A Guide to Watching the New Hampshire Primary
Richard Charnin
Jan. 10, 2011
This is what the media wants you to believe.
First ignore the early exit polls. They will not represent the actual vote counts. The polls will probably show Ron Paul doing very well, but don’t believe them. After all, the experts tell us that it is in the bag for Romney. If Ron Paul was a viable candidate with a unique message the media would not be ignoring him.
Inevitably, as the vote counts come in, Paul’s share will decline. And the early exit polls will converge to the count. This is to be expected. The unadjusted, early polls have been shown to be grossly inaccurate in all presidential elections since 1988. And the pattern has persisted in congressional and primary elections.
Remember the 2008 NH primary?
http://richardcharnin.com/NHBeyondReasonableDoubt.htm
Obama led in all the pre-election and exit polls, but Clinton was the come from behind winner. Recall that Obama won the hand counted precincts by the same 5% margin that Hillary won the machine counts. But since there were many more voting machine precincts than hand-counted paper ballot precincts, Hillary was the clear winner.
In 2008, the unadjusted exit polls were wrong when they indicated that Obama won by 23 million votes with a 58.0% share, when his recorded margin was just 9.5 million.
In 2004, the unadjusted exit polls misled us into believing that Kerry was the winner by 5 million votes (51-47%) when it was Bush who was the winner by 3.0 million votes.
In 2000, the unadjusted state exit polls also misled us in showing that Gore was a 50-46% winner by 5-7 million votes – not by his 540,000 recorded margin.
In 1988-2008, 148 out of 300 unadjusted state exit polls exceeded the 3.0% margin of error. Of the 148, 138 overstated the Democratic share. Even though the total of all unadjusted exit polls showed that the Democrats won by 51-41%, the recorded vote was 47-45%.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/
Why should we believe the unadjusted exit polls? We must trust the media to tell us how people really voted. Systemic election fraud is a myth. If it were true, the media would have reported it, just like they reported on Acorn.
Of course, the voting machines are computers and we know that computers are not just faster than humans, they are much more accurate. That’s because the programmers know how to code algorithms to make 1+1 =2. Even though we cannot view the proprietary code, there is no reason not to accept the Diebold/ES&S machine counts as being accurate. The fact that the code is proprietary does not mean that there is something to hide.
Therefore, at the end of the evening, we can expect that the final exit polls and the vote counts will be congruent. They always are. It’s just standard operating procedure.
The correct, simple election formula is:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit poll + Exit Poll Discrepancy
But the exit polling discrepancy can be considered an estimate of the fraud component:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit Poll + Fraud Factor
Media pundits, pollsters and academics ignore election fraud, implicitly assuming that the Fraud Factor is ZERO – an unscientific, faith-based rationale for adjusting the exit poll to match the recorded vote.
Final Exit Poll = Recorded Vote
