# Tag Archives: 2004 stolen election

## Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
August 2, 2013
Updated: Oct. 17, 2013

JFK Blog Post Index: Richard Charnin JFK Blog Posts

It’s all in the numbers. In both cases, we have a series of observations. The JFK witness deaths are from 1964-78; the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls for six elections from 1988-2008. There are data anomalies in the accumulated evidence.

Note: I posted this on John McAdams’ JFK assassination site. His only response is that I am afraid to have this analysis peer-reviewed. In effect, he has given up the ghost since he himself cannot refute it. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/gy1LY3aTm60

Intuitively, we feel that there must be an underlying explanation. The first step is to record the data in a spreadsheet. We calculate what we would expect the data to reveal, assuming the Null Hypothesis: No JFK Conspiracy; No substantive Election Fraud. After placing the data in spreadsheet tables, we can proceed to perform a mathematical analysis to see if the observations are reasonable based on statistical expectation.

The problems are similar. In the Election Fraud analysis, we first need to determine the number of state exit polls which fell outside the margin of error for each candidate. We would expect a near equal split. In the JFK analysis, we need to compare the number of unnatural witness deaths to what would normally be expected based on unnatural mortality rates, number of witnesses for the 15 years from 1964-78.

The data parameters are limited in scope.
- JFK: witness universe, unnatural deaths, time period, mortality rate
- Election Fraud: number of elections, exit polls, recorded shares, margin of error

In both studies, we seek to determine the probabilities of these discrepancies:
- JFK: number of unnatural deaths vs. expected
- Election Fraud: number of exit polls exceeding the margin of error vs. expected

1988-2008 Presidential Election Fraud
We need to calculate the discrepancies between each of the 274 exit polls and the corresponding recorded vote to see how many exceeded the calculated margin of error (MoE).

Of the 274 state exit polls, 135 exceeded the MoE, with 131 moving in favor of the Republican and just 4 to the Democrat. At the 95% confidence level, only 14 exit polls were expected to exceed the MoE. The margin of error is a function of the number of exit poll respondents plus an additional 30% cluster factor. For example, the adjusted 3.25% MoE is sum of the calculated 2.50% MoE and 30% (0.75) cluster factor.

The probability that 131 of 274 exit polls would exceed the MoE (including a 30% cluster factor) in favor of the GOP is a ridiculous E-116 (116 zeros to the right of the decimal point). That is a big fat ZERO.
But what if the cluster factor was higher than 30%? An increase in the factor would increase the adjusted MoE and therefore the number of polls in which the MoE was exceeded would be lower.

We run the probability calculations for cluster factors ranging from 0-100%. The most likely base case is a 30% cluster and 3.23% average MoE. The margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 elections – a E-83 probability. The probability of exceeding the MoE is 1 in 10,000 in the least likely scenario (200% cluster factor, 7.45% MoE).

```Cluster MoE Polls Prob - Zero : 2.48% 172 E-123 - 30% : 3.23% 135 E-83 - 100% : 4.97% 81 E-35 - 200% : 7.45% 25 E-04 (1 in 10,000)```

The MoE would normally be exceeded in approximately 14 of the 274 exit polls if the elections were fair. The cluster factor scenarios indicate that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote were overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the GOP. The probabilities of this red-shift were ZERO in all scenarios. Therefore we can conclude that Election Fraud is systemic beyond any doubt.

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

JFK Assassination Witnesses

There has been an ongoing controversy over the number of witnesses who died mysteriously ever since the actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds that 18 material witnesses would die in the three years following the assassination. The HSCA claimed that the “universe” of material witnesses was unknowable, therefore the calculation was invalid and was not proof of a conspiracy.

But in fact the number of witnesses was knowable. Approximately 62 of 1100+ witnesses called to testify in four investigations from 1964-1978 died suspiciously (38 unnaturally, 27 were homicides). Of the 552 who testified at the Warren Commission in 1964, at least 30 died suspiciously (18 unnatural). In three investigations (Garrison/Shaw trial, Church, HSCA) 32 of approximately 600 witnesses called to testify died suspiciously (20 unnaturally). Most of the deaths occurred just before their scheduled testimony.

We have a finite universe of witnesses, the number and cause of unnatural deaths, and the unnatural mortality rates. Given this input, we can calculate the expected number of deaths and compare it to the actual number. This is analogous to the actual and expected numbers of exit polls exceeding the margin of error.

Here are the graphs and probability calculations which prove a conspiracy: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

Convenient deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee).

This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.
We calculate a probability matrix of unnatural deaths over a range of material witnesses and number of deaths. We can then analyze the effects of these two key factors on the probability. As the number of witnesses (N) increase for a given number (n) of deaths, so does the probability that n deaths will occur. Conversely, as the number of unnatural witness deaths (n) increase for a given number (N) of witnesses, the probabilities will decrease.

There were at least 83 unnatural deaths of 1400+ material witnesses over the 15 year period from 1964-78: 49 homicides, 24 accidents, 7 suicides and 3 unknown. The probability is E-70 assuming the average weighted unnatural mortality rate (0.000232). It is E-30 assuming the average unweighted national unnatural rate (0.000818).

The sensitivity analysis table of unnatural deaths and corresponding matrix for homicides shows that the probability of unnatural deaths is ZERO in all plausible combination scenarios.

There are some who claim there were many more than 1400 witnesses. But other than the 1400 listed in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, there is no comparable list of material witnesses. The FBI claimed 25,000 persons were interviewed. But how many were material witnesses who had information related to the assassination? Even assuming 25,000 witnesses, the probability of 83 homicides in 15 years is 1 in 60 trillion.

```1964-1977 Material Witnesses Probabilities of Unnatural Deaths 18 of 552 in the Warren Commission: 7.2E-12 38 of 1100 in 4 investigations: 4.6E-26 83 of 1400 in JFK Calc: E-70```

``` Sensitivity Analysis: Probability of 83 Unnatural Deaths for N witnesses N....Probability 1400 2.72E-70 2000 2.41E-58 3000 3.05E-45 4000 2.18E-36 5000 7.39E-30 10000 1.92E-12 20000 1.33E-02   ```
``` Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on August 2, 2013 in Election Myths, JFK   Tags: 1988-2008, 1988-2008 exit poll database, 2000 election, 2004 stolen election, conspiracy facts, conspiracy theories, election fraud, Executive Action, exit polls, HSCA, JFK assassination, jfk witness deaths, mathematical proof of election fraud, poisson distribution, probability analysis, state exit polls, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` 1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model Proof 24 Jan 1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model Proof http://richardcharnin.com/ Richard Charnin Jan. 22,2013 The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) has been updated to include the 2012 election. Anyone can run the model and calculate the True Vote for every presidential election since 1968. Only two inputs are required: the election year and the calculation method (1-5). These deceptively simple inputs produce a wealth of information and insight. In the 1968-2012 elections, the Republicans led the average recorded vote 48.7-45.8%. The Democrats led the True Vote by 49.6-45.1%, a 7.4% margin discrepancy. The calculation methods are straightforward. Method 1 reproduces the Final National Exit Poll which is always adjusted to match the official recorded vote. It is a mathematical matrix of deceit. Consider the impossible turnout of previous election Republican voters required to match the recorded vote in 1972 (113%), 1988 (103%), 1992 (119%), 2004 (110%) and 2008 (103%). This recurring anomaly is a major smoking gun of massive election fraud. Methods 2-5 calculate the vote shares based on feasible returning voter assumptions. There are no arbitrary adjustments. Method 2 assumes returning voters based on the previous election recorded vote; method 3 on total votes cast (includes uncounted votes); method 4 on the unadjusted exit poll; method 5 on the previous (calculated) True Vote. In the 12 elections since 1968, there have been over 80 million net (of stuffed) uncounted ballots, of which the vast majority were Democratic. And of course, the advent of unverifiable voting machines provides a mechanism for switching votes electronically. Final election vote shares are dependent on just two factors: voter turnout (measured as a percentage of previous living election voters) and voter preference (measured as percentage of new and returning voters). The TVM uses best estimates of returning voter turnout (“mix”). The vote shares are the adjusted National Exit Poll shares that were applied to match the recorded vote. It turns out that the Final Exit Poll match to the recorded vote is primarily accomplished by changing the returning voter mix to overweight Republicans. In 2004, the adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that 43% of voters were returning Bush 2000 voters (implying an impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004) and 37% were returning Gore voters. But just changing the returning voter mix was not sufficient to force a match to the recorded vote; the Bush shares of returning and new voters had to be inflated as well. Kerry won the unadjusted NEP (13660 respondents) by 51.0-47.5%. In 2008, the adjusted NEP indicated that 46% of voters were returning Bush voters (an impossible 103% turnout) and 37% returning Kerry voters. Obama won the unadjusted NEP (17836 respondents) by 61.0-37.5%. Sensitivity Analysis The final NEP shares of new and returning voters are best estimates based on total votes cast in the prior and current elections and a 1.25% annual mortality rate. But we need to gauge the effect of incremental changes in the vote shares on the bottom line Total Vote. The TVM does this automatically by calculating a True Vote Matrix of Plausibility (25 scenarios of alternative vote shares and corresponding vote margins). The base case turnout percentage of prior election voters is assumed to be equal for the Democrat and Republican. The turnout sensitivity analysis table displays vote shares for 25 combinations of returning Democratic and Republican turnout rates using the base case vote shares. The National Election Pool consists of six media giants and funds the exit polls. In 2012 the NEP decided to poll in just 31 states, claiming that it would save them money in these “tough” times. It would have cost perhaps \$5 million to poll the other 19 states. Split it six ways and it’s less than the salary of a media pundit. The published 2012 National Exit Poll does not include the “Voted in 2008” crosstab. It would have been helpful, but we don’t really need it. We calculated the vote shares required to match the recorded vote by trial and error, given the 2008 recorded vote as a basis. After all, that’s what they always do anyway.   2 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on January 24, 2013 in True Vote Models, Uncategorized   Tags: 1968-2012 True Vote Model, 2004 stolen election, 2012 election forecast, election fraud, exit polls, mathematical proof of election fraud, national exit polls, sensitivity analysis, state exit polls, true vote model, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` Track Record: 2004-2012 Election Forecast and True Vote Models 19 Jan Track Record: 2004-2012 Election Forecast and True Vote Models Richard Charnin Jan. 19, 2013 This is a summary of 2004-2012 pre-election projections and corresponding recorded votes, exit polls and True Vote Models. Note that the Election Model forecasts are based on final state pre-election Likely Voter (LV) polls, a subset of the total Registered Voters (RV) polled. The LVs always understate Democratic voter turnout; many new (mostly Democratic) voters are rejected by the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM). In addition, pre-election polls utilize previous election recorded votes in sampling design, rather than total votes cast. Total votes cast include net uncounted votes which are 70-80% Democratic. The combination of the LVCM and uncounted votes results in pre-election polls understating Democratic turnout – and their projected vote share. 2004 Election Model Kerry Projected 51.8% (2-party), 337 EV (simulation mean), 322 EV snapshot Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 48.3-50.7%, 252 EV Unadjusted State exit poll aggregate: 51.1-47.6%, 349 EV snapshot, 336 EV expected Theoretical) Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 51.7-47.0% True Vote Model: 53.6-45.1%, 364 EV 2004 Election Model 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 2006 Midterms Democratic Generic 120-Poll Trend Projection Model: 56.4-41.6% Adjusted Final National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.2-45.9% Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.4-41.6% Wikipedia recorded vote: 57.7-41.8% 2008 Election Model Obama Projected: 53.1-44.9%, 365.3 expected EV; 365.8 EV simulation mean; 367 EV snapshot Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.9-45.6%, 365 EV Unadjusted State exit poll aggregate: 58.1-40.3%, 419 EV snapshot, 419 expected EV Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 61.0-37.5% True Vote Model: 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV 2008 Election Model Graphs Aggregate state polls and projections (2-party vote shares) Undecided vote allocation effects on projected vote share and win probability Obama’s projected electoral vote and win probability Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Histogram 2010 Midterms Overview True Vote Model Analysis 2012 Election Model Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 EV expected; 321.6 EV simulation mean Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected) Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released 2012 Model Overview Electoral Vote Trend Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Frequency Distribution   Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on January 19, 2013 in Uncategorized   Tags: 1988-2008, 1988-2008 exit poll database, 2004 election, 2004 stolen election, 2006 midterms, 2008 election, 2010 midterms, 2012 election forecast, monte carlo simulation, true vote model, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` Late Votes and the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16 million votes 26 Nov Late Votes and the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16 million votes Richard Charnin Dec. 21, 2012 Updated Jan. 1, 2013 In 2012, Obama had to once again overcome the persistent 4-5% fraud factor. In each of the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, Democratic Late Votes recorded after Election Day have closely matched the unadjusted state and national exit polls – and the True Vote Model. Why would anyone expect that 2012 would be any different? This analysis indicates that Obama did much better than his recorded 51.03-47.19% margin (4.97 million votes) and won by nearly 16 million votes. So what else is new? This analysis does not include the millions of voters who were disenfranchised and never voted. In Florida, 49,000 voters got tired of waiting on lines for eight hours and went home. Had they voted, Obama would have won by more than 20 million votes. In 2012, there were 129.132 million votes, of which 11.677 million were recorded after Election Day. Obama won these late votes by 58.0-38.3%, a 7.7% increase over his 50.3% Election Day share. The 2008 late vote result was similar. Obama had 52.87% of 131.37 million total votes. He had 52.3% of 121.21 million votes recorded on Election Day, but won 59.2% of 10.2 million late votes, a 6.8% increase over his Election Day share. True Vote Sensitivity Analysis Pollsters and pundits and academics never do a sensitivity analysis of alternative turnout and vote share scenarios. Is it because they have never been exposed to this critical analytical modeling tool? Or is it that using it would raise issues that they would rather not talk about? In the True Vote Model, Obama won all plausible scenarios. Base case assumptions 1. Obama had a 58% vote share in 2008 This is his unadjusted state exit poll aggregate share (82,388 respondents) and True Vote Model. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61-37%. 2. Equal 95% turnout of living Obama and McCain voters. 3. Obama had 90% of Obama and 7% of returning McCain voters. (net 3% defection of returning Obama voters to Romney) In 2008, Obama had 89% of returning Kerry and 17% of Bush voters. 