RSS

Category Archives: 2010 Midterms, Senate (WI,IL,PA) & Governor (WI,FL,NJ,OH,PA)

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2013
Updated: Nov.4,2013

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. View the state and national numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=15

The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000001.

I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the official recorded vote has deviated from the True Vote in every election since 1968 – always favoring the Republicans. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures; they are caused by malicious programming.

The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything.

Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and associated True Vote Models. Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytic evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

A Facebook discussion: https://www.facebook.com/richard.charnin/posts/735042649871085

US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: National and state actual exit poll results are always adjusted in order to force a match to the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.

All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they closely matched the True Vote Model in the 1988-2008 presidential elections. The adjusted, published exit polls have always matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.

In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush.

In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot.

In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6%.

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated that he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. The Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000.

In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible; it was forced to match Kerry’s 48.3% recorded vote (the unadjusted NEP indicated that Kerry had 51.7%). The adjusted poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 122.3 million recorded). But Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000; only 48 million were alive in 2004. Assuming a 96% turnout, 46 million voted. Therefore, simple arithmetic shows that the adjusted NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.6 (52.6-46) million. In order to match the recorded vote, there had to be an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IS CONFIRMED BY A) KERRY’S 4 MILLION NEW VOTER MARGIN (22 MILLION NEW VOTERS, NEARLY 60% FOR KERRY), B) 4 MILLION RETURNING GORE MARGIN AND C) 2 MILLION RETURNING NADER MARGIN. KERRY WON BY 10 MILLION VOTES.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV. Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share was close to his 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share. He had 53.5% in the True Vote Model. There was further confirmation of a Kerry landslide.

Consider the adjustments made to the 2004 National Exit Poll crosstabs to force a match to the recorded vote.

Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. The Final adjusted National Exit Poll was forced to indicate that he had a 53% approval rating. He had just a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential, we can assume that the 48% pre-election approval rating was also inflated by 3% and was really 45% – a virtual match to the True Vote Model. The exit pollsters had to inflate Bush’s 48% pre-election average rating by 5% in the NEP in order to match the recorded vote. There was a 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and his unadjusted exit poll share.

Similarly, the unadjusted state exit poll Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. In order to force the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it required a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93. This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.

The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied.

The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

In the 2010 Midterms the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate, and Governor, were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the (still unreleased) state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%. The slight 2% margin difference is a powerful indicator that if a full set of 2012 unajusted state and national exit polls were available, they would most likely show that Obama had 55-56% True Vote share.

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2010 Florida and Ohio Governor elections: How the unadjusted exit polls were forced to match the final recorded vote

Richard Charnin

June 15, 2012

We do not have the unadjusted Walker recall exit poll numbers. If we did, we could do an analysis similar to the following.

The 2010 Florida and Ohio Governor exit polls were adjusted to match the vote counts – and red-shifted from the Democrat to the Republican.

In Florida, Sink (D) won the exit poll by 50.8-45.4% but lost the recorded vote to Scott by 48.4-49.6%, a 6.6% margin discrepancy. There were 3,150 respondents. The margin of error was 2.3%. Sink had a 99% win probability.

In Ohio, Strickland (D) won the exit poll by 49.9-47.4% but lost the vote to Kasich by 49.8-47.7%, a 4.6% margin discrepancy. There were 3,305 respondents. The margin of error was 2.2%. Strickland had an 88% win probability.

In order to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to change ALL demographic category weightings from the unadjusted to the Final.

From this:
Roper unadjusted exit polls
to this:
CNN 2010 Election Center (final adjusted exit polls)

The final exit polls show the adjusted weightings for the key demographic categories. But keep in mind that similar changes had to have been made in ALL demographic crosstabs.

Since we have the unadjusted weightings from the Roper site, we can estimate the “pristine” unadjusted vote shares by “goal-seeking” (trial and error). Then we can calculate the changes in weightings and vote shares that were required to force the exit poll to match the recorded vote. These are shown on the right side of the Ohio and Florida worksheet screens.

This spread sheet shows the key exit poll crosstabs – and the adjustments:
2010 Midterms Spreadsheet: Ohio and Florida Governor

Faulty exit polling?

Why is it that the pundits always assume that the exit poll discrepancies are always the result of faulty polling? You would think that after 50 years, the exit pollsters would get it right. And they do get it right, but very few know it.

They get it right in the unadjusted exit polls. But they just keep on adjusting the polls anyway – to match the vote. That is what they get paid for. Otherwise, they would no longer be polling for the National Election Pool.

So what is getting it “right”? Is it forcing the exit polls to match the recorded vote – even when the election is rigged? Or is it by declaring that the uncontaminated, unadjusted exit poll stands by itself – and is a close approximation to the True Vote.

2010 Governor True Vote Analysis

When you think about it, we can’t expect the exit pollsters to ever say that their surveys indicate election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the true margin of error is exceeded.

The question to ask is: why are the category weights and vote shares changed in the first place? But we already know the answer. It’s what the pollsters and the media won’t talk about. It’s because of election fraud. If they didn’t adjust the numbers, the media would have to report them. And the last thing the media wants to do is to discuss is how voting machines are programmed to miscount the votes.

But how do we prove it?

