·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Salute America's Heroes, support Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Global Warming theory, oppose Al Gore, support milblogs, support Michael Yon, support Pat Dollard, support BlackFive, support MilBlogs, support MilBlogging, support Mudville Gazette, support HotAir.Com, support JawaReport, support PajamasMedia, support VictoryCaucus, support VetsForFreedom, support FreedomsWatch, support DayByDayCartoon, support Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, support polisatDOTcom video, Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support http://PoliSat.Com, support http://WrennCom.Com, oppose Clinton Library, support Clinton Liebrary, support http://ClintonLiebrary.Com, support http://ClintonLiebraryBook.Com, support ICANN, oppose terrorism, oppose jihadists, oppose energyandcapital.com, oppose justforeignpolicy.org . http://PoliSat.Com

 

	Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part II Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005 Election 2004 Disinformation Strategy -- Curtailing Republican Voter Turnout by Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls   Permanent Link:  http://WrennCom.Com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m01d31-01.asp. [January 31, 2005]	Col. John H. Wambough, Jr          USAF (Ret.)
	Election 2004 Disinformation Strategy - Democrat campaign strategists, Democrat National Committee (DNC), Kerry Campaign, Left-Wing Media (LWM), the National Networks and pollster companies surely comprehended that Al Gore would have been elected President in Election 2000 (given the close vote) if only the National Networks had made their inappropriate Al Gore victory announcement a little earlier on Election Day 2000. The linkage between Election 2000 and 2004 is that Democrats got validation in Election 2000 that manipulated data (disinformation) could be used to significantly curtail Republican voter turnout and possibly alter the outcome of closely contended national elections.  Democrat leadership (my view) had a crystal clear Election 2004 strategy:  Manipulate swing state exit-poll data early on Election Day to create a lethal effect on Republican voter turnout.    Utilize manipulated exit-poll data to advance Kerry’s momentum via the Internet. Use manipulated data as justification for the Networks calling states promptly for Kerry and slowly for GWB. Should Kerry not win Election 2004, de-legitimize GWB’s Presidency by asserting that the manipulated exit-poll data was accurate and pre-election poll averages, automated polling just prior to the election and actual vote counts were all fraudulent. See "Left Wing Claims Exit Polls Were Accurate, Bush Stole Election" Use the manipulated exit-poll data to justify to Democrats that the election was fraudulent and stolen.  One of the best papers I've read is "Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote" by CALTECH/MIT Voting Technology Project (and December 5th Addendum)The project concludes: "There is no evidence that electronic voting machines were used to steel the 2004 election for George Bush." Also, the CALTECH/MIT paper poses a provocative question: "Which is more likely -- that an exit polling system that has been consistently wrong and troubled turned out to be wrong and troubled again, or that a vast conspiracy carried out by scores and scores of county and state election officials was successfully carried off to distort millions of American votes? I think the Kerry campaign concluded that the former is what happened." Should the Kerry Campaign choose to contest swing state elections, manipulated exit-poll data (favoring Kerry) would be in place to support multiple legal challenges in the courts. Given that the National Networks could not participate in further overt deception of the American voter (because of inappropriate declarations in Election 2000 and subsequent Congressional scrutiny), the Internet became the vehicle for stopping the re-election of President Bush. The Internet enabled disinformation to be disseminated to the American people "early" on Election Day without overt involvement of the National Networks.    Curtailing Republican Voter Turnout - To achieve the desired lethal affect on Republican voter turnout, blatantly misleading exit-poll raw data (disinformation) was paraded before the American people at about 1 p.m. EST on Election Day just minutes after Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International sent their first wave of exit-poll data to the Networks and subscribers. This early data was to suppress Republican voter turnout using disinformation. The Internet blogosphere aided the deception (in some cases unintentionally) by spreading the buzz / perception that Kerry was winning and that the election was "effectively" over; no need wasting your time voting; Kerry will be the winner. The architects of the “Disinformation Strategy” must be wondering whether their scheme backfired and contributed to a GWB win. Maybe Democrat voters concluded that Kerry was winning in a landslide (based on exit-poll disinformation) and therefore it wasn’t necessary for them to vote. Why wait to vote in a long line (in Ohio  rain) when it was a sure thing that Kerry was going to win the election? Republican voters may have been shocked by the exit polls ("Virtuous Victory" by Larry Kudlow) and concluded that they must help GWB win by voting (no matter what the exit-poll data showed) and thus turned out in droves. Or just maybe the exit-poll fiasco caused the loss of millions of votes for GWB and the Republican Party due to a successful Democrat voting suppression strategy.  How much "early" exit-poll disinformation impacted voter turnout in unclear.  It is not known to what degree disinformation distorts voting patterns for the Presidency or impacts "down-ticket" races.  However, it should be clear to everyone that any interference with the election process that produces only small shifts in voter behavior can make a huge difference in a national election. In Election 2000 just a little over 500 votes in Florida decided the Presidential election. Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all citizens should renounce strategies that rely on "misinforming" the American people to win national elections. A Congressional investigation should determine (1) who colluded in generating manipulated exit-poll data (disinformation) on Election Day 2004? And (2) who colluded in releasing "raw" exit-poll data to the National Networks and subscribers on Election Day knowing that disinformation would be immediately leaked to the Internet, media outlets and American people? Mitofsky, after the Election 2000 fiasco, said he favored abandoning "the release of "waves" of exit poll results to the networks early in the day" (page 26 CNN Report) so why was raw exit-poll data again released to the Networks early Election Day - given Mitofsky was fully aware of the consequences? Shortly after 1pm on Election Day the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in any state.  Stringent Network standards for projecting or calling a state over the national airways mean little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue for subverting the electoral process. The practice of indicating the Presidential winner using manipulated exit-poll data must be terminated now. If Election 2004 shenanigans aren’t addressed by Congress now, they will be at a later date when disastrous consequences result from the Networks' interfering with voter behavior during National Elections. Read "Exit Poll Outrage" and "Those Faulty Exit Polls were Sabotage" by Dick Morris.   Permanent Link to Part I:   http://WrennCom.Com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m01d07-01.asp.  Part III to be published soon.  (Editor's note: The delay in publishing Part II and the remaining parts is attributable to scheduling problems of the Editor rather than any delay on the part of Col. Wambough.  Editor apologizes for these delays.)