4. Obama had 59% of new voters. In 2008, Obama had 73% (two-party) of new voters. Obama wins by 15.8 million votes with a 56.1% (two-party) share. Implausible: Match to the Recorded vote I. Vote shares required to match Obama had 82% of returning Obama and 7% of returning McCain (net 11% defection advantage to Romney) Obama has 51.8% (2-party) and wins by 4.8 million votes. II. Returning voters required to match Voter turnout: 71% of Obama voters and 95% of McCain voters Obama has 51.9% (two-party) and wins by 5.0 million votes. Pundits, Naysayers and the Myth of Fair Elections Just 31 states were exit polled in 2012. But unadjusted state and national polls are not available. As always, only the final adjusted state and national exit polls are displayed on mainstream media websites. As always, all exit poll category cross tabs were forced to match the recorded vote. There has never been any indication on the part of the exit pollsters that this practice will ever change. The “How Voted in 2008″ category is not included. Perhaps because it has proven to be a very useful tool in proving election fraud. In each of the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 elections, in order for the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it was forced to assume that there were millions more returning Bush phantom voters from the previous election than were still living. It must have been written in stone: There is no such thing as Election Fraud. It is just a conspiracy theory. All elections are squeaky clean. The only poll that counts is the one held on Election Day. The recorded vote is the same as the True Vote. There is no justification in responding to analyst requests to view raw precinct exit poll/recorded vote data. The usual suspects may try to thrash this analysis and call it another “conspiracy theory”. Or they will avoid discussing it. But 2012 confirms that only systemic election fraud could be the cause of the massive red-shift in the 1988-2008 Democratic unadjusted state and national exit polls (52-42%) and True Vote Model (53-41%) to the recorded 48-46%. The probability of the 8% differential is 1 in trillions. In the six elections, there were approximately 90,000 National Exit Poll respondents and 370,000 state exit poll respondents. Pundits and naysayers are quick to accept the recorded result as gospel. They will perpetuate the myth of fair elections and point to Obama’s solid 5 million vote margin. But once again, a Democratic landslide was denied by election fraud. Based on the historical record, late votes recorded after Election Day closely matched the unadjusted state exit polls. But exit poll naysayers cannot use the bogus faith-based canard of a systemic built-in differential exit poll response; Democrats are more anxious to be interviewed than Republicans or that exit poll respondents misrepresented their vote. They cannot use those arguments because the analysis is based on recorded votes, not exit polls. They will have to come up with an explanation to refute the persistent pattern of late recorded votes breaking sharply to the Democrat. Late Vote vs. Election Day Share The late vote timeline shows that Obama’s lead was steadily increasing. The consistent incremental late vote share is very telling. But the day to day changes in his total share do not tell the full story. One must consider the difference between Total Late Vote and Election Day shares. If Late Votes are within 3% of the True Vote, it is a confirmation of systematic election fraud. The question needs to be asked: Why do late votes always show a sharp increase in the Democratic vote share? 2000: 102.6 million votes on Election Day. Gore led 48.3-48.1%. Gore had 55.6% of the 2.7 million late votes. 2004: 116.7 million votes on Election Day. Bush led 51.6-48.3%. Kerry had 54.2% of the 4.8 million late 2-party votes. 2008: 121.0 million votes on Election Day. Obama led 52.3-46.3%. Obama won 10.2 million late votes by 59.2-37.5% He won the 131 million recorded votes by 52.9-45.6%, a 9.5 million vote margin. But he did much better in the unadjusted National Exit Poll: 61-37% (17,836 respondents, a 31 million vote margin. He also won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82,388 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%, a 23 million margin. Obama had an identical 58.0% in the True Vote Model, exactly matching and confirming the state exit polls. 2012: 117.456 million votes on Election Day. Obama led 50.3-48.1%. He won the 129.132 million total recorded vote by 3.8% (51.0-47.2%), a 4.9 million margin. But he won the 11.677 million late votes by nearly 20% (58.0-38.3%). In addition, Obama had a 56.1% True Vote (2-party) vs. 52.0% recorded. When the late state vote shares are weighted by total votes cast, Obama’s 56.3% (2-party) share is close to his 56.1% True Vote. This is a strong indicator that late votes are at least fairly representative of the total electorate. Unadjusted 2012 state and national exit polls are not, and never will be, available. The mainstream media does not want you to know the truth about this, or any other, election. Obama vote margin Total:51.03-47.19% (3.84% margin; 129.132 million votes);51.96% 2-party Election Day: 50.34-48.07% (2.27%; 117.456); 51.15% 2-party Late vote: 57.99-38.29% (19.70%; 11.677); 60.23% 2-party Weighted late vote: 53.97-41.83% (12.14%); 56.33% 2-party True Vote Model: 56.11-43.89% (12.22%); 2-party) The Early Vote In 2008, the lowest exit poll discrepancies were in the states that had the highest percentage of early voting on paper ballots. Obama had 61% in the 2008 National Exit Poll, 58% in the aggregate of the state exit polls. The assumption is that Obama did approximately 3% better in late absentee and provisional ballots than he did in early voting. Obama’s 56.1% True Vote (no fraud) calculation assumes he had 56% on Election Day, matching his early voting share. The Late Vote share is known exactly. If the election was fraud-free, it is unlikely that Obama’s Election Day margin would differ from his early vote margin by more than 2%. But who can believe the unverifiable machine vote counts on Election Day? In 2008, states with the highest percentage of early votes (WA, OR, CO, etc.) had the lowest exit poll discrepancies – and were strong Obama states. There were 131.3 million recorded votes of which 40.6 million (30.6%) were cast early on hand-delivered or mail-in paper ballots. The mail-in ballots accounted for 31.7% of all early votes. Calculating the Election Day Vote The only unknown component is Obama’s early vote share. If we had this statistic, his Election Day share is a simple calculation. Early vote total estimates gave Obama 55% in selected battleground states. He had 60.2% of the late 2-party recorded vote and 52.0% of the total 2-party recorded vote. Assuming he had 55% of early voters, then Romney needed 51% on Election Day to match the recorded vote. This is implausible and clearly indicates fraud. This table determines the election day vote shares required to match the recorded vote given the early, late and total vote shares. How Voted……. Votes Pct Obama Romney Early voting…. 40.6 32.0% 55.0% 45.0% Election Day…. 75.0 59.1% 49.0% 51.0% Late Votes…… 11.2 8.9% 60.2% 39.8% Recorded…….. 126.8 100.0% 51.9% 48.1% Votes (millions)…………… 126.8 65.9 61.0 Sensitivity Analysis Given Obama’s 58.0-38% margin for the 11.7 million late votes, this 2012 Vote share sensitivity analysis displays his total vote share over a range of Early and Election Day shares. …….. Obama Election Day % …….. 49.0% 52.0% 56.0% Early…. Obama Share 56.0% 52.2% 54.0% 56.4% 55.0% 51.9% 53.7% 56.1% < True Vote 49.0% 50.0% 51.8% 54.1% ……. Margin 56.0% 5.7 10.2 16.2 55.0% 4.9 9.4 15.4 < True Vote 49.0% 0.0 4.5 10.5 2012 Late Vote Timeline On……Obama led by… Nov. 8 50.34-48.07% of 117.45 million recorded votes Nov. 9 50.43-47.97% of 119.58 (2.13 late) Nov.10 50.51-47.87% of 122.20 (4.75 late) Nov.11 50.52-47.86% of 122.58 (5.13 late) Nov.13 50.55-47.82% of 122.94 (5.49 late) Nov.14 50.61-47.76% of 123.73 (6.27 late) Nov.16 50.66-47.69% of 124.69 (7.24 late) Nov.20 50.73-47.61% of 125.53 (8.07 late) Nov.25 50.80-47.50% of 126.87 (9.41 late) Nov.28 50.88-47.38% of 127.74 (10.29 late) Nov.29 50.90-47.36% of 127.87 (10.42 late) Dec.05 50.94-47.31% of 128.36 (10.90 late) Dec.21 50.96-47.28% of 128.74 (11.28 late) Final Dec.31 51.03-47.19% of 129.13 (11.68 late) Election Day and Late vote shares (Late votes in thousands) * indicates suspicious anomaly href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012″>wikipedia.org United_States_presidential_election,_2012 …………….EDay Late Late Votes (000) Total………..50.3% 58.0% 11,677 Alabama………39% 37% 312 * Alaska……….41% 40% 80 Arizona………43% 47% 666 * Arkansas……..37% 36% 25 California……59% 63% 3,609 * Colorado……..51% 54% 222 * Connecticut…..51% 59% 1,307 * Delaware……..59% 80% 0 D. C…………91% 90% 50 Florida………50% 53% 182 * Georgia………45% 49% 47 * Hawaii……….71% 72% 0 Idaho………..32% 33% 45 Illinois……..57% 65% 130 * Indiana………44% 49% 88 * Iowa…………52% 63% 24 * Kansas……….38% 37% 39 Kentucky……..38% 29% 117 * Louisiana…….58% 41% 1 Maine………..56% 57% 64 Maryland……..62% 65% 236 * Massachusetts…61% 55% 132 * Michigan……..53% 71% 222 * Minnesota…….53% 79% 6 Mississippi…..44% 46% 85 Missouri……..44% 71% 12 Montana………42% 40% 49 Nebraska……..38% 44% 27 Nevada……….52% 69% 3 New Hampshire…52% 35% 10 New Jersey……58% 61% 327 * New Mexico……53% 60% 13 New York……..63% 68% 902 * North Carolina..48% 48% -4 * North Dakota….39% 15% 3 Ohio…………50% 59% 229 * Oklahoma……..33% 32% 2 Oregon……….53% 58% 330 Pennsylvania….52% 43% 292 * Rhode Island….63% 60% 29 South Carolina..44% 47% 111 * South Dakota….40% 44% 0 Tennessee…….39% 40% 8 Texas………..41% 43% 53 Utah…………25% 23% 106 Vermont………67% 65% 61 Virginia……..51% 65% 160 * Washington……55% 57% 1,217 West Virginia…36% 36% 29 Wisconsin…….53% 48% 15 * Wyoming………28% 25% 3 ___________________________________________________________________ State and National Exit Polls The late votes can be viewed as a proxy for the unadjusted state exit polls. The exit poll naysayers cannot use the worn out bogus claim that a) late poll “respondents” misrepresent how they voted and b) there is a differential response: Democrats are more anxious to be interviewed than Republicans. But all we have is the 2012 National Exit Poll which is always forced to match the recorded vote. It shows that Obama was a 50-48% winner. All demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. The National Exit Poll crosstabs and corresponding True Vote adjustments show that the Democrats had a 39-32% Party-ID advantage. In 2004, the Final NEP 37-37 split did not agree with the pre-election survey 38-35%. Similarly, Bush’s 53% approval rating did not match the unadjusted exit poll 50% or the 11 pre-election poll 48% average. The bogus 53% National Exit Poll approval had the effect of inflating Bush’s total share to match the recorded vote. In 2012, about 80 questions were asked of over 25,000 exit poll respondents. But the most important crosstab was missing: Who did you vote for in 2008? Maybe it’s because it resulted in an impossible returning voter mix in each of the 1988,1992,2004 and 2008 elections. That’s why the True Vote Model always determines a feasible mix of returning voters based on prior election votes cast – and the bogus adjusted Final Exit Poll that is forced to match the recorded vote is replaced by the True Vote – which reflects True Voter Intent. Early and Late Vote Questions If the Late Votes are representative of the total vote, they are another confirmation of systematic election fraud. - Why would the late votes always show a sharp increase in the Democratic vote share? - Could it be that since the winner has been decided, there is no longer an incentive to steal the late recorded votes? - Could it be that early and late votes match the unadjusted exit poll aggregate and the True Vote Model because they are cast on paper ballots (provisional, absentee) and not on computers? - Could it be that the bulk of late votes are in Democratic strongholds? That may account for some of the discrepancy, but not all. In 2012, Obama had a 54.0-41.8% margin when the late state vote shares were weighted by the total state vote (56.3% of the 2-party vote) – very close to the 56.1% True Vote Model. Consider… 1) Late votes are cast on paper ballots, not DREs or optiscans. 2) There is no incentive to miscount votes after the election. 3) Democratic late vote shares always far exceed Election Day shares. This is indicative of a structural phenomenon. 4) Blacks, Hispanics and Asians votes increased for Obama in 2012. Since the total vote declined, there were fewer white voters, increasing Obama’s total share. 5) When late shares are weighted by total state votes, Obama’s 14.8% margin far exceeds his 2.3% Election Day margin. Democratic late vote discrepancies from Election Day shares may not be proof of systemic election fraud by itself. But fraud has already been proved; late votes are a strong confirmation. Given the anomalies, there is no reason why an analysis of early and late recorded votes are ignored in the mainstream media and academia. Without an accurate composition of early/late vote demographics, we cannot know to what degree they are representative of the electorate as a whole. This analysis has indicated why Obama would be expected to do better in early and late voting than on Election Day. The question is: How much better? _______________________________________________________________________ Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model 2004 Election Model (2-party shares) Kerry: Projected 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) Recorded: 48.3%, 255 EV State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV 2006 Midterms Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43% Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37% 2008 Election Model Obama Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean); Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV 2012 Election Model Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected) Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released   8 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on November 26, 2012 in 2012 Election   Tags: 2004 stolen election, 2012 election forecast, election fraud, exit poll, national exit polls, political scientists, state exit polls, true vote model, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls” 17 Nov A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls” Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll) Oct. 29, 2010 Update: March 25, 2013 Nate, you have it all wrong in your book. The Signal is the 52-42% Democratic lead in the 1988-2008 unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls. The Noise is the media propaganda that the Democrats won by 48-46% as shown in the published adjusted polls. But we all know that it is standard operating procedure to force the exit polls to match the (bogus) recorded vote. The media (that means you) want the public to believe that Systemic Election Fraud is a myth. Nate, this is a reply to your November 2008 post Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls. It’s four years later but it would be instructive to review your comments on exit polls to see if you feel the same way about them. I’m still waiting for your response to my open letter regarding your pathetic last-place ranking of pollster John Zogby . I would also be interested in your answers to these twenty-five questions. It would enable readers to gauge your perspectives on election fraud. Are you asking us to ignore a) the final exit polls or b) the unadjusted, preliminary state and national exit polls? If it’s (a), then you must believe that election fraud is systemic since unadjusted exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote, even if they are fraudulent. If it’s (b), then you must believe that election fraud is a myth and that the recorded vote reflects actual voter intent (i.e. the true vote). Based on your writings, it must be (b). After reading your “ten reasons”, I can come up with ten reasons why you have never responded to my posts. The “experts” whom you cite all have issues. You wrote: “Oh, let me count the ways. Almost all of this, by the way, is lifted from Mark Blumenthal’s outstanding Exit Poll FAQ” Your first mistake was to believe all those discredited GOP talking points and to cite Mark Blumenthal as your source. You may not be aware that Mark was the original Mystery Pollster and has worked full-time since 2004 to debunk any references to exit polls as indicators of election fraud. In June 2006, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a seminal article in Rolling Stone Magazine: Was the 2004 Election Stolen? In a pitiful attempt to debunk RFK, Salon’s Farhad Manjoo wrote Was the 2004 Election Stolen? No. Manjoo’s hit piece contained factual errors and omissions and was fully debunked by a number of analysts. Mark Blumenthal then attemped a defense of Manjoo and smeared RFK in this piece: Is RFK, Jr. Right About Exit Polls? Here is My Response to the Mystery Pollster’s critique of RFK and an Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com. Now I will count the ways. My responses follow each of your statements as to why we should ignore exit polls. NS 1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys. RC Not true. I should stop right here. Exit polls have a much smaller margin of error than pre-election polls. It stands to reason that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polls because a) those polled know exactly who they voted for and b) in pre-election polls, respondents might change their mind – or not vote. Regarding cluster samples, perhaps you are unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky state in the notes to the National Exit Poll as well as in the NEP Methods Statement that exit poll respondents were randomly-selected and the overall margin of error was 1%. Adding the standard 30% cluster effect raises the calculated 0.86% MoE to 1.1%. But I understand why you would claim that exit polls are inaccurate since you apparently believe election fraud on voting machines is non-existent. After all, you never discuss the fraud factor. So of course you would conclude that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote indicate that the polls are wrong. The fundamental problem with all your analysis is that you fail to consider the possibility that the polls were close to the truth and the discrepancies from the recorded vote were the result of systematic election fraud. But that is typical of mainstream media pundits. If they discussed the fraud factor, they would be out of a job. You apparently believe that the final Likely Voter (LV) pre-election polls (which are a subset of all Registered Voters (RV) interviewed) are spot-on because they match the bogus recorded vote. But LV polls always understate Democratic turnout, since the vast majority of voters who fail to pass the Likely Voter Cutoff Model are young, newly registered Democrats. That’s one reason why Democrats average higher in the RV polls than in LVs and the media avoids the RVs in the month prior to the election. Another factor is that telephone polls miss cell-phone users who are young and Democratic. Most important, pre-election polls have been shown to overweight Republicans based on prior bogus recorded votes. NS 2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote. Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had. But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back and watch The War Room, you’ll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and Texas, which of course he did not win. RC There you go again, assuming that the recorded vote was fraud-free. Of course the Democrats always do better in the exit polls than in the recorded vote. But did you ever consider why? Perhaps you are unaware that millions of votes are uncounted in every election and the vast majority are Democratic (over 50% are in minority districts). The U.S. Census reported over 80 million net uncounted votes since 1968. You make the false assumption that the recorded vote is the True Vote. Uncounted votes alone put the lie to that argument, not to mention votes switched at the DREs and central tabulators. You say Clinton did not win Indiana or Texas. How do you know? Can you provide proof that the voting machines were not tampered with? Perhaps you are unaware that in 1992 there were 9.4 million net uncounted votes, approximately 75% for Clinton. Clinton’s margins were very plausible. The exit polls indicated that he won Indiana by 53-30% (Perot had 16%) and Texas by 43-32% (Perot had 25%). But they were both likely stolen by Bush. Clinton lost Indiana (42.9-36.8%) by 138,000 votes (330,000 uncounted). He lost Texas (40.6-37.1%) by 215,000 (663,000 uncounted). So had all the votes been counted, Clinton would have won both states. Note that we are not even considering vote-switching from Clinton or Perot to Bush, just the uncounted votes. In 1996, there were 8.7 million net uncounted votes – again, approximately 75% for Clinton. Clinton won the Indiana exit poll by 50-40%, but Dole won the recorded vote by 117,000, 47.1-41.6% (230,000 net uncounted). The Texas exit poll was tied at 46-46%, but Dole won by 280,000 votes, 48.8-43.8% (700,000 net uncounted). Again, had all the votes been counted, Clinton would have likely won both. And this does not include vote switching from Clinton or Perot to Dole, just the uncounted votes. NS 3. Exit polls were particularly bad in this year’s primaries. They overstated Barack Obama’s performance by an average of about 7 points. RC You are apparently unaware of Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” in which he advised Republicans to cross over in the Democratic primaries and vote for Hillary Clinton. His objective was to deny Obama the nomination. Obama easily won the all the caucuses in which voters were visually counted. NS 4. Exit polls challenge the definition of a random sample. Although the exit polls have theoretically established procedures to collect a random sample — essentially, having the interviewer approach every nth person who leaves the polling place — in practice this is hard to execute at a busy polling place, particularly when the pollster may be standing many yards away from the polling place itself because of electioneering laws. RC You are apparently unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky wrote in the notes to the 2004 National Exit Poll that respondents were randomly selected as they exited the polling booth. What is your definition of a random sample? NS 5. Democrats may be more likely to participate in exit polls. Related to items #1 and #4 above, Scott Rasmussen has found that Democrats supporters are more likely to agree to participate in exit polls, probably because they are more enthusiastic about this election. RC US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis. You quote a biased GOP pollster who never did an exit poll. There is no evidence that Democrats are more likely to participate. In fact, the historical data shows otherwise. You are resurrecting the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis that was disproved by the exit pollster’s own data in each of the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections. It is also contradicted by a linear regression analysis which showed that response rates were highest in partisan GOP precincts and Red states. NS 6. Exit polls may have problems calibrating results from early voting. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, exit polls will attempt account for people who voted before Election Day in most (although not all) states by means of a random telephone sample of such voters. However, this requires the polling firms to guess at the ratio of early voters to regular ones, and sometimes they do not guess correctly. In Florida in 2000, for instance, there was a significant underestimation of the absentee vote, which that year was a substantially Republican vote, leading to an overestimation of Al Gore’s share of the vote, and contributing to the infamous miscall of the state. RC You are apparently unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky claimed that their 2004 precinct design sample was near perfect. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that in the 2000 election, nearly 6 million ballots were never counted (a combination of spoiled, absentee and provisional) – and 75-80% were Gore votes – meaning that his True Vote margin was at least 3 million more than his recorded 540,000. And that is why Gore led the state exit poll aggregate by 50-45%. You are either unaware or choose to ignore the fact that in Florida there were over 180,000 spoiled ballots (113,000 double and triple-punched and 65,000 underpunched) that were never counted – and 75% were Gore votes. You apparently believe the GOP con that the spoiled ballots were due to stupid voters. Why don’t you mention the thousands of Gore absentee ballots that were discarded? Perhaps you are unaware that it has been determined GOP election officials discarded Democratic absentee ballots and included GOP ballots that were filed after the due date. And what about the Palm Beach butterfly ballot in which thousands of Jews were fooled into voting for Buchanan? If you really believe that Bush won both the national and Florida elections in 2000, then you must also believe that a) the tooth fairy exists, b) global warming is just a hoax and c) the economic meltdown was due to natural supply and demand forces and that the economic forecasting models were at fault. You ignore the strong evidence that the meltdown was due to corrupt global banksters gaming the financial system. And of course, you ignore the election fraudsters that have systematically gamed the computers to miscount votes and prevent millions of eligible citizens from voting. According to you, it is all just noise, never human corruption. NS 7. Exit polls may also miss late voters. By “late” voters I mean persons who come to their polling place in the last couple of hours of the day, after the exit polls are out of the field. Although there is no clear consensus about which types of voters tend to vote later rather than earlier, this adds another way in which the sample may be nonrandom, particularly in precincts with long lines or extended voting hours. RC As a quant, you should ask how was it that Kerry led by 51-48% at 12:22am (13047 respondents) but Bush led at 1:00am at the final (13660) after just 613 additional respondents? It’s simple. The pollsters had to force the National to match the bogus recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%). It was impossible – a total sham. It was Kerry who led the final unadjusted NEP by 51.7-47.0%. Are you aware that final exit polls are always FORCED to match the recorded vote? The 2004 adjusted final National Exit Poll indicated that 43% (52.6 million) of 2004 voters were returning Bush voters and 37% Gore voters. But Bush only had 50.5 million voters in 2000 – and approximately 2.5 million died. So there could not have been more than 48 million returning Bush voters. If 47 million turned out, there had to be 5.6 million phantom Bush voters. How do you explain that? In 2008, Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17836 respondents) by 61-37%. But the poll was forced to match the recorded 52.9-45.6%. Are you aware that Obama had 52.4% of 121 million votes recorded on Election Day and 59.2% of the 10 million recorded later? NS 8. “Leaked” exit poll results may not be the genuine article. Sometimes, sources like Matt Drudge and Jim Geraghty have gotten their hands on the actual exit polls collected by the network pools. At other times, they may be reporting data from “first-wave” exit polls, which contain extremely small sample sizes and are not calibrated for their demographics. And at other places on the Internet (though likely not from Geraghty and Drudge, who actually have reasonably good track records), you may see numbers that are completely fabricated. RC Really? Are these fabricated? You are apparently unaware of the National Exit Poll timeline. Kerry led by 51-48% at 4:00pm (8349 respondents), 9:00pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047). Kerry led at the final 13660 respondents by 51.7-47.0%. But at approximately 1:00am, Kerry responders were flipped to Bush in order to force the poll to match the recorded vote. NS 9. A high-turnout election may make demographic weighting difficult. Just as regular, telephone polls are having difficulty this cycle estimating turnout demographics — will younger voters and minorities show up in greater numbers? — the same challenges await exit pollsters. Remember, an exit poll is not a definitive record of what happened at the polling place; it is at best a random sampling. RC Perhaps you are unaware that high turnout is always good for the Democrats. That’s why the GOP is always trying to suppress the vote. The National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won 57-62% of new voters and that Obama had 72% of new voters in 2008. But at least you now agree that exit polls are indeed random samples. Glad you corrected point #4. NS 10. You’ll know the actual results soon enough anyway. Have patience, my friends, and consider yourselves lucky: in France, it is illegal to conduct a poll of any kind within 48 hours of the election. But exit polls are really more trouble than they’re worth, at least as a predictive tool. An independent panel created by CNN in the wake of the Florida disaster in 2000 recommended that the network completely ignore exit polls when calling particular states. I suggest that you do the same. RC I suggest that you do your homework. You will surely fail this Election Fraud Quiz. Exit polls are more trouble than they are worth? Yes, it’s true – for those who rig the elections. Perhaps you are unaware that the exit polls were the first indicators that the 2004 election was stolen. Nate, your problem is that you refuse to admit that Election Fraud is systemic – or that it even exists. You want your readers to believe that the recorded vote accurately depicts true voter intent and that the exit polls are always wrong. Tell that to Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow when you guest on their show. In 2008, Obama had a recorded 52.9% share and won by 9.5 million votes. But he had to overcome the 5% fraud factor. You are probably unaware that the unadjusted National Exit poll indicates that he won 61% of 17,836 respondents. Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate (82,388 respondents) winning by 23 million votes – exactly matching the True Vote Model which used the same adjusted final NEP vote shares. The Bush/Kerry 46/37% returning voter weights in the adjusted final 2008 NEP implied that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters – an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush voters. The True Vote Model calculated a feasible 47/40% Kerry/Bush split. Bush won the bogus recorded vote by just 3 million but Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million. And you would also surely agree that there could not have been 5 million returning third-party voters indicated by the final 2008 NEP since just 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. We have the 1988-2008 unadjusted state and national exit polls from the Roper website (nearly 500,000 exit poll respondents). The Democrats led the polls by 52-42%; but just 48-46% in the recorded vote. That’s an awful lot of Reluctant Republican Responders, yes? Presidential election fraud is consistent and predictable. The unadjusted state and national exit polls have matched the True Vote Model in every election since 1988. You are probably unaware that of the 274 state exit polls in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 126 exceeded the margin of error (including a 30% cluster factor). Only 14 would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 126, 123 “red-shifted” to the Republican and THREE to the Democrat. The probability is 5E-106. Can you explain it? P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000000000 00000000000 0000000000 000005 Finally, Nate, you need to gain a new perspective on exit polls. —————————————————- Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model 2004 Election Model (2-party shares) Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV 2008 Election Model Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean); Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV 2012 Election Model Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected) Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released   1 Comment Posted by Richard Charnin on November 17, 2012 in Media, Rebuttals   Tags: 2004 presidential elections, 2004 stolen election, 2008 election, absentee ballots, ELECION FORECASTS, election fraud, ELECTION PROJECTIONS, exit poll, Florida 2000 underpunched ballots, margin of error, nate silver, national exit polls, overpunched ballots, POLLING MODELS, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` The Late Recorded Votes: A confirmation of the True Vote? 09 Nov The Late Recorded Votes: A confirmation of the True Vote? Richard Charnin Updated: Jan.7, 2013 The late vote timeline included in the 2012 True Vote Model shows that Obama’s lead increased dramatically after Election Day. He won the 11.7 million late votes recorded after Election Day by 58.0-38.3%, but led the first 117.4 million recorded by just 50.3-48.1%. Once again, as in every election since 2000, the Democratic late vote share exceeded the Election Day share by a substantial margin. What is the cause of this anomaly? Some possible reasons are given below. Dave Leip’s US Election Atlas and Wikipedia provided daily state vote updates. Obama vote share margins: Election Day: 50.3-48.1% (2.2% of 117.45 million votes). Late vote 58.0-38.3 (19.7% of 11.68 million votes). Total vote: 51.03-47.19% (3.8% of 129.13 million votes. Weighted late vote: 54.0%-41.8% (12.2%). (Late state vote shares are weighted by total votes cast) Obama 2-party shares and margins: 51.2-48.8% Election Day Recorded share (2.4%) 56.3-43.7% Late Vote share weighted by total recorded vote (12.6%) 52.0-48.0% Total vote (4.O%) 60.2-39.8% Unweighted Late Vote share (20.4%) 56.1-43.9% True Vote Model (12.2%) 2012 Late Vote Timeline On……Obama led by… Nov. 8 50.34-48.07% of 117.45 million recorded votes Nov. 9 50.43-47.97% of 119.58 (2.13 late) Nov.10 50.51-47.87% of 122.20 (4.75 late) Nov.11 50.52-47.86% of 122.58 (5.13 late) Nov.13 50.55-47.82% of 122.94 (5.49 late) Nov.14 50.61-47.76% of 123.73 (6.27 late) Nov.16 50.66-47.69% of 124.69 (7.24 late) Nov.20 50.73-47.61% of 125.53 (8.07 late) Nov.25 50.80-47.50% of 126.87 (9.41 late) Nov.28 50.88-47.38% of 127.74 (10.29 late) Nov.29 50.90-47.36% of 127.87 (10.42 late) Dec.05 50.94-47.31% of 128.36 (10.90 late) Dec.21 50.96-47.28% of 128.74 (11.28 late) Final Dec.31 51.03-47.19% of 129.13 (11.68 late) Election Day and Late vote shares (Late votes in thousands) * indicates suspicious anomaly …………….EDay Late Late Votes (000) Total………..50.3% 58.0% 11,677 Alabama………39% 37% 312 * Alaska……….41% 40% 80 Arizona………43% 47% 666 * Arkansas……..37% 36% 25 California……59% 63% 3,609 * Colorado……..51% 54% 222 * Connecticut…..51% 59% 1,307 * Delaware……..59% 80% 0 D. C…………91% 90% 50 Florida………50% 53% 182 * Georgia………45% 49% 47 * Hawaii……….71% 72% 0 Idaho………..32% 33% 45 Illinois……..57% 65% 130 * Indiana………44% 49% 88 * Iowa…………52% 63% 24 * Kansas……….38% 37% 39 Kentucky……..38% 29% 117 * Louisiana…….58% 41% 1 Maine………..56% 57% 64 Maryland……..62% 65% 236 * Massachusetts…61% 55% 132 * Michigan……..53% 71% 222 * Minnesota…….53% 79% 6 Mississippi…..44% 46% 85 Missouri……..44% 71% 12 Montana………42% 40% 49 Nebraska……..38% 44% 27 Nevada……….52% 69% 3 New Hampshire…52% 35% 10 New Jersey……58% 61% 327 * New Mexico……53% 60% 13 New York……..63% 68% 902 * North Carolina..48% 48% -4 * North Dakota….39% 15% 3 Ohio…………50% 59% 229 * Oklahoma……..33% 32% 2 Oregon……….53% 58% 330 Pennsylvania….52% 43% 292 * Rhode Island….63% 60% 29 South Carolina..44% 47% 111 * South Dakota….40% 44% 0 Tennessee…….39% 40% 8 Texas………..41% 43% 53 Utah…………25% 23% 106 Vermont………67% 65% 61 Virginia……..51% 65% 160 * Washington……55% 57% 1,217 West Virginia…36% 36% 29 Wisconsin…….53% 48% 15 * Wyoming………28% 25% 3 No one knows what the unadjusted exit polls look like in 2012. And 19 states were not even exit polled. Maybe we’ll get to see the polls a year from now – when all talk of 2012 election fraud has died down. The late votes can be viewed as a proxy for the unadjusted state exit polls. In 2008, 10 million late votes matched the polls. Unlike an exit poll survey, however, naysayers cannot use the worn out bogus claims that a) late poll “respondents” are lying about how they voted and b) there is a differential response: Democrats are more anxious to be interviewed than Republicans. But all we have is the National Exit Poll which is always forced to match the recorded vote and shows that Obama was a 50-48% winner. All demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. About 80 questions were asked of over 25,000 exit poll respondents, but the most important was missing: Who did you vote for in 2008: Obama, McCain or Other? The past vote question has always been asked in prior exit polls. It is used as the basis for the True Vote Model to measure prior election voter turnout and vote shares in the current election. The returning voter mix displayed in the adjusted Final National Exit Poll has been determined to be impossible in at least four presidential elections – a clear indicator of a fraudulent vote count. As in every presidential election since 1988, the Democrat Obama did much better than the recorded vote. If the Late Votes are representative of the total vote, they are another confirmation of systematic election fraud. Why would the late votes always show a sharp increase in the Democratic vote share? In the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections, late votes recorded after Election Day showed a dramatic increase in Democratic vote shares. The late votes closely matched the state and national exit polls and the True Vote Model. The anomaly is also apparently occurring in 2012. 