May 25, 2012

Richard Charnin

It is an interesting exercise to calculate mathematical probabilities of so-called “conspiracy theories”. The mainstream media and their cadre of online gatekeepers use the term “Conspiracy Theorist” (CT) as a derogatory label for those who seek the truth. According to the media, there are never conspiracies. But they avoid factual discussions based on the scientific evidence.

These myths are promoted non-stop in the mainstream media.
- Oswald acted alone in 1963 – with a magic bullet and defective rifle.
- Bush won Florida in 2000 and had a 3 million “mandate” in 2004.
- Nineteen Muslims armed with box cutters who could not fly a Cessna, hijacked four airliners and outfoxed the entire U.S. defense establishment – while Bin Laden was on dialysis, near death and hiding in caves.

But the media can’t refute the mathematics that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a massive conspiracy to hide the truth of these events from the public.

Scientific notation is necessary to express the extremely low probabilities of the following events. For example, 6E-15 is 0.000000000000006 or 1 in 167 trillion. There are 15 zeros to the right of the decimal point.

To put the numbers in context: There are an estimated 300 billion trillion (3E23) stars in the universe. That’s 3 followed by 23 zeros: 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. There are an estimated 700 thousand trillion (7E17) grains of sand on earth or 7 followed by 17 zeros: 700,000,000,000,000,000.

The probability calculations are based on the Normal, Binomial and Poisson distribution functions.

The Normal Distribution (ND) is based on a sample of observations defined by the mean (average) value and standard deviation (a measure of volatility of the observations from the mean). The ND is used to calculate the probability P that Kerry’s unadjusted 51.7% National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) share would deviate 4.4% from his 48.3% recorded national share.

The Poisson Distribution (PD) is used to calculate the probability P that a given number n of events with low probability p will occur over a period of time. The probability p of an unnatural death in any given year is approximately 0.000524. The PD is used to calculate the probability P that at least n JFK-related individuals out of a population of N witnesses would die unnaturally in the years following the assassination.

The Binomial Distribution (BD) is used to calculate the probability P of n successes in N trials when the probability p of a success is constant in each trial. The BD is used to calculate the probability P that n= 86 of N=88 DRE voting machines would flip votes from Kerry to Bush (p =0.50).

JFK Mystery Deaths
The number of unnatural JFK-related deaths cannot be coincidental.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/jfk/

75 of 1400 JFK-related individuals died from unnatural causes in 1964-1977 (only 10 would be expected). Note that 0.000542 is the probability of an unnatural death in a given year.
P = 9E-38 =Poisson (75, 14*1400*.000542, false)
P = 1 in 100 trillion trillion trillion

At least 15 of 1400 JFK-related individuals died from unnatural causes in 1963-1964 (only 1 would be expected)
P = 6E-15 =1-Poisson (14, 1400*.000542, true)
P = 1 in 167 trillion

1988-2008 Election Fraud
The discrepancies between the official recorded vote and unadjusted exit polls are in one direction only. This cannot be coincidental. The True Vote Model is confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls – and vice versa.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

1. In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, there was a massive 8% discrepancy between the exit polls (52D-42R) and the recorded vote (48D-46R).
P = 8E-10 =1- Normdist (.52, .48, .012/1.96, true)
P = 1 in 1.2 billion

2. 137 of 300 presidential state exit polls exceeded the margin of error (only 15 would normally be expected at the 95% confidence level).
P= 7.42E-80 =Poisson(137,.05*300,false)
P = 1 in 1 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion

3. 132 of 300 elections exceeded margin of error in favor of GOP (only 8 would be expected)
P= 1.59E-112 = Poisson(132,.025*300,false)
1 in 600 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion

4. 22 states red-shifted beyond the exit poll MoE to Bush in 2004 (expect 1-2)
P = 3.45E-20 = Poisson(22,.025*50,false)
1 in 3 million trillion

5. 36 states red-shifted beyond the exit poll MoE to McCain in 2008 (expect 1-2)
P = 2.37E-39 = Poisson(36,.025*50,false)
P = 1 in 400 trillion trillion trillion

6. 86 of 88 DRE voting machines flip from Kerry to Bush (normally expect 40-48)
P = 1E-23 = Binomdist (86, 88, .5, false) + Binomdist (87, 88, .5, false) + Binomdist (88, 88, .5, false)
P = 1 in 79 billion trillion

Microbiologist Mystery Deaths
The 16 unnatural deaths of world-class microbiologists in a 4 month period following 9/11 and the anthrax scare cannot be coincidental.
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/attacks/killings.html
Assuming 50,000 microbiologists:
P = 1.05E-02 = Poisson(16,.33*.000542*50000,false)
P = 1 in 100

9/11 and the Official Conspiracy Theory
To believe the official conspiracy theory (OCT) requires a belief in miracles.
It requires cognitive dissonance of obvious explosive (WTC 1 and WTC2) and symmetric (WTC 7) destruction. Probability calculations are unnecessary. The probability is ZERO based on the facts.
http://ae911truth.org/

1. NIST claims that office fires caused 3 steel-framed buildings to collapse at near free-fall – a clear refutation of Newton’s Laws of Motion.
- Free fall can only occur by an instantaneous removal of all supporting columns (i.e. a controlled demolition).
- Lateral ejection of debris can only occur from explosions – not fires.
- Jet fuel fires burn at much lower temperatures than required to melt steel.
- No steel-framed office buildings have ever collapsed due to fires.

2. CNN reporter Barbara Olson was a passenger on AA Flight 11 (which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon). She called husband Solicitor General Ted Olson from her cell phone and told him hijackers were armed with knives and box cutters.
- It was later disclosed that cell phones could not work at 30,000 feet.
- Olson then said that she called from a seatback phone. But according to an American Airlines spokesman, there were no seatback phones on Boeing 757 airliners.
- At the 2006 Moussaoui trial, the FBI reported there was one attempted call that lasted zero seconds (“unconnected”)from Barbara Olson to Ted Olson.

