helpful to those who want to understand why GWB won the election. Suggest reading: “A Tour of the 2004 Exit Poll: What it Says and What it Doesn’t” By Roy Telxeira. Actions focused on fixing real voting problems are to be commended; however, strategies that de-legitimize our national elections and undermine the confidence of our citizens in the voting process do not serve our Nation well.   ______________ Editor's Note: 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. Permanent Link to Part III:  http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m02d05-01.asp. Permanent Link to Part IV:  http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m02d19-01.asp. Permanent Link to Part V:  http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m03d05-01.asp   Part VI 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.)                                               end