Reply #143: whoa there [View All]

(1) I never claimed that the NES was more accurate as an election measure than the exit poll is. It is clearly subject to the bandwagon effect; it is probably less subject to non-response bias, since they work so darn hard at getting the response rates up. But either way, it wasn't part of my argument.

(2) I have almost no idea what you are saying here. At the end of the day, the NES shows -- very blatantly in the panel study -- people retrospectively changing their minds about who they voted for, and so does the GSS, and so do.... It's one thing to say that the NES numbers can't be relied upon, but it's ridiculous to say that therefore we should believe that 2004 exit poll respondents are accurately reporting their 2000 votes. And if you aren't saying that, then I'm not sure what you are contributing.

We know an awful lot about problems with the NES, because it is good enough to reward careful research into its problems. The exits -- well, the exits have the virtue of immediacy, but they have problems, too.

(3) I have to admit that I'm not really all that interested in the theory of false memory. I am interested in the phenomenon, but not even very interested in that except as it helps us to interpret the 2004 exit poll results. I am also happy to stipulate that "pretty reliably increases" is hyperbole -- I was overly astonished by the Dukakis and Dole cases. Nixon did not do especially well in the vote recall sweepstakes, and Carter did pretty well against Reagan.

Nevertheless, I have no idea why you would believe that exit polls are immune from false retrospective vote reporting, while other surveys are not. Is that obvious to everyone but me? or what part of the argument am I missing? Have you actually taken a position on whether retrospective vote reporting in the exits is likely to be accurate, or are you just busy raising doubts about the NES?

I think it's fairly silly to say that if my arguments here aren't up to APSR standards, then you win. Dammit, this is not what I am supposed to be doing with my time.

(4) The basis of the false reporting premise is studies other than the exit polls. Silly me, I thought that would make the premise more plausible.

(5) I am happy to respond to individual arguments individually. I haven't found any of the responses persuasive at all. Many people here seem to Know that it was somehow impossible for Bush to win this election, but strangely they haven't managed to convince a whole lot of political scientists. Well, here I am. Convince me.