3. The BBC reported that WTC 7 collapsed at 5pm, 20 minutes before happened.
- How did the reporter know that it would collapse? Was she psychic?
- All fires burned out long before 5pm.
- Silverstein, the owner, said “pull it”.

and there is much more…

Richard Charnin
May 24, 2012

In a previous Walker recall election analysis the Wisconsin True Vote Model indicated that Barrett would win in a fair election with 53-54%.

The purpose of this analysis is to determine what it took for Walker to win in 2010 – and how this information may provide insight into what we can expect in the recall. Walker defeated Barrett by 125,000 recorded votes (52.2-46.6%). Approximately 69% of 2008 voters turned out in 2010.

The base case assumption in the 2012 Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model is that Obama had a 60% vote share. This estimate was based on the average of his 63-35% Wisconsin exit poll margin and 56-42% recorded margin. The 14% discrepancy is a very strong indicator that Obama did much better than his 56% official share. In other words, the election was fraudulent.

The 2010 Election

Approximately 69% of 2008 voters turned out in the 2010 Wisconsin Governor race. The exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Walker 52.2-46.6%).

In order to achieve the match, the exit pollsters showed that 49% of the Wisconsin electorate were returning Obama and 43% returning McCain voters. The spread is significantly lower than the 14% recorded margin. It implied that that 66% of Obama voters and 77% of McCain voters returned in 2010 – a net 11% turnout advantage to Walker.

The exit poll also indicates that Barrett had 83% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain voters – a net 10% defection of returning voters to Walker.

In addition, 3% of 2010 voters were returning third-party. The remaining 5% did not vote in 2008. Unfortunately, the poll does not indicate how they voted (n/a). But Walker needed to win these voters by a 20% margin in order to match the recorded vote.

To summarize, in order to match the recorded vote, the Final adjusted 2010 Wisconsin exit poll assumed
1) ZERO fraud in 2008 and
2) McCain voter turnout exceeded Obama by 11%.
3) 16% of Obama voters defected to Walker and 7% of McCain voters to Barrett.
4) Walker had a 20% margin in new and returning third-party voters.

The 2012 True Vote Model

Unlike the Final adjusted National Exit Poll, the True vote model is based on a feasible turnout of prior election voters and corresponding vote shares of returning and new voters. The model considers alternative scenarios of the prior election (i.e. recorded vote, unadjusted exit poll, estimated True Vote). As stated above, the base case assumption is that Obama’s 2008 True Vote (60%) was lower than the unadjusted exit poll (2545 respondents) but higher than the recorded vote. The base case 60% assumption is conservative as it is 3.3% below the 63.3% exit poll share (2.4% margin of error). Based on the poll, there was a near 100% probability that Obama’s true Wisconsin share exceeded 60%.

What does this portend for the recall?
Three scenarios:

1) Fraud: Walker wins by a similar margin as he did in 2010 (125,000 votes)
2) Fraud: But not enough to steal the election. Barrett wins by 70,000.
3) No fraud. Barrett wins by at least 160,000.

1988-2008: the 8% unadjusted exit poll margin discrepancy

Unadjusted state and national exit poll data is available on the Roper website. The Democrats won the aggregate 1988-2008 presidential unadjusted exit polls by 52-42% -an 8% discrepancy in margin from the 48-46% recorded vote. Bloggers, pollsters and academics are apparently unaware that the data even exists. After all, the NY Times and CNN never reported that fact. But they do show exit polls adjusted to conform to bogus recorded votes on their websites.

How many voters are aware that Obama won the Unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by a super-landslide 61-37% margin? Or that he won the state aggregate exit polls (82,388 respondents) by 58-40.5%? The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by implying an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters.

In every election the pollsters force state and national exit polls to match the recorded vote. They accomplish this by adjusting all demographic crosstabs that are displayed in the various mainstream media election sites. As a result of the forced match to the recorded vote, the “pristine” demographic percentages are contaminated. In other words, by matching to the recorded vote, final exit polls disguise the true intent of various classes of voters.

Richard Charnin
May 3, 2012

Barrett should win easily – assuming ZERO fraud.
But there WILL be fraud. So let’s look at the scenarios.

Let’s check out the Wisconsin True Vote Model.

In 2008, Obama had a 56.2% recorded vote share in Wisconsin. But he had 63.2% in the unadjusted exit poll (n=2,545 respondents). The poll had a 2.43% margin of error (including a 30% “cluster effect”).

MoE = (1+cluster) * Stdev * sqrt(p*(1-p)/n)
MoE = 2.43% = 1.3 * 1.96 * sqrt(.639*.361/2545)

There is a near 100% probability that Obama’s True Wisconsin share exceeded 60%:

All of the following scenarios assume that Obama had a 60% WI share.
___________________________________________________________________________

CONSERVATIVE Base Case assumptions (favoring Walker)

Returning 2008 Voter Turnout (net 5% to Walker)
65% Obama voter turnout
70% McCain voter turnout

Voter Defection (net 5% to Walker)
Barrett wins 90% of returning Obama voters
Barrett wins 5% of returning McCain voters

Barrett wins by 54.6-45.4% (198,000 votes)
Walker needs to steal 8.4% of Democratic votes to win.

___________________________________________________________________________

Zero Net Turnout and Voter Defection Scenarios

1. Equal 70% turnout; Barrett wins 90% of Obama and 5% of McCain voters
Barrett has 56.2% and wins by 267,000 votes.
Walker needs to steal 11% to win.

2. Equal 70% Turnout; Barrett wins 95% of Obama and 5% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 59% and wins by 387,000 votes.
Walker needs to steal 15% to win.
___________________________________________________________________________

Democratic Worst Case Scenarios

1. Voter Turnout: 65% of Obama; 70% of McCain
Barrett wins 85% of Obama voters and 0% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 50.2% and wins by 9,000 votes.

