RSS

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

28 Jun

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 1,2016

Richard Charnin

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

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

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

22 responses to “Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

  1. bruce wm sargent (@bwmsargent)

    June 28, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Scholarly conceived and beautifully written. My heartfelt thanks for the expression of your decades of study and intelligent push back. Nate Cohen and the New York Times are the Saint Louis Browns to your Brooklyn Dodgers. They shouldn’t even be on the same playing field.with you.

     
  2. fixerguy

    June 28, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    Just bookmarked this as “Exit Polling Liars Exposed” (I’m not known for being polite to liars of any sort)
    Linked cites from yourlogicalfallacyis.com might be useful in any further discussions with Nate Silver and his ilk as they all seem to make such extensive use of the #GOPdebateManual to “support” thier talking points, evasions, and obfuscations

    Thanks so much for using your skills to expose the #DamnedFacts on #DNCtreason!

     
  3. Col Pixley

    June 28, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    So if we assume exit polls are wildly unreliable, even when the question is as simple as “who did you just vote for?”, then what does that say about the reliability of the polling right now that shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by 12 points. It would seem that polling would have an equal or greater chance of wild error. So which is it? If we are not to believe exit polls, then why should we believe Hillary has a comfortable lead over Trump for the general election in November. You can’t have it both ways Nate Cohn.

     
  4. Harrison Paul

    June 28, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    OUTSTANDING, SIR!

    BRAVO!

    (Nate Cohn, whimpering, slinks away)…

     
  5. the Passion of Protest Project

    June 28, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    Reblogged this on the Passion of Protest Project.

     
  6. CarlAntoine

    June 28, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    Reblogged this on carlantoine and commented:
    #BernieSanders #FeelTheBern #OurRevolution #BernieOrBust #JillStein {#Clinton #Trump} #MSMbias #DNC #ElectionFraud #NYTimes

     
  7. tracytolmangmailcom

    June 29, 2016 at 5:23 am

    Reblogged this on blasphemous rumors.

     
  8. Nathan Gant

    June 29, 2016 at 7:56 am

    My name is Nate, too (Nathan, to be sure), and this Nate says the other two Nates(Cohn & Silver) are habituallymistaken and misconstruing the mechanics of exit polling.

    Quality control is a universal concept, it’s undeniably accurate and cost-effective with independent random sampling of a population. Which is what we have in exit polls.

    Yes, the “Red Shift” is real and it is not CT (conspiracy theory).

    Exit polls will always exceed their normal MOEs as long there is unaccountability in the software and hardware being used to tabulate the official votes. And this can be fixed by shining a light in those dark corners of political corruption.

     
  9. Debbie Bishop Lydon

    June 29, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    Hi, I have had trouble with commenting on NY Times articles…..This little 64 year old lady seems to be perceived by them as someone who should be blocked for security reasons. I did work on this with a chat person, a few minutes ago, but now……instead of a security block excuse, I am getting a blank page. In all fairness, I should try again later…..give the system a bit to catch up. Meanwhile, I am beyond infatuated with the election fraud, voter suppression, racketeering lawsuit that you filed in Ohio! Thank you! Where is the best and fastest way to get updates on the progress of the trial? Thank you!

     
      • Bev

        July 16, 2016 at 4:17 pm

        Richard, it looks like all comments are being blocked, including mine. So, I will be surprised if this takes, but thought I should show Cliff Arnebeck’s latest action which is not yet up on his facebook page which may also be being blocked:

        https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/2016/07/12/cliff-arnebeck-open-letter-to-bernie-sanders-election-lawsuit-to-be-filed-by-end-of-week/

        Cliff Arnebeck Open Letter To Bernie Sanders: Election Lawsuit to be Filed by End of Week
        Posted on July 12, 2016 by truthfirst12013

        ARNEBECK LAW OFFICE

        Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
        1021 East Broad Street
        Columbus, Ohio 43205
        clifford.arnebeck@gmail.com

        July 12, 2016

        Senator Bernie Sanders
        Via electronic mail

        Dear President-Elect Sanders,

        Congratulations on winning the overwhelming support of the American people for your candidacy to be President – not for you, but for them.

        If the pressures of these past two weeks compel you to say that you give up, it is understandable. As our expert researcher and your fellow whistleblower, Dana Jill Simpson, said at the Columbus, Ohio Broad Street Presbyterian Church last Sunday, “We crucify whistleblowers in this country.”

        However, whatever you may say in the face of the ordeal you now suffer, you have been elected to serve us. No one — especially not the king of Saudi Arabia or the highest lord of finance and media in the world — can coronate someone to reign over us.

