If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The revolution will not be exit polled   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 48
    More: Sad, exit polls, sample size, National Election Pool  
•       •       •

4190 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 4:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-04 03:57:43 PM  
well, we can't have any suspicious discrepancies in those swing states, can we now.
 
2012-10-04 04:02:38 PM  
meh, states which are solid will be ignored. whatever.
if someone wants the information, they should pay for it!

time for the state universities to step up and create a nationwide exit poll system??
hello, what else are students good for??
 
2012-10-04 04:09:14 PM  
The UN should step in and monitor this election.
 
2012-10-04 04:22:53 PM  

unlikely: The UN should step in and monitor this election.


HAHHAHAH HAHAHAHA
took late for that
we got farked in 2000 and 2004.
2008 was a pretty clear and fair election.

shudder.
if rmoney wins in PA and OH, and if the polls are showing significant opposite numbers ...
shudder
 
2012-10-04 04:37:35 PM  

namatad: if rmoney wins in PA and OH, and if the polls are showing significant opposite numbers ...
shudder


Nothing will happen. President Romney will pardon anyone who comes under investigation. Game over.
 
2012-10-04 04:39:21 PM  

unlikely: The UN should step in and monitor this election.


Then we kick them out of the country, and suddenly there is no more UN
 
2012-10-04 04:45:02 PM  
That's kinda strange.  How much does it cost to poll in those states?  And you're getting valuable demographic data... not just "who did you vote for?"
 
2012-10-04 04:46:06 PM  
The aim, he said, "is to still deliver a quality product in the most important states," in the face of mounting survey costs.

A little insulting when put that way.
 
2012-10-04 04:46:30 PM  

FlashHarry: well, we can't have any suspicious discrepancies in those swing states, can we now.


RTFA

"Here is a list of the states that will be excluded from coverage: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Comparing this list with the election map, reveals how carefully the exit poll planners allocated resources. All 19 of the states with no exit polls are classified as either "solid Obama" or "solid Romney," and there is only one "toss-up" gubernatorial or U.S. Senate race not on the list: the competitive North Dakota match-up of Heidi Heitkamp and Rick Berg."
 
2012-10-04 04:48:00 PM  
Job-destroyers.
 
2012-10-04 04:48:15 PM  

Hoarseman: FlashHarry: well, we can't have any suspicious discrepancies in those swing states, can we now.

RTFA

"Here is a list of the states that will be excluded from coverage: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Comparing this list with the election map, reveals how carefully the exit poll planners allocated resources. All 19 of the states with no exit polls are classified as either "solid Obama" or "solid Romney," and there is only one "toss-up" gubernatorial or U.S. Senate race not on the list: the competitive North Dakota match-up of Heidi Heitkamp and Rick Berg."


why in the world was anyone bothering to exit poll DC anyway?
 
2012-10-04 04:48:22 PM  
Why not skip New York and California?
 
2012-10-04 04:49:25 PM  
considering the exit polls are both inaccurate and don't tell us anything worthwhile, I am fine with this.
 
2012-10-04 04:50:36 PM  
Hmm - seems they're doing their research for the next wave of voter suppression laws, in order to curb all that democratic illegal voting going on.
 
2012-10-04 04:51:03 PM  

Diogenes: The aim, he said, "is to still deliver a quality product in the most important states," in the face of mounting survey costs.

A little insulting when put that way.


Unfortunately, that's the way it is in politics.

And that's why we need national popular vote.
 
2012-10-04 04:51:21 PM  
I'm OK with those, with the exception of Texas. Although its not competitive this year, it will be in 2016 or 2020 based on demographic trends, and it would be useful to have that data in the future.
 
2012-10-04 04:51:33 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: Why not skip New York and California?


Because they have Senate races to poll
 
2012-10-04 04:53:40 PM  

HeartBurnKid: And that's why we need national popular vote.


www.thedailybell.com
Amused by your childish assertion.
 
2012-10-04 04:55:18 PM  
So only two blue states being skipped, and the rest red (Not counting DC). Nope, no perceived bias there.
 
2012-10-04 04:55:39 PM  

CokeBear: I'm OK with those, with the exception of Texas. Although its not competitive this year, it will be in 2016 or 2020 based on demographic trends, and it would be useful to have that data in the future.


That's not going to happen. Not with President Romney's charismatic and generous immigration policies making people self-deport with glee.
 
2012-10-04 04:59:14 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: considering the exit polls are both inaccurate and don't tell us anything worthwhile, I am fine with this.


I'm sure you'll still say that on Nov. 7 if Romney gets less votes than the exit polls indicate he should.
 
2012-10-04 05:05:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: considering the exit polls are both inaccurate and don't tell us anything worthwhile, I am fine with this.



The polls weren't inaccurate, just explained away as anomalies.