2. Voter Turnout: 60% Obama; 75% McCain
Barrett wins 90% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 51.8% and wins by 80,000 votes.

___________________________________________________________________________

Implausible Scenarios required for Walker to win a fair election

1. Voter Turnout: 55% Obama; 80% McCain
Vote share: Barrett wins 90% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 49.1% and loses by 38,000.

2. Voter Turnout: 65% Obama; 70% McCain
Vote share: Barrett wins 80% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 49.4% and loses by 25,000.

Richard Charnin

April 26, 2012

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model (TVM) is actually a combination of: 1) pre-election Monte Carlo Simulation Election Model, based on the latest state polling and 2) post-election True Vote Model, based on a feasible estimate of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding estimated vote shares. The model will be updated periodically for the latest state and national polls.

Media pundits and pollsters project the recorded vote – and they are usually right. They know there will be fraud, so they prepare you for it. The RV polls are transformed to LVs to promote an artificial “horse race”. The pundits want to predict the recorded vote. The closer they are, the better they look. But they never mention that it’s the fraud factor that gets them close.

At the Real Clear Politics (RCP) website, there are currently 21 (mostly battleground) state polls listed. The simulation will use the latest state polls and recorded 2008 vote shares for states which have not yet been polled.

Obama currently leads the RCP National poll average by 47.7-43.8%. He also leads the aggregate weighted state poll average by 49.5-44.1%. But undecided voters usually break for the challenger. If the election were held today, he would have a 95% win probability with 300-320 EV.

Pre-election RV and LV Polls

Virtually all of these early pre-election polls are of Registered Voters (RV). An exception is the Rasmussen poll which is a Likely Voter (LV) subset of the full RV sample. Rasmussen is an openly GOP pollster.

One month before the election, pollsters replace the RV polls with the LV subset. The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) effectively understates the potential turnout of millions of new Democratic voters – and increases the Republican share.

Historically, RV polls, after undecided voters are allocated, have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. The RVs are confirmed by the True Vote Model. Democrats always do better in RV polls than they do in the LVs which are usually excellent predictors of the fraudulent recorded vote. The loop is closed when implausible/impossible exit polls are forced to match bogus recorded votes that were predicted by biased LV pre-election polls.

1988-2008 Exit Poll Discrepancies

Election fraud sharply reduced the 1988-2008 Democratic presidential share margin. They won the unadjusted exit poll average by 52-42%, but their recorded vote margin was just 48-46%.

Here is the proof:1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

Based on the historic record, Obama needs at least 55% to overcome systemic built-in fraud. In 2008 Obama had a 58-40.5% weighted average in the unadjusted STATE exit polls (76,000 respondents)). He won the unadjusted NATIONAL Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61-37%, a whopping 24% margin. The NEP is a subset of the state polls. The True Vote Model was confirmed by the exit polls. The TVM determined that Obama won a major landslide with 58% share.

But all mainstream media websites (Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, etc.) show that Obama had 52.9% – for the same 17,836 NEP respondents. As always, the FINAL National Exit poll was forced to match the recorded share.

The exit pollsters have never even tried to explain the massive 11% state exit poll margin discrepancy, much less the impossible 17% National Exit Poll discrepancy. But if they do, they will surely claim that the discrepancies were due to flawed polling samples. But they can never explain why forcing the exit polls to match the recorded votes required impossible weighting adjustments in at least four presidential elections.

The True Vote Model

The TVM can project a given state as well as the national vote. The turnout rates and vote shares used in projecting the national vote are applied to each state in order to derive the national aggregate. A 1.25% annual voter mortality rate is assumed. The user can enter estimated turnout rates of living Obama and McCain voters.

The TVM has two options for estimating returning voters.

The True Vote (default) option assumes that 2008 voters return in proportion to the unadjusted exit poll aggregate (Obama by 58-40.5%). In this scenario, Obama wins in 2012 by 55-45% with 371 EV. He has a 99.99% win probability.

The Recorded Vote (Fraud) option assumes that 2008 voters return in proportion to the 2008 recorded vote (Obama 52.9-45.6%). Obama wins by 51-49% with 301 EV and has a 95% win probability.

Sensitivity analysis

It is important in election modeling to view the effects of changes in input parameters. The TVM displays the effects of turnout rates and share of returning voters. Three tables are generated for nine scenario combinations of a) Obama and McCain turnout rates and b) shares of returning Obama and McCain voters. The tables provide resulting vote shares, margins and popular vote win probabilities.

Monte Carlo Simulation: 500 election trials

There are two options for running the simulation model. Both should be used and the results compared. The default option is to use the TVM projected state vote shares. The second is to use the projected state pre-election polls.

The simulation consists of 500 election trials. The electoral vote win probability is the number of winning election trials divided by 500.

The projected state vote share is the sum of the poll share and the undecided voter allocation (UVA). The model uses state vote share projections as input to the Normal Distribution function to determine the state win probability.

In each election trial, a random number (RND) between 0 and 1 is generated for each state and compared to Obama’s state win probability. If RND is greater than the win probability, the Republican wins the state. If RND is less than the win probability, Obama wins the state. The winner of the election trial is the candidate who has at least 270 electoral votes. The process is repeated in 500 election trials.

2008 State Exit Poll and recorded vote data is displayed in the ‘2008‘ worksheet. The latest state polls are listed in the ‘Polls” worksheet which will be used for trend analysis. The data is displayed graphically in the ‘PollChart’ worksheet. A histogram of the Monte Carlo Simulation (500 trials) is displayed in the ‘ObamaEVChart’ worksheet.

Electoral Votes and Win Probabilities

The Electoral Vote is calculated in three ways.

1. The snapshot EV is a simple summation of the state electoral votes. It could be misleading since there may be several very close elections which go one way.
2. The Theoretical EV is the product sum of the state electoral votes and win probabilities. A simulation or meta-analysis is not required to calculate the expected EV.
3. The Mean EV is the average electoral vote in the 500 simulated elections.