The Ultimate Smoking Gun: 1988-2008 state presidential exit polls

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections there were 274 state exit polls, of which 226 red-shifted from the poll to the vote for the Republican and 48 shifted to the Democrat. Assuming no fraud, approximately 150 would be expected for each. The probability P that 252 would red-shift to the Republican is:
P = Binomdist (63, 75, .5, false) ^ 4
P = 2.3E-37
P = 1 in 4 trillion trillion trillion

The margin of error was exceeded in 126 of the 274 polls (only 14 would normally be expected at the 95% confidence level). The probability P is ZERO:
P =Poisson (126, .05*274, false)

The margin of error was exceeded in 123 of exit polls in favor of GOP (only 7 would be expected). The probability P is:
P= 5E-106 = Poisson (123,.025*274, false)

The following table summarizes a) the number of state elections which there was a Republican red-shift from the exit poll to the vote, b) the number of states (n) in which the margin of error was exceeded in favor of the Republican, c) the probability that n states would red-shift beyond the MoE, d) the Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share, e) the Democratic recorded share, f) the deviation between the exit poll and recorded vote.

Year RS >MoE Probability.. Exit Vote Diff
1988 46.. 22… 3.5E-20….. 50.3 45.7 4.6
1992 44.. 26… 2.4E-25….. 47.6 43.0 4.6
1996 43.. 16… 4.9E-13….. 52.6 49.3 3.3
2000 34.. 12… 8.7E-09….. 50.8 48.4 2.4
2004 40.. 22… 3.5E-20….. 51.1 48.3 2.8
2008 45.. 36… 2.4E-37….. 58.0 52.9 5.1

Total 252. 134. 5.0E-115… 51.8 47.9 3.9

2010 Unadjusted National Exit Poll to Final (Red-shift)

Voted 2008 (Obama-McCain)
48-45 to 45-45 (3)

Party ID
37D- 35.8R- 27.2I to 35-35-30 (1.2)

Ideology
20.6% Liberal – 40.9% Moderate – 38.5% Conservative to 20-38-42

2010 State Unadjusted Exit Poll to Final (Red-shift)

Gender (M/F)
OH 45.5-54.5 to 48-52 (5)
FL 42.9-57.1 to 45-55 (4.2)

Party ID
OH 38.4D- 33.8R- 27.8I to 36-36-20 (4.6)
FL 39.3D- 33.9R- 26.8I to 35-36-27 (6.4)

Governor Vote
OH 49.9D-47.4R to 47-50 (recorded 47.8-49.8) (4.5)
FL 50.8D-45.4R to 48-50 (recorded 48.4-49.6) (5.6)

Obama Approval
OH 45.8 to 42 (3.2)
FL 49.2 to 45 (4.2)

Voted 2008 (Obama-McCain)
OH 50.3-45.4 to 44-47 (7.9)
FL 52.2-44.2 to 47-47 (8.0)

 

2009 New Jersey Governor True Vote Analysis

2009 New Jersey Governor True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin

July 6, 2011

In the New Jersey Governor 2009 election, Christie (Rep) defeated the incumbent Corzine (Dem) by 99,000 recorded votes (48.7-44.6%). Third-parties had 6.7%. But did he win the True Vote?

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicates that Corzine may very well have won.

http://richardcharnin.com/2009NJGovTrueVote.htm

To believe the NJ recorded vote requires several implausible assumptions:
1) McCain voter turnout exceeded Obama turnout by 65-55%.
2) Corzine had a 73% share of Obama voters; Christie had 20%.
3) Corzine had a 5% share of McCain voters; Christie had 87%.

The number of returning voters is a function of the previous election total votes cast, voter mortality and estimated turnout. The 2008 Presidential True Vote is used as the basis for calculating returning voters. Obama won the NJ recorded vote by 57-42%. But he won the unadjusted exit poll by 64-35% (1582 respondents). He won the True Vote Model by 61-38%.

Given the total 2009 vote, we calculate new voters as follows:
2009 Vote (2367k) = returning 2008 voters (2242k) + New voters
New voters = 125k = 2367k – 2242k

It is important to view the effects of alternative assumptions. The Sensitivity Analysis table displays various vote share scenarios. The following scenarios assume 61.7% McCain turnout and 57% Obama turnout.

If Corzine had 50% of new voters and 50% of returning third-party voters and…
1- 5% of McCain and 77% of Obama voters, he wins by 70,000 votes (48.1-45.1%).
2- 9% of McCain and 81% of Obama voters, he wins by 248,000 votes.
3- 8% of McCain and 79% of Obama voters, he wins by 177,000 votes.
4- 7% of McCain and 77% of Obama voters, he wins by 106,000 votes.

The True Vote Model is predicated on determining a) a feasible estimate of returning voters from the prior election and b) an estimate of how voters in the current election cast votes.

Mainstream media pundits never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote.

They accept the recorded vote as gospel and never question the official results. But the evidence is overwhelming that in virtually every election, the recorded vote does not equal the True Vote because of systemic election fraud. It’s ten years and counting since Florida 2000 – and the beat goes on.

 

2010 Governor True Vote Analysis: FL, OH, PA, WI, NJ

2010 Governor True Vote Analysis: FL, OH, PA, WI, NJ

Richard Charnin

July 6, 2011

The conventional wisdom is that the 2010 midterms were a GOP blowout of epic proportions – even bigger than in 1994. True, the party in power nearly always loses seats in the midterms. But the Democrats do significantly better than the recorded vote in virtually every election. There is no reason to suspect that 2010 was any different.

http://richardcharnin.com/2010GovTrueVote.htm

The GOP won Governor races in FL, OH, PA, WI and NJ (2009). They won the official recorded vote. But did they win the True Vote?

