Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 1,2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Ever since the 2000 election, exit poll naysayers have stated a) Edison Research claims that their exit polls aren’t designed to detect fraud; b) the sample size is too small and c) the questions are too lengthy and complex. 

Sample size? Big enough so that the MoE was exceeded in 12 of 25 Democratic primary exit polls – a 1 in 4 trillion probability. Questions too lengthy? You mean asking males and females who they voted for? Not designed to detect fraud?  That is true;  unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the corrupt recorded vote – and cover up the fraud

In his recent NY Times article,  Nate Cohn reverts to classic exit poll naysayer talking points that have been debunked long ago. I thought I was done debunking their posts.

Nate must be unaware of this fact: According to a recent Harvard study, the US ranks last (#47)  in election integrity. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/land-free-ranks-dead-west-fair-elections/

According to Nate, the exit polls are always wrong. He maintains that they were wrong in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that Bush won both elections fairly; there was no fraud. It is common knowledge that Bush stole both elections. This has been proven by  the mathematically impossible exit poll discrepancies, the True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote Share analysis. Unadjusted exit polls were close to the True Vote. The discrepancies were due to corrupted vote counts, not bad polling. 

It is important to keep in mind that historical  evidence of fraud is based on a recurring pattern: The vast majority of exit polls that exceed the margin of error  favor the progressive candidate. Virtually all exit polls shift to the establishment candidate in the recorded vote. 

Nate ignores or is ignorant of the overwhelming evidence proving that the Democratic primary was stolen. He cannot refute these facts:  

– Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  

– Sanders exit poll share exceed his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 11 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? Let’s review and debunk Nate’s comments.

• I didn’t write about this during the primary season, since I didn’t want to dignify the views of conspiracy theorists. But they’re still going. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate.

Note the immediate use of the term conspiracy theorist; a sure sign of an Internet troll. But Nate is not a troll; he’s writing for the NY Times.

• All of this starts with a basic misconception: that the exit polls are usually pretty good. I have no idea where this idea comes from, because everyone who knows anything about early exit polls knows that they’re not great. The 2000,2004, 2008- exit polls were biased. Kerry and Gore both lost.

• In 2004,  the exit polls showed John Kerry easily winning an election he clearly lost — with both a huge error and systematic bias outside of the “margin of error.” The national exits showed Kerry ahead by three points (and keep in mind the sample size on the national exit is vastly larger than for a state primary exit poll) and leading in states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida — which all went to George W. Bush.

• Kerry clearly won. It wasn’t even close. Nate believes the exit polls were wrong and that Bush won fairly. These posts prove that Kerry won.
• 2004: Overwhelming Statistical Proof of a Stolen Election
• 2004: Simple Arithmetic Proof that Bush Stole the election
• To believe Bush won in 2004 you must believe…

• The story was similar in 2000. The early exit polls showed Al Gore winning Alabama, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina. Mr. Bush won these states by between six and 15 points.  

•  Al Gore clearly won. It wasn’t even close. Once again, Nate believes that the exit polls were wrong and that Bush won fairly. 
• 2000: Unadjusted Exit Polls indicate Gore won by 51-45% (5-7 million votes)

• In 2008 the exit polls showed a pretty similar bias toward Barack Obama.

• Obama’s landslide was denied by massive fraud.
• 2008: To believe Obama won by just 9.5 million-votes,,,
• Proof that Obama won by much more than 9.5 million votes
• 2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls Confirm the True Vote Model

• The same thing happened in 1996. It was actually even worse in 1992. The exit polls had Bill Clinton winning Texas, which went to George H.W. Bush, and basically everywhere. 

Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 by far greater margins than  recorded.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EWaKPDUolqbN7_od8sSTNMRObfUidlVPRBxeyyirbLM/edit#gid=15

The allegations are remarkably consistent. They go like this: Mr. Sanders did better in the early exit polls than he did in the final result. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton probably stole the election. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate and “well controlled” (where this phrase comes from, I don’t know).  Sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll: Differential non-response, Cluster effects, Absentee voters aren’t included  Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. 

The  differential response canard was disproved in 2004 by the exit pollsters own data:
Reluctant Bush Responder; Evaluation of Edison Mitofsky Election System 2004

Nate claims he has no idea where the  “misconception” that exit polls are accurate comes from.  They come from the experts cited below –  not from the controlled MSM. Nate calls these experts “conspiracy theorists”; his basic misconception is assuming  there is no such thing as Election Fraud. 

Nate states that the sources of exit poll errors are greater than in “ordinary” polls. His claim that exit poll non-response, cluster effect and absentee voters are not considered is false;  these factors are used in weighting the sample.  An exit poll cluster effect (typically 30%) is added to the theoretical margin of error. And of course, in an exit poll,  unlike pre-election polls, voters are asked who they just voted for.

What about sources and methods of election fraud? What is the motivation of  the MSM in forcing the unadjusted exit polls to match corrupted vote counts?

• Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. With this kind of history, you can see why no one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do.

Nate expects rational viewers to believe that experts who study exit polls are conspiracy theorists because they have concluded that the polls are indicators of fraud. Does he truly believe these experts are delusional and/or incompetent in assuming that exit poll discrepancies (which exceed the margin of error) raise legitimate questions as to the likelihood of fraud? 

Pollsters ask males and females in foreign countries the question “Who Did You Vote For” to check for possible election fraud.  They ask the same question in the U.S. The difference is that here they essentially cover-up the fraud by adjusting the responses to match the recorded vote – and always assume ZERO fraud.