The Mean EV will be close to the Theoretical EV, illustrating the Law of Large Numbers. The snapshot EV will likely differ slightly from the Theoretical EV, depending on the number of state election projections that fall within the margin of error.

Obaama’s electoral vote win probability is the percentage of 500 simulated election trials that he won.

The national popular vote win probability, like individual states, is calculated by the normal distribution using the national aggregate of the the projected vote share. Of course the national aggregate margin of error should be 1-2% lower than the average MoE of the individual states. That is, if you believe the Law of Large Numbers and convergence to the mean. I do.

The Fraud Factor

The combination of True Vote Model and state poll-based Monte Carlo Simulation enables the analyst to determine if the electoral and popular vote share estimates are plausible. The aggregate state poll shares can be compared to the default TVM (no fraud).

The TVM can be forced to match the aggregate poll projection by…
- Adjusting the vote shares by entering an incremental adjustment in the designated input cell. A red flag would be raised if the match required that Obama capture 85% of returning Obama voters while Romney gets 95% of returning McCain voters (a 10% net defection).

- Adjusting 2008 voter turnout in 2012 in order to force a match to the aggregate projected poll shares. For example, if McCain voter turnout is required to be 10-15% higher than Obama’s, that would also raise a red flag.

- Setting the recorded vote option (1) for returning voters. If the TVM vote shares indicate a close election and are close to the projected poll shares, it would suggest that Romney has a good chance of winning.

In any case, check the simulated, theoretical and snapshot electoral vote projections and the corresponding win probabilities.

Richard Charnin
April 5, 2012

The pattern should be clear by now. The exit pollsters working for the mainstream media adjust actual exit poll data to match official recorded votes. It happens in every election. And it will again in 2012. It’s like fixing the intelligence to match the policy in Iraq.

But very few are aware of the perennial scam. The media won’t tell you. They would only be indicting themselves. The only way to know is to do the research, collect the data, build the models and crunch the numbers. And then post the analysis on the Net, hoping that at least one well-known personality will read it. And then shake things up by discussing Election Fraud the next time they are interviewed in the mainstream media.

Let’s start with the 2000 election which the Supreme Court handed to Bush. Gore won the national recorded vote by 540,000 (48.4-47.9%). Most people are aware of that. But how many know that he won the unadjusted state exit polls (56,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.5%? That’s a 7 million vote margin. He won the unadjusted 2000 National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents) by 48.5-46.3%. The National Exit Poll is a subset of the state exit polls.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million (50.7-48.3%). The National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) was adjusted to match the recorded vote. But how many realize that Kerry won the unadjusted NEP (the same 13660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%? That’s a 6 million vote margin. Kerry won the unadjusted aggregate of the state exit polls (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.6%.

Here is the proof:1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

Kerry’s 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share appears to be understating his True Vote since it implies that Bush won in 2000 by 48.4-47.0% – but the exit polls show that Gore led by 50.8-44.5%. How could that be? Surely, disgruntled Gore voters were more likely to return in 2004 than Bush voters. Bush had a 48% approval rating.

Click this to view the overwhelming evidence confirming a Kerry landslide.

Assuming the 2000 unadjusted exit polls were essentially correct and voters returned proportionately in 2004, then Kerry had at least 53.6% and won by more than 10 million votes, matching the True Vote Model (TVM). Why the 2% TVM deviation from the exit polls? Could it be that exit poll precincts were at least partially weighted to the 2000 recorded vote? In other words, was the sample biased in favor of Bush?

Consider the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline – before the vote shares were inflated for Bush. It shows a) a net Kerry gain of approximately 4.0 million from 22 million new voters, b) a 1.0 million net gain from returning Bush and Gore voter defections, c) a 1.5 million net gain in returning Nader voters, and d) a 540,000 gain based on Gore’s recorded margin. That’s a total net Kerry gain of 7.0 million votes. But it was surely higher than that. If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate), then Kerry had 53.6% and a 10.5 million vote landslide – matching the True Vote Model.

So how did Kerry lose?

How come the published Final National Exit poll indicates that Bush was a 50.7-48.3% winner? The pollsters forced the NEP to match the recorded vote by implying there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still alive in 2004 – an impossible 110% turnout. And even that sleight-of-hand was not enough; they had to inflate Bush’s 12:22am shares of returning and new voters to complete the match in the Final NEP.

An even greater miracle occurred in 1992 for Poppy Bush. In that election, 119% of living Bush 1988 voters turned out. But even that wasn’t enough to steal it from Clinton.

Let’s move on to 2008. Obama won the recorded vote by 52.9-45.6% (9.5 million votes). Of course, that is also what the adjusted National Exit Poll indicates. But it’s not how the exit poll respondents said they voted.

According to the unadjusted NEP (17,836 respondents), Obama won by 61.0-37.2%. He had 58% in unadjusted State Exit Poll aggregate (83,000 respondents). It was a 22 million vote landslide. In order to believe the recorded vote, you must believe that the state and national exit polls (and the True Vote Model) were off by 5 to 8 times the margin of error.

Why the massive discrepancies from the recorded vote shares? Once again, the exit pollsters had to force the unadjusted exit polls (state and national) to match the recorded vote. They had to have 60 million returning Bush and 48 million returning Kerry voters. Just like the 2004 Final NEP, it was not just implausible and counter-intuitive, it was mathematically impossible. The pollsters needed a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters in 2008. But Bush won the (bogus) recorded vote by just 3 million – and Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million.

Simulation forecast trends are displayed in the following graphs:

State aggregate poll trend
Electoral vote and win probability
Electoral and popular vote
Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability
National poll trend
Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram

March 23, 2012

The 2004-2008 County True Vote Database Model has been restructured. Just enter the state code in cell A2 of the new “Input” sheet.

The objective of the model is to determine the most fraudulent counties in 2008. No model is perfect, but the TVM provides a good estimate of election fraud as measured by vote share and vote count discrepancies in margin from the recorded vote.

