Mike Malloy Forum Index Mike Malloy
Welcome Truthseekers!
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Mike Malloy Forum Index -> Elections
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Apprentice Truthseeker

Joined: 10 May 2008
Posts: 234

PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:39 am    Post subject: An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com Reply with quote

An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

July 30, 2010


Dear Mark,

On July 4 you wrote about the Daily Kos/ Research 2000 controversy at pollster.com. You stated that “pollsters and social scientists never have the "discretion" to simply "adjust" the substantive results of their surveys, within the margin of error or otherwise”.

Mark, you know better than that. The exit pollsters do it all the time. In fact, it’s standard operating procedure to force the exit polls to match the recorded vote. The matching process is a stated policy of the National Election Pool, the mainstream media consortium that funds the exit pollsters. Unlike the pre-election adjustments made by that minor player R2K, forcing the exit polls to match the vote serves to camouflage election fraud. But election analysts were not fooled by it.

You wrote:
"By far the most troubling part of Ali's response comes in these two sentences (left in their original form including typographical errors):

“Regardless though, to you so-called polling experts, each sub grouping, gender, race, party ID, etc must equal the top line number or come pretty darn close. Yes we weight heavily and I will, using the margin of error adjust the top line and when adjusted under my discretion as both a pollster and social scientist, therefore all sub groups must be adjusted as well”.

"Top line" in this context means the results for the full sample rather than a subgroup, but it still unclear exactly which "top line numbers" Ali is referring to. If he means the results of attitude questions -- vote preference horse-race numbers, favorable ratings, issue questions or possibly even the party identification question -- he comes close to admitting a practice that every pollster I know would consider deceptive and unethical. "Scientific" political surveys are supposed to provide objective measurements of attitudes and preferences. As such pollsters and social scientists never have the "discretion" to simply "adjust" the substantive results of their surveys, within the margin of error or otherwise. As a pollster friend put it in an email he sent me a few minutes after reading Ali's statement: "That's not polling. It's Jeanne Dixon polling."

Pollsters and social scientists do often adjust their top line demographic results, and some will weight on attitude measurements like party identification, to correct for non-response bias (though party weighting continues to be subject of considerable debate in the industry). In either case, however, the adjustment needs to be grounded in prior empirical evidence -- U.S. census demographic estimates or, perhaps, previous surveys of the same population -- and not merely the whim of the researcher".

Mark, the NEP procedure of matching to the recorded vote is statistically unsound and contrary to the scientific method, regardless of whether the recorded vote is fraudulent or fraud-free. That’s not polling. It’s Harry Houdini polling.

In every election since 1968, the recorded vote has deviated widely from the True Vote. In the eleven elections, the Republicans won the recorded vote by 49-45%; the Democrats won the True Vote by the reverse: 49-45%.

The very conservative 3% exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 66 of 238 state exit polls conducted for the NEP in the five presidential elections from 1988 to 2004 - and 65 “red-shifted” in favor of the Republican. Approximately six (0.025*238) should have been exceeded assuming the elections were fair.

The probability that the margin of error would be exceeded in 65 of the 238 state exit polls for the Republican is calculated using the Excel function
= BINOMDIST (65,238,0.025,FALSE)
= 1 in 3,729,463,568,632,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

The pollsters “tweaked” each of the 238 unadjusted, pristine exit polls to match the recorded vote. The mainstream media presented contaminated state and national exit poll demographics to explain how America voted in every election!

The true intent of the electorate has been nullified though a combination of phantom voters and uncounted votes, the result of electronic vote-switching, ballot stuffing and spoilage. See the Recursive True Vote Model (1968-2008).

To illustrate, the 2004 and 2008 Final National Exit Polls are shown below. In order to force a match to the recorded vote, the exit pollsters indicated that 110% of living 2000 Bush voters returned to vote in 2004 and 103% of living Bush 2004 voters returned in 2008. These impossible return voter weightings had the effect of reducing both Kerry’s and Obama’s margin by 13 million votes. When a feasible turnout was used, Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million and Obama won by 22 million.

Note the use of preliminary 12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares in the 2004 True Vote Model. They were used because the Final NEP shares were inflated for Bush (along with the turnout of returning 2000 Bush voters) in order to match the fraudulent recorded vote.

The 2008 True Vote assumes the Final vote shares. Evidently, the NEP consortium does not want a repeat of the 2004 exit poll controversies and have decided not to release the 2008 unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls. Why don’t you lobby them for the data? It can’t hurt us, although it might hurt them.

In June 2006, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote Was the 2004 Election Stolen? in Rolling Stone Magazine. Farhad Manjoo of Salon immediately attempted to refute the article with this rebuttal . Farhad was himself debunked by many election researchers, including Bob Fitrakis, Paul Lehto, Malcolm on Daily Kos, Ron Baiman, Thom Hartmann, Steven Freeman, Michael Collins, Cliff Arnebeck, Mark Crispin Miller and myself.

On your former Mystery Pollster blog, you attempted to defend Farhad:
"Is RFK, Jr. Right About Exit Polls"?

I recently responded to your arguments with this rebuttal:

The following tables are from the Recursive True Vote Model (1968-2008)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Mike Malloy Forum Index -> Elections All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group