NOTE: UPDATED - all the "negative red shift states" are out West (CORRECTION BY MARKUSD BASED ON A COMMENT - THEY'RE IN THE CENTRAL, MOUNTAIN OR PACIFIC TIME ZONES - NONE ARE IN THE EAST, AND THE BIGGEST ONES ARE ON THE COAST)
- wonder why? See the UPDATE at the bottom of this diary.
The full 4 PM Exit Poll data - from all of the states - has been released, and is available for the first time, at:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm
A bit down in the article, they show all of the states along with their "red shift" - the percentage by which Bush's actual results were better than his exit poll results. In 42 of the 51 cases, the red shift is positive.
AND a closer look on a state-by-state basis is even more revealing. I've done some analysis that I think is worth considering.
Which large states showed the largest red shifts?
Among them are:
NC with 8. I have already posted a diary that many of you have seen that shows there are a lot of questions about North Carolina.
PA with 6.7 - One of the "big three" - OH, FL and PA - most observers believed that whichever candidate won 2 of these 3 was going to win the Presidency, and that proved to be true.
OH with 6.2 - THE state that ultimately put Bush over the top - another "big three" state.
FL with 6 - Aside from 2000 and the fact that Jeb is still governor, I currently have a recommended diary up about Bev Harris and BBV finding possible evidence of fraud in Volusia County in FL - and, of course, the third "big three" state.
ALSO - Almost all of the states that had a NEGATIVE "red shift" - meaning Kerry did better than the exit polling - are small, with a few exceptions. Among the few larger ones are OR and CA - Oregon has a mail-in/early voting system that is arguably harder to rig, and CA automatically verifies 1% of the precincts paper ballots against the reported totals as a safeguard against fraud. Funny that the two states that are probably the hardest to rig are among the ONLY big states to have a negative "red shift", isn't it?
For the record - I am NOT claiming that this PROVES fraud. I am claiming that it, combined with all of the other info that is starting to bear fruit, is yet more highly suggestive information that would lead a rational, analytical person to believe that fraud is likely and is very much worth further investigation - in spades.
UPDATE - Now that this has been recommended, I'll try to keep it up to date. And I've had a chance to do a bit more thinking about it as well.
Take a look at the states that have a "negative red shift" - funny how they're pretty much all in the west (CORRECTION BY MARKUSD - SOME CENTRAL AND MOUNTAIN, BIGGEST ONES ARE PACIFIC) (or REALLY far west, if you include Hawaii!). In other words, by the time their polls were closing, we had a pretty good idea that Bush was going to win. It may have taken another hour or two for the networks to offically call FL and OH, but any of us who were watching the returns at that point knew Kerry was done - as I'm sure the Bush team did too.
So, did they pass up committing any more shenanigans once they knew they had it? Why take any more chances than necessary, right?
Again, I am not claiming that this PROVES anything for sure, but the patterns are VERY suggestive. And I think this phenomenon of all the "negative red shift" states being out West further adds to the intrigue.