The following states are currently in the database. More states will be added:
AZ CA CO FL GA IA IL IN MA MI MO NC NM NV NY OH OR PA TN TX WI

In 2004, Kerry lost the national recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. He had 51.1% in the unadjusted state exit polls (76,000 respondents) and 51.7% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (a subset with 13,660 respondents). The True Vote Model sensitivity analysis provides convincing evidence that Kerry won the election easily.

In 2008, Obama won the national recorded vote by a 52.9-45.6% margin. He had a 58% share in the unadjusted state exit polls (83,000 respondents) and a whopping 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (a subset with 17,836 respondents).

The key stats are shown in the “Input” sheet. These include the state True Vote table and discrepancies between Obama’s True county vote margin and the recorded margin. Calculation details are displayed in the “Model” sheet.

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).

True Vote margins are calculated based on the returning voter method: The default method is that 2004 voters return to vote in 2008 in proportion to the 2004 state exit poll shares. Optionally, set code 1 in cell A5 to calculate returning voters in proportion to the 2004 recorded vote shares.

If the recorded vote option is used, county vote discrepancies will be lower than they would be if the default method was used. But since the 2004 recorded votes were fraudulent, unadjuted 2004 exit polls (the default) should be used to calculate returning voters to provide a better estimate of the true discrepancy.

The model automatically adjusts state and county vote shares based on the differential between the unadjusted state and national exit polls.

The user has the option of overriding the returning voter mix as well as the vote shares. Enter incremental percentage changes to a) Kerry’s returning vote counts (an automatic offsetting change is made to Bush’s vote count) and b) to Obama’s shares of new and returning voters (an automatic offsetting change is made to McCain’s vote shares.

Default 2004 living voter turnout in 2008 is set to 97%.

The model indicates that the following counties were the most fraudulent:
Wisconsin
Obama recorded share: 56.2%, Exit Poll: 63.3%, True Vote Model: 58.8%
Waukesha,Sheboygan,Washington,Milwaukee

Ohio
Obama recorded share: 51.4%, Exit Poll: 56.3%, True Vote Model: 56.2%
Cuyahoga,Franklin,Hamilton,Montgomery,Summit

Florida
Obama recorded share: 50.9%, Exit Poll: 52.1%, True Vote Model: 54.7%
Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, Brevard, Hillsborough

New York
Obama recorded share: 62.8%, Exit Poll: 71.5%, True Vote Model: 68.3%
Nassau, Suffolk, Erie, Queens, Westchester

Pennsylvania
Obama recorded share: 54.5%, Exit Poll: 63.8%, True Vote Model: 62.0%
Philadelphia, Allegheny, Bucks, Westmoreland, Montgomery, Delaware

The correlation ratio is a statistical measure of the relationship between Obama’s recorded vote share and the True Vote discrepancy. In general, there is a strong negative correlation between the two variables. This indicates that as Obama’s recorded county vote share increases (decreases) the discrepancy decreases (increases). This is an indication that GOP counties are the most fraudulent (measured by vote share margin discrepancy).

The correlation ratio is in the range from -1 to +1 (-1 is a perfectly negative correlation and +1 is perfectly positive). A near zero correlation indicates little or no relationship. A positive value indicates that the variables generally move in the same direction: as one variable increases (decreases), the other also increases (decreases). A negative value indicates the opposite: as one variable increases (decreases) the other decreases (increases). The correlation is a strong one if it is higher than 0.50 (positive) or lower than -0.50 (negative).

For example, in Ohio 2004 the -0.82 correlation indicated that Bush counties were more fraudulent than Kerry counties (based on vote share margin discrepancies). In 2008, the -0.50 correlation was not as strong but still significant.

North Carolina was an unusual exception. In 2004 there was a near-zero (-.01) correlation, indicating no relationship between county partisanship and election fraud. But in 2008, the strong negative (-0.72) correlation indicates that election fraud was more prevalent in GOP than Democratic counties.

County Correlation Ratios between the Democratic Recorded Vote and
the True Vote Share Margin Discrepancy
State 2004 2008
NC -0.01 -0.72
WI -0.70 -0.50
OH -0.82 -0.50
NY -0.62 -0.45
FL -0.43 -0.79

Richard Charnin

March 28, 2012

The database has been restructured for easier use. It is based on county recorded vote changes and 2000 and 2004 as well as National Exit Poll vote shares. It now calculates the approximate 2004 True Vote for counties in 21 states.

The 2004 County True Vote Model:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDNzZWhMcF9sS3pHRWdUZE8zdEs4aGc#gid=23

In 2000, Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.4%. He won the National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%

In 2004, Kerry won the unadjusted state exit polls by 51.1-47.6%. He won the National Exit Poll by 51.7-47.0%%

The database contains Election Day recorded votes. In 2000 approximately 2.7 million votes were recorded after Election Day; in 2004 approximately 6 million were. Gore and Kerry each had 55% of the late two-party vote.

In 2000, there were approximately 6 million uncounted votes. In 2004, there were approximately 4 million. Gore and Kerry had 70-80%. Uncounted votes (Total Votes Cast) are not included in the True Vote calculations.

The number of returning 2000 voters is calculated assuming 5% voter mortality over the four year period. The default turnout assumption is that 98% of living 2000 voters voted in 2004.

The number of new voters is calculated as the difference between the 2004 recorded vote and the number of returning 2000 voters. This is just an approximation since the recorded 2000 county vote is used – not the True Vote based on total votes cast .

The Model uses adjusted 12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares as a basis for calculating total state and county vote shares. The adjusted shares are applied to each county’s estimated share of new voters and returning Gore, Bush and Other voters. The weighted average of the county vote shares should closely match the calculated state True Vote.

State and county vote shares are calculated based on the differential between the unadjusted state and national exit poll shares.

The Input sheet is for data entry. Enter the state code in cell A2.