        Exit polls are the international gold standard for measuring the integrity of election results. However, in the United States such exit polls have to be adjusted not once, but twice — before and after being taken — to compensate for the fraudulent manipulation of votes that regularly takes place. In the 2016 Democratic primary in Ohio, the end of day exit poll result showed you winning 10% more than the result recorded on our vulnerable voting machines. However, one must add back the 6% of your vote that was deducted in anticipation of fraud before the poll was taken. Thus, our experts will testify that you won, not only 10% more delegates than recorded, but the majority of the actual votes of Ohioans. And, as Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

        We will be filing suit later this week to prove in court the extent of Karl Rove’s skillful manipulation of our votes. But, more importantly in relation to the fast approaching Democratic Convention, we will be presenting to delegates and to all the people the evidence of your victory. We will be doing so over the Website “Justice Served. org,” coordinated by Summer Rose who also grew up in Brooklyn.

        Because of the importance of your election to all the people of the United States and the world, I am publishing this as an open letter. I hope that all of your supporters — Democrats, Republicans and Independents will let their voices be heard over the propaganda of the multi-millionaires and billionaires.

        Very truly yours,

        /s/ Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
        Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.

         
  10. Vic Ashley

    June 30, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    Richard,

    Thanks for taking on this fight and sticking with it point by point! One question I have — on the issue of different types of voting coming out differently for the two candidates (i.e., caucuses vs primaries, or paper ballots vs voting machine results), do you have people saying those are simply due to psychological factors, i.e., the Bernie people “liked” caucuses, because of their age or personalities, etc., or the Bernie people preferred paper ballots because they have less trust, etc., so really you are looking at psychological differences more than statistical differences? I do psychology research so this came to mind for me, and I wondered if anyone had suggested this as a factor. I tend to doubt it is, but it was interested to know what your views are on that. Of course I immediately started thinking about psychological experiments to test these . . (this may post twice – if so just delete one)

     
    • Richard Charnin

      July 1, 2016 at 12:35 am

      I don’t believe in analyzing the psychological motives of voters.
      It is pure conjecture. I deal in quantifiable facts. Period.

       
  11. donna perlmutter

    July 3, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    After reading you, Richard, and, from the “study,” the math professor emeritus (an avowed republican who would never vote for any democrat) commenting on the validity prima facie of the data, I would have to agree that Nate Cohn is a Hillary shill for the NYT. An unashamedly blatant one.

     
  12. C. James Cameron

    July 4, 2016 at 3:18 am

    https://gravatar.com/site/signup/

    I’m more of a ‘debunker’ than a conspiracy theorist but the enacting of HAVA struck me as a fairly obvious attempt to use the voter fraud bogeyman as a pretext for introducing insecure election systems that were easy to manipulate. And I realize I’ll still be accused of being a conspiracy theorist nonetheless, but I’m only echoing what the government’s experts at NIST stated long ago.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001637.html

     
  13. Nathan Gant

    July 4, 2016 at 10:10 am

    An amendment over HAVA appears to be coming from the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus.

    H.R. 5131 Verifying Optimal Tools for Elections or “VOTE” Act of 2016. by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia). It addresses the need for open-source software and cross-platform compatibility between different voting machines. No more secret software “patches” on Tuesday election days.

    Unfortunately hand-counting and exit polling are outside the scope of the act. But at least California has showed us that direct involvement by private citizens in counting and polling can be functional and made to operate outside the direct involvement of government.

    In the private sector as it exists today, exit polling is intentionally distorted by the NEP corporate consortium and Edison, to match official electronic machine results. NEP(National Election Pool) claims their exit polls are not designed and cannot be used to detect fraud. This is absurd on the face of it. It is the same as saying you can’t use sampling data on a production line to detect manufacturing defects because statistical quality control is worthless.

    Mechanical accuracy of optical-scan voting has been calculated to be 99.99%. For that reason, it’s not an problem for me and I’m not a Luddite opposed to using technology to help in vote-counting. OTOH there is nothing like statistical quality control (SQC) to monitor ‘unusual events’ and to independently measure the integrity in voting in elections. That’s where exit polling is always needed.
    .
    With large production in a factory, random sampling using a quality control process at three sigma will translate to 66.8K errors per million (93.3% accuracy). That’s where I understand most MOEs fit in under standard exit polling. That should be acceptable for most anyone to believe an election is fair and honest.

    No wonder that the USA is ranked the lowest in the world for election integrity. As reported in Brad Blog and elsewhere. Election fraud or, as the Election Defense Alliance calls it, “targeted mis-tabulation”, is very real and needs to be addressed by private citizen initiative and government action .

     
  14. Marcus Macauley

    July 20, 2016 at 12:40 pm

    The link for “To Believe Bush Won in 2004, You Must Believe…” is currently broken:
    http://www.richardcharnin.com/ToBelieveBushWon2007.htm

    In case it has not been fixed by the time you read this, here is a cached version of that page:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NPzXcDrhAXcJ:www.richardcharnin.com/ToBelieveBushWon2007.htm+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

     
  15. Pingback: Edith Hathaway

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

%d bloggers like this: