> One thing exit polls can do is suggest why people voted the
> way they did. It seems, from the analyses the TV gurus are
> making this morning, that the most important issue was
> "moral values," where Bush clearly triumphed, followed by
> economic issues (Kerry won there), Iraq (again, Kerry won
> or did very well, because there was a lot of dissatisfaction
> and disquiet about the Iraq situation)
<snip>
Wait. If the exit polls didn't accurately predict the vote itself, how do they then become an accurate barometer for what people actually voted on? Certainly the fag-bashing was a big deal in Ohio, where there was that referendum. But why -- assuming this is accurate -- did the exit polls under-sample Bush voters more or less consistently across the country? Is it that Bush voters are more rude and more likely to tell people outside the polling place to just fuck off? This wouldn't surprise me, but also doesn't jive with my own experience, which is that Bush voters were eager to say that they were voting for "our president."
Why did the exit polls so clearly favor Max Cleland in Georgia two years ago, and yet he went down to defeat? Is it accurate to say that this is shaping up to be a pattern, and if so, why?
Seriously, what is the reasoned explanation?
The most likely explanation for Bush's Election Day bounce (compared to the polls leading up to the election -- not the exit polls -- which were also trending toward Kerry) was probably the Bin Laden tape. Though I don't know for sure, since I wasn't actually watching or reading most of the news last week and was not terribly aware of the media zeitgeist. Hence my own worst fear was probably played out, save that al-Qa'ida did not actually stage an attack. But they are and continue to be Bush's most important objective allies abroad.
- - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories.