Stomping On The 2004 Exit Poll`s Grave (And Some Other Myths)

[The
Sailer Election 2004 Series:


Sailer Strategy Wins Another For GOP—But How Much
Longer?
;

Bush Didn`t Win 44% of Hispanic Vote —The Smoking Exit
Poll
;

Another Nail In The Coffin Of Bush`s “44% Hispanic
Share”
;

 I Told You So Department: Only Bush Boosters Now
Believe 44% Hispanic Vote Myth
]

It may not be as flashy as

Powerlineblog.com
`s rout of

Dan Rather
. But I really have to congratulate me
(and VDARE.COM) for routing the exit poll-fuelled media
myth that George Bush made a big breakthrough among
Hispanics this year.

The internet rules!

Edison-Mitofsky, the firm that conducted the troubled
2004 National Exit Poll (NEP), has now issued a long

report
(PDF) reviewing its own performance. It
offers some important nuggets about what really happened
last November.

  • E-M`s analysis of
    the exaggerated Bush share of the

    Hispanic vote
    (pp. 59-62) confirms my diagnosis of
    what went wrong, as I elaborated in VDARE.com, see
    above).

As I`d discerned, Bush did better among Hispanics on the
long form questionnaire that Edison-Mitosfsky had given
out at 250 polling stations (total sample size of
12,219) than on the short form questionnaire distributed
at 1,469 locations (sample size of 75,537).

The long form exaggerated the national and regional Bush
share of the Hispanic vote—especially the bizarrely high
figure in the South region, where Bush supposedly won
64% of the Hispanic vote, even though he carried only 56
percent in

Florida
and 49 percent in

Texas
. (Which was reduced from the initial
announcement of 59 percent).

Nationally, Bush supposedly lost among Hispanics only by
53-44 on the long questionnaire, but got whipped 58-40
on the larger sample size short form.

Back on November 7, I wrote: "The big difficulty with
an exit poll is coming up with a representative sample
of polling places. Apparently, the NEP failed to do
this."
That`s exactly what went wrong with the
National/Regional exit poll`s Hispanic share, as Edison-Mitofsky
now admit.

  • The Edison-Mitofsky
    report also contains an interesting table (p. 59)
    showing six more demographic groups where the widely
    publicized National figure for Bush`s share disagreed
    substantially with the sum of the State exit polls.

Here`s Bush`s share for each:

  National States
  (Small Sample) (Large Sample)
Hispanic 44% 40%
Asian 44% 39%
Age 75+ 45% 48%
Jewish 25% 22%
Mormon 80% 76%
Muslim 6% 13%
Income >$200,000 63% 60%
     

All of these are small and geographically-clustered
groups. So the sum of the State exit polls is inherently
more trustworthy and than the smaller sample size
National poll.

My comments:


  • The Asian mirage.
    The news, reduced
    Asian share is worth noting in the context of the
    President`s plan to increase immigration. Here`s a
    largely prosperous, law-abiding, and socially
    conservative “model minority.” Yet
    Asian-Americans apparently

    can`t stand
    Mr. Bush. They gave him only 39
    percent of their votes, compared to 58 percent among
    non-Hispanic whites.


  • The

    Neoconservative
    Mirage.

    Bush`s 22 percent share of the Jewish vote, although
    reduced from the small sample estimate, is of course
    slightly better than the 19 percent he achieved in
    2000. But then, John Edwards had replaced Joe
    Lieberman as the Democrat`s VP nominee. So you`d
    expect a Republican to win back some conservative and
    moderate Jews who liked

    Lieberman
    . Compared to how well Republicans did
    from 1976 through 1988, when their share of the Jewish
    vote ranged from

    31 percent to 39 percent
    , 22 percent is very bad.

And, when you consider how much of the neoconservative

invade-the-world-invite-the world
foreign and
immigration policies Bush adopted as his own—well, 22
percent is unbelievably awful.

What this shows is that neoconservatives can make a big
noise, but they can`t deliver the vote. With Jews
casting only 3 percent of all votes, the neoconservative
vote comes out to only 2/3rds of one percent of the
electorate
.

To put in Texan terms the President ought to understand,
the neoconservatives are all hat and no cattle.


  • The
    Muslim Mirage:

    It`s not surprising that there`s a big difference
    between the small sample and large sample figures for
    Bush`s share of the

    Muslim vote
    (6 percent vs. 13 percent), because
    the total

    quite tiny
    —only 1 percent (compared to 3 percent
    for Jews). And of course, that`s rounded. It would be
    useful to learn whether the unrounded Muslim
    proportion of the total vote was actually closer to
    0.5 percent or 1.4 percent—in the 2002 election, it
    was only 0.3 percent.

Either way, it`s not worth

Grover Norquist`s
time.


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]