• Why are exit polls tilted toward Sanders? Young voters are far more likely to complete the polls. Voter registration files are just starting to be updated. Sanders is a candidate with historic strength among young voters.

That is pure conjecture  and not based on factual evidence. But this is not conjecture: more Sanders than Clinton voters (young and old)  were disenfranchised. But Nate doesn’t mention that fact?  What about all of those independents and Democrats who never got to the polls because of  voided registrations, long lines and closing of polling places?

• There are other challenges with exit polls in the primaries. Usually, the exit polls select precincts by partisanship — ensuring a good balance of Democratic and Republican precincts. This helps in a general election. It doesn’t do as much good in a primary.

Nate does not know how the precincts were selected. It’s proprietary information.   Why won’t the exit pollsters tell us which precincts were polled ? Since they don’t, we must assume they have something to hide. The pollsters (actually the MSM) do not want analysts to compare precinct votes to the exit poll response. It’s clear that they might find discrepancies which indicate a high probability of vote miscounts.

Exit poll naysayers won’t dare mention the THIRD-RAIL of American politics:  Election Fraud.  They do not even concede that election fraud is a likely cause of the exit poll discrepancies. They just assume the exit polls are always wrong and that there is no such thing as Election Fraud. How ridiculous is that?

 Election Fraud is as American as apple pie. Read what the true experts have to say who you arrogantly dismiss as Conspiracy Theorists. The true conspiracy is not a theory but a fact: the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

Election experts:

• Prof. Michael Keefe: The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio
• Prof. Michael Keefer: Footprints of Electoral Fraud
• Prof. Michael Keefer: Election Fraud in America
• Prof. Keefer: Evidence of Fraud in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election: A Reader
• Prof. Michael Keefer: 2006 US Midterms: Another Stolen Election? 
• Bob Fitrakis: Missing Votes in Ohio 2006 Midterms
• Bob Fitrakis:  new evidence on the 2004 Ohio stolen election
  Bob Fitrakis: Court filing reveals the 2004 Ohio presidential election was hacked
• Greg Palast: Kerry Won
• Greg Palast: Recipe for a Cooked Election 
• Jonathan Simon, Election Defense Alliance: Landslide Denied
• Thom Hartmann: Evidence Mounts that the Vote May Have Been Hacked
• Professor Steven F. Freeman: The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy
• Prof. John Allen Paulos: Final Tallies – Exit Polls: A Statistical Mystery
• Robert Koehler: Silent Scream of The Numbers
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
• Mark Crispin Miller: None Dare Call It Stolen
• Mark Crispin Miller: Some Might Call it Treason – An Open Letter to Salon
• Ernest Partridge: Bush Wins Florida – NOT
• Michael Collins: The Urban Legend
• Sheila Parks: 2011 Wisconsin Uprising: The New Florida and Ohio?

Debunking exit poll naysayers:

An Open Letter to Salon’s Farhad Manjoo
An Open Letter to John Fund (WSJ): Election Fraud, not Voter Fraud
An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com
Debunking Mark Blumenthal’s Critique of the RFK Rolling Stone Article
Response to the Mark Lindeman’s TruthIsAll FAQ
A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”
2016 Election fraud: Response to Joshua Holland 
Bob Fitrakis: flunking Joshua Holland in Stat 101

Election fraud posts since 2004:

Mathematical Modeling of Voting Systems and Elections: Theory and Applications
Why Won’t the National Election Pool Release Unadjusted Exit Polls?
Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media
Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries
Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis
April 4 Exit poll anomalies (continued)

NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY Democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

AZ primary: Voter suppression in Maricopa County
Super Tuesday: 5 Democratic primaries, exit poll discrepancies/win-probabilities
MI primary: Bernie did better than the recorded share indicates
MA Democratic primary; a stolen election

1988-2008 unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: 52-42% Democratic margin

1988-2012 Presidential Election Fraud Exit Poll Database
2004: Overwhelming Statistical Proof of a Stolen Election
Election Fraud Analysis: A Historical Overview
Election Fraud: An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis
Perspectives on an Exit Poll Reference Text

2014 Governor Election Models: TVM, CVS, VTM, Census votes cast
A Compendium of Election Fraud Links
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media

Footprints of Election Fraud: 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies
Monte Carlo Simulation: 2004 Presidential Pre-election and Exit Polls
An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis not required
The unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: closing the book on “False Recall”
True Vote Graphics

Unadjusted Exit Poll Probability Analysis Links
Election Fraud: Uncertainty, Logic and Probability
A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud
2000-2012: Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
2004: Simple Arithmetic Proof that Bush Stole the election

2004: The “Game” Debate
Why did the Networks Cancel Exit Polls in 19 States?
2000: Unadjusted Exit Polls indicate Gore won by 51-45% (5-7 million votes)
2004: True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis: Kerry Landslide
A Conversation about the 2004 Election

Simple Numerical Proof of 2004 Election Fraud
Returning 2000 and New Voters: Proof that Kerry Won
Online Book: Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide
2008: To believe Obama by just 9.5 million-votes,,,

Proof that Obama won by much more than 9.5 million votes
2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls Confirm the True Vote Model
1988-2008 State Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Analysis
The True Vote Model:  A Mathematical Formulation

True Vote Model: Probability Sensitivity Analysis
An Introduction to the True Vote Model
Election Fraud Quiz
Election Fraud Quiz II