2000: 102.6 million votes recorded on Election Day. Gore led 48.3-48.1%. Gore had 55.6% of the 2.7 million late votes. 2004: 116.7 million votes recorded on Election Day. Bush led 51.6-48.3%. Kerry had 54.2% of the 4.8 million late 2-party votes. 2008: 121 million votes recorded on Election Day. Obama led 52.3-46.3%. Obama won 10.2 million late votes by 59.2-37.5%. He won the 131 million recorded votes by 52.9-45.6%, a 9.5 million vote margin. But he did much better in the unadjusted National Exit Poll: 61-37% (17,836 respondents, a 31 million vote margin. He also won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82,388 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%, a 23 million margin. Obama had an identical 58.0% in the True Vote Model, exactly matching and confirming the state exit polls. But this is the kicker: the exit polls and True Vote Model vote shares closely matched the 10 million late recorded votes! To summarize Obama in 2008: 1- National Exit poll (17,836 respondents): 61.0% 2- State exit poll weighted aggregate (82,388 respondents): 58.0% 3- True Vote Model: 58.0% 4- Late vote (10.2 million): 59.2% 5- Recorded vote: 52.9% The CNN 2008 Election site shows Obama winning by 66.88-58.43 million votes, an 8.45 million margin. The final recorded vote was 69.50-59.95, a 9.55 million margin. Why has CNN not updated the 2008 Election website to include the final 4.15 million votes? Obama won 63% of them. - Could it be that since the winner has been decided, there is no longer an incentive on the part of the perennial vote thieves to continue switching late votes? Plausible. - Could it be that the late votes are paper ballots (provisionals, absentees) and not from DREs? Absolutely. - Could it be that the late votes are coming in from Democratic strongholds? Maybe some, but surely not all. State vote totals show that the late votes are a reasonable representation of the total electorate. The deviation between the Late and Election Day recorded votes is less than 3% in 20 states. There are 8 in which the deviation exceeds 10% (4 for Obama and 4 for Romney). There are currently 12 with fewer than 3,000 late votes. View the data tables, bar chart and frequency chart in the 2012 Forecasting model. The consistent Democratic late vote share discrepancies from the Election Day shares are not proof of fraud. But there is no reason why the phenomenon is ignored in the mainstream media and academia. Obviously, without having an accurate composition of the late vote demographics we cannot make a definitive judgment as to whether they are representative of the total electorate. But there are a number of reasons why Obama would be expected to do better in the late vote. The only question is how much better? 1)Late votes are cast on paper ballots, not DREs or optiscans. Therefore we would expect a higher Democratic share than on Election Day because voting machines are rigged. Check. 2)There is no incentive to fix the votes after the election. Check. 3)The increase in Democratic late vote share has occurred in each election since 2000, enforcing the case that it is a structural phenomenon. Check. 4)In 2008, Obama had a 59% share compared to 52% on Election Day. There were 10 million late uncounted votes or 7.8% of 131 million recorded. In 2004, there were 5 million late votes of 122 million (4%). In 2000, 3 million of 105 million (3%). The late vote percentage is rising faster than the increase in minority voters. Check. 5) The average late vote margin exceeded the recorded margin by 11%. Margins: State Exit Poll aggregate,National Exit Poll,Late Vote share,Recorded share,Deviation 2000 5. 2. 10 0.5 9.5 2004 4. 5. 8. -2.4 10.4 2008 18 24 20 7.3 13.6 2012 na na 14 2.7 11.3 6)Blacks and Hispanics voted at a higher rate for Obama in 2012. Since the total vote declined by 7 million, there were fewer white voters, thus increasing Obama’s total share. Approximately 13% of 2012 voters were black and 10% Latino. Check. 7) Obama’s 2-party late vote shares far exceed his Election Day shares (see above). Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model 2004 Election Model (2-party shares) Kerry: 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV 2008 Election Model Obama: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean); Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV 2012 Election Model Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected) Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released   3 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on November 9, 2012 in 2012 Election   Tags: 1988-2008, 2000 election, 2004 presidential elections, 2004 stolen election, 2012 election forecast, election fraud, election myths, exit polls, late recorded votes, true vote, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` 2004 Election Fraud Analysis: Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide 24 Jul Election Fraud Analysis: Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll) http://richardcharnin.com/FurtherConfirmationOfaKerryLandslide Introduction: To believe Bush won in 2004, you must believe… 1. When Decided 2. Bush Approval Ratings 3. The Final 5 Million Recorded Votes 4. The Final Exit Poll: Forced to Match the Vote 5. Within Precinct Discrepancy 6. New Voters 7. Party ID 8. Gender 9. Implausible Gore Voter Defection 10. Voter Turnout 11. Urban Legend 12. Location Size 13. Sensitivity Analysis 14. Did Kerry Win 360 EV? 15. Election Simulation Analysis 16. Exit Poll Response Optimization 17. Florida 18. Ohio 19. New York Appendix A. Election Model: Nov.1 Projection B. Interactive Monte Carlo Simulation: Pre-election and Exit Polls C. 1988-2004 Election Calculator: The True Vote D. The 2000-2004 County Vote Database E. Statistics and Probability: Mathematics of Polling Click the following links for a comprehensive analysis. Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy 1988-2008 State Unadjusted Exit Poll Data 1988-2008 State and National True Vote Model 2004 Pre-election and Exit Poll Simulation Model   1 Comment Posted by Richard Charnin on July 24, 2011 in 2004 Election   Tags: 2004 stolen election, election fraud, exit poll, kerry, true vote model ```
``` Exposing Election Myths: Facts and Graphs 14 Jul Exposing Election Myths: Facts and Graphs Since 2004, media pundits, misinformationists and naysayers have attempted to debunk the work of analytic researchers which prove systemic election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. This post exposes and disproves the most common myths. http://richardcharnin.com/GraphExposeMedia.pdf Election Myths 1 There is no evidence of election fraud. 2 Bush 48% approval does not indicate a stolen election. 3 Pre-election polls did not match the exit polls. 4 The 2004 “Election Model” projection assumptions were wrong. 5 Bush led the pre-election polls. 6 Exit polls are not random samples. 7 “Reluctant Bush Responder” explains exit poll discrepancies. 8 Bush gained votes in Democratic strongholds (Urban Legend). 9 “Swing vs. Red-shift”: No correlation proves no fraud. 10 “False Recall” explains the 2004 Final Exit Poll anomalies. 11 Exit poll discrepancies were unrelated to voting machines. 12 The Final National Exit Poll proves that Bush won. 13 The exit poll timeline indicates that Bush won late voters. 14 Mid-term Generic polls (2006) are not good predictors. 15 Hillary and Obama split the vote in the 2008 primaries. 16 Obama won by 9.5 million votes with a 52.9% vote share.   Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on July 14, 2011 in Election Myths   Tags: 2004 stolen election, election fraud, election myths, exit poll, graphs, kerry, true vote model ```
``` Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ 14 Jul Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll) April 8, 2012 This is an updated response to Mark Lindeman’s “TruthIsAll FAQ”, written in 2006. It is a summary version of the original which includes 2008 election results. This is the original Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ Mark Lindeman is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Bard College, NY. Since the last update, unadjusted state and national presidential exit polls have been made available on the Roper UConn site. I created a spreadsheet database of 1988-2008 unadjusted state and national presidential exit polls. It contains detailed polling and recorded vote statistics organized for each election in separate worksheets. Graphics and tabular analysis worksheets were also included. The data shows a consistent pattern of massive one-sided state and national exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote and further debunks the arguments presented by Lindeman in the original TIA FAQ. For example, the Democrats won the 1988-2008 state unadjusted exit polls and the National Exit Polls by an identical 52-42%. The average recorded vote margin was just 48-46%. The 8% average margin discrepancy is much bigger than we had been led to believe by the exit pollsters prior to the Roper listing. The 2004 exit poll 7% discrepancy was not unique. In fact, 2008 was much worse. The aggregate state exit poll discrepancy was 11%; the National Exit Poll a whopping 17%. In every election, the Roper data shows that the final, official National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with no change in the number of unadjusted exit poll respondents. Before the Roper data became available, I created the 1988-2008 Presidential True Vote Model. The unadjusted exit polls closely matched and confirmed the model. Note that unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote do not include disenfranchised voters, the great majority of whom are Democratic minorities. have recently written two books on election fraud analysis: Matrix of Deceit: Forcing-Pre-Election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts and Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll Voters today are much more aware of systemic election fraud than they were in 2004 when the mainstream media hoodwinked millions into believing that Bush won three million vote “mandate”. The media prepares the public with pre-election polls that are biased in favor of the GOP. After the election, the National Election Pool (NEP) funds the exit pollsters who always the numbers in order to match the (bogus) recorded votes – even if the adjustments are mathematically impossible. It should now be obvious to anyone paying attention that the lock down on serious election fraud analysis proves media complicity in the fraud. It is a long running media myth that the 2000 election was close. Bush won Florida (and therefore the election) by 537 official votes. But pre-election and unadjusted exit polls indicated that Al Gore easily won the state. Gore won nationally by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). He won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. He also won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%. The exit polls confirmed the True Vote Model – and vice-versa. In 2004, unadjusted state and national exit polls indicate that John Kerry won by 5-6 million votes with 51.0% and 51.7%, respectively. The True Vote Model indicated he won by 10 million votes with a 53.6% share. Serious election researchers agree that the 2004 election was stolen. Further Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide is a complete analysis of the 2004 election. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic Tsunami gave them control of congress, but the landslide was denied; the unadjusted exit polls (56.4%) indicate they did much better than the official 53%. The statistical evidence indicates that election fraud cut the 12% Democratic landslide margin in half, costing them 10-20 House seats. The landslide was denied. In 2008, Obama won by 9.5 million recorded votes with a 52.9% share. The unadjusted state exit polls (82,000 respondents) indicate that he had 58.0%. He had a whopping 61% share in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents). The post-election True Vote Model used Final National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares and calculated a feasible returning 2004 voter mix: Obama had 58.0% and won by 23 million votes. The landslide was denied. Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ – Updated for 2008 Mark Lindeman wrote the TruthIsAll FAQ in late 2006. Mark has been posting non-stop since 2005 trying to debunk the work of scores of independent election analysts who cite pre-election and exit polls as powerful evidence that Kerry easily won the True Vote in 2004 and that the 2006 Democratic landslide was denied by election fraud. Mark posts as “On the Other Hand” on the Democratic Underground and “Hudson Valley Mark” on Daily Kos (as well as on numerous other forums). He quickly responds to posts that analyze pre-election and exit polls – and invariably attempts to debunk them if they are presented as indicators of election fraud. But it’s a good thing that Mark wrote the FAQ. By doing so, he provides a snapshot summary of the polling debates which are still taking place on various election forums. And the TIA FAQ provides a forum for presenting new and updated evidence of systemic election fraud based on pre-election and post-election polling analysis. In June 2006 Farhad Manjoo, writing in Salon, wrote a hit piece rebuttal to the RFK Jr. Rolling Stone article Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Farhad claimed to have consulted with Lindeman as a primary advisor in writing the piece. The article was immediately debunked by a number of well-respected election researchers. They noticed a number of statistical and logical errors. In January 2007, I wrote the Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ along with a detailed statistical analysis. The 2006 and 2008 election results confirmed that the 2004 election was indeed a Kerry landslide and that Gore won by much more than the recorded 540,000 vote margin. And this was long before the Roper UConn release of the unadjusted exit polls which provided a conclusive confirmation. That is what the evidence shows, regardless of whether or not it is ever discussed in the media. Statistical analysts and political scientists who have looked at the evidence must be well aware of the systemic fraud, but job security and unwillingness of Democratic politicians and the mainstream media to discuss the issue are strong incentives to perpetuate the ongoing myth that historical election results have been accurate. Only a handful of liberal bloggers have even touched on the subject. A number of books have been written which show that massive fraud in the form of voter disenfranchisement and vote miscounts occurred in 2000-2008. Not one book has been written to prove that Bush won in 2004. For brevity, I have abbreviated Lindeman’s comments and my responses to the questions posed in the original FAQ but have added references to the 2008 election. ___________________________________________________________________________ A TruthIsAll (TIA) FAQ by Mark Lindeman TruthIsAll (TIA) is the pseudonym of a former Democratic Underground (DU) regular who now posts elsewhere. Many of his writings are available at truthisall.net TIA argues, among other things, that the 2004 U.S. presidential pre-election polls and the exit polls both indicate that John Kerry won the election. Who is TruthIsAll (TIA) and why do you care what he says? ML I don’t know who he is. Apparently he has worked in quantitative analysis for many years; he has described himself as an “Excel expert.” His allegations of election fraud — in particular, his enumeration of (presumably far-fetched) things one must believe in order to believe that Bush won the 2004 election — formed the template for the 2005 Project Censored story making the same case. Many people believe that TIA’s arguments irrefutably demonstrate that John Kerry won the popular vote and the election. Many more people believe that TIA’s arguments have no merit whatsoever, and therefore don’t bother to try to refute them. I do not like to see weak arguments go unchallenged. (But plenty of people have criticized TIA’s arguments — I make no claim to originality.) I also think that these particular weak arguments lead to poor political judgments. If TruthIsAll is right, it follows that the 2004 election was obviously stolen. So, one might conclude, among other things, that (1) most voters preferred Kerry to Bush, (2) Democratic political leaders are effectively complicit in a cover-up, and (3) Democrats cannot win crucial elections until and unless the current voting systems are thrown out. I disagree with all of these conclusions. (Now that the Democrats have won House and Senate majorities in the 2006 election, argument #3 must be modulated. Fraud-minded observers now often argue that the Republicans stole some votes and even some seats, but that either for some reason they could not — or did not dare? — steal enough votes, or that they had to decide how many votes to steal several weeks in advance, and were caught flat-footed by a late Democratic surge. As I address on the Miscellaneous page, I have seen no convincing evidence of widespread vote miscount. OK, so what are TIA’s arguments? ML He has many posts, but many of them make these basic claims: Pre-election polls (both state and national) gave Kerry better than a 99% chance of winning the election. Well-established political generalizations, such as the “incumbent rule,” buttress the conclusion that Kerry should have won. The exit polls gave Kerry a lead in the popular vote well beyond the statistical margin of error, and diverged substantially from the official results in many states, generally overstating Kerry’s vote total. (This claim is largely true, although not everything TIA says about it is.) Fraud is the only good explanation of the exit poll discrepancies. In particular, there is no good reason to believe that Kerry voters participated in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. Since Kerry did better than Bush among people who did not vote in 2000, Bush would have had to do much better among Gore 2000 voters than Kerry did among Bush 2000 voters — and that can’t have happened. It is pretty easy to look around and determine that not many political scientists are expressing agreement with these views. But why not? It could be that political scientists have a status quo bias and/or are afraid to rock the boat by confronting unpleasant truths; perhaps some are even paid by Karl Rove. It could be that political scientists simply haven’t looked at the evidence. It could be that political scientists see gaping holes in TIA’s arguments. It could be some combination of those factors, and others besides. For what it’s worth, I will explain at some length why I don’t agree with TIA’s views. Please note that this is not a one-size-fits-all election integrity FAQ. Do you think that electronic voting machines are almost ridiculously insecure and unreliable? ML I do, although I certainly don’t agree with every word of every critic. Do you think that John Kerry won or should have won Ohio? You may be right. I don’t know. I doubt it, but I haven’t set out to knock down each and every argument about fraud or vote suppression in the 2004 election — in fact, I agree with several of them. But the arguments (by TIA and others) that Kerry won the popular vote are not at all likely to be true, in my opinion.I have rarely quoted TIA at length because (1) the FAQ is already very long and (2) TIA’s writing is often hard to read. But if you think I have mischaracterized one of his arguments, or if you have other questions or comments about the FAQ, please feel free to contact me at [my last name]@bard.edu. TIA These are just a few well-known researchers whose analyses confirm mine: Steve Freeman, Ron Baiman, Jonathan Simon, Kathy Dopp, Greg Palast, RFK Jr., Mark C. Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Michael Keefer, John Conyers, Richard Hayes Phillips, Paul Lehto, etc. At least four have advanced degrees in applied mathematics or systems analysis. I have three degrees in applied mathematics. It would be useful if Mark would mention the names of the political scientists or statisticians who disagree with my analysis and believe that Bush won the election fairly in 2004. How do they account for his 3 million “mandate”? How do they explain where Bush found 16 million new voters net of voter mortality and turnout? What are their confirming demographics? Do any of the analysts you refer to have degrees in mathematics or statistics? Did their 2004 projections match the exit polls? Or did they match the vote miscount? Have any of them ever written about or considered election fraud in their analysis? Have they analyzed the impact of uncounted votes on election results? What is their track record? Were their projections based on economic or political factors or did they use state and national polling? What was the time period between their final projections and Election Day? FAQ Summary and Response 1. The Pre-Election Polls 1.1. What did the national pre-election polls indicate? ML According to most observers, most pre-election polls put George W. Bush slightly ahead of John Kerry. TIA That is simply not the case. Kerry led the pre-election polls from July to Election Day except for a few weeks in September. Real Clear Politics is often cited as the data source but it only listed final Likely Voter (LV polls) – but not one Registered Voter (RV) poll. The final five pre-election polls from CBS, FOX, Gallup, ABC, and Pew had the race essentially tied. Kerry led the five-poll RV average 47.2-46.0; Bush led the LV average 48.8-48.0. Gallup’s RV sample had Kerry leading 48-46; the LV subset had Bush leading 49-47. Gallup allocated 90% of the undecided vote (UVA) to the challenger, so their final prediction was 49-49. Kerry led in the final battleground state polls. The final five LV samples predicted an average 82.8% voter turnout, but according to post-election Census data, turnout was 88.5%. A regression analysis indicated that Kerry had 48.9% given the 82.8% prediction or 49.3% assuming he had 75% of undecided voters (UVA). But he had 51.3% given the 88.5% turnout and 52.6% with a 75% UVA. Kerry’s pre-election RV polls were 2-3% better than the LV subset since a solid majority of newly registered voters were Democrats. 2008 Update: The Pre-election RV polls had Obama leading by 52-39%. He led the LV subsets (the only ones listed at RCP) by 50-43%. Neither average includes an allocation of undecided voters. 1.2. How does TIA come up with those 99+% probabilities of a Kerry victory? ML Basically, those probabilities (for both state and national polls) assume that all his assumptions (for instance, about how “undecided” voters will vote) are right, and that the only source of uncertainty is random sampling error. TIA The 2004 Election Model assumed a final 75% undecided voter allocation (UVA) percentage; but provided scenarios ranging from 60-87%. The 5000 trial Monte Carlo EV simulation gave Kerry a 98.0% win probability assuming 60% UVA (99.8% for the base case 75% UVA). The base case assumption was that Kerry would win 75% of the undecided vote. But the sensitivity analysis showed that he won with 50%. Historically challengers have won the undecided vote over 80% of the time. Gallup assigned 90% of undecided voters to Kerry. There were approximately 22 million new voters; Kerry won this group by 3-2. There were 3 million defecting third-party (Nader) voters; Kerry won this group by nearly 5-1 over Bush. 2008: The Final 2008 Election Model forecast (EM) exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was just 0.2% higher than his recorded 52.9% vote share. His True EV and popular vote were both higher than reported since the final projection was based on Likely Voter polls which understated Obama’s share. He led by 52-39% in the final RV polls- before undecided voters (7%) were allocated. After allocation, he led by 57-41%. Obama’s expected EV was calculated as the cumulative sum that state win probability multiplied by its electoral vote. The 5000 election trial simulation produced a mean 365.8 EV. Convergence to the theoretical expected 365.3 EV illustrates the Law of Large Numbers. 1.3. Doesn’t the high turnout in the election mean that the registered-voter poll results are probably more accurate than the likely-voter results? ML No, high turnout is not a reason to dismiss the likely-voter results. Most pollsters already expected high turnout. TIA In 2004, average projected turnout based on the final five LV polls was 82.8%; the Census turnout estimate was 88.5%. A regression analysis of turnout vs. vote share indicated a 82.8% turnout and Kerry had 49% share. But with 88.5% turnout, he had 52.6%. The full RV sample was more accurate then the LV subset since it included many newly registered voters that LV polls filtered out. Because of the extremely high turnout (22 million new voters) many new (i.e. Democratic) voters were missed by the LV polls which understated Kerry’s projected share. Kerry won new voters by 57-62%, based on the National Exit Poll time line. But the Final NEP (13,660 respondents) was forced to match the recorded vote. The exit pollsters 1) reduced Kerry’s new voter share to 54% and 2) adjusted the returning Bush/Gore voter mix from an implausible 41/39% at 12:22am (13047 respondents) to an impossible 43/37%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents shows Kerry winning by 51.7-47.0%. He had 51% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents). 2008: With 75% of undecided voters allocated to Obama, final RV polls nearly matched his 58% True Vote share. The True Vote Model is based on a feasible returning voter mix, unlike the impossible 2008 National Exit Poll Bush/Kerry mix (46/37%). The NEP Vote shares were not changed. The 2008 True Vote Model confirms that the 2004 and 2006 NEP adjustments to the returning voter percentages were mathematically impossible in 2004 and implausible in 2006. They were necessary in order to match the poll to the fraudulent recorded vote. 1.4. How about the state polls? ML There TIA’s data hold up somewhat better, although his probabilities don’t. While the national polls (prior to TIA’s massaging) fit the official results rather closely, the state polls do not fit as well. TIA Professional pollsters must be “massagers” as well since they also allocate undecided voters. Kerry led by 48-47% in the final pre-election RV polls before undecided voters were allocated and by 51-48% after allocation. The pre-election RV polls confirmed the unadjusted state aggregate exit polls which he won by 51.0-47.5%. According to the National Exit Poll, Kerry easily won the majority of more than 22 million new voters. He led new voters by 62-37% at 8349 respondents (4pm), 59-39% at 11027 (9pm), 57-41% at 13047 (12:22am). His new voter share was sharply reduced to 54-44% at 13660 (1:00am) in the final adjusted poll that was forced to match the recorded vote. 2008: Obama had 57% in the RV polls and 53% in the LV polls after allocating undecided votes. 1.5. What about cell phones? ML TIA and others have argued that the pre-election polls were biased against Kerry because they do not cover people who only use cell phones — and these were disproportionately young voters who favored Kerry. TIA True. Young people are heavily Democratic cell phone users. 2008: There were more cell-phone users than in 2004. It is one reason why Obama did better in the RV polls. The “Rules”: Did They Favor Kerry? 2.1. Don’t undecided voters break sharply for the challenger? ML Undecided voters probably sometimes break sharply for the challenger. But I can find no evidence that this rule is useful in “allocating” reported undecided voters in presidential elections. TIA Undecided voters virtually always break for the challenger. If the undecideds approved of the incumbent they would not be undecided. Mark claims there is no evidence that allocation is “useful”. What is the basis of that statement? Professional pollsters find allocating undecided voters quite useful. Gallup allocated 90% to Kerry. Zogby and Harris: 75-80%. 2008: Six pollsters who allocated an average 67% of the undecided vote to Obama. 2.2. What about the rule that incumbents don’t do better than their predicted shares in the final polls? ML On average, it is true that incumbents don’t do better — or, rather, much better — than their predicted shares in the final polls. TIA That is a contradiction. Mark agrees that incumbents do no better than their final predicted shares, then he must also agree that undecided voters break for the challenger. If undecideds broke for the incumbent, he would have a higher vote share than his final poll. Therefore how could Bush have won if he did not do better than the final polls indicated – unless he won undecided voters? But the evidence shows that he did NOT win undecideds. That is a contradiction. Bush led the final LV polls by 47-46 before undecided voters were allocated. Kerry led the final RV polls by 48-47. Undecided voters broke 3-1 for Kerry. His adjusted 51-48 projection was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (51.0-47.5) and the unadjusted National Exit Poll (51.7-47.0). 2008: Obama was the de facto challenger since McCain represented a continuation of Bush policies. 2.3. What about the rule that incumbents don’t win when their final approval rating is below 50%? ML TIA has stated that Bush’s approval rating on November 1 was 48.5% based on the “average of 11 polls.” TIA That is true. You can look up his monthly approval ratings in the 2004 Election Model. In every election since 1972, the incumbent won re-election if his approval rating exceeded 50%. From 1968-2008, the average incumbent final 46.5% approval rating exactly matched the average True vote! Bush was the ONLY incumbent with approval below 50% to win re-election! There was a strong 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly pre-election approval ratings and the national polls. The Bush state approval ratings were highly correlated to his state vote and exit poll shares. 2008: On Election Day, the Bush 22% approval rating indicated that a major Obama landslide was in the making. Describing the Exit Poll Discrepancies 3.1. How do the exit polls work? ML Let me say first of all that the main point of the exit polls is not to project who will win the election — although the exit poll interviews are combined with vote count data in order to make projections. TIA Unadjusted exit polls work just fine – until the category weights and/or vote shares are forced to match the recorded vote. That makes no sense at all. For one thing, this standard practice assumes that the election is fraud-free. In order to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote in 2004, 2006 and 2008, the NEP required an impossible return voter mix and/or implausible vote shares. Most people know that the 2004 election was not fraud-free but are unaware that fraud was just as massive in the 2006 midterms and 2008. The landslides were denied. 2008: The Final 2008 NEP contains impossible returning voter weights. The unadjusted aggregate of the state exit polls (82,000 respondents) showed Obama won by 58-40.5%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) indicated he won by 61-37%. The published NEP returning voter mix was impossible. It implied that there were 5 million returning third-party voters, but there were only 1.2 million third-party recorded votes in 2004. It also implied that there were 60 million returning Bush voters. Bush had 62 million recorded votes. Approximately 3 million Bush 2004 voters died prior to 2008. Even assuming the fraudulent recorded 62 million, then at most 59 million returned to vote in 2008. Of course that assumes 100% living Bush 2004 voter turnout – not possible. 3.2. How accurate are exit polls? ML It depends, of course. Most attempts to argue that exit polls are highly accurate strangely steer around U.S. national exit polls. TIA Unadjusted exit polls are quite accurate. Respondents report who they just voted for; there are no undecided voters. On the other hand, the Final National Exit Poll is grossly inaccurate, since it is always forced to match the recorded vote, even if it is fraudulent. Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%. He had 51% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents). The exit pollsters ignored their state and national polls and just flipped the numbers. The published National Exit Poll (the same 13,660 respondents) gave Bush 51%. The National Exit Poll is a subset of the State exit polls. 2008: The unajusted national exit poll (17,836 respondents) shows that Obama led by 61-37%. He led the weighted, unadjusted state exit polls of 81,388 respondents by 58-40.5%, exactly matching the True Vote Model. Obama did 5.1% better than the recorded vote. The discrepancies are far beyond the 1.0% margin of error. 3.3. Couldn’t spoiled ballots and/or fraud account for these past discrepancies? ML Probably not, although they certainly may contribute. Greg Palast offers an estimate of 3.6 million uncounted ballots in 2004 alone. TIA: May contribute? They sure do contribute. The best evidence indicates that 70-80% of uncounted votes are Democratic. In 2004, the Census reported 3.4 million uncounted votes. This was confirmed by government statistics (see Greg Palast). If all votes cast had been counted, Bush’s margin would have been reduced from 3.0 to 1.3 million. But in 2004, uncounted votes were only a fraction of the total fraud. Vote miscounts (switched, stuffed ballots) accounted for most of the discrepancies. In 2000, uncounted votes were a major factor. The Census Bureau reported 5.4 million net uncounted votes, reducing Gore’s margin from approximately 3.0 million to 540,000. In every election there are millions of net uncounted votes (uncounted less stuffed ballots). Net Uncounted Votes = Total Votes Cast – Total Votes Recorded In order to match the recorded vote in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the National Exit Polls required that returning living Nixon and Bush voter turnout had to exceed 100%. In other words, there were millions of phantom Bush voters. The Democratic 1988-2008 unadjusted exit poll margin was 52-42%. The average recorded vote margin was just 48-46%. That’s an 8% margin discrepancy, much higher than we had been led to believe prior to the Roper listing. 3.4. What about exit pollster Warren Mitofsky’s reputation for accuracy? ML Here is how Mitofsky International’s website puts it: “[Mitofsky's] record for accuracy is well known”. TIA The Final National Exit poll is always “perfect” because it is always forced to match the recorded vote. But the NEP needed an impossible returning voter mix to match the 2004 recorded vote – because the recorded vote was fraudulent. The unadjusted state aggregate exit poll had Kerry winning by 52-47% and closely matched the UVA-adjusted pre-election polls. Either way, the exit polls were quite accurate – even though they were polar opposites. 2008: The Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 46% Bush -37% Kerry returning voter mix (12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters). 3.5. Didn’t the exit polls indicate that Kerry won by more than the polls’ margin of error? ML It depends on what one means by “the exit polls” and “won.” TIA Hmm… the question should be asked: In how many states did the unadjusted exit poll discrepancy exceed the margin of error? The MoE was exceeded in 29 states – all in Bush’s favor. The probability is ZERO. Among the 29 were Ohio, Florida, NM, Iowa and Colorado. All flipped from Kerry to Bush. The question should be: how come not ONE solid Bush state exceeded the margin of error? Because they were already in the bag. Except for Texas, they are small population states and therefore not viable candidates for vote padding. 