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicates that the Democrats very likely won FL, OH, PA and NJ – and may have won WI. Returning voters are based on the 2008 True Vote, not the recorded vote. Average 70% returning McCain voter turnout is assumed, compared to just 62% for returning Obama voters. Obama’s True Vote share in the five states was 4.3% higher than his recorded share.

Florida
Scott (Rep) won by 49.6-48.4% (61,000 votes).
Sink won the exit poll (3156 respondents) by 50.8-45.4% (282,000 votes).
The TVM indicates that Sink won by 317,000 votes with a 52.5% share.
If Sink had just 86% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain’s, she wins by 17,000.

Ohio
Kasich (Rep) won by 77,000 votes (49.8-47.8%).
Strickland (Dem) won the exit poll (3305 respondents):49.9-47.4% (101,000).
Strickland won the True Vote by 338,000 (52.2%).
If Strickland had 81% of Obama voters and 11% of McCain’s, he wins by 51,000.

Pennsylvania
Corbett (Rep) won by 357,000 recorded votes.
Corbett won the unadjusted exit poll: 54.3-45.3%.
If Onorato(Dem) had 83% of Obama voters and 8% of McCain’s, he wins by 83,000.

Wisconsin
Walker (Rep) won by 105,000 recorded votes (52-47%).
Walker won the unadjusted exit poll: 52.4-46.0%.
If Barrett (Dem) had 87% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain’s, he wins by 28,000.

New Jersey (2009)
Christie (Rep) won by 99,000 votes (48.7-45.6%).
If Corzine (Dem) had 77% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain’s, he wins by 76,000.

The True Vote Model determines a) a feasible estimate of the breakout of returning voters from the prior election and b) an estimate of vote shares in the current. The number of returning voters is a function of previous election total votes cast, voter mortality and an estimated turnout.

The 2008 Presidential election is used as the basis for calculating returning voters. The vote shares are derived from the final exit polls. Annual voter mortality is 1.25%. Given the 2010 total vote, new voters are calculated as:
New 2010 voters = 2010 vote – returning 2008 voter turnout

The number of third-party 2008 voters is given. But the 2010 exit polls indicated that there were more returning third-party voters than were still alive. This was also the case in 2008. According to the Final 2008 National Exit Poll, there were 5 million returning third-party voters – but there were only 1.2 million recorded third-party votes in 2004. Which is correct?

In the 2010 exit polls, returning third-party and New voter percentages are given but corresponding vote shares are N/A. Inquiring minds would like to know why. In order to match the recorded 2010 vote, the GOP candidate had to win 55-60% of new and returning third-party (Other) voters. In the True Vote Model, returning third-party and new voters were assumed to be split equally between the Democrat and the Republican.

Mainstream media pundits never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote. They accept the recorded vote as gospel and never question the official results. But the evidence is overwhelming that in every election, the recorded vote does not equal the True Vote because of systemic election fraud. It is ten years since Florida 2000 – and the beat goes on.

 

2010 PA, WI and IL Senate Elections: A Comparative Demographic and True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin

June 20, 2011

This analysis was updated May 7,2012 to include unadjusted 2008 state presidential exit poll statistics.

The GOP won the 2010 WI, IL and PA senate recorded votes. But did they win the True Vote?

http://richardcharnin.com/2010SenateComparativeSummary.htm

Obama had a 56.2% recorded share in Wisconsin. He had a whopping 63.2% in the unadjusted Wisconsin exit poll. But the popular progressive Sen. Russ Feingold lost by 5% in a traditionally progressive state. How does one explain Feingold’s 5% loss? He had 56% in 2004. Was it due to unverifiable touch screens (DRE) and/or the central tabulators that miscounted the optiscan ballots?
http://richardcharnin.com/WI2010SenateTrueVote.htm

Obama had a 61.9% recorded share in Illinois. He had a whopping 66.3% in the unadjusted exit poll. But the progressive Democrat Giannoulias lost by 2%. He led the Registered Voter (RV) polls by 42-38 and the Likely Voter (LV) polls by 43-42. He won the unadjusted exit poll by 51.0-47.0 (144,000 votes), Was the loss due to unverifiable DREs and rigged central tabulators that miscounted the optiscan ballots?
http://richardcharnin.com/IL2010SenateTrueVote.htm

Obama had a 54.5% recorded share in Pennsylvania. He had a whopping 63.8% in the unadjusted PA exit poll. But the progressive Democrat Sestak lost by 2% He led the RV polls by 47-43 and trailed the LV polls by 49-45. He led the exit poll at 10:15pm but fell behind at 1:17am as the poll was being matched to the vote with no change in respondents. The unadjusted exit poll was a virtual 49.8-49.9% tie. Was the loss due to unverifiable DREs and rigged central tabulators that miscounted the optiscan ballots?
http://richardcharnin.com/PA2010SenateTrueVote.htm

In 2008, Oregon voted 56.7% for Obama, nearly matching the OR True Vote Model. He had 58.2% in the exit pollster telephone poll. As a battleground state, Oregon should have been representative of the national electorate. Senator Ron Wyden led by a steady 20% in pre-election Likely Voter (LV) polls and won a 57% recorded share, matching Obama’s share.
http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm

Each of these battleground states shifted to the GOP and Wyden won Oregon in a landslide. Why did they differ from Oregon? Was it because Oregon’s recorded vote reflected the true intent of the voters? Was it due to the fact that Oregon is a 100% paper ballot state? Or that Oregon mandates hand-counts of randomly selected counties – a clear deterrent to election fraud?

Oregon was the only battleground state in which Kerry’s vote share exceeded Gore’s 2000 share. Since the 2000 election, Oregon’s recorded vote share has consistently matched the pre-election polls and the unadjusted national exit polls.

Table 1 is a comparison of the Wisconsin, Pensylvania and Illinois Final Exit Polls (i.e. recorded vote) and the True Vote Model. Note that all Final Exit Poll demographics understated the Democratic share as they were forced to match the recorded vote.

These are the key results:
– Final exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote by assuming that nearly one in six returning Obama voters defected to the GOP.
– Vote shares were n/a for the 6% that were returning 2008 third party (“Other”) and new (“DNV”) voters.
– The percentage mix of returning third-party (“Other”) 2008 voters invariably indicated that there were more returning third-party voters voters than actually voted in 2008.

In the three elections, the Democrats…
– lost the average recorded vote by 2.4% but won the True Vote by 3.2%, even assuming a 10% GOP edge in 2008 voter turnout.
– won returning 2008 Obama and McCain voters by a 46.7-45.1%
– won the “When Decided” category by 50.0-47.6% (the exit pollsters did not force a match to the recorded vote).
– led the GOP in Party ID by 40.3-36.0%.

As always, exit poll weightings and vote shares for all categories were rounded to the nearest 1%. There is no reason why they are not displayed to the nearest tenth of a percent – unless the pollsters want to fudge the vote shares to match the recorded vote – which they do anyway. After all, more than 17,000 voters were interviewed in the National Exit Poll and approximately 2000 in each state. Analysts want to see the unadjusted, “pristine” numbers – but the NEP won’t allow that. They want to keep us guessing.

The conventional wisdom is that the 2010 midterms were a GOP blowout of epic proportions – even bigger than 1994. Yes, the party in power nearly always loses seats in the midterms. The unconventional wisdom is that the Democrats do significantly better than the recorded vote in every election. There is no reason to suspect that 2010 was any different.

The media pundits accept the recorded vote and final exit polls as gospel and never question the official results. And they never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for the exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote.

Historically, the strong correlations between a) pre-election registered voter polls and unadjusted exit polls and b) pre-election likely voter polls and final exit polls (i.e. the recorded vote), is a clear indication of election fraud. Likely voter (LV) polls are a sub-sample of registered voter (RV) polls. We have unverifiable elections and a strange reluctance of the Democratic leadership to do anything about it.

Let’s consider the 2010 senate pre-election polls. Based on 37 LV polls (the GOP led the average by 48.1-43.5%), the pre-election model predicted a 50-48 Democratic Senate.
http://richardcharnin.com/2010SenateMidtermsPostElection.htm

CNN/Time provided RV and LV polling data for 18 Senate races (Table 1). The Democrats led a combination of 18 RV and 19 LV polls by 45.2-44.6% giving them a 53-45 seat majority.
The Democratic RV margin was approximately 5% higher than the LV margin.

RV polls were not listed in realclearpolitics.com final polling averages. The Democrats led the average RV poll by 49.2-40.6%. They also led the corresponding LVs by 46.6-45.8%. The Democratic margin was 8% higher in the RV polls.

The 2010 Final National Exit Poll indicated that 45% of the electorate were returning Obama voters and 45% were McCain voters. Obama’s recorded vote margin was 52.9-45.6%. Of course, the pundits will claim that the 7.3% discrepancy was due to millions of unenthusiastic Democrats who did not return to vote in 2010.

The pollsters make adjustments to the number of returning voters (the “mix”) and the vote shares in order to match the vote count. Obama won the recorded vote by 9.5 million, but his True Vote margin was at least twice that. His recorded share understated his True vote share by 4-5%. If the 2010 NEP returning voter mix is adjusted to match the 2008 recorded share (53-45%), the average Democratic share is within 1% of the GOP share – and matches the pre-election RV polls. The adjusted 53% Democratic share of the 2010 electorate is 5% lower than Obama’s True share.

Table 2 is a comparison of 18 pre-election Registered (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls and the recorded vote. Democrats led the RV poll average by a solid 46.4-41.1%. They led the LV sub-sample by 46.6-45.8%, within 0.4% of the recorded 48.3-47.9% share.

Table 3 is a comparison between the final pre-election LV polls, the preliminary exit polls and the recorded shares. There was a 2.9% discrepancy in margin between the average recorded vote and the exit poll. The final RCP LV projected average margin exceeded the recorded margin by 2.2%.

Table 4 displays Gender vote shares in the Final exit polls.

Table 5 displays Final state exit polls with the returning voter mix adjusted to match the 2008 recorded vote. The resulting vote shares closely match the pre-election RV polls – and the True Vote.

http://richardcharnin.com/IL2010SenateTrueVote.htm

 

Illinois 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Illinois 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin

June 18, 2011

This is an analysis of the 2010 Illinois senate race in which Kirk (Rep) defeated Giannoulias (Dem) by 60,000 recorded votes (49.2-47.6%).