The default assumption is that 2000 voters return to vote in proportion to the 2000 unadjusted exit poll. Enter code 1 to use the 2000 recorded vote as the returning voter option. Since the unadjusted 2000 exit poll is close to the True Vote, the default option is a better choice.

The user has the option of incrementing the returning Gore voter mix percentage. The Bush share will decrease (increase) by the same percentage.

The living 2000 voter turnout rate is set to 98%, but can be changed if desired.

In order to gauge the impact of changes in vote shares, incremental changes to Kerry’s base case vote shares can be input. Bush’s shares will adjust automatically in the opposite direction (the total must equal 100%). Other third-party vote shares are unchanged.

Analyzing the results
The data is sorted by 2004 county vote. The discrepancies are displayed as vote margin (in thousands) and a percentage. The probability of fraud increases as the discrepancy increases. The county True Vote is only an estimate. It can only be determined if the ballots are hand-counted.

The correlation statistic shows the relationship between two variables and ranges from -1 to +1, where -1 is a perfectly negative correlation and +1 is perfectly positive. A near-zero correlation indicates that there is no relationship. A positive correlation indicates that both variables move in the same direction: as one variable increases (decreases), the other also increases (decreases). A negative correlation indicates just the opposite: as one variable increases (decreases) the other decreases (increases).

The model calculates the correlation statistic (relationship) between Kerry’s recorded vote share and the True Vote discrepancy. In general, there is a strong negative correlation between the variables, indicating that as Obama’s recorded county vote share increases (decreases) the discrepancy decreases (increases). This is an indication that the GOP counties are the most fraudulent (as measured by vote share margin discrepancy).

For example, in Ohio, the -0.82 correlation was very strong indicating that Bush counties were extremely fraudulent relative to Kerry counties (based on vote share margin discrepancies).

County Correlation Ratios between the Democratic Recorded Vote and
the True Vote Share Margin Discrepancy
State 2004 2008
NC -0.01 -0.72
WI -0.70 -0.50
OH -0.82 -0.50
NY -0.62 -0.45
FL -0.43 -0.79

Florida
At 8:40pm CNN showed that of 2846 exit polled, Bush led by 49.8-49.7%.
Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll (2862 respondents) by 50.8-48.0%.
But at 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (52.1-47.9%) for the SAME 2862 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote a 381,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the True Vote by 52.7-46.1%, a 500,000 vote margin.

Kerry’s largest discrepancies from the True Vote were in DRE counties:
Broward, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Dade, Pinellas.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Dade Broward Palm Beach
Margin: Broward Palm Beach Volusia Polk

Ohio
At 7:30pm CNN showed that of 1963 exit polled, Kerry led by 52.1-47.9%
Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll (2020 respondents) by 54.1-45.9%.
At 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (50.9-48.6%) for the SAME 2020 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote, a 119,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the True Vote by 53.1-45.5%, a 426,000 vote margin.

Ohio used Punched card machines, DREs and Optical Scanners.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Cuyahoga Franklin Montgomery Butler
Margin: Butler Warren Clermont

New York
All counties Lever machines.
Kerry won the recorded vote by 58.4-40.1%, a 1,251,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the Exit Poll by 62.1-36.2%.
Kerry won the True Vote by 63.0-35.1%, a 2,060,000 vote margin.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Nassau Suffolk Brooklyn Queens
Margin: Nassau Suffolk Staten Island Rockand

Wisconsin
Kerry won the recorded vote by 49.7-49.3%, an 11,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the Exit Poll by 52.0-46.8%.
Kerry won the True Vote by 52.8-45.6%, a 217,000 vote margin.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Waukesha Brown Sheboygan
Margin: Waukesha Brown Sheboygan Washington

Arizona
In 2000 Gore won the exit poll (47.2-46.4%) but lost the vote by 50.9-44.7%.
In 2004, Bush won the exit poll (52.8-46.3%) and the recorded vote (54.9-44.4%).

But Kerry won the True Vote by 52.0-46.2% (assuming 2000 voters returned in proportion to the 2000 exit poll). If the model is correct, there was massive election fraud (a 16% discrepancy).

Pennsylvania
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Allegheny Montgomery Bucks
Margin: Northampton York Westmoreland

March 1, 2012

The 2000-2004 Presidential County Vote Database is a forensic spreadsheet tool for viewing, filtering, sorting and comparing county vote changes from 2000 to 2004. It is important to note that the database contains Election Day recorded votes, not the True votes. The 2004 county voting machine type is indicated.

The database has been updated. It currently consists of 21 states in a single file and includes the True Vote Model for each county.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/2000-2004-presidential-elections-county-true-vote-model/

The original database consists of two worksheets:
Part 1:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGFHdkloa0FUeUp0dmlRbFl6bjViQkE#gid=1

Part 2:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdEMxYmxrWElBeTdZWWhtMHZrSEZQa0E#gid=1

In 2000, Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000. But there were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. Gore won the unadjusted exit poll by 50-44% – a six million vote margin that was close to the True Vote Model.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million. There were nearly 4 million uncounted votes. Kerry  won the unadjusted exit poll by 51-47.5%. The True Vote model indicates that he had 53.5% and won by 10 million votes.

Why bother to analyze state and county recorded votes? What if a county had a near-zero percentage increase in Bush’s 2004 margin from 2000? In other words, if there was nearly equal fraud in both elections, how would we know? Well, if we have evidence of 2004 fraud in a given county, but there was no change in margin from 2000, then we can hypothesize that fraud also occurred in 2000. Conversely, if there was a change in margin in 2004, we could hypothesize that there was an increase in the fraud factor. Since Election Fraud is systemic, the 2000/2004 county vote database has applicability in other state and presidential elections.

New York had the highest level of fraud: there was a 55% average difference between comparable Kerry and Bush correlations. Florida was next at 49%, Ohio had 35%. Oregon, the only vote-by-mail 100% paper ballot state with mandated random county hand-recounts, had just a 4% difference. The results confirmed a prior analysis which indicated a) that Oregon stood alone as the only fraud-free Battleground state and b) confirmed that election fraud caused the large exit poll discrepancies in New York, Florida and Ohio- and many other states.

