Ah, yes, that tempting friend that comes to us every couple years, promising to be faithful, then he screws it all up when it's time to live up to his promises. Exit polls were wrong in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Should we trust them this year? Um, what do you think?
Here's a good look from the Washington Post at the actual logistics of how the exit poll results are supposed to be handled today. I wouldn't quite call if Fort Knox, but it seems the media folks are really uninterested in a repeat of 2004 (or 2002...or 2000), where some of the national press were doing subtle dances on the TV screen before the real counts came out. In theory, it all means no leak to Drudge and the rest of the blogosphere.
More importantly, the story cites the fact there will be no exit polling in House races. We'll just have to rely on the actual votes (and thus depending on results, hopefully avoid liberal conspiracies that the exit polls were right, and it was the voters who were wrong). Also, states with heavy use of early voting and/or mail-in ballots, such as Washington, seem particularly irrelevant for exit polling, so for local purposes they are probably especially useless for us, lame liberal attempts to the contrary.
For what it's worth, the RNC has put out a press release, warning about exit polls. On quick scan, it seems to contain the usual arguments.
Consider yourself duly warned.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 07, 2006 07:30 AM | Email ThisExcept we know King County verification of PB's is minimal...they just count them. I see a huge opportunity for the dishonest to cast multiple ballots by taking advantage of the misfortune of our friends & neighbors.
Posted by: dl on November 7, 2006 08:33 AM
Someone explain why this is a bad idea: Republicans need to seek out exit pollsters in one season, maybe two, and lie through our teeth, and with enough bad results put the bastards out of business.
Last, anyone who pays attention to exit polls and allows that to influence their voting doesn't deserve to exercise their franchise.
Against McGavick.
I really considered voting for him but I just couldn't do it. For if he became a US Senator that would have given him great influence within the Washington State Republican Party which he could use to put his people in and keep conservatives out.
I have experienced what Dan Evans and his people did and continue to do to the State Republicans and I didn't want the same to happen with McGavick. Before we take back this state we must take back the party for if RINOS win, what have the average conservative won.
Fear of the other guy wasn't enough. The same goes for Reichert. Hating Burner just wasn't enough for me.
I guess I cancelled out you vote then. As a Democrat I wanted to vote for Cantwell and Burner, really I did. I just couldn't. Cantwell has done nothing for us and Burner is a radical with no experience.
Hating Bush just wasn't enough for me to vote for them.
Posted by: Doug on November 7, 2006 09:16 AMToo bad for him, if he's real. I suspect he's a troll or an idiot. But my apologies and my sympathies if he really thinks that way.
Posted by: Larry on November 7, 2006 09:19 AM"It's not how many votes you get that counts, it's who counts the votes"
Joseph Stalin
And you call us commies?
Bring back Checks and balances, I am not ready for Armagedon yet.
Posted by: danw on November 7, 2006 09:48 AMHow does this explain Rush Limbaugh???
Polling is a complex art/science and there are many ways for inaccuracies to enter the process, but I guess some feeble-minded people prefer to attribute inaccuracies to conspiracies or a smug sense of moral superiority.
Posted by: Bruce on November 7, 2006 10:29 AM"It's not how many votes you get that counts, it's who counts the votes"
You don't have to convince us of that. It took 3 counts and 2 extra batches of ballots thrown in to get Christine Gregoire an extra 129 votes.
Bruce,
Linbaugh does it for a living. That is his life.
Posted by: RBE on November 7, 2006 10:36 AMExcept we know King County verification of PB's is minimal...they just count them. I see a huge opportunity for the dishonest to cast multiple ballots by taking advantage of the misfortune of our friends & neighbors."
This is exactly what I'm afraid of -- that some shady liberal groups will bus people from the safe liberal districts in West Seattle and Seattle to the 8th to skew the results due to provisional balloting. Sam Reed needs to make sure nothing like that can happen!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ferrous on November 7, 2006 11:38 AM1. A high deficit exerts downward pressure on spending. That was part of the problem with the budget surplus--it encouraged excess spending!
2. Tax cuts, if they are a cut in the marginal tax rate, raise MORE revenue, not less. If you haven't noticed, the tax cuts that went into effect in 2003 (and created the booming economy we have had since then) have brought in TONS of revenue--that's why the budget deficit has been cut in half much sooner than expected.
Let's keep cutting taxes and not allow the budget to get to surplus in order to keep spending down!
I am not happy with the R's performance on spending, but they have performed terrifically on tax cuts, which has made the economy the envy of the world and has brought down the deficit.
You represent what most people fear about installing D's in congress--they will increase taxes and increase spending and tank the economy. No thanks!
Posted by: Bill H on November 7, 2006 12:21 PMAnd .... surprise! Touchscreen voting problems in suburban St. Louis: a vote for McCaskill shows up as a vote for Talent.
Since Bush-Rove-Diebold hit the scene, that's incident No. 1,058 of an (R) being helped by a so-called "glitch." Still waiting for the first instance of a Dem getting a boost through one of these glitches... somewhere, anywhere.
Here you go, New Jersey has ended your waiting with Menendez shennanigans
"In New Jersey, Republican officials said that nearly two dozen voters across the state had complained that when they entered the voting booth, the name of Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat seeking re-election, was already lit up, indicating it had already been selected.
A party official, Mark Sheridan, told reporters that this had caused widespread confusion and had led some people who favored the Republican candidate, Thomas Kean, to vote inadvertently for Menendez."
Posted by: Bill H on November 7, 2006 01:55 PMI find it interesting that the Darcy Burner website has been updated to display the following text:
"IMPORTANT NOTE: If you are a registered Washington voter and have not cast your ballot yet, you may cast a provisional ballot at any voting location."
Hmmm.
Posted by: ameslaker on November 7, 2006 02:10 PM[crickets]