Giannoulias won the unadjusted exit poll by 51-47%, a 144,000 vote margin.
The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 49.7-47.1%, a 97,000 margin.

http://richardcharnin.com/IL2010SenateTrueVote.htm

The Final Illinois 2010 Exit Poll indicated that 56% of the votes recorded were cast by returning Obama voters and 38% by returning McCain voters.

The 2008 Presidential True Vote analysis indicates that Obama won nationally by 58-40% – a 22 million vote margin (only 9.5 million was recorded). Forcing the State and National Exit Polls to match the recorded vote is standard operating procedure. In order to force a match in 2004 and 2008, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election. The Final Exit Poll is forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the returning voter mix and/or the vote shares. In 2004, the impossible Bush 2000 voter 43% share of the mix was insufficient to match the recorded vote; the exit pollsters also had to increase Bush vote shares.

The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote.

Assume a) 61% turnout of Obama voters, b) 69% McCain turnout and c) an even spit between Gianoulias and Kirk among new and returning third-party voters. The True Vote Model indicates that if Giannoulias captured just 82% of returning Obama voters, he won by approximately 115,000 votes. With an 80% share of returning Obama voters, he won by 33,000 votes.

As in the Wisconsin and Pennsylvania senate exit polls, vote shares were not available for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters. However, the Illinois exit poll indicated that returning 2008 third-party voters and new voters each comprised 3% (108,000) of the vote. There were only 72,000 third-party voters in 2008. Approximately 48,000 returned to vote in 2010. Therefore, the returning third-party mix was changed to 1.3%. The DNV increased from to 4.1%.

The sensitivity analysis tables display Giannoulias’ vote share and margin for various scenarios: 1) Obama 2008 voter turnout in 2010 (61-69%), 2) Giannoulias’ shares of returning Obama voters and 3) Kirk shares of returning McCain voters.

Exit Poll Oddities

The Final 2010 Illinois Exit Poll is eerily similar to the Wisconsin amd Pennsylvania polls. Apparently, the exit pollsters forgot to adjust “When Decided” to match the recorded vote in each election. Feingold in Wisconsin, Sestak in Pennsylvanua and Giannoulias in Illinois each won the “When Decided” category in the Final. But they lost in the other categories.

Giannoulias had a 54-37% lead among the 29% of voters who decided in the month before the election. He won the “When Decided” category by 49.4-46.1%.

The Democrats led in Party ID by 44-31% over the Republicans. Democrats virtually always win when they have an edge in Party-ID. Kirk needed an implausible 61% of Independents.

Giannoulias tied Kirk among the 94% who were returning Obama and McCain voters in the “How Voted in 2008” category,

At the same time, to believe the Illinois recorded vote, you must also believe that one out of five returning Obama voters defected to Kirk but only 1 out of 33 returning McCain voters defected to Giannoulias.

You must also believe that just 61% of Obama voters returned to vote while 70% of McCain voters did.

 

Pennsylvania 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Pennsylvania 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin

June 18, 2011

This is an analysis of the 2010 Pennsylvania senate race in which Toomey (Rep) defeated Sestak (Dem) by 80,000 recorded votes (51-49%). The True Vote analysis indicates that Sestak had at least a 51.5% vote share and 120,000 vote margin.

http://richardcharnin.com/PA2010SenateTrueVote.htm

The unadjusted exit poll (2664 respondents) was a 50/50 tie: Sestak had 1331; Toomey had 1333. The Final exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote: Sestak 49.1%; Toomey 50.9%.

The Final indicated that 49% of the votes recorded in 2010 were cast by returning Obama voters and 45% by returning McCain voters, a 4 percent margin. But Obama won the PA True Vote by 15%. Therefore it is logical to assume that there were many more returning Obama voters than indicated in the 2010 PA exit poll. If this is the case, then it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Sestak won the election.

Given Obama’s 57% PA True Vote and a) 60% returning Obama voter turnout, b) 70% McCain turnout, c) 2010 PA exit poll vote shares, Sestak won by 122,000 votes (51.5-48.5%).

As in the Wisconsin exit poll, vote shares were not available for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters. However, the exit poll indicated that returning third-party 2008 voters and new voters each represented 3% (119,000) of the total 2010 vote. This is a RED FLAG! Obama won third party voters by 66-20% over McCain. It is also impossible that returning third-party voters comprised 119,000 of the 2010 vote. There were only 81,000 third-party voters in 2008 and approximately 55,000 returned to vote in 2010. Therefore, the returning third-party mix was changed to 1.4%. New (DNV) voters increased from 3% to 5.2%.

The sensitivity analysis tables display Sestak vote shares and margins for various scenarios: Obama 2008 voter turnout in 2010, Sestak shares of returning Obama voters and Toomey shares of returning McCain voters.

The Final 2010 PA Exit Poll is eerily similar to that of Wisconsin. Apparently, the exit pollsters forgot to adjust “When Decided” to match the recorded vote. Feingold and Sestak each won the “When Decided” category. Toomey needed 53% of the 27% of voters who decided in the last week. He had just 42%.

The Democrats led in Party ID by 40-37% over the Republicans. Democrats virtually always win when they have a 3% edge in Party-ID.