/unlike the rest of the world which considers exit polling discrepancies as evidence of fraud
 
2012-10-04 05:16:44 PM  

dinomyar: So only two blue states being skipped, and the rest red (Not counting DC). Nope, no perceived bias there.


Bias? They're saving money because it doesn't take spending millions to come to the conclusion that Wyoming and Georgia are reliably red.
 
2012-10-04 05:19:56 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: dinomyar: So only two blue states being skipped, and the rest red (Not counting DC). Nope, no perceived bias there.

Bias? They're saving money because it doesn't take spending millions to come to the conclusion that Wyoming and Georgia are reliably red.


Yes, but that is not the only thing that comes out of exit polls. Lots of demographics and now most of the red states wont be counted in them.
 
2012-10-04 05:20:42 PM  
I am surprised that Alabama wasn't on the list. We are a solid Romney as it can get according to FiveThirtyEight. "Derp Conservatism" is at "cult like" proportions here. I feel like Ensigns Wesley Crusher and Robin Lefler in the STNG episode "The Game" around here. It is scary.
 
2012-10-04 05:23:46 PM  
Sounds like what happened just before the Republicans stole the 2000 election...
 
2012-10-04 05:28:26 PM  
I'm surprised my home state wasn't dropped. The last time Alabama voted for a Democratic President was 1976.
 
2012-10-04 05:30:57 PM  
OK. This is straight-up fishy.
 
2012-10-04 05:32:25 PM  

dinomyar: Uranus Is Huge!: dinomyar: So only two blue states being skipped, and the rest red (Not counting DC). Nope, no perceived bias there.

Bias? They're saving money because it doesn't take spending millions to come to the conclusion that Wyoming and Georgia are reliably red.

Yes, but that is not the only thing that comes out of exit polls. Lots of demographics and now most of the red states wont be counted in them.


What other important information comes from exit polling besides, "how did you vote?" Also, they didn't outlaw exit polling. One organization decided to spend their money elsewhere.
 
2012-10-04 05:36:29 PM  
The revolution will not be exit polled

It's a good thing, too. They don't want my opinion. That show sucks.
 
2012-10-04 05:38:29 PM  

biyaaatci: OK. This is straight-up fishy.


No, it's OK. I'm sure the voting machines give you a paper record of your vote so you have proof.
 
2012-10-04 05:46:44 PM  

born_yesterday: biyaaatci: OK. This is straight-up fishy.

No, it's OK. I'm sure the voting machines give you a paper record of your vote so you have proof.


My last receipt said, "Go fark yourself." But I live in Florida so I didn't think much of it.
 
2012-10-04 06:05:57 PM  

unlikely: The UN should step in and monitor this election.


You're probably kidding, but... I have yet to have anyone of either political stripe convince me of a good reason why we, if we have to have electronic voting, we can't have two paper receipts. (I mean, seriously, this can't be expensive... the ATMs made by the same companies spit out receipts people toss on the ground.)

One for me, and one that I check to confirm it matches mine then deposit in a locked box. Then, randomly sample polling locations to verify that the electronic count matches the paper-ballot count. As long as those match (or, I'll even grant, are "close enough"), we're good. If not, hand count that precinct and audit more, hand counting any that fail. And, what the hell, investigating any great discrepancies and punishing convicted perpetrators _severely_.

Why *wouldn't* we want an accurate collection and counting of votes?

Throw in the Iraq "dip your finger in permanent ink when you're done," and we could throw out *all* voter "verification" and, for that matter, registration requirements.

I don't see why this would be a bad idea to anyone... unless they have reason to suppress, miscount or otherwise tamper with election results.
 
2012-10-04 06:07:32 PM  

FlashHarry: well, we can't have any suspicious discrepancies in those swing states, can we now.


Came to say something similar...

Seem ominous...
 
2012-10-04 06:10:57 PM  

diggumsmax: I'm surprised my home state wasn't dropped. The last time Alabama voted for a Democratic President was 1976.


So was Indiana until Obama won it in 2008
 
2012-10-04 06:13:44 PM  
The next person guilt of election tampering needs to be executed on live television.
If we can't have a democratic election that believe can trust in, we won't have a stable society.
 
2012-10-04 06:24:32 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: considering the exit polls are both inaccurate and don't tell us anything worthwhile, I am fine with this.


Yes, completely accurate right up until Bushco. Convenient...

Then all you whackadoodles claim they have always been inaccurate. Revisionist history is grand.
 
2012-10-04 06:26:09 PM  
This is not a good thing.
 
2012-10-04 06:39:41 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Diogenes: The aim, he said, "is to still deliver a quality product in the most important states," in the face of mounting survey costs.

A little insulting when put that way.

Unfortunately, that's the way it is in politics.

And that's why we need national popular vote.


