CENSUS DATA MATCHED NATIONAL EXIT POLL WEIGHTS(12:22AM, 13047 SAMPLE). Why won’t the media report this?

Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey,
November 2004.

More proof that the Exit Poll of 13047 Respondents at 12:22am
was accurate, contrary to what the die-hard naysayers have
been saying the last six months.

And it’s yet another indicator of fraud.
According to the census, 125.7 million voted.
That’s 3.4 million (2.78%) over the recorded vote.

Of course, spoiled Democratic votes is not news.
It happens all the time.

The Census closely matched the weights of the following
demographics:
Gender Census Poll
Male 46.49% 46%
Female 53.51% 54%

Income
15-30 12.08% 15%
30-50 20.58% 22%
50-75 20.02% 23%
100-150 13.55% 11%

Education
Some College 30.96% 31%
College Grad 26.84% 26%

Posted on Democratic Underground by TruthIsAll

Read the complete report here.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

21 Responses to “CENSUS DATA MATCHED NATIONAL EXIT POLL WEIGHTS(12:22AM, 13047 SAMPLE). Why won’t the media report this?”

  1. Administrator Says:

    I REMOVED, yes CENSORED a comment that basically said the Census data was bullsh*t. Funny that, the exit polls are wrong, the census data is wrong, I suppose any data not supporting the Bush crime family is wrong. Poster also mentioned how DU hates the truth. I have seen far more truth on DU than pretty much any other website in the last 6 months. If the census data is flawed, how can it be flawed in EXACTLY the same way as the 12:22am exit poll? Explain that.

  2. bigmustelid Says:

    You removed, yes, CENSORED, the EXPLANATION of exactly WHY the Census data was bullshit. Here it is again. Did you even check it for yourself or are your blinders on so tight that you don’t care whether the data is accurate or not as long as it fits your agenda?

    According to the 2000 report, “The CPS routinely overestimates voter turnout. As discussed in greater detail in the report, the CPS’ estimate of overall turnout (111 million) differs from the “official” turnout (105.6 million votes cast), as reported by the Clerk of the House.”

    The Census numbers reported are bogus, and it’s easy to prove. Pick a state. Go to the Census Bureau Table 2, and determine the Census Bureau’s number of registered voters by multiplying Columns B and D or Columns C and E for that state. Now go to the Secretary of State’s website and find the actual (BY DEFINITION) number of registered voters for that state. Compare the two numbers and see how bad the Census Bureau estimates are. I picked two states-Alaska and California for spot checks.

    Alaska had more registrations than the Census Bureau number of citizens. (461 K registered voters versus estimated 434K citizens.) And California-the census bureau understimated the number of registered voters by 2.4 million! (Actual number of CA registrations was 16.6 million; Census Bureau estimates 14.2 million).

    It’s a verifiable fact that the registered voter estimates are wrong. How can you even begin to believe that the vote estimates are correct?

  3. davidgmills Says:

    Long diary about this today on daily Kos started by me:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/27/18502/5421#230

    Bigmustelid’s arguments are full of it. Won’t rehash why here.

  4. bigmustelid Says:

    From DailyKos thread:

    The overestimates by the Census survey through the years:

    2004 125,749,602 122,300,000 2.82%

    2000 110,827,123 105,594,024 4.96%

    1996 104,958,842 096,389,818 8.89%

    1992 113,824,292 104,600,366 8.82%

    This clearly shows that Census data consistently, in every election, overestimates the number of people who voted. In fact, in 2004 they were a lot more accurate (though still wrong) than in previous years.

    Feel free to censor this as well.

  5. Administrator Says:

    bigmustlid,

    I am sorry, this time I will leave your post. I think you are absolutely wrong however, and you didn’t aswer my comment either, so I guess you don’t have a leg to stand on.

  6. bigmustelid Says:

    You didn’t answer my numbers. They show that Census data has been consistently wrong in estimating voter numbers, election after election after election. They also show that Census data has been wrong in estimating other things, like registered voters.

    Please explain, in light of this, WHY you think that THIS time their estimates of the voters were, in fact correct? They haven’t hit it correctly even once, but you think that THIS time they were right. Could it be it’s your agenda coloring your thinking a little bit?

    Also – you think DU is such a great place. Fine. Prove it to me. See that table above? Post it on DU as response to TIA – after all, it’s only factual. I can guarantee he will not answer it, but will sputter and scream about “naysayers”. See how fast they ban you and delete your post. You think that is called “free exchange of ideas”? I don’t think so.