In the “Voted in 2008” category, Sestak led the 94% who were returning Obama and McCain voters. Vote shares for returning 3rd-party and new voters are not available.

The 2008 Presidential True Vote analysis indicates that Obama won nationally by 58-40% – a 22 million vote margin (only 9.5 million was recorded). Forcing the State and National Exit Polls to match the recorded vote is standard operating procedure.

In order to force a match in 2004 and 2008, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election. The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote. The Final is forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the returning voter mix and/or the vote shares. In 2004 adjusting the mix was not sufficient to match the recorded vote, so the exit pollsters had to increase Bush vote shares as well.

 

Wisconsin 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Wisconsin 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin
June 16, 2011

This is a True Vote analysis of the 2010 Wisconsin senate race. The Final 2010 Wisconsin Senate Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Johnson defeated Feingold by 52-47%). Forcing a match to the recorded vote is standard operating procedure on the part of the exit pollsters. In order to force a match in 2004 and 2008, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election.

http://richardcharnin.com/WI2010SenateTrueVote.htm

The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote, In 2010, the Final WI senate exit poll was again forced to match the recorded vote. In the Final, the exit pollsters indicate that 49% of the 2010 recorded vote were cast by returning Obama voters and 43% by returning McCain voters. The 49/43 ratio is consistent with Obama’s 7.5% recorded vote margin. But the 2008 True Vote analysis indicates that Obama won by 57-41% – a 22 million vote margin (only 9.5 million was recorded).

It is logical to assume that there were more returning Obama voters than indicated in the 2010 WI exit poll. Therefore, the returning Obama/McCain share (mix) of the 2010 vote was changed from 49/43% to 52/40%. If this was indeed the case, then election fraud may very well have cost Feingold the election. The True Vote analysis indicates that Feingold had an approximate 50.6% vote share and 50,000 vote margin.

Vote shares were not provided for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters in the WI Exit Poll. These categories represented 3% and 5% of the total 2010 recorded vote, respectively. In order to match the recorded vote, Johnson must have won these voters by approximately 61-35% and 64-36%, respectively. This is a RED FLAG! Obama won third party voters by 66-20% over McCain. It strains credulity that returning third party voters would switch from Obama to Johnson in those amounts.

Note the SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS which displays vote shares for various returning voter mix assumptions (scenarios) and Feingold’s share of returning McCain voters. Although the Final Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote, the Base Case True Vote scenario assumes the Final Exit Poll vote shares; only the returning voter mix was adjusted. However, it is likely that the vote shares were also adjusted to force the match.

The True Vote Base Case analysis assumes equal 70% turnout of living Obama and McCain voters.and a 1.25% annual voter mortality rate. The percentage mix of returning 2008 third-party (other) voters could not have been the 3% indicated in the WI exit poll. That would mean there were 65,000 third-party voters and there were just 44,000. Therefore, the model assigned the 1.5% excess of Other voters to New/DNV (first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2008).

Feingold was a clear winner assuming that the percentage turnout of returning Obama voters was equal or greater than that of McCain voters. But it is important to keep in mind that the WI exit poll gave Feingold just 84% of returning Obama voters. This is extremely implausible. It is difficult to accept the premise that nearly one of six Obama voters defected to Johnson.

A comparison of the exit poll demographic changes from 2004 to 2010 yields some interesting results:

When Decided: Feingold was the winner in this category.
1) Feingold led the 83% of voters who decided a week prior to the election by 51-48%, winning by 50.7-48.5%.
2) He led the 68% of voters who decided a month prior by 51-48%, winning by 50.4-49.0%.
3) He led the 69% of voters who decided a month prior to the election by 51-48%. Vote shares for the last week were not available. Johnson needed 70% of voters who decided in the last week (17% of the total) to match his recorded share.

Gender: In 2004, females comprised 53% of total voters; in 2010, they were just 50%.
Age: Voters over 45 comprised 50% of the electorate in 2004 and 62% in 2010.

Party ID: In 2004, Democrats were 35% and GOP 38%. In 2010, Democrats were 37%, the GOP 36%.

Region: Milwaukee Cty had 16% of voters in 2004 and 2010. Feingold had 68% in 2004;61% in 2010.
Southeast (incl Waukesha):19% of voters in 2004;27% in 2010. Feingold: 39% in 2004; 34% in 2010.

Assuming that Feingold had just 88% of returning Obama voters (65% turnout) and Johnson had 93% of returning McCain voters (75% turnout), Feingold was still a 50.0-48.8% winner with a 26,000 vote margin.

I have included a comparable Oregon analysis. Oregon Senator Wyden, a popular progressive Democrat like Feingold, was re-elected with a 57% share, closely matching Obama’s 56.8% OR share.

 

2010 Midterms: Footprints of Election Fraud

2010 Midterms: Footprints of Election Fraud

There was no reason to suspect that the 2010 midterms would be any different than prior elections. The pundits typical reaction promotes the conventional wisdom that it was a GOP blowout of epic proportions – even bigger than 1994. The party in power nearly always loses seats in the midterms. But the true number is unknown. The unconventional wisdom is that in every election the Democrats do significantly better than the recorded vote indicates. The 2010 midterms were no exception. The GOP won the House big-time. The Democrats held on to the Senate.