New York

Bush’s 2004 recorded NY county vote gain over 2000 is indeed an Urban Legend. His percentage gain in the 15 largest NY urban and suburban (Democratic) counties far exceeded those of Kerry. In 2000, Gore won the NY recorded vote by 60-35% with 5% to third parties. But Kerry won by just 58-40%, a 7% decrease in margin. 

NY voted exclusively on Lever machines which had the highest discrepancies (11%) of all voting machine types.

In 2004, Nader had less than 0.5% of the vote nationally. Since returning Nader voters preferred Kerry over Bush by 64-17%, Kerry should have won NY by 63-36% (assuming zero net defections of returning voters). In fact, he won the unadjusted exit poll by 62.1-36.2%. But his recorded margin exceeded Gore in just 6 of 62 counties.

Columbia was the ONLY COUNTY where Bush had fewer votes than he did in 2000 – an indication that Coumbia’s election had zero fraud. Bush had 12,100 votes in 2000 and 11,200 in 2004. Virginia Martin was Columbia’s Election Supervisor. Was her dedication to election integrity a major reason for Columbia’s unique result?

This graph shows Bush and Kerry percentage gains over 2000 in the 15 largest NY counties.
http://www.richardcharnin.com/TIACountyVoteDatabase_24111_image001.png

The Bush Urban Legend is also illustrated in this graph which shows the implausible high (0,61) correlation between NY county population size and Bush percentage gain from 2000.
http://richardcharnin.com/TIACountyVoteDatabase_14517_image001.gif

Florida

Gore won the FL unadjusted exit poll by a whopping 53.4-43.6% (3% to Nader et al), but Bush won by 537 votes. They were tied at 48.8% – only because the Supreme Court stopped the recount. There were nearly 200,000 uncounted spoiled ballots, a combination of undervotes, overvotes, Butterfly ballots, etc.  

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Kerry led the 2004 pre-election polls.
http://richardcharnin.com/FL04exitpoll_12679_image001.png

In 2004 Bush won again, this time by 52.1-47.9%. Returning Nader 2000 voters broke by nearly 4-1 for Kerry, who also won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-48.0%. So how did Bush do it? Well, for one thing FL voting machines were now a mix of unverifiable DREs and Optical scanners. No more punch cards. No more hanging chads. HAVA fixed that problem, so that votes could be stolen cleanly in Cyberspace. No longer would there be blood evidence at the crime scene.

The biggest Democratic counties (Palm Beach, Broward and Dade) showed  virtually no change in Bush’s margin from 2000 to 2004. But changes in county recorded votes can be misleading. Does no change mean that there was no fraud? Obviously not. Election Fraud in both 2000 and 2004 caused Gore and Kerry margins to decline at nearly the same rate. The near-zero net change in margin masks the uniform vote thefts. But the the level of fraud must have increased in counties where Bush gained the most over his 2000 vote (Brevard, Polk, Hillsborough, etc.). Margins increased by 4% in Hillsborough, 7% in Broward and 6% in Palm Beach. These counties used DRE touchscreens in 2004.

Of the 67 Florida counties, Kerry did better than Gore in just five, whereas Bush increased his margin in 62. But in Leon County there was a 10,000 increase in Kerry’s margin, his biggest county gain. Does the fact that Ion Sancho, the Election Integrity activist whose famous “Hursti Hack” demonstrated that Optical Scanners can be rigged and also happens to be the Leon County Election Supervisor, have anything to do with it? 

Oregon

This 100% paper ballot state uses Optical scanners. Vote is by mail or hand-delivery of ballots to a polling site. A hand recount of ballots is mandated for randomly selected counties. Not surprisingly, with the combination of mandated hand counts (a fraud deterrent) and high turnout, Oregon was the only Battleground state that Kerry won by a margin better than Gore.

Gore won Multnomah, Oregon’s largest county, by 104,000 votes (64.3-28.6%). But Kerry did even better. He won it by 152,000 votes (72.5-27.5%) and apparently picked up a large number of returning Nader 2000 voters. It’s very telling to compare Kerry’s expected gains in urban Multnomah to Bush’s impossible, unexpected gains in heavily Democratic NY counties.

Oregon is a 100% paper ballot state, mandates random hand recounts and enjoys heavy voter turnout. Do these factors have anything to do with Oregon being the only Battleground state in which Kerry’s winning vote share exceeded that of Al Gore?

Ohio

In 2000, Bush beat Gore by 50.0-46.5%, but the exit poll was close (48.5-47.4%). In 2004, Kerry won the exit poll by a solid 54.1-45.7% but lost the recorded vote by 50.8-48.7% – quite a red-shift. Although there were many Battleground states and strong Democratic states in which vote miscounts favored Bush, Ohio was the epicenter of election fraud. The majority of its 88 counties voted on punch card machines, the rest on DREs and Optical scanners.

In 2000, Gore won Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) by 63-34%. Kerry did even better; he won by 67-33%. Kerry had a 61,000 net gain in margin. But keeping in mind that these are recorded vote shares. Based on the vast evidence of documented fraud, Gore and Kerry must have done much better than their recorded votes indicate. Bush vote gains from 2000 were highest in Butler, Warren and Clermont counties. All had numerous voting irregularities and anomalies.

Did Ken Blackwell, Secretary of State and co-chair of the Ohio Bush-Cheney campaign, have anything to do with Kerry losing Ohio ?

To view the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database, click this link.