  7. Administrator Says:

    Christ, answer the question already! Why did the incorrect (in your opinion) census data match the exit poll demographics. This lends CREDIBILITY to both numbers, because how could they possibly both be wrong in exactly the same way….HOW?

  8. bigmustelid Says:

    Why do you insist that I answer your question when you refuse to answer mine? The answer is simple – census data is much more accurate matching demographics (people rarely misreport their gender, race or income) than matching things like voting patterns or party registration.

    The best thing for you to do – if you want to prove your point – is to look for how well the Census data matched the demographics in prior elections. You will most probably find that they matched them pretty well – and still managed to miss the voting numbers by a mile, every time.

    Now – I answered your question. Will you answer mine?

  9. Administrator Says:

    Ok, you basically proved the point, which is the exit poll was correct. The point is that the demographics of the census do NOT match the demographics of the final exit poll (that was adjusted to match the “results”), while they DO match the earlier exit poll that had Kerry winning. That is all.

    This information, irregardless of voting patterns and party registration, proves this point:

    The Census closely matched the weights of the following
    demographics:
    GenderCensusPoll
    Male46.49% 46%
    Female53.51% 54%

    Income
    15-3012.08%15%
    30-5020.58%22%
    50-7520.02%23%
    100-15013.55%11%

    Education
    Some College30.96%31%
    College Grad26.84%26%

    Anything else?

    I won’t waste my time arguing with you from this point, because you obviosly believe the Bush won conspiracy.

  10. bigmustelid Says:

    What in the WORLD are you talking about. Do you just blindly follow TIA without checking it yourself?

    Here are the demographics of the final exit poll, that was adjusted:

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

    Male: 46% Female: 54%

    Income:

    15-30 15%
    30-50 22%
    50-75 23%
    100-150 11%

    Education

    Some College 32%
    College Grad 26%

    It is EXACTLY the same as the stuff you’re quoting. If you think that closeness to the census validates exit poll results – then the final poll matches. Is it valid in your eyes. TIA lies to you and you swallow the lies. Do you EVER check what he writes?

  11. Administrator Says:

    Ok, you’re right. For now. So, do you believe Bush legitimately won this election? Just a question…

  12. bigmustelid Says:

    You don’t get away so easy. You posted misinformation in your original post. I believe a correction is in order – either that or the new post explaining it.

    Two: you completely ignored my DU comments. Do explain the fact that anyone contradicting TIA on that board gets banned and the posts get deleted.

    And three: what I think about Bush winninig has nothing to do with facts that are being discussed. Why do you even ask? This is the perfect example of the behavior of people like TIA – you first shoot, then draw a target around the hole, then you say: see, I hit it exactly right.

  13. Administrator Says:

    Actually, bigmustlid, there is nothing incorrect in the original post, read it. There is also nothing to explain.

    Second, I have seen plenty of people contradict TIA on DU and have seen very few get banned and have posts deleted…unless they are very disrespectful and combative. Have you been banned? Probably.

    Third, just as you accused me of having my “blinders on too tight”, it does matter whether you think Bush legitimately won or not, just as it matters that I don’t. Yes I will try to find any information to validate my point, just as you will. I just want to be up front about this. I do not hide behind my politics, I wear them on my sleeve. More honest that way.

    I think the truth of this argument is that the census is probably closer to correct about how many people actually voted, because it does not account for spoiled votes. Thousands, if not millions of votes are spoiled every election, the majority in democratic precintcs (lower income, outdated machinery, not enough machines).

    Have you read, listened, and watched all the links in the “2004 Election Fraud Beginner’s Guide”? I think you should.

  14. bigmustelid Says:

    The truth of the matter is that when you set a goal (“Bush lost”) then try to falsify facts (“the census does not match the final exit poll”) to “prove” your goal, that is about as dishonest as it gets. Period.

    I don’t try to find information to validate my preconceptions. Information is information. If it contradicts my preconceptions, that means they are wrong. That is how it works. Not the other way around. Unless you do it this way, no one will take you seriously (just like no one takes TIA seriously, except a small band of his cult-like believers, of which you seem to be one).

  15. Administrator Says:

    I retracted that the census didn’t match the final exit poll, didn’t you read?
    The original post also does not make this claim, there is nothing false in it…read it again.

    You don’t have to try to find info. to validate your preconceptions, the corporate media is on your side. REAL news and information is harder to come by.

    No one takes TIA seriously? Plenty of people take TIA seriously, and he has influenced many many people to pursue the truth about this issue. Where do you get this crap?

    I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. There is a mountain of evidence to support that this election was fraudulent.

