Media Avoidance of the Election Fraud Factor: the New Hampshire Primary

28 Nov

Media Avoidance of the Election Fraud Factor: the New Hampshire Primary

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Nov. 28, 2011

The Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest newspaper, endorsed Newt Gingrich for president.

Nate Silver just posted: “Newspaper’s Endorsement Has Been Leading Indicator in New Hampshire”. The article deserves some commentary as it illustrates how the media avoids the issue of election fraud.

Nate wrote: “The endorsement represents one of the most tangible signs of parts of the conservative establishment coming around to Mr. Gingrich, who to date has received very few endorsements from Republican elected officials. It also represents a blow to Mitt Romney, who had led all polls of the state. But does the endorsement tell us anything about how New Hampshire Republicans are likely to vote? Or is it just fodder for a slow news day?”

But even the results of the NH primary will not tell us how people actually voted. Nate never considers the history of New Hampshire Primary Election Fraud in his model.

Silver compares how the Republican candidate endorsed by The Union Leader finished in each of the past six competitive New Hampshire primaries to polling numbers at the time of the endorsement. He finds that “although only three of the six Republicans endorsed by The Union Leader during this period won their primary, all six outperformed their polling”. He notes that that “on average candidates have some tendency to improve in the actual voting from their poll standing because the polls include undecided voters, whereas everyone who actually votes will have to choose a candidate”.

That is very true. Undecided voters do finally decide when they vote. We already know that.

Nate wanted to “check whether the results could be attributable to random noise”. So he ran a “simple regression analysis that explains a candidate’s share of the vote in New Hampshire as a function of whether or not he was endorsed by The Union Leader and his polling average at the time.”

Like all election forecasters in the mainstream media, Nate uses the recorded vote share in his model. He does not consider the Election Fraud Variable Factor. He ignores this basic identity:
Recorded Vote = True Vote + Election Fraud Factor.

Nate has an accounting degree, so he is surely aware of the analogous accounting identity:
Total Assets = Equity + Liabilities

Nate determined that “The Union Leader’s endorsement has been highly statistically significant in helping to explain the voting results. Consistent with the simpler averaging method that we used before, it pegs the endorsement as having roughly an 11-percentage-point impact”. But Nate cautions: “Nevertheless, there are a couple of very important cautions as to its broader significance. First, it does not necessarily imply causation. It is unlikely that a candidate wins as much as an additional 11 percent of the vote simply because The Union Leader endorses him. Instead, it may be more of a leading indicator for how actual New Hampshire voters will think about the candidates once they finish sorting through them. That is, it replicates in some way the thinking process that some segment of New Hampshire voters will go through, whether or not they pay any attention to The Union Leader itself. More broadly, the endorsement may serve as a proxy for various sorts of intangible qualities that may help a candidate to perform strongly in New Hampshire but that are not necessarily reflected in the early polls of the state”.

How voters will think after sorting through them? Thinking process of the voters? Intangible qualities? He needs to KISS and state that voters have not made up their minds. But even when they do, will it matter when the NH Election Fraud machine goes to work? What Nate should do is run a sensitivity analysis based on various undecided voter scenarios. Now that would be useful.

“Second, this finding is drawn from only six historical elections. As I often remind our readers, a regression analysis on historical data is not really the same thing as a prediction of how these factors will play out in the future. Fairly often, a relationship that is found to be highly statistically significant in past data will prove to be unreliable when applied out-of-sample”.

That is just a fancy way of saying that past performance does not guarantee future results. It’s like the standard caveat in a stock-picking or sport-betting system. What is the purpose of a regression analysis if not as a guide to predict the future? Why bother to do it in the first place? Silver ranks pollsters based on past “performance” in projecting a bogus recorded vote using Likely Voter (LV) polls. And the most biased pollsters are at the top of his rankings. The best, Zogby, is at the bottom.