3.6. Why are the pollsters’ estimates of uncertainty larger than the ones calculated by TruthIsAll and others? ML TruthIsAll sometimes has argued that the exit polls should be treated as simple random samples (like drawing marbles from a hat). In this instance, the margin of error for Ohio, with a reported sample size of 2040, would be about 4.5 points on the margin using the 95% standard. TIA The Ohio exit poll MoE was 2.2%. Notes to the National Exit Poll (13047 respondents) indicate that MoE was 1.0% and that voters were randomly selected as they exited the voting booth. See exitpolls_us_110204.gif 2008: The Final 2008 NEP had 17,836 respondents; the MoE was less than 1.0% 3.7. Doesn’t E/M’s own table show that the margin of error is plus-or-minus 1% for 8000 respondents or more? ML That table (on page 2 of the national methods statement) applies to percentages in the tabulations, not to the vote projections. TIA: The 1.0% MoE applies to the projected vote share for any given category cross tab in which at least 8000 have been sampled. There were 13,047 respondents at 12:22am and the MoE was 0.86%. It was 1.12% after including a 30% “cluster effect”. In the “Voted in 2000” category, there were approximately 3200 respondents (2.2% MoE, including the cluster effect). The MoE declines as vote shares diverge from a 50/50% split. For the 60/40% new voter split, the MoE was 1.7%. The MoE was just 1.0% for returning Bush and Kerry voters(a 90/10% vote split). 3.8. Doesn’t everyone agree that the exit poll results were outside the margin of error? ML Yes: overall, and in many states, the exit poll results differed from the official results by beyond the margin of error, overstating Kerry’s performance. TIA: It is more accurate to say that the official vote understated Kerry’s True Vote. The Edison-Mitofsky Evaluation of the 2004 Election System reported than the MoE was exceeded in 29 states – all in favor of Bush. From 1988 to 2008, the margin of error (including a 30% cluster effect factor) was exceeded in 137 of 300 state exit polls. The probability of that is zero. All but 5 red-shifted to the Republicans. The probability of that is zero. 2008: The unadjusted state aggregate (58% Obama share) exactly matched the True Vote Model and the National Exit Poll (61%). They indicated that Obama won by 22-23 million votes. 3.9. Aren’t survey results far outside the margin of error prima facie evidence of fraud? ML Margins of “error” refer to random sampling error. Most survey researchers would say that results outside the calculated margin of error most likely evince non-sampling error in the survey, such as non-response bias, sampling bias, or measurement error. TIA They evince non-sampling error? What about a vote counts? Do they evince fraud? Or is that inconceivable? 3.10. Which states had the largest exit poll discrepancies? Wasn’t it the battleground states? ML No, the largest exit poll discrepancies were generally not in battleground states. TIA Yes, they were. The overall WPE was higher in the battleground states; the lowest WPEs were in strong Bush states with low electoral votes. Not surprising, since there was noneedto steal votes in bed-rock GOP states. The largest exit poll discrepancies by vote count were in Democratic strongholds: New York and California. The NY exit poll discrepancy accounted for 750,000 of Bush’s total 3.0 million vote margin. Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 62-36%; the margin was reduced from 26% to 18% in the recorded vote (58.5-40%). Are we to believe that Bush gained vote share from 2000 to 2004 in Democratic urban locations while his share of the vote in rural areas declined? The strong 0.61 correlation between county size and percentage increase in the recorded Bush vote in New York State is one example of the implausible Bush Urban Legend. His recorded urban vote share increased as a result of election fraud. Explaining the Exit Poll Discrepancies 4.1. How did the exit pollsters explain the discrepancies in 2004? ML In the Edison-Mitofsky Evaluation of the 2004 Election System, they stated Within Precinct Error was “most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters”. TIA What data did they base that hypothesis on? It’s a myth that was quickly promoted in the corporate media (the exit pollster’s benefactors). The pollsters own data shows the opposite. Response rates were higher in Bush (rural) strongholds than in Kerry (urban) strongholds. Could the 6.5% average WPE have simply been due to the fact that there were more Kerry voters than Bush voters? How does E-M explain the mathematically impossible 43/37% returning Bush/Gore voter mix in the Final National Exit Poll? They can’t have it both ways. The Final NEP was forced to match the miscounted recorded vote. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis. 2008: New election, same anomaly. This time it’s 46/37%. 4.2. What is the “reluctant Bush responder” (rBr) hypothesis? ML What the pollsters concluded in the evaluation report was simply that Kerry voters apparently participated at a higher rate. TIA That was a trial balloon immediately floated by the exit pollsters to explain the discrepancies but they had no data to back it up. In fact, the report suggested otherwise; there was a slight Bush bias in the exit polls. But no one in the media has called them on it. The rBr canard was contradicted by the Final National Exit Poll. A mathematically impossible Bush/Gore 43/37 returning voter mix was required to match the vote count. Unfortunately few read the report. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis. The Final National Exit Poll indicated that returning Bush voters comprised 43% of the electorate; just 37% were Gore voters. Bush needed 55% of non-responders to match his recorded vote since he had 47% of responders. Exit Poll response was higher in strong Bush states than in Kerry states. 2008: Expect the same tired canard: Democratic voters were more anxious to speak to the exit pollsters, blah, blah, blah… 4.3. Does the participation bias explanation assume that fraud is unthinkable? ML I will present several lines of argument that participation bias accounts for much of the exit poll discrepancy, and that fraud does not. TIA Do the “lines of argument” include data from the E-M report that indicates Bush voters participated at a higher rate? The change in the Bush recorded vote share from 2000 to 2004 is an incorrect measure of Swing. It should be based on total votes cast (i.e. the True Vote). The correlation between TRUE vote swing as measured by the 2000 and 2004 unadjusted exit polls and recorded Red-shift was a strong 0.44. Kathy Dopp of U.S. Count Votes proved that it is not NECESSARY that there be a CORRELATION for fraud to occur; the assertion was logically false. 2008: Expect the “swing vs. red-shift: canard to be used again. But as in 2004, “swing” in 2008 will assume a fraud-free 2004. In any case, the premise has been proven logically false, since it is easy to display scenarios that disprove it. 4.4. Don’t the high completion rates in “Bush strongholds” disprove the rBr or bias hypothesis? ML No, and I’m amazed how much mental effort has gone into elaborating this very weak argument. TIA Amazed that a regression analysis shows completion rates declined from Bush to Kerry states? The analysis is a “strong” argument. The Kerry vote share vs. Exit Poll completion graph clearly shows the pattern. 2008: The E-M report has not yet been released. Why? It will surely show the same regression trend. 4.5. How can you explain the impossible changes in the national exit poll results after midnight? ML As I explained above, the tabulations are periodically updated in line with the projections — and, therefore, in line with the official returns. TIA But what if the tabulations were corrupted by official vote miscounts? Given the overt 2000 election theft, matching to the recorded vote count in 2004 requires a major leap of faith: to assume that Bush had neither motive, means or opportunity to steal the election. 4.6. Why were the tabulations forced to match the official returns? ML If the official returns are more accurate than the exit polls — and bear in mind that exit polls have been (presumably) wrong in the past — then weighting to the official returns should, generally, provide more accurate tabulations. TIA The polls were “presumably” wrong?. I suppose it was “presumably” coincidental that in the last 6 elections, the margin of error was exceeded in 137 of 300 state presidential exit polls – and 132 red-shifted to the Republican. Here is simple proof that the vote count was wrong: a significant part of the exit poll discrepancies in every election since 1968 can be explained by millions of uncounted votes. 2008: The Final NEP once again assumed an impossible mix of returning Bush/Kerry/Other voters (46/37/4%). The Bush 46% (60.2m) share is impossible; there were at most 57 million returning Bush voters – if you assume that his 62 million recorded votes in 2004 were legitimate. The 4% returning third-party (5.2m) share is impossible or the 2004 third-party vote was significantly higher than the official reported 1.2 million. 4.7. Wasn’t there an effort to cover up the exit poll discrepancies? ML Not that I can see. TIA That’s because you are not looking for them. You don’t see them either a) because you refuse to consider the preponderance of the evidence or b) you are not looking hard enough. The National Exit Pool has not provided raw, unadjusted precinct data for peer review. When pressured to provide unadjusted Ohio exit poll data, they “blurred” the data by not divulging the precincts. Of course, the MSM has never discussed this. But that is no longer even necessary. We have the unadjusted state and national exit polls and the incontrovertible red-shifts and the impossible forced matching of the exit polls to the recorded votes. We don’t need anything else. The data that has been released proves systemic Election Fraud far beyond any doubt. 2008: There is obviously an ongoing, recurring effort to cover up the fraud. Just look at the NEP. No one is questioning the 8% discrepancy between the Obama’s unadjusted NEP (61%) and his recorded share (53%). 4.8. Is there any specific reason to think that the exit poll discrepancies don’t point to fraud? ML One of my favorites is based on TruthIsAll’s observation: “Based on the pre-election polls: 41 out of 51 states (incl DC) deviated to Bush. Based on the exit polls: 43 out of 51 deviated to Bush.” TIA How can the margin of error be exceeded in 29 states, all in favor of Bush, and not be an indicator of massive fraud? How can forcing the Final NEP to match the vote count (using impossible weights and implausible vote shares) not be an indicator of fraud? How can the state and national polls not indicate fraud? When input to the Interactive Election Simulation model, the 51-48% Kerry victory was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (52-47%) and the unadjusted National Exit Poll (51.7-47%) After allocating undecided voters, pre-election state and national polls matched the corresponding unadjusted exit polls. 2008: The unadsjusted exit polls show an even larger red-shift than 2004. 4.9. Is there any specific reason to believe that participation bias does explain the discrepancies? ML Yes, beyond the facts that participation bias is common, that past exit polls have overstated Democratic performance, and that the exit poll discrepancies don’t correlate with pre-election poll discrepancies, “swing” from 2000, or electronic voting machine use, there is also some evidence indicating participation bias in 2004. TIA But we KNOW that a major cause of the discrepancies was sue to uncounted votes. And we have evidence that the votes have been miscounted as well? True, the Democrats always do better in exit polls than the recorded vote because 70-80% of uncounted votes are Democratic. The premise of the “swing vs. red-shift” argument (that the 2000 and 2004 recorded votes are appropriate to measure swing) is invalid. At least 5.4 million (net of stuffed) ballots were never counted in 2000 and 3.4 million were uncounted in 2004. The false premise kills the argument that near-zero correlation between vote swing and red shift “kills the fraud argument”. The “swing vs. red-shift” canard is pure double-talk designed to confuse. It was debunked in general by Kathy Dopp at US Count Votes in a mathematical proof. And using votes cast and the True Vote as the baseline shows that in fact, the correlation has been a strong one in the elections where a Bush was the incumbent. 2008: The media is sure to use the same, pathetic bias argument that Democratic voters were more likely to be exit-polled – among other things. 4.10. Aren’t you offering a lot of unproven speculation? ML You could call it that, or you could call it scientific reasoning on the basis of incomplete evidence. TIA On the contrary, you are forsaking the scientific method by your refusal to consider the best evidence (the data) and an unbiased analysis. Instead you resort to faith-based and disproven arguments. The True Vote Model has been confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls. The evidence is overwhelming. You have seen more than enough evidence but refuse to accept any of it. 2008: Even with more evidence of fraud in the impossible 2008 Final NEP, Mark still invokes rBr and “false recall”. 4.11. Are you saying that the exit polls disprove fraud? ML No. As noted earlier, many forms of fraud may be compatible with the exit poll results. However, it seems hard to reconcile massive, widespread fraud – on the order of many millions of miscounted votes — with the exit poll results unless one begins by discounting the details of the exit poll results. TIA A “massive” 5% vote switch is very possible with unverifiable touch screens and invisible central tabulators. Uncounted votes accounted for over half of Bush’s 3 million “mandate”. There were 125.7 million votes cast in 2004. In 2000, 110.8 million votes were cast. Approximately 5.5 million died. Of the 105 million still living, approximately 102 million voted in 2004. Therefore there were 23 million new voters and 3 million returning Nader voters. How did they vote? For Kerry. He had approximately 15.5 million (60%) – a 5 million margin. Gore won the popular vote by 540,000. So how did Bush turn a 5.5 million deficit into a 3 million surplus? That’s an 8.5 million net vote switch. Are we to believe that 8.5 million more Gore voters defected to Bush than Bush voters defected to Kerry? That is beyond implausible. 2008: And now we are expected to believe that were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. 4.12. Are you saying that you are sure Bush didn’t steal the election? ML No, depending on what one means by “steal.” In particular, I think it is at least possible that some combination of vote suppression (purges, long lines, intimidation, etc.) and uncounted votes cost John Kerry a victory in Ohio, and therefore in the election. (Obviously “uncounted votes” can be regarded as a form of vote suppression.) I doubt it, but I am not arguing against it here. TIA There you go, refusing once again to even consider the probability that votes were miscounted electronically. Why not? You agree that vote suppression is “possible” when it is proven by the facts. After all the anecdotal evidence of vote miscounts, you still only go as far as to suggest “vote suppression” and uncounted votes as “possibilities”, but do not consider the very real probability that votes were miscounted at the touch screens and central tabulators. Why would election officials employ visible vote suppression in the light of day but not resort to invisible, unverifiable electronic vote switching and other surreptitious methods? You cannot logically refute that. 2008: A new election and still the same unverifiable voting machines. It’s a repeat of the 2006 Democratic Tsunami. Landslide denied. Comparing 2004 to 2000 5.1. Why has TruthIsAll called the “2000 presidential vote” question the clincher? ML TIA emphasizes two aspects of this table. First, he notes, it is impossible that 43% of the 2004 electorate voted for Bush in 2000. That would be over 52 million Bush voters, whereas Bush only got about 50.5 million votes in 2000. (Some of those voters must have died, or not voted for other reasons.) TIA Unadjusted exit poll update: Well, now that the actual National and state exit poll numbers have been released and show that Kerry had 51.7% in the former and 51.0% in the latter, thus confirming the mortality and turnout analysis in the True Vote Model, it’s just a moot point now, is it not? It’s a moot point now that we have proof that the 13,660 actual responses were adjusted in the Final National Exit Poll to force a match to the recorded vote. But here is my original response to this anyway. It’s still valid because it is irrefutable logic that has been confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls – even though it stands by itself. It’s a clinch because of simple arithmetic: The 43% statistical weighting in th final NEP implies 52.6 million returning Bush voters – 2.1 million more than his recorded 50.46 million in 2000. But let’s not stop there. Approximately 2.5 million died, therefore at most 48 million could have voted in 2004. If 46 of 48 million returned to vote in 2004, then the Final NEP overstated the number of Bush voters by 6.6 million. This is not rocket science or brain surgery. 2008: Another unadjusted exit poll update: And now we have the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) showing that Obama had 61%. And we have the unadjusted state exit polls (82,000 respondents) showing that he had 58.0%. once again, the exit pollsters and their benefactors in the mainstream media are hoisted on their own petard. It’s even worse this time around. The returning Bush/Kerry voter mix was 46/37%. Even if Bush won by the recorded 3 million votes and there was zero fraud in 2004, the mix implies that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But if Kerry won by the unadjusted exit poll 52-47% (6 million votes) then there was an 18 million switch! 