    If you believe it was legitimate, do you believe the election system is foolproof? There were over 30,000 problems reported to EIRS on election day, and about the same numbe to several other organizations…. our election system has A LOT of problems.

    Don’t you want your vote to count? This is not a partisan issue.

    The absolute only solution is hand counted paper ballots, there is absolutely no reason anybody who believes in democracy would argue against this, no?

  16. bigmustelid Says:

    You still believe that the Census voting numbers are correct, in spite of the fact that I showed you that they were consistently wrong in every election, and in spite of the fact that the Census Bureau themselves say that they are inflated. This is exactly what I mean – you have a belief and you try to make facts fit the belief.

    The “mountain” of evidence is extremely flimsy. Yes, there was fraud. No, there is no evidence that there was any more fraud in these elections than there are in any election. Of course the election system is not foolproof. Of course it could be made better. But you are not making that point. You point, and your belief and you goal is to “prove” that Bush lost. That’s pathetic and actually damages greatly your stated goal of improving elections. That’s because as soon as you start with the “Bush cheated” routine most people will just shut you off as an annoying fly.

  17. Administrator Says:

    Sorry about that whole pursuing the truth thing, I know it annoys you.

    What about vote spoilage? I think that is why the census numbers are inflated. People vote, but their votes didn’t count.

    No more fraud in this election than any? Really? Can you back up that statement?

    I don’t think the evidence is flimsy at all, I think if the main stream media reported on this, there would be a huge movement to reform the election system.

    I have to get back to work now –

  18. bigmustelid Says:

    Vote spoilage – happens in every election. Happens with paper ballots as well. Why do you think that in these elections it was extraordinary?

    Can I back up that statement of mine that there was not more fraud in these elections than in any others? You’re the one who is asserting that there was more – you are the one on whom the burden of proof is. Show me comparative statistics. Show me same parameters for these elections and the elections before. The fact that unweighted exit polls were wrong for 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992 and 1988 (and in fact were wrong a lot more than they were in 2004) shows me that your (and TIAs) exit poll arguments are bogus.

    The MSM is not reporting on this for one simple reason – because they consider anyone screaming “Bush won by cheating” without hard evidence to back him up a loon, a tin foil hatter, a conspiracy theorist, and avoid him and his rantings like a plague. You may as well ask why MSM is not seriously reporting on the “fact” that Moon landings were staged in Hollywood studios.

    That is exactly what I mean by you damaging your stated cause of reforming elections by pursuing the silly conspiracy theories. Of course, I doubt very much that your goal is actually reforming elections. I think it is actually trying to convince people that Kerry won and Bush lost. You will have to decide which is more important, because as long as you pursue the second one, you will lose on the first one.

  19. Administrator Says:

    “pursuing the silly conspiracy theories”

    Any time two or more people meet and have an idea, it’s technically a “conspiracy theory”. Get over the labelling, it does no good. It’s a way to disregard the issue.

    I don’t have time to pick through each of your statements, but sadly, I guarantee you that you are wrong. There were considerably more irregularities in 2004, and they are documented. I do agree this is not the first election to be fixed, there’s at least a 40 year history of vote manipulation in the US, that does NOT make it OK!

    There is far too much hot air in your previous comment to reply to, so I’ll just go on proving the fraudulent 2004 election and preventing another one, and you go on doing…..what is it you’re doing?

    “You may as well ask why MSM is not seriously reporting on the “fact” that Moon landings were staged in Hollywood studios.” – Jesus man, you’re reaching.

    I have about 400 or so links to evidence on my other page, http://2004electiontheft.com, articles and research posted in alternative media that could just as easily have been mainstream media, if the MSM weren’t bought and sold corporate whores.

    I hope you enjoy living in a dictatorship.

  20. bigmustelid Says:

    I see. Let me translate your statement.

    “I don’t have any proof that these elections were more fraudulent than previous ones, but I won’t that stop me from making sweeping statements”.

    As I said. If you actually WANTED to reform elections, you would drop the “Bush cheated” meme like a hot potato, because that works against you. But you won’t, because election reform is not your real goal.

  21. Administrator Says:

    Actually, I was at work for 10 hours yesterday trying to reply to you when possible. Do you do anything besides patiently wait for posts to attack? I already mentioned EIRS, as well as all of the links to information I’ve collected, what more do you want? Allowing Bush to get away with cheating the second time, lie us into an illegal war, help corporations and the rich at the expense of everyone else, it makes no sense at all think anything will change until someone gets busted for their crimes!

Leave a Reply

Comments are gravatar enabled.

You must be logged in to post a comment.