We had a hint of what was coming in 2010. In the Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat, Martha Coakley won the hand-counted districts but lost the machine counts. She conceded long before the votes were counted.

In the South Carolina Democratic primary, Vic Rawl easily won the hand-counted paper ballots, but unknown Alvin Green won the machine counts. In a pitiful post-election “investigation”, Green was the chosen candidate despite the overwhelming evidence of fraud.

Given what we know about election fraud, what does the combination of pre-election registered and likely voter polls, preliminary and final exit polls and recorded vote data indicate? Well, we still have unverifiable elections and a strange reluctance of the Democratic leadership to do anything about it.

This post-election analysis utilizes final likely and registered state and national pre-election polls along with preliminary and final exit polls. The 2010 Midterms Election Forecast Model projected that the final LV pre-election polls would closely match the recorded vote – and they did.

Final exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote. Table 3 shows the late adjustments made to the exit polls – with no additional respondents. On the other hand, pre-election RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. At least they did until 2008, when the National Election Pool (the consortium of six mainstream media giants which pay the exit pollsters) decided that it was bad for business to release the pristine data.

As usual, the pundits are quoting the final exit polls as gospel. They warn Obama that he must move to the center – as if he has been part of the “professional left” all along. They never question the official results. That’s why they’re pundits: they know that they are paid to present the recorded vote as if it represented the will of the voters. So they avoid the subject of systemic election fraud – otherwise they might find themselves out of a job.

Early Voting
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM176_101027_early_vote_memo.pdf
Early voting statistics showed that Democrats were winning in key races. The Democratic National Committee collected early vote data across the country, and in 11 key states, Democrats cast more ballots than Republicans. In early voting Democrats outpaced the Republicans in NV, IA, CA, WI, WA, IL and WV.

The Republican ‘surge’/’wave’ dud not materialize in the early vote. In early results of distinct vote history levels (mid-term voters / presidential-year only voters), Democratic early voting was comparable, and often higher, than Republican voting. In many key districts, Democrats outpaced Republicans both in raw ballots cast and participation rates.

National (Generic) Exit Poll vs. Pre-election polls
As expected, the final 2010 National Exit Poll margin discrepancy from the average of 30 pre-election Generic LV polls was a near-perfect -0.62.

When the returning voter mix was set to the 2008 recorded vote, the discrepancy from the 19 pre-election RV poll average was an even lower 0.07%.

State exit polls vs. Pre-election polls
The final state exit poll (i.e. recorded vote) discrepancy from the average LV poll was 1.52%.

When the returning voter mix was set to the 2008 recorded vote, the discrepancy from the RV poll average was an even lower 0.83%.

It was expected that the Democrats were going to lose seats in the Senate and House. They were surely going to lose in Arkansas. They did. They were expected to hold on to CA, WA, WV, NY, DE and OR. And they did. The IL, NV, PA, CO and WI elections were expected to be close. And they were. The Democrats won NV and CO.

But they lost WI, IL and PA. Or did they? Oregon could hold the answer.

Oregon was the only “battleground” state in which Kerry improved his share over Gore. Kerry’s 51.4% share closely matched the unadjusted exit poll 52.0% aggregate. Since Bush won the recorded vote with 50.7-48.3%, Kerry did 3.1% better in Oregon than he did nationally. Oregon gave Obama 56.7% in 2008 (3.8% more than his 52.9% recorded national share).

What accounts for Oregon’s unique voting record? In 1992 it had the highest exit poll discrepancy in the nation (13.6%. In 1996, 10% of votes cast were uncounted. In 1998 Oregon decided to implement voting by mail – and mandated hand-counts of paper ballots in randomly-selected counties to prevent election fraud.

The evidence (statistical and documented) is overwhelming: the 2004 election was stolen. Oregon. recorded vote confirms it. The Final 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that there was a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 450% turnout of third-party voters. According to the Final, there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Therefore, Obama must have done much better than his recorded 52.9% share. Oregon had it right in 2008, just like it did in 2004.

The 2010 Oregon senate race was never in question. Wyden led by a consistent 20% in the pre-election LV polls. Wyden had a 57% recorded share – just as the polls predicted, matching Obama’s Oregon share in 2008. But if Oregon is a measure for the National electorate, how do we explain the GOP 52-47% Generic margin in 2010?

Once again, just like in 2004, the Battleground states shifted to the GOP – except for Oregon. Was it because Oregon is the only state which mandates random full hand-counts of the optically-scanned paper ballots to check the central tabulator machine-counts?

Washington now votes virtually 100% by mail. Colorado and California also had an extensive percentage of mail-in paper and absentee ballots. Is it a coincidence that in these states, the Democrats won by margins equivalent to Obama’s in 2008? Both NY senate elections exceeded Obama’s recorded share by 3-4%.

In 2004, California and New York gave Bush approximately 2.3 million of his 3.0 million vote “mandate”. In the 2010 midterms, unlike 2004, there no incentive for the GOP to pad the vote in strong Democratic states.

The Democrats lost close races in WI, IL and PA which had the following:
1) Unverifiable DRE’s
2) No mandated random hand-counts of optical scanned ballots.
3) Progressive candidates (Feingold, Sestak, Giannoulias)
4) The GOP led the final LV polls
5) Democrats tied or led the final RV polls
6) There was a late exit poll shift to the GOP

The Democrats won in states that had 100% paper ballots (OR, WA) with mandated random hand recounts or encouraged vote by mail (CO, CA). WI, PA and IL vote primarily by machine. The GOP won all three.