I really don't get what the hold up is on this. I don't see how the electoral college favors either party. Only three times has someone won the EC and not a plurality of votes.

Further, the argument that there would be a focus on urban areas doesn't hold water. Media markets in and around large cities are so expensive that it's more cost effective to try and run up the vote in less populated states.
 
2012-10-04 06:50:49 PM  

unlikely: namatad: if rmoney wins in PA and OH, and if the polls are showing significant opposite numbers ...
shudder

Nothing will happen. President Romney will pardon anyone who comes under investigation. Game over.


FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
You have just won this thread!!

:D
 
2012-10-04 07:12:59 PM  

CokeBear: I'm OK with those, with the exception of Texas. Although its not competitive this year, it will be in 2016 or 2020 based on demographic trends, and it would be useful to have that data in the future.


I was thinking about texas. BUT if the DNC actually cares, they can pay for their own exit polls. FFS, until the DNC gets involved in texas, nothing will change.
 
2012-10-04 07:20:56 PM  

namatad: meh, states which are solid will be ignored


Well no. The strange part is they haven't excluded NY, CA, MA, WA or OR, which will definitely go blue. I'm suspecting they don't want to spend the money to deploy people to low population states where the pollsters don't have a big presence, but that would exclude Texas.
 
2012-10-04 07:25:36 PM  
They're only reducing polling in states that are extremely unlikely to vote any way other than what you expect. That most of these are red states is just the reality of who's polarized and where they are. 1984...
upload.wikimedia.org

is a lot more recent 1936...
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-04 07:37:49 PM  

SFSailor: unlikely: The UN should step in and monitor this election.

You're probably kidding, but... I have yet to have anyone of either political stripe convince me of a good reason why we, if we have to have electronic voting, we can't have two paper receipts. (I mean, seriously, this can't be expensive... the ATMs made by the same companies spit out receipts people toss on the ground.)

One for me, and one that I check to confirm it matches mine then deposit in a locked box. Then, randomly sample polling locations to verify that the electronic count matches the paper-ballot count. As long as those match (or, I'll even grant, are "close enough"), we're good. If not, hand count that precinct and audit more, hand counting any that fail. And, what the hell, investigating any great discrepancies and punishing convicted perpetrators _severely_.

Why *wouldn't* we want an accurate collection and counting of votes?

Throw in the Iraq "dip your finger in permanent ink when you're done," and we could throw out *all* voter "verification" and, for that matter, registration requirements.

I don't see why this would be a bad idea to anyone... unless they have reason to suppress, miscount or otherwise tamper with election results.


We already have the sort of machines you are talking about. My precinct for example has machines that spit out a paper ballot which you can check to make sure it matches your actual vote.


I certainly agree however that all electronic voting machines should be required to produce a paper trail and a small number of polling places should be sampled randomly and unannounced (even a 1% sample should be sufficient as long as it's weighted towards precincts that vote unexpectedly high for a party they generally oppose) as a matter of procedure even if no complaints are made. We would still get the instant results and the overwhelming majority of the cost savings of an electronic ballot, but we would be fully equipped to swiftly detect any electronic ballot stuffing.
 
2012-10-04 08:50:12 PM  

Non-evil Monkey: I certainly agree however that all electronic voting machines should be required to produce a paper trail and a small number of polling places should be sampled randomly and unannounced (even a 1% sample should be sufficient as long as it's weighted towards precincts that vote unexpectedly high for a party they generally oppose) as a matter of procedure even if no complaints are made. We would still get the instant results and the overwhelming majority of the cost savings of an electronic ballot, but we would be fully equipped to swiftly detect any electronic ballot stuffing.


You could do it with less than 1 percent. Randomly sample 0.25% of precincts, keep the list secret until Election Day (but announce that it will be done), then on Election Day, have the recounters in position at the polls all day as observers. Give a copy of the federal statute covering election fraud to all poll workers. It will be the most amazingly glitch-free election in history.
 
2012-10-04 11:13:57 PM  

Non-evil Monkey: I certainly agree however that all electronic voting machines should be required to produce a paper trail


NAH
do all voting by mail
tada
paper
no local farkign with ballots
 
2012-10-05 12:32:08 AM  
www.metropolis-records.com
"I was under the impression that the revolution would be synthesized"
 
2012-10-05 01:53:53 AM  

namatad: Non-evil Monkey: I certainly agree however that all electronic voting machines should be required to produce a paper trail

NAH
do all voting by mail
tada
paper
no local farkign with ballots


Yep, the voting by mail thing is awesome. You can look up data on candidates and issues, take your time and think about it -- like a well-informed voter should be able to do -- in the privacy of your own home. That "standing in line for hours" crap is a turnoff for voters.

/doin' my part to turn Texas purple. Eventually.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report