Nate concludes: “Nevertheless, this is a pretty good sign for Mr. Gingrich. If you do take the results of the regression analysis to be tantamount to a prediction, they imply that New Hampshire could be quite close, with Mr. Romney finishing with 36 percent of the vote and Mr. Gingrich at 30 percent. What I think is fair to say is that Mr. Gingrich would at least have a shot at winning New Hampshire if he also wins Iowa, a result that could be devastating to Mr. Romney’s campaign”.

Yes, the primary could be quite close. Or maybe it won’t be close. We already know that. But why is it that Nate never mentions New Hampshire’s not-so-glorious history of Election Fraud?

Let’s take a look at some historical facts regarding the New Hampshire Primary.


Clinton was expected to win the Iowa caucuses but lost to Obama and Edwards. If Clinton lost in New Hampshire, she would have been out of the running. The 20 final pre-election polls had Obama winning by an average of 8% over Clinton. The early exit polls also had Obama winning by 8%. As in 2004 and 2006, the average of the final pre-election polls matched the unadjusted exit polls.

But Hillary won NH in a major upset. Obama won the hand-counted precincts by 5.90% but lost the machine-counts by the same margin -and there were many more votes counted by machine.

There were the usual tortured explanations from the mainstream media explaining why the polls were “wrong”. But Election Fraud was not one of them. The Final Exit poll was forced to match an implausible vote count. Of course, an uninformed public believes whatever the media tells them. There were the usual rationalizations to explain the astounding pre-election and exit poll discrepancies. The media mantra was that Clinton’s emotional plea on the evening before the election gave her the late undecided and sympathetic voters (mostly women).

Date Pollster Sample Mix MoE BO HRC JE

106 Str Vision 600 9.7% 4.0% 38 29 19
106 USA/Gallup 778 12.6% 3.5% 41 28 19
106 CBS News 323 5.2% 5.5% 35 28 19
106 Marist 636 10.3% 3.9% 36 28 22

106 CNN 599 9.7% 4.0% 39 30 16
107 Rasmussen 774 28.7% 2.3% 37 30 19
107 Zogby 862 14.0% 3.3% 42 29 17
107 ARG 600 9.7% 4.0% 40 31 20

Total 6172 100% 1.25% 38.6 29.3 18.8
Recorded 36.9 39.5 17.1

Optical Scan
Clinton 91,717 52.9507%
Obama 81,495 47.0493%
Total 173,212 79.60%

Hand Count
Clinton 20,889 47.0494%
Obama 23,509 52.9506%
Total 44,398 20.40%

Given that Obama won 52.9506% of the hand-counted votes, what was the probability that Clinton would win 52.9506% of the optical scan votes? These are real votes, not samples, so we can derive an estimate of the probability of voting machine fraud without considering a statistical margin of error. We KNOW exactly WHAT happened. We don’t know WHY or HOW. But we can calculate a fair estimate of the probability that the result was just a coincidence or due to the miscounting of votes. One might be tempted to say that the probability is 1 in 173,212 since there were exactly 173,212 joint optical scan ballots. But that would be unrealistic.

We need to consider a plausible range of outcomes. Let’s assume that Clinton could expect somewhere between 45%-55% of the 173,212 votes. That is a plausible 10% range of 17,321 possible outcomes, from 77,945 to 95,267. Given the range of 17,321 possible outcomes, what was the probability HRC would get exactly 91,717 votes due to chance alone? The approximate probability that it was just a coincidence is 1 in 17,321.

Now we will try a different approach: calculate the probability based on the exit poll discrepancy. Given that Obama led the poll at 8pm by 39-36%, what was the probability that HRC would win the official vote by at least 3% (39-36%)? Assume that the exit poll margin of error was 1.5%. The Excel normal distribution function calculates the probability that the discrepancy was due to chance: Probability = normdist (.39, .36, .015/1.96, true) = 0.0044% or 1 in 22,577.