The tables tell the story. In the exit polls, we see changes made to the return voter mix and vote share as the polls are adjusted to match the changing vote count in real time – with no change in the number of respondents. Of course, this is standard operating procedure. Who cares if the central tabulators are being hacked in real-time?

CNN/Time provided RV and LV polling data for 18 Senate races (Table 1). Note that RV polls were not listed in the realclearpolitics.com poll averages. The Democrats led the RV polls in 11 states. They led the LV polls in 8 states (including the WV tie). They won 9. Illinois and Pennsylvania flipped from the Democrats in the RV polls to the GOP.

The average GOP 1.2% LV poll margin exceeded the RV average by 6.3%.
The average GOP LV margin exceeded the recorded average by 1.6%.
The average GOP recorded margin exceeded the RV average by 4.6%

Competitive states: 18 Exit Polls vs. Recorded Vote (Table 2)
The average GOP 4.2% recorded margin exceeded the average exit poll margin by 2.9%.
The average GOP 6.3% LV poll margin exceeded the average recorded margin by 2.1%.

 

2010 Midterms Model – LV forecast matches Sabato’s Crystal Ball and…

Richard Charnin’s 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraud

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Oct. 28, 2010

http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionForecastModels.htm

The Charnin 2010 House and Senate forecast model is based on a comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls. The LV projections have been confirmed by Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball and Electoral-vote.com.

All pre-election polls interview registered voters (RV); likely voters (LV) are a sub-sample based on the likely voter cutoff model (LVCM). But realclearpolitics.com and the media focus on likely voters. During the last month in every election cycle, RV polls are largely unreported by the media.

The Charnin model goes further than these and other models. It does not assume that LV polls are representative of the electorate. It is true that since the 2000 election, final projections based on likely voter (LV) polls have been quite accurate in predicting the recorded vote. But the recorded vote represents a fraudulent vote count.
Every one knows it. But only election activists talk about it.

In fact, projections based on RV polls closely approximate the True Vote. The RV polls measure the true intent of the voters – before their votes are hacked by unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators. LV polls predict a miscounted recorded vote. The pollsters and pundits don’t dare talk about that.

Therefore a simple model of vote miscount is:
Fraud = RV – LV

Pollsters and media pundits are paid to project the official recorded vote. By utilizing LV polls, they anticipate the election fraud they know is coming; the LV polls are a proxy for the recorded vote. They should project both the recorded and True Vote – but they dare not mention the fraud factor. They ignore the fact that since the 2000 election, RV projections have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the True Vote). In the 2006 midterms and 2008 presidential elections, RV projections gave the Democrats a 7% higher margin than the corresponding final LVs.

In 2006 the unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 56.4% share, matching the pre-election RV trend. But the Final NEP was forced to match the 53% recorded share.

In 2008 final pre-election RV polls indicated that Obama would win by 15%; the LV polls projected a 7% margin. Unadjusted 2008 exit poll data has not and will not be made available. That would be nice. But a True Vote analysis based on Final 2008 NEP vote shares indicates that Obama had a 58% share and won by 22 million votes. The impossible NEP returning percentage of phantom Bush voters was replaced by a feasible mix, just like it was in calculating the 2004 True Vote.

In 2010, it’s still the same old story. We can expect that the recorded vote will match the average LV projection.

The Democrats lead 18 Senate RV polls by 8.5% but only by 1.5% in the corresponding LV polls.
The GOP leads the latest House Generic LV polls by 6.6% and the RV polls by just 1.2%.

The key question is: will Democratic voter turnout overcome the systemic fraud component?

Senate Simulation Forecast
(UVA – undecided voter allocation)

Forecast Seats
Democrats GOP Dem Margin
Charnin Model
I. Equal undecided voter split

No fraud................. 52.8 45.2 7.6
Registered Voter (RV).... 52.9 45.1 7.8

Fraud: 3% Vote switch..... 49.2 48.8 1.4
Likely Voter (LV)......... 49.9 48.1 1.8 (projected recorded seats)

Larry Sabato: Crystal Ball.......49 49 0 (close match to above LV / Fraud)
Electoral-vote.com.............. 50 49 1

Charnin Model
II. Undecided voters break to Democrats
UVA: 60% Dem / 40% GOP

No fraud.................... 54.1 43.9 10.2
Registered Voter (RV).... 53.9 44.1 8.8

Fraud: 3% Vote switch.. 50.8 47.2 3.6
Likely Voter (LV).......... 51.1 46.9 4.2

House Forecast Models
Forecast Seats
Democrats GOP GOP Margin
Charnin Model
I. Equal undecided voter split

Registered Voter (RV).... 213 222 9
Likely Voter (LV).......... 201 234 33 (projected fraudulent result)

II. Undecided voters break to Democrats
UVA: 60% Dem / 40% GOP

No fraud............. 218 217 -1 (Dems retain control if they get a heavy turnout and undecided voters)
Fraud: 3% Vote switch.. 205 230 25

Larry Sabato - Crystal Ball 202 233 31 (close match to LV/ Fraud)
Electoral-vote.com....... 206 209 3 (20 seats are too close to call)

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 761 other followers