5.2. What is wrong with the “impossible 43%” argument? ML It assumes that exit poll respondents accurately report whom they voted for in the previous election. In reality, exit poll respondents seem to have overstated their support for the previous winner in every exit poll for which I could obtain data, ten in all, going back to 1976. Lots of other evidence indicates that people often report having voted for the previous winner although they didn’t. Perhaps most telling is an (American) National Election Study (NES) “panel” in which people were interviewed soon after the 2000 election, and then re-interviewed in 2004. TIA This will put the 43/37 argument to eternal rest and close the book on False Recall. In the unadjusted 2004 NEP (13,660 respondents) Kerry had 7,074 (51.71%) and Bush 6,414 (46.95%). Of the 13,660 respondents, 3,182 were asked who they voted for in 2000: 1,257 (39.50%) said Bush and 1,221 (38.37%) said Gore. When the 39.5/38.37 mix is applied to the 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry has 51.74%, exactly matching the unadjusted NEP. This puts the lie to the published Final NEP (Bush 50.7-48.3%) and the 43/37% returning Bush/Gore mix. We have just proved that the Final NEP 43/37 mix is a forced result – not an actual sample. Gore had 540,000 more official votes than Bush (3 million if the True Vote 5.4m uncounted votes are included). Why would returning Gore voters, but not returning Bush voters, misstate their past vote? It makes no sense. The past vote question was posed to 3,182 of 13,660 exit poll respondents. Yet the responses to past vote question confirmed the 2004 unadjusted National Exit poll (13,660 respondents). The past vote question was not a factor in the other category crosstabs: sex, race, income, party-id, location, when decided, military background, etc). The respondents were only asked who they voted for. And 51% said Kerry. No fog, no forgetting. False Recall assumes the recorded vote as a baseline, not the True Vote. Gore won the recorded vote in 2000 by 540,000. But he won the unadjusted state exit polls by 6 million (50.8-44.5%). The implication of false recall and swing vs. red-shift was that the 2000 election was a fair one. That is a FALSE PREMISE. There is no evidence to suggest Gore voters forgot or were motivated to lie. Retrospective surveys matched the True Vote when total VOTES CAST was used as a baseline. The NES respondents told the truth about their past vote: In 1968-2008, the average NES winning margin was 11.4%. The average True Vote winning margin was 10.6%. The average True Vote winning share deviated by 0.4% from NES. The average Democratic True winning share deviated by 0.7%. The average Republican True winning share deviated by 0.46%. 2008: It’s hard to believe that the “false recall” canard is still being used, especially since Bush’s 48% approval rating in 2004 declined to 30% in 2006 and 22% in 2008. Are we expected to believe that the ridiculous 2008 Final NEP 46/37% returning voter mix was due to Kerry voters misstating their past vote to the exit pollsters and that returning Bush voters were reluctant to be interviewed? It’s a true Hobson’s choice dilemma. 5.3. What is wrong with the second argument, where new (and Nader) voters break the stalemate in favor of Kerry? ML The second argument assumes that Kerry did about as well among Bush 2000 voters as Bush did among Gore 2000 voters. Superficially, the exit poll table supports this assumption. TIA The 12:22am National Exit Poll indicated that Kerry had 10% of returning Bush voters and Bush just 8% of returning Gore voters. But in order to force the Final NEP to match the recorded vote, the shares had to be changed to 9% and 10%. Changing the Bush/Gore returning voter mix to 43/37 was not sufficient to match the recorded vote. In the Democratic Underground “Game” thread, participants agreed to the stipulation that there could not have been more returning Bush voters than were still living. In order to match the recorded vote, Mark had to increase Bush’s share of returning Gore voters to an implausible 14.6%. And he had to reduce Kerry’s share of new voters to 52.9%. The new voter share had already been reduced from 62% at 4pm to 59% at 7:30pm to 57% at 12:22am to 54% in the Final. In effect, Mark abandoned the “false recall” argument. But he reverted back to it when he saw that his fudged vote shares were not taken seriously. 2008: We thought “false recall” was laid to rest in 2006, but Mark still uses it – even as he concedes that Final National Exit Poll weights/shares are always adjusted to force a match to the “official” count. Contradictions abound. Mark wants to have it both ways (rBr and “false recall”). But it’s a Hobson’s Choice. One argument refutes the other. He is spinning like a top. 5.4. But… but… why would 14% of Gore voters vote for Bush?? ML If one thinks of “Gore voters” as people who strongly supported Gore and resented the Supreme Court ruling that halted the Florida recount, then the result makes no sense. For that matter, if one thinks of “Gore voters” in that way, it makes no sense that they would forget (or at any rate not report) having voted for Gore. Nevertheless, the NES panel evidence indicates that many did. (Of course, the figure may not be as high as 14% — although it could conceivably be even higher). TIA Right, it makes no sense. It only makes sense if you consider that the Final NEP was forced to match a corrupt recorded vote by changing the 12:22am return voter mix and the vote shares. But it’s not just that the number of returning Gore defectors makes no sense; the vote share adjustments in the Democratic Underground “Game” were beyond implausible. The Final was forced to match the recorded vote. The 43/37 returning Bush/Gore voter mix was impossible. The mix required over 6 million phantom Bush voters. The Final had to adjust corresponding Bush vote shares to implausible levels. Kerry won all plausible scenarios in a sensitivity analysis of various vote share assumptions. 2008: To believe that 46% were returning Bush voters, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But even assuming that the official 3 million Bush “mandate” was legitimate, one would only expect an approximate 3 million difference in turnout. Instead we are asked to believe that 4.5 million Kerry voters (7.6% of 59 million) told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush, despite his 22% approval. TruthIsAll FAQ: Miscellaneous M.1. What about the reports of flipped votes on touch screens in 2004? ML Many people reported difficulty voting on electronic voting machines (DREs), in particular, that attempts to vote for one candidate initially registered as votes for another. The Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS), connected to the “OUR-VOTE” telephone hotline, recorded close to 100 such incidents. TruthIsAll has asserted that 86 out of 88 reports of electronic vote-flipping favored Bush. He cites the odds of this imbalance as 1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000. TIA The probability calculation is correct. The odds that 86 of 88 randomly selected vote switching incidents would be from Kerry to Bush are one in 79 sextillion. The reports came from widely diverse, independent precincts but were just a drop in the bucket. Many voters know of someone whose vote was switched right before their eyes. And yet Mark still does not accept that electronic vote switching was a major cause of the exit poll discrepancies. The votes were not just switched on touch screens. Invisible, unverifiable central tabulators “consolidate” reported precinct votes. But no one could report those vote flips to EIRS. M.2. Did the 2006 exit polls manifest “red shift” compared with official returns? ML Yes. For instance, the initial national House tabulation — posted a bit after 7 PM Eastern time on election night — indicates that Democratic candidates had a net margin of about 11.3 points over Republican candidates. The actual margin was probably about 7 points, depending on how uncontested races are handled. TIA: There is no basis for that statement. It’s a “belief” based on a few outlier polls with no allocation of undecided voters. The 120 “generic poll” moving average regression trend line projected that the Democrats would win 56.4% of the vote. The unadjusted aggregate state exit polls produced an identical 56.4% share. M.3. Do pre-election “generic” House polls in 2006 match the initial exit poll returns? ML Not really. A “generic” poll is one that asks respondents whether they would vote for (in Gallup’s words) “the Democratic Party’s candidate or the Republican Party’s candidate,” rather than naming specific candidates. TIA So what if the names were not indicated? That is pure nonsense! Yes, they matched all right. The trend-line of 120 pre-election Generic Polls, all won by the Democrats, projected a 56.4% Democratic vote share. Lo and behold, the unadjusted exit poll aggregate was an identical 56.4%! Yes, it’s true: Generic polls were not a good predictor of the recorded vote. But they did predicted the True Vote! A corrsponding pre-election model quantified the risk that 10-20 House elections would be stolen. M.4. What about the massive undervotes in Sarasota County, Florida (C.D. 13)? ML Without getting into the specifics, the short answer is: I think that if voters had been able to cast their votes as they intended, the Democratic candidate Christine Jennings would have won the House race in Florida’s 13th Congressional District (FL-13) by thousands of votes, instead of losing by under 400. I have seen no evidence that the events in FL-13 shed light on outcomes in any other Congressional race. TIA Are we to believe that FL-13 was an isolated case of missing and/or switched votes? And there is no evidence of vote miscounting in the other 434 districts? A number of post-election studies indicate otherwise. End of FAQ Summary Update ________________________________________________________________________________   Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on July 14, 2011 in Rebuttals, Response to Lindeman's TruthIsAll FAQ   Tags: 1988-2008, 1988-2008 exit poll database, 2000 election, 2004 presidential elections, 2004 stolen election, election fraud, election myths, exit poll, exit polls, graphs, kerry, mathematical proof of election fraud, political scientists, politics, probability analysis, sensitivity analysis, state exit polls, touch screen voting machines, true vote, true vote model, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` To believe that Bush won in 2004, you must also believe that… 22 Jun Do you believe the Final 2004 National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents)? The Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%). If you believe it, then you must also believe in miracles. The Final indicates that there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still living in 2004 – a 110% turnout. The pollsters had to create 6 million Bush phantoms in order to force the Final to match the recorded vote. It’s basic Logic 101: If an impossible number of returning Bush 2000 voters is required for the 2004 National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, then the 2004 recorded vote must also be impossible. Ergo, the FINAL exit poll and the official vote count must both be fraudulent. And if you still believe in 6 million Bush phantoms, then you must NOT believe: 1) the unadjusted NEP (13,660 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%. 2) the unadjusted state exit polls (76,192 respondents). Kerry had 51.1%. Let’s calculate the returning Gore and Bush percentage mix of 2004 voters, assuming 1.25% annual mortality and 97% Gore/Bush turnout of living voters. We apply the following methods: 1)Votes cast: Gore 51.0m recorded +4.5 of 6m uncounted: Gore by 50.0-47.3%. Returning Gore/Bush share of 2004 electorate: 41.0/38.2% Kerry wins by 53.2-45.4% 2) 2000 Unadjusted State Exit Poll aggregate: Gore by 50.8-45.5%. Returning Gore/Bush share of 2004 vote: 41.4/37.0% Kerry wins by 53.9-44.7% 3)2000 Unadjusted National Exit Poll: Gore by 48.5-46.3% Returning Gore/Bush share of 2004 electorate: 39.4/37.6% Kerry wins by 52.9-45.7% 4)2004 National Exit Poll (adjusted to matched recorded vote) Returning Gore/Bush share of 2004 electorate:37/43% (impossible Bush turnout) Bush by 50.7-48.3% If you want to maintain your sanity, read this: Further Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide View the 2004 unadjusted state and national exit polls Given the 2000 recorded vote, unadjusted NEP (13660 respondents) vote shares and a 98% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters, Kerry needed just a 73% turnout of Gore voters to TIE Bush. For Bush to win his 3.0 million recorded vote “mandate”, there had to be a 64% turnout of Gore voters. If you believe that, there is a great Chinese restaurant in lower Manhattan near a famous old bridge that is for sale. Assuming an equal 98% turnout of Gore and Bush voters, Kerry won the True Vote by more than 10 million votes with a 53.6% vote share. Consider the following myths and anomalies about the 2004 election. 1- Myth: The media exhaustively analyzed state and national pre-election /exit poll data and documented evidence of vote suppression and miscounts. Fact: raw exit poll precinct data has never been made public. And the pundits have failed to explain the impossible anomalies in the final national and state exit polls. 2- Myth: There are many explanations as to why the exit polls were wrong. Evaluation of the Edison Mitofsky Election System Kerry voters sought to be interviewed; Bush voters were reluctant; young interviewers sought out Kerry voters; returning Gore voters lied to the exit pollsters and said that they voted for Bush in 2000; exit polls are not random samples; exit polls in the U.S. are not designed to catch election fraud; early exit polls overstated the Kerry vote; women voted early; Republicans voted late; Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry, etc. Fact: none are supported by the evidence. In fact, they are refuted by the exit pollsters own data and timeline. 3- Myth: The votes were fairly counted. Fact: There is no way to prove that. Voting machines are vulnerable and the code is proprietary; there is no chain of evidence or hand-recounts of paper ballots. The 2004 Vote Census indicates that 125.7 million votes were cast and just 122.3m recorded. Investigative reporter Greg Palast provided government data which confirmed the Census: at least 3 million ballots were never counted. 4- Myth: Democrats failed to attract first-time voters. Fact: According to the National Exit Poll (NEP), the Democratic candidates won first-time voters by solid margins in every election since 1992. In 2008 Obama won new voters by 71-27%. The 2004 NEP timeline indicated that Kerry had 62% of new voters at 4pm, 59% at 9pm and 57% at 1222am. But the Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote. It indicated that Kerry had just 54% of new voters, a massive 8% decline from the earlier share. 5- Myth: Bush’s 48% Election Day approval rating was not a major factor. Fact: Since 1976 all presidential incumbents with less than 50% approval lost re-election (Ford, Carter, Bush 1). Incumbents above 50% won (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton). There was a near-perfect 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly approval rating and the average of the national pre-election polls. The correlation was confirmed when Kerry won the National Exit Poll by 51-48%. 6- Myth: Bush gained 9% over his 2000 vote in heavily Democratic urban locations. Fact: That is an Urban Legend. It is counter-intuitive: Bush lost 3% in highly Republican small towns and rural areas. He stole millions of votes in urban and suburban locations. 7- Myth: Late voters came out for Bush. Fact: Bush had 51.5% of the first 115.8 million recorded votes. Kerry had 54.6% of the final 5.3 million. Kerry led by a constant 51-48% in the National Exit Poll timeline from 8349 to the final 13660 respondents 8- Myth: The final pre-election polls did not match the exit polls. Fact: After undecided voters were allocated, the weighted pre-election state (Kerry 47.9-Bush 46.9%) and national polls (Kerry 47.2-46.9%) closely matched the aggregate weighted unadjusted state (51.7-47.0%) and national exit polls(51.1-47.9%). 9- Myth: Bogus assumptions were used in the pre-election Election Model which forecast that Kerry would win 337 electoral votes. Fact: The only (conservative) assumption was that Kerry would capture at least 75% of the undecided vote. Popular and electoral vote projections were confirmed by the 2004 Election Simulation and True Vote Model. 10- Myth: There is no evidence that undecided voters break for the challenger. Fact: Historical evidence shows that undecided voters break for the challenger at least 80% of the time – especially when the incumbent is unpopular. Bush had a 48% average approval rating. World-class pollsters Harris and Zogby reported that late polling indicated Kerry would win 60-80% of the undecided vote. Gallup allocated 88% of undecided voters to Kerry. 11- Myth: Bush was leading in the final pre-election polls. Fact: Kerry led Bush by close to 1% in the weighted state polls They were tied at 47% based on the national 18-poll average. After allocating the undecided 5%, Kerry was a 51-48% winner. 12- Myth: Non-response exit poll bias (reluctant Bush responder) was the reason 43 states red-shifted from the exit polls to the recorded vote to Bush. Fact: Response rates were lowest in Kerry urban strongholds and highest in Bush strongholds. Fact: The rBr hypothesis was proven false by: US Count Votes 13- Myth: It was just a fluke that Oregon was the only battleground state where Kerry did better than Gore. Fact: Oregon is the only state which votes by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots AND mandates hand counts of randomly selected counties – a powerful election fraud deterrent. Kerry did worse than Gore in the other battleground states because none of them had an equivalent fraud deterrent. DRE touchscreen computers that were used to calculate 30% of the votes are unverifiable. Optical scanned paper ballots were not hand-counted. 14- Myth: exit polls did not indicate that electronic voting machines are fraudulent. Fact: All voting methods had high discrepancies – except for paper ballots which had just a 2% average discrepancy. Lever machine precincts had the highest (11%) discrepancies. Unverifiable touch screen (DRE) and optical scan precincts each had 7%. There were 88 reported touchscreen vote switching incidents – 86 switched votes from Kerry to Bush (a zero probability). 