RSS

Tag Archives: nate silver

2016 Democratic Primaries: Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

2016 Democratic Primaries:  Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

Richard Charnin
June 15, 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 Exit Poll 
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

This  is an excellent analysis of the Democratic primaries from Axel Geijsel of  Tilburg University -(The Netherlands) and  Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of  Stanford University  (U.S.A.) .

The authors compare exit poll and recorded results in two groups of states : 10 with paper trails and 14 without paper. They reference my exit poll spreadsheet and CVS graphs as well as the NY Times for the recorded vote data.

I added the following  calculations to the Democratic Primaries spreadsheet  referencing the Geijsel/Barrigan spreadsheet. Sanders did nearly 15% better in the 14 states with a paper trail  than the non-paper ballot states. He won the unadjusted exit polls in the 14 states by 5.2%, but lost the reported vote by 2.7%.

10 States No Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-10 65.36% 33.30% 32.06%
2-party Reported 66.25% 33.75% 32.49%
2-party Unadjusted 62.54% 37.46% 25.08%
2-party Discrepancy 3.71% -3.71% 7.41%
14 States Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-14 50.38% 47.75% 2.63%
2-party Reported 51.34% 48.66% 2.68%
2-party Unadjusted 47.40% 52.60% -5.20%
2-party Discrepancy 3.94% -3.94% 7.88%
Paper vs. No Paper (EP) -14.91% 14.91%

Steven D  of caucus99percent.com: posted this note: This is a very long post, and contains the response of the authors of the study,“Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America,” to critics who posted highly negative and derogatory comments to my initial blog post on this matter at Booman Tribune. Unless you are a stat geek, feel free to stop reading when you reach the section marked Attachment.  

The authors  responded to critics of the analysis:

Dear Steven,
In regards to your earlier email. The criticism that you forwarded to us can be divided in two parts. The first is that we should add additional data in our appendix (most of which we have available), the second is that we shouldn’t have used the exit poll data. The former we have no qualms with and will be more than happy to include, the latter is based on faulty information, and considering the vigor with which they mention it. We could not help but feel it was drivel. Especially given the fact that they linked to a website which was authored by someone who doesn’t know absolute basics of statistics.

Some of the sources coming from media-outlets, from which most of the writers in question knowing very little about statistics (certain articles kind of shocked me). An interesting one of the mentioned sources being from Nate Silver (fivethirtyeight), where he wrote a 10-part critique about exit polling: For which he did not go unscrutinized: .

He has received earlier criticism as well from different analysts. [; . And from anecdotal reference, he has been criticized many times more before too.

In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there’s a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they’re accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play.

Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it’s the latter. Though that’s our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place.

Corroborating studies and links being: (also a criticism on some of the above mentioned);; ; ; ; ;

I hope to have provided you with enough ammunition to feel somewhat at ease.

Kind regards,

Axel Geijsel

DATA SOURCES
The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 

 
7 Comments

Posted by on June 15, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Nate Silver and Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov. 17, 2014

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

Once again, Nate Silver misdirects his readers in reviewing the 2014 elections. He claims that the polls were biased to the Democrats. He never considers that the polls were close to the true vote but that the vote counts were rigged. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

Nate Silver never discusses Election Fraud, even though it has been proven systemic. I pointed this a few years ago in a reply to his post on why we should not believe exit polls. His knowledge of exit polls was (and apparently still is) non-existent. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/

As usual Nate cites polling “bias”. But not a word about the fact that early pre-election polls include all registered voters (RVs). As we move toward Election Day, the polls are transformed to the subset of Likely Voters (LVs) – with the effect of reducing projected Democratic turnout and vote share.

The true bias is that pollsters skew the projections in order to match the expected fraudulent recorded vote. Nate Silver never considers that the RV polls are usually close to the truth – but that the LV polls are biased against the Democrats. So it’s just the opposite from Nate’s view. He believes the official vote counts are accurate, but researchers who analyze the historical record see a consistent 4-5% “red shift” to the GOP. It is absolute proof that the recorded vote counts are fraudulent and biased for the Republicans. http://electiondefensealliance.org/?q=voter_cutoff_model

Nate never discusses the fact that exit polls are always forced to match the bogus recorded vote. The pollsters admit that it is standard operating procedure. Their rationale is that the polls must always be wrong since they deviate so greatly from the recorded vote. Of course we never get to see the unadjusted exit polls until years later, if then. The 1988-2008 unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls showed that the Democrats won by an average of 52-42%. But the recorded vote had them winning by just 48-46%
I just posted the True Vote model for the Wisconsin and Florida governor races. Both races were stolen in 2014- just like they were in 2010 and the 2012 Walker recall. .

