It seems silly to me to validate a covid-time exit poll by pointing to a record of accuracy of exit polls in previous elections when mail-in ballots were no more than a footnote. There were huge discrepancies between the mail-in and in-person tallies; why would you expect exit polls of the latter voters to match the overall results, unle…
It seems silly to me to validate a covid-time exit poll by pointing to a record of accuracy of exit polls in previous elections when mail-in ballots were no more than a footnote. There were huge discrepancies between the mail-in and in-person tallies; why would you expect exit polls of the latter voters to match the overall results, unless you have already bought in to the notion, without evidence, that the entire election apparatus is (or should I say was already) crooked.
I am not talking about the general election (with mail-in ballots in six toss-up states). I am talking about the Democratic primaries, where Theodore Soares documented a consistent shift away from Bernie (and Tulsi) in favor of Biden.
Oh, and what are you on about re TULSI, ffs? Apart from the other problems with that, de Macedo Soares's chart shows her share of the vote nearly *doubling* from poll to vote count . . .
I stand corrected: that early primary was indeed before covid started affecting many people's behavior. So the mail-in vs. in-person votes do not explain the discrepancy. Although I agree that the corporatists and donor-ass-lickers of the DNC did their level best to "steal" the nomination from BSanders both in '16 and in '20, and was a Bernie primary voter on each occasion (and unlike in '16 where I harbored some enthusiasm for my second choice Obama, Warren would have been my second choice in '20 if we had had the opportunity to make one), I can't accept the disparity between exit poll results and final computerized tally as proof that the fix was in on the latter. You say exit polling has been very accurate in the past; really? I seem to remember some that were way off (I'm old enough to remember the "Bradley effect" and subsequent recurrences). Can you show me exit polls' good record in 9-candidate primaries in which the top 3 were closely bunched? Does it not matter that many voters supported, and reported to exit pollsters that they'd voted for, Sanders or Warren, rather than admit that when in the booth they'd chickened out and acceded to the "mainstream" argument that only "moderate" Dupont Joe could win?
According to Theodore Soares, in the 2016 Massachusetts Republican primary, with a big field, the exit polls fit the declared results within 1 percent.
Beyond that is the pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with one single exception: Tennessee.
I can predict the roll of an honest die, and one time in six I'll be *precisely right* -- and *half* the time I'll be off by no more than one. In any event, the Soares reference is not very convincing; his web site recounts as his "Qualifications" that he worked with someone crunching election numbers and thereafter took some "classes in higher mathematics" and *poof!* he was in business as an election data analyst. Those and his peculiar analysis of the Mass Dem Primary in 2020 are not enough to convince me that the Dem establishment's methods of "stealing" the nomination for The Present Guy included cooking the vote totals via computer. And as I remember it, it was not a slim margin of victory in Mass (whose electoral votes were going to go to the D whoever he turned out to be), but the resounding votes of the Black women of SoCar (who were no way going to deliver any electoral votes), that were made to require that good ol' work-across-the-aisle Joe must be the nominee.
It seems silly to me to validate a covid-time exit poll by pointing to a record of accuracy of exit polls in previous elections when mail-in ballots were no more than a footnote. There were huge discrepancies between the mail-in and in-person tallies; why would you expect exit polls of the latter voters to match the overall results, unless you have already bought in to the notion, without evidence, that the entire election apparatus is (or should I say was already) crooked.
I am not talking about the general election (with mail-in ballots in six toss-up states). I am talking about the Democratic primaries, where Theodore Soares documented a consistent shift away from Bernie (and Tulsi) in favor of Biden.
Oh, and what are you on about re TULSI, ffs? Apart from the other problems with that, de Macedo Soares's chart shows her share of the vote nearly *doubling* from poll to vote count . . .
I stand corrected: that early primary was indeed before covid started affecting many people's behavior. So the mail-in vs. in-person votes do not explain the discrepancy. Although I agree that the corporatists and donor-ass-lickers of the DNC did their level best to "steal" the nomination from BSanders both in '16 and in '20, and was a Bernie primary voter on each occasion (and unlike in '16 where I harbored some enthusiasm for my second choice Obama, Warren would have been my second choice in '20 if we had had the opportunity to make one), I can't accept the disparity between exit poll results and final computerized tally as proof that the fix was in on the latter. You say exit polling has been very accurate in the past; really? I seem to remember some that were way off (I'm old enough to remember the "Bradley effect" and subsequent recurrences). Can you show me exit polls' good record in 9-candidate primaries in which the top 3 were closely bunched? Does it not matter that many voters supported, and reported to exit pollsters that they'd voted for, Sanders or Warren, rather than admit that when in the booth they'd chickened out and acceded to the "mainstream" argument that only "moderate" Dupont Joe could win?
According to Theodore Soares, in the 2016 Massachusetts Republican primary, with a big field, the exit polls fit the declared results within 1 percent.
Beyond that is the pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with one single exception: Tennessee.
I can predict the roll of an honest die, and one time in six I'll be *precisely right* -- and *half* the time I'll be off by no more than one. In any event, the Soares reference is not very convincing; his web site recounts as his "Qualifications" that he worked with someone crunching election numbers and thereafter took some "classes in higher mathematics" and *poof!* he was in business as an election data analyst. Those and his peculiar analysis of the Mass Dem Primary in 2020 are not enough to convince me that the Dem establishment's methods of "stealing" the nomination for The Present Guy included cooking the vote totals via computer. And as I remember it, it was not a slim margin of victory in Mass (whose electoral votes were going to go to the D whoever he turned out to be), but the resounding votes of the Black women of SoCar (who were no way going to deliver any electoral votes), that were made to require that good ol' work-across-the-aisle Joe must be the nominee.
Nice spin.