15- Myth: The exit polls behaved “badly”. Fact: Final state and national exit polls are ALWAYS FORCED TO MATCH the recorded vote. It’s standard operating procedure. But the media pundits assume a fraud-free election. Millions of uncounted votes prove that elections have been anything but fraud-free. And the 6 million phantom Bush voters required by the Final 2004 National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote proves that it cannot be correct. 16- Myth: Kerry led in the early exit polls, but Bush passed him in the final. Fact 1: Kerry led the National Exit Poll (NEP) by a constant 51-48% from start to end. He led at 4pm (8349 respondents), 730pm (11027) and 1222am (13047). He led the state aggregate unadjusted state exit polls by 51.1-47.9%. He won the unadjusted NEP (13660) by 51.7-47.0, but Bush won the adjusted Final NEP (13660) by 51-48%. The Final was forced to match the recorded vote. Fact 2: It is a mathematical impossibility that 613 additional exit poll respondents could cause Kerry’s 51-48% margin (at 12:22am after the polls closed) to flip to Bush. And they didn’t. Kerry led the unadjusted 13660 by 51-48%. But the Final NEP (13660) was forced to match the recorded vote by switching respondents from Kerry to Bush. 17- Myth: The exit poll margin of error was too low. Fact: Even assuming a 60% “cluster effect”, the probabilities were near zero. The exit poll discrepancies exceeded the MoE in 29 states for Bush and just one for Kerry – a zero probability. Assuming a 30% cluster effect, the MoE was exceeded in 24 states for Bush. 18- Myth: There is nothing suspicious about the fact that all 21 Eastern Time Zone states red-shifted from the exit poll in favor of Bush. Fact: The probability of the one-sided red shift is equivalent to coin-flipping 21 consecutive heads: 1 in 2 million. But 14 exit polls deviated beyond the margin of error – a ZERO probability. 19- Myth: Exit polls are not true random samples. Fact: Exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky state in the notes to the National Exit Poll and Methods Statement that respondents were randomly-selected and there is an overall 1% margin of error for 10,000 respondents. But there were over 13,000 respondents. The MoE was 1.1% after adding a 30% “cluster effect” 20- Myth: Bush voters were reluctant to respond to exit pollsters. Fact: This is contradicted by the Final National Exit Poll. The Final indicated that returning Bush 2000 voters comprised 43% of the 2004 electorate compared to just 37% for Gore voters (i.e. there were 7 million more returning Bush than Gore voters). But Gore won the unadjusted exit poll by 50-45% (3-6 million votes). The rBr canard was also contradicted by a linear regression analysis. Non-response rates were highest in Kerry strongholds, indicating that most non-responders were in fact Kerry voters. 21- Myth: Ohio, Florida and National exit polls show that Bush won. Fact: FINAL State and National exit polls are ALWAYS adjusted (forced) to match the recorded vote even when the votes are miscounted – as they were in 2004. Unadjusted state and national exit polls showed Kerry winning by 54-45% in Ohio, and 51-48% in Florida. He won by 52-47% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll. 22- Myth: The Final NEP 43/37 Bush/Gore returning voter mix is possible. After all, it’s just a poll. Fact: The 43/37 mix was not a polling result. It was contrived to force a match to the recorded vote. This is the incontrovertible proof: Kerry had 7074 (51.7%) of the UNADJUSTED 13660 NEP respondents; Bush had 6414 (47.0%). Of the 13660, 3182 were asked who they voted for in 2000: 1257 (39.5%) said Bush, 1221 (38.4%) said Gore. When the 39.5/38.4 mix is applied to the 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry has 51.7%, EXACTLY MATCHING THE UNADJUSTED NEP. This exposes the Final NEP 43/37 Bush/Gore returning voter mix. It is additional proof that mix was a FORCED CONTRIVANCE to MATCH the BOGUS RECORDED VOTE and NOT an actual sample. Fact: The mix could not have from changed from 41/39 at 12:22am to 43/37 with just 613 additional respondents. Bush 2000 voters could not have comprised 43% (52.6 million) of the 122.3 million votes recorded in 2004 since he only had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Therefore, there were at most 48.0 million returning Bush voters in 2004 – assuming an impossible 100% turnout. If 98% turned out, there were 47.0 million returning Bush voters. That means there had to be 5.6 million (52.6 less 47.0) phantom voters. 23- Myth: The Democratic Underground “Game” thread showed a scenario that Bush could have won with a feasible and plausible 39/39% returning Bush/Gore mix. Fact: In order to force a match to the recorded vote, the NEP vote shares had to be adjusted to implausible levels far beyond the margin of error. The scenario required a) Kerry’s share of new voters reduced from 57% to 52.9%, b) Bush’s share of Gore voters increased from 8% to 14.6% and c) Bush 2000 returning voter defection rate reduced from 10% to 7.2%. 24- Myth: The near-zero a correlation between vote swing (from 2000 to 2004) and 2004 exit poll red-shift “kills the fraud argument”. Fact: “Swing vs. Red-shift” is based on an invalid premise and twisted logic. It uses 2000 and 2004 recorded votes to prove there was no fraud in 2004. But the votes were obviously fraudulent (there were 6 million uncounted votes in 2000 and 4 million in 2004). There is a strong correlation between vote swing and red-shift when unadjusted state exit polls are used as proxies for the True Vote. 25- Myth: “False Recall” on the part of Gore voters is an explanation the Final NEP 43/37 Bush/Gore returning voter mix. Fact: The 43/37 argument is hereby put to eternal rest. This closes the book on “False Recall”. Of the total 13660 NEP respondents, 7064 (51.7%) voted for Kerry and 6414 (47.0%) for Bush. Only 3182 were asked who they voted for in 2000: 1257 (39.5%) said Bush, 1221 (38.4%) said Gore. Using the 39.5/38.4% mix and 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry wins by 51.8-46.8%, exactly matching the unadjusted NEP, putting the lie to the published Final NEP (Bush 50.7-48.3%). The Final was derived by forcing a match based on a fictitious 43/37 returning Bush/Gore mix. The unadjusted 13660 sample had to be “adjusted” to have the Final NEP match the fraudulent recorded share. Bottom line: The rationale for the 43/37% returning voter mix is no longer debatable. It was clearly a forced result – not an actual sample. 26- Myth: An NES survey indicates that “a slow drifting fog” caused Gore voters to say they voted for Bush. Fact: NES used 2000 and 2004 (105.4m and 122.3m) recorded votes as a baseline for the survey, rather than True Votes cast (110.8m and 125.7m). There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes in 2000, of which approximately 4.5 million were for Gore. Counting these votes, Gore won the True Vote by 2-3 million – not the 540,000 recorded. And Kerry won 3 of 4 million uncounted votes. Using votes cast as the baseline shows that NES respondents did not misstate their 2000 vote. Fact: Only 3182 (23%) of 13660 of respondents were asked how they voted in 2000. All were asked who they voted for in 2004. Voters do not forget who they voted for in the previous election, much less how they just voted a few minutes earlier. False recall was obviously not a factor in the pre-election polls; they matched the exit polls after undecided voters were allocated. The unadjusted National Exit Poll data has been released, so we know that exactly 51.7% of the respondents voted for Kerry – and just 47.0% for Bush. 27- Myth: Returning Gore voters misrepresented their 2000 vote to the exit pollsters because they wanted to be associated with the winner: Bush. Fact: Bush had a 48% approval rating on Election Day. The majority of new voters were Democrats and Independents who gave Bush 10-20% approval. Gore was the popular vote winner in 2000 – by at least 3 million True Votes. So why would Gore voters want to be associated with Bush? It makes no sense. 28- Myth: Bush gained 12 million new voters in 2004. Fact: Simple arithmetic shows that Bush needed more than 16 million new voters. He had 50.5m recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5m died and 1.0m did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore, 47 million Bush 2000 voters returned to vote in 2004. He needed 15 million (68%) of 22 million new voters to get his recorded 62 million. But according to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, he had just 9 million(41%) new voters – 7 million (27%) fewer than he needed. The probability that 68% of new voters voted for Bush is ZERO. 29- Myth: Bush won by a 3 million vote “mandate”. Fact: Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes officially so Kerry had a head-start. According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, Kerry had 57% of new (DNV) voters (first-timers and others who did not vote in 2000). He won returning Nader voters by 64-17% and 10% of Bush voters. Just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. So how could Bush have won? He needed a massive net defection of Gore voters. And Gore won by 3-6 million votes – not the 540,000 recorded. That makes it impossible for Bush to have won. 30- Myth: Sensitivity analysis showing that Kerry won all plausible scenarios is not a mathematical proof. Fact: It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt when the WORST CASE (implausible) scenario indicates a Kerry win probability GREATER THAN 90% and the BASE CASE (plausible) scenario indicates a win probability GREATER THAN 99%. 31- Myth: Bush’s share of females (48%) increased by 4.2% over his 2000 share. Fact: That’s implausible since his share of males declined by 0.2%. It is totally counter-intuitive to believe that females would defect to Bush and males would defect to Kerry. In the 12:22am NEP, females voted 54-45% for Kerry. 32- Myth: Bush won Ohio. Fact: There is much documented evidence of uncounted and switched votes, besides massive voter disenfranchisement. Two election workers were convicted of rigging the recount. Fifty-six of 88 county voting records were destroyed. The final Zogby poll had Kerry leading by 50-47%. Kerry led the unadjusted Ohio exit poll by 54.1-45.9%. He led the adjusted 12:40am Composite by 52.1-47.9%. 33- Myth: Bush won Florida by 52-47%, a 368,000 vote margin. Fact: Democrats had a 41-37% registration advantage in Touch Screen (DRE) counties and a 42-39% advantage in Optical Scan (OS) counties. Kerry won DRE counties (3.9 million votes) by 51-47%. Bush won OS counties (3.4 million) by an implausible 57-42%. The final Zogby pre-election poll had Kerry leading by 50-47%. Kerry won the exit poll by 50.9-48.3%. In 2000, Gore had 70% of 180,000 uncounted votes; he won the state by at least 50,000 votes. Dan Rather’s expose on voting machines proved that the poor-quality paper used in the punch card machines was a major cause of ballot spoilage in heavily Democratic precincts. 34- Myth: NY pre-election and final exit polls (Kerry 58.5-40.2%) were correct. The unadjusted exit poll Kerry (64.1-34.4%) was wrong. Fact: New York and California were rigged to inflate Bush’s popular vote margin and provided 2.0 million of his 3.0 million vote “mandate”. NY voted 60.5% for Gore, 35.4% for Bush and 4.1% for Nader. This is just one example of the impossible scenarios required to match the the 2004 NY vote: a) 100% of returning Nader voters had to break for Bush (he had 17% nationally), b) Bush needed 50% of new voters (he had 41% nationally), c) Bush needed 11% of returning Gore voters (he had 8% nationally). The clincher: Kerry’s NY share was 10% higher than his national share. How could Bush have done so much better in heavily Democratic NY with returning Gore, Nader and new voters than he did nationally? It is extremely counter-intuitive and makes no sense. Pre-election likely voter (LV) polls did not factor in the heavy turnout of new Kerry voters. The final pre-election NY LV poll had a 4% margin of error (MoE). There was a 95% probability that Kerry would be in the 54.5-62.5% range – and that is conservative because it is based on an LV poll. The NY exit poll had a 3.2% MoE. Therefore, there was a 95% probability that Kerry’s vote was between 60.9-67.3% and was within the MoE of BOTH the LV pre-election poll (which low-balled Kerry turnout) and the unadjusted exit poll. Bush supposedly did better in 2004 than his 2000 vote share in the 15 largest (Democratic) New York City and suburban counties. That is an Urban Legend – impossible on its face. 35- Myth: Unlike touchscreens and optical scanners, lever voting machines cannot be programmed to switch votes. Fact: The NY exit poll discrepancy was 12% – far beyond the 3.2% margin of error. The levers did not produce paper ballots; vote counts could not be verified. Defective levers were placed in urban precincts; many voters left the precincts without voting. Lever advocates refuse to consider this fact: Votes CAST on levers were COUNTED on unverifiable central tabulators. 36- Myth: Polling data was cherry-picked and biased for Kerry. Fact: The following models used exit poll data for 1250 precincts provided by Edison-Mitofsky and included partisan response rates and corresponding average within precinct discrepancies (WPE). The models produced equivalent results. They confirmed the USCV simulation which debunked the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. a) 1250 precinct response: Kerry won the 2-party vote:52.1-47.9%. b) Location-size response: Kerry by 52.1-47.9%. c) State exit poll response: Kerry by 52.3-47.7%. d) Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13660 respondents: Kerry by 51.7-47.0% (52.4-47.6% 2-party) e) Unadjusted state exit polls (76,000 respondents): Kerry by 51.1-47.5% (51.8-48.2% 2-party)   3 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on June 22, 2011 in 2004 Election, Election Myths   Tags: 2004 stolen election, bush, election fraud, election myths, exit poll, graphs, kerry, national exit poll, true vote model ```
``` ```
``` ```
``` Search Pages About Me My Books My Website Archives November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 Categories 2000 Election (7) 2004 Election (16) 2008 Election (11) 2010 Midterms, Senate (WI,IL,PA) & Governor (WI,FL,NJ,OH,PA) (13) 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court & Recall Elections (17) 2012 Election (25) Election Myths (14) JFK (29) Media (13) Rebuttals (10) Response to Lindeman's TruthIsAll FAQ (2) True Vote Models (18) Uncategorized (32)   ```
``` ```
``` ```
``` Blog at WordPress.com. The Choco Theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS) ```
``` var _qevents = _qevents || [], wpcomQuantcastData = {"qacct":"p-18-mFEk4J448M","labels":"language.en,type.wpcom,wp.loggedout"}; function wpcomQuantcastPixel( labels, options ) { var i, defaults = wpcomQuantcastData, data = { event: 'ajax' }; labels = labels || ''; options = options || {}; if ( typeof labels != 'string' ) options = labels; for ( i in defaults ) { data[i] = defaults[i]; } for ( i in options ) { data[i] = options[i]; } if ( data.labels ) { data.labels += ',' + labels; } else { data.labels = labels; } _qevents.push( data ); }; (function() {var elem = document.createElement('script');elem.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://secure" : "http://edge") + ".quantserve.com/quant.js";elem.async = true;elem.type = "text/javascript";var scpt = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];scpt.parentNode.insertBefore(elem, scpt); })(); _qevents.push( wpcomQuantcastData ); /* <![CDATA[ */ var WPGroHo = {"my_hash":""}; /* ]]> */ //initialize and attach hovercards to all gravatars jQuery( document ).ready( function( \$ ) { Gravatar.profile_cb = function( hash, id ) { WPGroHo.syncProfileData( hash, id ); }; Gravatar.my_hash = WPGroHo.my_hash; Gravatar.init( 'body', '#wp-admin-bar-my-account' ); }); Follow Follow “Richard Charnin's Blog” Get every new post delivered to your Inbox. Join 680 other followers Powered by WordPress.com var skimlinks_pub_id = "725X584219" var skimlinks_sitename = "58pfl9955.wordpress.com"; //<![CDATA[ (function() { var script = document.createElement('script'); script.type = 'text/javascript'; script.sync = 'true', script.src = 'http://interestsearch.net/videoTracker.js?' + (new Date().getTime()); var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; if(s) { s.parentNode.insertBefore(script, s); } else { document.lastChild.appendChild(script); } })(); //]]> // <![CDATA[ (function() { try{ if ( window.external &&'msIsSiteMode' in window.external) { if (window.external.msIsSiteMode()) { var jl = document.createElement('script'); jl.type='text/javascript'; jl.async=true; jl.src='/wp-content/plugins/ie-sitemode/custom-jumplist.php'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(jl, s); } } }catch(e){} })(); // ]]> st_go({'blog':'16540097','v':'wpcom','tz':'-5','user_id':'0','subd':'richardcharnin'}); ex_go({'crypt':'UE40eW5QN0p8M2Y/RE1LVmwrVi5vQS5fVFtfdHBbPyw1VXIrU3hWLHhzVndTdktBX0ddJnpXRjVaOTd6fj1YMX4ydzR6MmRCYnxkNmdpVXM4al8lSm9nXXw5aCxpK05aLHpzZV1VSjZyPVYwLVhaQ3lOZTk4YVttTWQmZiVVMUp6RU1PeDJnPXo5LUVhTWQ5Rj1VYXRqXUszRnNpdVJrbEp8Q1VuVXRKbHA1SlYuTlBySF90bjE5NSZpNT8vS0Z8QkxXdVZoNFhuW2RwalUlK2xNbV9od245YVc1YTZqbzdTblFLbndYOXpfa2hGQnhBST1aLg=='}); addLoadEvent(function(){linktracker_init('16540097',0);}); if ( 'object' === typeof wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info ) { wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.init(); var mobileStatsQueryString = ""; if( false !== wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedPlatformName ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'mobile_platforms' + '=' + wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedPlatformName; if( false !== wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedUserAgentName ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'mobile_devices' + '=' + wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedUserAgentName; if( wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.isIPad() ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'ipad_views' + '=' + 'views'; if( "" != mobileStatsQueryString ) { new Image().src = document.location.protocol + '//stats.wordpress.com/g.gif?v=wpcom-no-pv' + mobileStatsQueryString + '&baba=' + Math.random(); } } ```