The source data is provided by the Roper Center UConn

The data for each election is viewed by clicking the indicated tab at the top of the screen. State exit polls are displayed in the same row as the recorded vote. The national aggregate exit poll is calculated by weighting the state exit poll shares by votes cast.
Aggregate National share = Sum(exit poll(i) * state weight(i)) / National Votes Cast, i = 1,51 states

11/2/04 3:59pm, 8349 respondents
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3737_PRES04_NONE_H_Data-1.pdf

Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.0%

Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 15% 62% 37% 1%
Gore. 39% 91% 8% 1%
Bush. 42% 9% 90% 1%
Other 4% 61% 12% 27%

Total 100% 51% 47% 2%


11/2/04 7:33pm, 11027 respondents 
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

Kerry 50.9%; Bush 47.1% 

Vote04 Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 17% 59% 39% 2%
Gore. 38% 91% 8% 1%
Bush. 41% 9% 90% 1%
Other 4% 65% 13% 22%

Total 100% 50.9% 47.1% 2.0%


11/3/04 12:22am, 13047 respondents
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif

Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5%

Vote04 Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 17% 57% 41% 2%
Gore. 39% 91% 8% 1%
Bush. 41% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3% 64% 17% 19%

Total 100% 51.2% 47.5% 1.3%


Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents (true sample)
Data Source: Roper Center UConn

Kerry 51.7%; Bush 47.0%

Total Kerry Bush Other
13660 7064 6414 182
Share 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%

Total 100% 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%


11/3/04 1:24pm, Final National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents (adjusted sample)
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3970_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

The Final was forced to match recorded vote by switching approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 respondents to Bush. The average within precinct exit poll discrepancy was a nearly identical 6.5%.

Final NEP (forced to match)
Kerry 48.3%; Bush 50.7% 

Final Kerry Bush Other
13660 6593 6930 137
Share 48.3% 50.7% 1.0%

Total 100% 48.5% 51.1% 0.4%

Unadjusted NEP: Gender Demographic
Kerry 51.8%; Bush 47.2%

Gender Mix Kerry Bush Other
Male.. 46.0% 48.0% 51.0% 1.0%
Female 54.0% 55.0% 44.0% 1.0%

Total.. 100% 51.8% 47.2% 1.0%

Final Adjusted (forced to match recorded vote)
Kerry 47.8%; Bush 51.2%

Gender Mix Kerry Bush Other
Male.. 46.0% 44.0% 55.0% 1.0%
Female 54.0% 51.0% 48.0% 1.0%

Total.. 100% 47.8% 51.2% 1.0%

True Vote Model
Kerry 53.5%; Bush 45.1%

Voted04 Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 17.0% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore. 41.5% 91.0% 8.0% 1.0%
Bush. 38.0% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other 3.50% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0%

Total 100 53.5% 45.1% 1.4%


2008
Obama had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17836 respondents), but just a 52.87% recorded share. The pollsters had to effectively reduce Obama’s respondents from 10873 to 9430 (13.3%) in order to force the final NEP to match the recorded vote. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 58%.

Click for the Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll (17836 respondents)

Final NEP (Unadjusted)
Obama 61.0%; McCain 37.2%

Sample Obama McCain Other
17836 10873 6641 322
Share 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%


Final NEP (forced to match the recorded vote)
Obama 52.9%; McCain 45.6%

Sample Obama McCain Other
17,836 9,430 8,137 269
Share 52.9% 45.6% 1.5%

Unadjusted National Exit Poll (True Vote)
Obama 58.0%; McCain 40.4%

Voted04 Share Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
Kerry 50.2% 57.1 43.4% 89.0% 9.0% 2.0%
Bush. 44.6% 50.8 38.6% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other 5.2% 5.9 4.5% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
DNV.. .... 17.7 13.4% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%

Total 100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes .... .... 131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2%

Final National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded)
Obama 52.9%; McCain 45.6%

Voted04 Share Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
Kerry 42.5% 48.6 37.0% 89.0% 9.0% 2.0%
Bush. 52.9% 60.5 46.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other 4.6% 5.3 4.0% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
DNV.. .... 17.1 13.0% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%

Total 100% 131.5 100% 52.9% 45.6% 1.5%
Votes .... .... 131.5 69.5 60.0 2.0

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Final National Exit Poll – Gender (forced to match recorded)
Obama 52.7%; McCain 45.4%

Gender Mix Obama McCain Other
Male.. 47.0% 49.0% 48.0% 3.0%
Female 53.0% 56.0% 43.0% 1.0%

Total. 100% 52.7% 45.4% 1.9%


Updated: April 29, 2012

The systemic Election Fraud that Democrats won’t talk about could cause Obama to lose – just like Gore and Kerry. The unadjusted 2008 State exit polls indicate that Obama had 420 EV and a 58% share – exactly matching the State and National True Vote Model (TVM).

Officially, Obama had 365 EV and a 52.9% recorded share. He needs at least a 55% True Vote share to break even – if you believe the TVM and the unadjusted exit polls. The model shows how Obama could win the True Vote and still lose the election.

The model will be updated periodically to include state and national pre-election polls. A Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation has been added to calculate the probability of winning under various scenarios.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=14

Sensitivity Analysis

No model is complete without considering the effects of alternative input scenario assumptions. Sensitivity tables display Obama vote shares, margins and popular vote win probabilities over a range of assumptions.

The theoretical expected EV is the product sum of the state win probabilities and corresponding electoral votes.

Pollsters and pundits never consider election fraud as the cause of exit poll discrepancies. Likely Voter (LV) pre-election polls have usually been accurate predictors of the recorded vote. The polls are subsets of Registered Voter (RV) polls. The majority of potential voters excluded in the Likely Voter Cutoff Model are newly registered young Democrats.

Final Exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote, even when the adjustments are mathematically possible. It’s standard operating procedure.

Pre-election and exit poll samples consider prior election recorded vote trends. But the recorded votes always understate the true Democratic share. From 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average state unadjusted exit poll by 52-42%. The recorded margin was just 48-46%.

Of the 300 state exit polls, 137 exceeded the margin of error. The probability is zero. At the 95% confidence level, 15-20 would fall outside the MoE. But that’s not all: 132 (96%) moved from the Democrat in the poll to the Republican in the vote. Once again, a zero probability.