In the 2010 Florida Governor election, the unadjusted exit poll and the True Vote Model indicated that Sink won by 5%, yet Scott won the recorded vote by 1%. In 2014, Scott won again. The 2-party vote shares were identical! Scott had 50.59% in 2010 and 50.58% in 2014! A coincidence? Hardly.The Florida 2014 Exit Poll indicates a 31-35-33 Dem-Rep-Ind split (over-weighted for Republicans) with 91% of Dems voting for Crist, 88% of Repubs voting for Scott. Crist won Independents by 46-44%. When we change the split to a more plausible 34-33-33, Crist is the winner by 49.4-45.6%. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

In the 2014 Wisconsin Governor election, a True Vote analysis indicates that Walker stole the election, just like the recall in 2012. View the True Vote analysis: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/wisconsin-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

The easiest way to understand that our elections are fraudulent is to look at the 2004 presidential election. According to the adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (as posted on major media sites), there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 2004 electorate) and 37% returning Gore voters. Recall that Gore won the popular vote by 540,000. Gore won the unadjusted exit polls by 50-45% (he actually won the True Vote by 3-5 million).

But Bush had only 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and one million did not return. Therefore, there were at least 5 million (52.6-47.5) phantom Bush voters. The exit pollsters had to adjust the unadjusted, pristine National Exit poll which showed Kerry a 52-47% winner to make Bush a 51-48% winner. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters to match the recorded vote. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/fixing-the-exit-polls-to-match-the-policy/

And finally, here is the ultimate proof of systemic election fraud. In the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the polls by 52-42%, exactly matching my True Vote Model. But they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%. Of the 274 exit polls 135 exceeded the margin of error, 131 in favor of the Republican. The probability P of that discrepancy is E-116 or
P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000001.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

Take anything from Nate Silver with a BIG GRAIN OF SALT. He never mentions PROVEN ELECTION FRAUD . And don’t forget that he had the gall to rank famous pollster Zogby dead last in his evaluation of pollsters a number of years back while ranking dedicated GOP pollsters at the top.

I have written several open-letter posts for Nate. He has not responded to any.

1. An Open Letter to Nate Silver http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
2. An Open Letter to Nate Silver (Part 2) http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
3.Twenty-five Questions for Nate Silver http://richardcharnin.com/TwentySilver.htm
4.A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls” https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/
5. Zogby vs. Silver: 1996-2008 True vs. Recorded Vote Pollster Rankings http://richardcharnin.com/SilverRankings.htm

The bottom line: Nate works for the major corporate media which is not interested in divulging why pre-election and exit pollsters adjust the polls to match fraudulent vote counts. They will never plead guilty.

This is a summary of my track record in forecasting the 1988-2012 presidential elections, unadjusted exit polls and True Vote Models. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 17, 2014 in Election Myths, Media, Rebuttals

 

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

A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”

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, 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.

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.

Are you asking us to ignore a) the final adjusted exit polls which are ALWAYS forced to match the recorded vote or b) the unadjusted, preliminary state and national exit polls? If it’s (a), then you must believe that election fraud is systemic since the pristine, unadjusted exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote, even if it is 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 came up with ten reasons why you 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, 135 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 135, 131 “red-shifted” to the Republican and  just 4 to the Democrat. The probability is E-116. Can you explain it?
P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000000000 00000000000 0000000000 000000000 0000001.

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

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 17, 2012 in Media, Rebuttals

 

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

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

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

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Nov. 28, 2011
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/election-myths/

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.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/newspapers-endorsement-has-been-leading-indicator-in-new-hampshire/

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.
________________________________________________________________________________

2008

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:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530
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
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=749

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.
http://www.thelandesreport.com/NewHampshirePrimary.htm

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%
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603162038/www.livejournal.com/users/explodedview/1389.html

________________________________________________________________________________

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.
http://www.tarpley.net/bush22.htm

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 28, 2011 in Media

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis