From: jeff 

One suggestion I saw was that an angry voter was an early voter - so the
early exit polls caught a disproportionate share of angry Kerry voters.

The relaxed Bush voters wandered in later.

Robert G Lewis wrote:
> "Richard B."  wrote in message
> news:kmtho017kedob376a3ic3p5ftdosef23jp{at}4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:00:01 -0500, Mike N. 
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How could they be so far off?
>>
>>I think it was the bad exit polling data, which had Kerry up in many
>>places.
>>
>>- Richard
>
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005075.php
>
> XIT POLLS....The CNN guys were blathering on a few minutes ago about how the
> exit polls were screwy once again this year, and wondering whether they
> could ever be trusted again. And it's true that some of the early exit polls
> were off by several percentage points.
>
> But those were early exit polls, and everyone knows they have a fairly high
> margin of error. So I just made a cursory check of the final exit polls and
> compared them to the final vote - and guess what? They were pretty close:
> within one point for the national vote (which had an MOE of about 1%) and
> within a couple of points for the state polls (which had an MOE of 2-4%
> depending on the state). In other words, they were all within the
> statistical margin of error.
>
> So what's the problem? Sampling error is irreducible, so there's no way the
> exit polls could have been any better than they were. What's all the griping
> about?
>
>
>
> I think the early results were wrong but I'd glad that the final exit polls
> were close. If there were a large difference there would be far more
> questions about the vote.
>
> Bob Lewis
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5