Was it the voting machines? This is from Bradblog:
Brad wrote:
“I’m not sure why Obama would have conceded so soon, given the virtually inexplicable turn of events in New Hampshire tonight. What’s going on here? Before proceeding, I recommend you read the third section of the post I just ran an hour or so ago, concerning the way the ballots are counted in New Hampshire, largely on Diebold optical-scan voting systems, wholly controlled and programmed by a very very bad company named LHS Associates.. Those Diebold op-scan machines are the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy. See the previous report, as I recommend, which also includes a video of that hack, and footage of the guy who runs LHS Associates”.

2008 Republican Primary

Ron Paul had 15% of the Hand-counted precincts. This would have placed him in 3rd place, just as the pre-election polls indicated. Not a single hand count township showed less than 10%. Supposedly, Ron Paul got 8% – this does not make sense. Why such a variation from the machine counts?

Was it because of the the Chain of Custody Scam?


2004 Democratic Primary

Lynn Landes is the publisher of The Landes Report and a freelance journalist who writes about politics, health, and the environment. She’s one of the nation’s leading researchers and analysts on voting integrity issues.

Lynn writes:
“Consider New Hampshire’s much ballyhooed recount system, where election officials claim that they almost never find any problem with the voting machines. But they wouldn’t, would they? After all, their recount system is after the fact, after the polls have closed and ballots have been transported to a central facility. It’s a system that allows plenty of time to substitute real ballots with fraudulent ones. It’s also interesting to note that New Hampshire does not conduct election day audits at the polls, as a rule. Now that’s something that stands a chance of discovering fraud or errors.

And, consider New Hampshire’s own history of producing questionable election results. Remember Howard Dean? In a 2004 article, Questions Mount Over New Hampshire’s Primary, I wrote, “Martin Bento published online an interesting analysis of New Hampshire’s election results based on the voting systems used. It’s been getting a lot of attention.” According to Bento’s analysis of state data, Howard Dean’s loss to John Kerry had a disturbing correlation to how votes were counted. Below are the percentages by which Kerry’s vote exceeded Dean’s, grouped by tallying method”.

Voting Margin of Victory of Kerry over Dean
Diebold 58.1%
ES&S 35.0%
Hand 4.7%


Lynn also discusses the 1988 Republican Primary:

“But, suspicion of vote fraud in New Hampshire’s presidential primary goes back further. In George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, they wrote, “When Bush had arrived in Manchester the night of the disastrous Iowa result, Sununu had promised a nine point victory for Bush in his state. Oddly enough, that turned out to be exactly right. The final result was 38% for Bush, 29% for Dole, 13% for Kemp, 10% for DuPont, and 9% for Robertson. Was Sununu a clairvoyant? Perhaps he was, but those familiar with the inner workings of the New Hampshire quadrennials are aware of a very formidable ballot-box stuffing potential assembled there by the blueblood political establishment. Some observers pointed to pervasive vote fraud in the 1988 New Hampshire primaries, and Pat Robertson, as we shall see, also raised this possibility. The Sununu machine delivered exactly as promised, securing the governor the post of White House chief of staff. Sununu soon became so self-importantly inebriated with the trappings of the imperial presidency as reflected in his travel habits that it was suggested that the state motto appearing on New Hampshire license plates be changed from “Live Free or Die” to “Fly Free or Die.” In any case, for Bush the heartfelt “Thank You, New Hampshire” he intoned after his surprising victory signaled that his machine had weathered its worst crisis.

1 Comment

Posted by on November 28, 2011 in Media


Tags: , , ,

One response to “Media Avoidance of the Election Fraud Factor: the New Hampshire Primary

  1. S. Merel

    November 29, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Re: the 1988 New Hampshire Republican Primary, see also Chapter One, “Electronic Hoodwink,” of the book, Votescam – The Stealing of America, by James and Kenneth Collier, the product of a 25-year in-depth investigation of vote fraud in America. A point of interest, the book also notes that evidence of election fraud, compiled by the authors, was on a desk awaiting reading by its intended recipient at the Watergate Hotel on the night of the infamous break-in.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: