RSS

Tag Archives: Obama

Russian tampering with the election?

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
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

Russian tampering with the election? Who do you believe: Hillary Clinton, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc…Or these guys?

– CIA veteran Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RhziSn_lcE

– Julian Assange. Russians did not leak. He has never been wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhgVnn_vH5k

–  Barack Obama. In his last press conference said it was a leak, not a hack. http://www.globalresearch.ca/stunning-admission-from-obama-on-wikileaks-dnc-emails-leaked-but-not-hacked/5569807

–  William Binney,. NSA system developer. If the Russians hacked there would be evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q92IsbG-O1w

– Robert David Steel, former CIA case officer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhgtg-4EU8U&feature=youtu.be

– Craig Murray, UK ambassador, met the DNC leaker (7:00 mark). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3DvaVrRweY

– John McAfee, Cyber-security expert. No Russian Hack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7t5zbKnvQk

– Ben Swann, Reality Check: 5 problems with CIA claim that Russian hacked the election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNIrPLHVfdI

– Ben Swann, Reality Check: Fake news from Washington Post that Russia hacked the Vermont Power Grid. Never happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qSrprBYdxA

– Glenn Greenwald, on the lack of evidence in the Washington Post CIA leaks. https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 31, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

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: , , , , , , , , , ,

2008 Primary Election Fraud: A Statistical Analysis

Richard Charnin
Mar. 14, 2016

This is a May 10, 2008 post I wrote  during the 2008 Democratic primaries in which Clinton ran against Obama.  It is interesting and instructive to compare 2008 to the recent analysis of the 2016  MA and MI  Democratic primaries. 

Hillary thought she would have the nomination locked up by Super Tuesday, Feb.5. The GOP wanted to run against her from the start. They knew that they couldn’t beat Edwards in the GE, so they made sure that he would be out of the race if they got the media to ignore him. But Obama proved to be a much tougher opponent than either the GOP or Clinton ever expected.

So now Clinton and the GOP are doing everything they can to prop up Hillary and derail Obama. Beginning with her miraculous New Hampshire “win”, there has been an ongoing effort to pad her votes at Obama’s expense. Rovian tactics are being used to divide and conquer: it’s the only way that McCain can win. The media does not discuss the many indications of election fraud.

Primaries, Caucuses and Exit Polls

In the 21 primaries exit polled, Obama led by 50.4-45.8% . But Clinton led by  48.4-47.1% in the recorded vote – a  5.9% discrepancy . The margin discrepancy exceeded 13% in 5 states. The exit poll vote shift favored Clinton in 18 of the 21 primaries. The 2.5% margin of error was exceeded in 11 states. The probability that the discrepancies would be due to chance is effectively zero.

Obama does much better in human-counted caucuses than in machine-counted primaries. Texas is a perfect example. There was a 30% difference in Obama’s margin between the primaries (49-47%) and the caucuses (66-34%).  His recorded vote margin is dwarfed by his lead in the exit polls. But that’s not unexpected; the progressive (i.e. Democratic) candidate always does better in the exit polls than in the vote count due to  uncounted and switched votes.  The exit poll discrepancies would be expected to be equally distributed  between the two parties. The fact that they virtually always move in favor of the most conservative candidate indicates likely fraud.

Obama currently leads Clinton by over 700,000 in the recorded vote and by over 160 in pledged delegates. But if the exit polls and caucuses reflect the True Vote, he would be leading by more than 1.5 million votes. That would make a tremendous difference in his pledged delegate margin.Obama would be the nominee right now were it not for election fraud.

For Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates, she needs 93% of the vote in the remaining primaries. But if Obama wins 50%, he will need just 22% of the 256 uncommitted super delegates to clinch the nomination. Since Super Tuesday there has been a steady trend in SDs to Obama.

Exit polls are adjusted to conform with the actual recorded vote tally, even if it is corrupted. The WPE is the difference in the average precinct exit poll margin and the recorded vote margin. In Jan. 2005 exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky reported that Kerry led the unadjusted exit polls by 51.8-47.2. There was a 7% difference (WPE) between Kerry 4.6% margin and Bush’s 2.4% (50.7-48.3) recorded vote margin.

Operation Chaos

Just before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries, Rush Limbaugh called for “Operation Chaos” to get Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton. Since March 4, there have been two sets of Republican crossover voters. The first set consists of Republican moderates who voted 2-1 for Obama. The second consists of Operation Chaos Republicans who voted for Clinton.

Final Exit poll data shows that since March 4, the percentage of Republican crossover voters has increased from 6% to 9%. The change has been totally to Clinton’s benefit. Assuming the first 6% of Republicans voted 59-28% for Obama, the other 3% (150,000) were Operation Chaos crossovers who voted 100% for Clinton!

Prior to March 4, Obama won the seven primaries in which Republicans participated by an average 57-38% vote. He won the Republican vote by 59-28%. Since March 4, Clinton has won the average vote by 51-47% and Republicans by 57-41%. Prior to March 4, Obama won the total vote by 50.1-45.6%. Since March 4, Clinton is leading by 50.8-47.8%.

Operation Chaos was one factor that may have caused Obama to lose the Texas primary by 51-47%. It definitely caused his 50.6-49.4% defeat in Indiana. Of course, the effect on pledged delegates was minimal.

New Hampshire

The Final pre-election polls (3-4% MoE) gave Obama an average 8% margin over HRC.  The early (unadjusted) exit poll had Obama winning by 8%. He won New Hampshire hand-counts by 5.90% but lost machine-counts by exactly the same margin.

South Carolina

Even though he finished third, Edwards would have done better in the general election than either Clinton or Obama.

Super Tuesday

Just like the 2004 battleground states exit poll red-shift to Bush, Clinton’s recorded vote share in 14 of 16 primaries exceeded her exit poll share. In New York, over 80 precincts, many in black areas, recorded Zero votes for Obama. Mayor Bloomberg called it fraud. In Los Angeles, 90,000 independent votes were uncounted due to the confusing ballot design (shades of the infamous Florida 2000 “Butterfly” which cost Gore over 3,000 votes).

Ohio

Clinton’s vote share exceeded her 9pm exit poll share by 3.6% (55.2-51.6%). She won the recorded vote by 10.6% (55.3-44.7%) over Obama.  But her exit poll margin was just 3.4% (51.7-48.3%).  As always, the Final Exit Poll was adjusted to match the vote count. In addition, there isconcrete evidence that Republican cross-over voters played a significant role in delivering votes to Clinton. In Cuyahoga County 17,000 Republicans followed Rush Limbaugh’s advice and voted for her. And this was also the case in many other counties.

Texas

There was a strange, impossible result: Zero votes were cast for Republicans in 21 counties (all 36,239 ballots cast were for Democrats). Zero votes were cast for Democrats in 3 counties (all 1865 ballots cast were for Republicans).  Did Republicans follow Rush Limbaugh’s advice and cross over to vote for Clinton?  We can assume that crossovers, even if not 100%, occurred in other counties.

Mississippi

Obama won by 61-37%, but 25% of Clinton’s votes came from Republicans who followed the advice of Rush Limbaugh. Obama won 65% of Democrats and Independents.

Pennsylvania

Here dirty tricks caused votes (and pledged delegates) to be stolen from Obama. Hillary won the recorded vote by 54.7-45.3%. But 100% of the votes were machine-counted. The unadjusted, “pristine” early exit poll had Obama leading 52-47%. His 5% exit poll margin became a 9% recorded vote loss. Clinton led the adjusted exit poll by 52-47. The Final exit poll matched the recorded vote 54-45.

Indiana

The latest media myth is that Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos had no effect on the Indiana primary. Their argument is that the Clinton-Obama (53-47) share of the 10% Republican crossover vote is virtually the same as the split in the total vote. Clinton won by 50.6-49.4%, but Operation Chaos Republican crossovers inflated her vote by 4%. Obama should have been a 51.5-48.5% winner.

The Delegate Calculator is an Excel worksheet model for projecting the total number delegates.

“Managing Electoral Dynamics via Covert Vote-Count Manipulation”, a June 2008 Scoop article written by Jonathan Simon and Bruce O’Dell for the Election Defense Alliance, comes to similar conclusions regarding the stolen primaries: “We present evidence supporting the hypothesis that systematic attempts are being made to manipulate the results of the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest, through overt means such as crossover voting by non-Democrats, and through covert means targeted at the electronic vote tabulation process itself. The net effect has been to prolong the nomination battle and sharpen its negativity, thereby boosting the prospects of the Republican nominee and making more plausible his “victory” in November-either by an honest count or through continued exploitation of the proven security vulnerabilities in American voting systems”.

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 (E-book)
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 14, 2016 in 2008 Election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

Richard Charnin
Jan.23, 2016

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

Election Fraud and the Media

The media wants you to ignore the Unadjusted exit polls because they claim that they do not represent the actual vote counts.

The media maintains that ADJUSTED exit polls will always converge to the recorded vote count which they want you to believe is always accurate.

The media claims that the unadjusted exit polls have been shown to be grossly inaccurate in all presidential elections since 1988. And the pattern has persisted in congressional and primary elections.

The media claims that the recorded votes are official and  tell us how people really voted and that we should not believe the unadjusted exit polls. Systemic election fraud is a myth. If it were true, the media would have reported it, just like they reported on Acorn.

The National Election Pool claims that the number of states exit polled in 2012 was cut to 31 because of lack of funds and expect us to believe this canard.

The media lauds voting machines, claiming they are faster and more accurate than humans. But the media does not tell you that programmers know how to code 1+1 =3.

Even though we cannot view the proprietary software code, we should accept the Diebold machine counts as being accurate. The fact that the code is proprietary does not mean that there is something to hide.

Media pundits, pollsters and academics ignore election fraud, implicitly assuming that the Fraud Factor is ZERO – an unscientific, faith-based rationale for adjusting exit polls to match the recorded vote.

The media wants you to believe that the exit polls are always wrong:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit poll + Exit Poll error
Final Exit Poll = Recorded Vote

The media does not want you to know that the recorded vote is fraudulent:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit Poll + Fraud Factor

The corporate media says that in 2008, Obama won the recorded vote by 9.5 million with a 53% share. But the media never mentioned that the unadjusted state exit polls indicated that Obama won by 23 million votes with a 58.0% share. Or that he won the National Exit Poll of 17,836 respondents with 61% and a 30 million vote margin.

In 2004, the corporate media claimed that Bush was the winner by 3.0 million votes and that the exit polls “behaved badly” and misled us into believing that Kerry was the winner by at least 6 million votes (52-47%).

In 2000, the media failed to mention that the unadjusted state exit polls showed that Gore was a 50-46% winner by 5 million votes – not his 540,000 recorded margin. And that Gore had at least 70% of 175,000 uncounted, spoiled ballots in Florida.

These facts have NEVER been disclosed by the media:
1) In 1988-2008, 135 of 274 unadjusted state exit polls exceeded the margin of error, of which 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The joint probability of this occurrence is ONE in TRILLIONS.  That’s ZERO.

2) The unadjusted 1988-2008 State and National exit polls showed the Democrats won by 52-42%. They won the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability is ZERO.

The media claims it is all just “voodoo math” by conspiracy theorists. But the media never did the math  since it would reveal that state and national unadjusted exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote results in ZERO probabilities – proving systemic election fraud.

The media would rather maintain the myth of fair elections than actually investigate..

 
 

Tags: , , , , ,

Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote

Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote

Richard Charnin
Jan. 14, 2013

In previous posts, we have noted the dramatic 7% difference between Obama’s Election Day and late recorded vote share in both 2008 and 2012. This analysis shows that third-party late shares were more than double the Election Day shares – a virtual statistical impossibility.

In 2008, there were 121.21 million votes recorded on Election Day; Obama led by 52.34-46.31% (1.35% to third-parties). There were 10.16 million late votes; Obama led by 59.16-37.48% (3.36% to third-parties).

In 2012, there were 117.46 million votes recorded on Election Day; Obama led by 50.34-48.07% (1.59% to third-parties). There were 11.68 million late votes; Obama led by 57.99-38.29% (3.72% to third-parties).

Are late votes representative of the electorate as a whole? One check is to weight (multiply) the late state vote shares by the total state vote.

2008 Weighted Late Vote Shares:
Obama 57.4- McCain 38.6- Other 4.0%
The third-party late share is within 0.6% of the 3.36% recorded late share.
Obama had 58.0% in the state exit poll aggregate and the True Vote Model (within 0.6% of his weighted late share).

2012 Weighted Late Vote Shares:
Obama 54.0- Romney 41.8- Other 4.2%
The third-party late share is within 0.5% of the 3.7% recorded late share.
Obama had 56.1% in the 2-party True Vote Model (within 0.3% of his weighted 2-party late share). Only 31 states were exit polled in 2012. Unadjusted polling data is unavailable.

So what do the third-party numbers indicate? Consider that:
– Obama’s 2008 late vote shares closely match the 2008 state exit polls (within 1%).
– Obama’s 2008 and 2012 late vote shares closely match the True Vote Models (within 1%).

Third-party 2008 and 2012 late state vote shares
– closely match the late recorded shares (within 0.5%).
– were more than double the Election Day shares.

Therefore, since the Obama and third party weighted late shares were a close match to the late recorded shares, it is likely that the increase in the third party late share over the Election Day share was caused by a combination of a) vote flipping on Election Day from third parties to McCain and Romney, b) higher third party provisional and absentee voting rates, c) discarding of absentee and provisional Obama ballots which increased third-party late vote shares.

If 50% of the difference in third party late vote shares and Election Day shares was due to vote flipping, then approximately one million (1%) of the votes recorded on Election Day were flipped from the third-parties to McCain and Romney.

Election Day and Late Vote shares
(weighted by total state vote)

2008
Obama McCain Other Calculated
52.87% 45.62% 1.51% Total Votes
52.34% 46.31% 1.35% Election Day
52.25% 46.51% 1.24% Election Day Weighted
59.15% 37.47% 3.34% Late Recorded
55.80% 40.90% 3.30% Late Weighted
58.00% 40.30% 1.70% Exit Poll & True Vote Model

2012
Obama Romney Other Calculated
51.03% 47.19% 1.78% Total Votes
50.34% 48.07% 1.59% Election Day
50.68% 47.70% 1.62% Election Day Weighted
57.99% 38.29% 3.72% Late Recorded
54.00% 41.80% 4.20% Late Weighted
55.00% 43.00% 2.00% True Vote Model (exit polls n/a)

Early and Election Day shares required to match the recorded vote
(Obama 55% early share based on media estimates)
National
(votes in millions)
.........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin
Early/Election Day.......117.45 91.14% 50.34% 48.07% 1.59% 2.27%
Late......................11.68 8.86% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% 19.70%
Total....................129.13 100.0% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% 3.84%

..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin
Early voting..............40.03 31.00% 55.00% 43.41% 1.59% 11.59%
Election Day..............77.42 60.14% 48.00% 50.41% 1.59% -2.41%
Late Votes................11.68 8.86% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% 19.71%
Calculated Share.........129.13 100.0% 51.06% 47.17% 1.78% 3.89%

Recorded Share........................ 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% 3.84%
Total Votes (mil)..................... 65.90 60.94 2.30 4.96

True Vote............................. 55.00% 43.00% 2.00% 12.00%
2-party .............................. 56.1% 43.9%

Obama Election Day Share
..... 48.0% 52.0% 56.0%
Early... Total share
56% 51.37% 53.77% 56.18%
55% 51.06% 53.46% 55.87%
49% 49.20% 51.60% 54.01%
........ Margin
56% 5.82 12.04 18.25
55% 5.02 11.24 17.45
49% 0.22 6.43 12.65

Florida
(votes in thousands)
..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin
Early voting............4,245 50.00% 52.00% 47.14% 0.86% 4.86%
Election Day............4,063 47.85% 47.60% 51.54% 0.86% -3.94%
Late Votes................182 2.15% 52.70% 37.55% 9.75% 15.15%

Calculated Share........8,490 100.00% 49.91% 49.04% 1.05% 0.87%
Recorded Share........................49.91% 49.04% 1.05% 0.87%
True Share............................50.69% 48.26% 1.05% 2.43%

Ohio
(votes in thousands)
..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin
Early voting............1,395 25.00% 57.05% 41.54% 1.41% 15.51%
Election Day............4,132 74.04% 48.40% 50.19% 1.41% -1.79%
Late Votes.................54 0.96% 59.38% 33.59% 7.03% 25.80%

Calculated Share........5,581 100.00% 50.67% 47.86% 1.47% 2.81%
Recorded Share........................50.67% 47.86% 1.47% 2.81%
True Share............................53.97% 44.56% 1.47% 9.42%

Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Kerry:
Projected 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
Recorded: 48.3%, 255 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2006 Midterms: Regression Generic Poll Trend Model
Projected Democratic share: 56.43%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37%

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 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

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 14, 2013 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Election Fraud 2012: Simple Algebra of Early, Election Day and Late Recorded Votes

Election Fraud 2012: Simple Algebra of Early, Election Day and Late Recorded Votes

Richard Charnin
Jan. 9, 2013
Updated: Nov.2, 2013

Track Record:2004-2012 Forecast and True Vote Models https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRZkaZQuKTmmd_H0xMAnpvSJlsr3DieqBdwMoztgHJA/edit

In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2%, a 5.0 million margin.The 2012 True Vote Model (TVM) estimated that Obama actually won by 55-43%, a 15.5 million vote margin. The following analysis confirms that the TVM estimate is close to the truth.

Calculating Obama’s 2012 Election Day recorded vote is an algebra problem. He had 51.0% of the (T)otal recorded vote (129 million). The Total vote is the sum of (E)arly, Election (D)ay and (L)ate votes. Since exactly 11.7 million late votes/shares were recorded after Election Day and there were an estimated 48 million early votes, we can solve for Obama’s Election Day Vote.

Obama led by just 50.3-48.0% after the first 117.4 million votes were recorded. Of the 117.4 million, 40 million were early votes; Obama had approximately 55%. He won the 11.7 million late votes recorded after Election Day by 58.0-38.3%. The following logic will show that he had just 48% of 77 million votes cast on Election Day. This is implausibly low compared to his early and late votes.

Total Vote = Early Vote + Election Day Vote + Late Vote
TV = EV + ED + LV

TV = 129.13 million (Obama led by 51.0-47.2%)
EV = 40.0 million (Obama had an estimated 55%)
LV = 11.67 million (Obama led by 58.0-38.3%)
Solving for the Election Day recorded vote:
ED = TV – LV – EV = 77.46 million = 129.13 – 11.67 – 40.0

We use simple algebra to solve for Obama’s Election Day recorded share. Since we know his total recorded vote (51%, 65.9 million), early (55%) and late (58%)vote share, his Election Day vote and share (X) is calculated as:

Total Obama Vote = 65.90 = .51*TV = .55*EV + X*ED + .58*LV
Solving for X, Obama’s Election Day share:
X = (0.51*TV -.55*EV – .58*LV) / ED
X = (65.90- .55*40.0 – .58*11.67) / 77.46
X = (65.90 – 22.0 – 6.77) / 77.46 mm
X = 47.9% = 37.13/ 77.46

Obama had 37.13 mm votes (47.9%) on Election Day.
Romney had 39.06 mm (50.4%).
Third parties had 1.32 mm (1.7%)

Timeline of 2012 recorded votes:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=29″

The same phenomenon occurred in 2008. Quoting from the Huffington Post: “Obama dominated early voting in 2008, building up such big leads in Colorado, Florida, Iowa and North Carolina that he won each state despite losing the Election Day vote, according to voting data compiled by The Associated Press”.

But the article never questioned why the anomaly occurred in the first place or mentioned the fact that Obama won 59-37% of the 10 million late votes recorded after Election Day. The omissions were typical of the mainstream media which never bothers to do an in-depth data analysis.

Are we to believe that Romney won by 2.5% on Election Day? The votes were cast on optical scanners and touchscreens. Obama won 40 million Early votes (hand-delivered or mail-in paper ballots) by 12% and he won 11.7 million Late votes (absentee and provisional ballots) by 20%! It is convincing evidence that votes were stolen from Obama on Election Day by rigging the voting machines.

Sensitivity Analysis
The only assumption is that Obama had 55% of the early vote. We know he had 58% of the late vote and therefore must have had 48% on Election Day. Let’s consider other early vote scenarios.

If Obama had 53% of the early vote, then he needed 49% on Election Day to match the recorded vote. Is the 5% spread between his early and late vote plausible? If he had 51%, he needed 50% on Election Day. Is the 7% spread plausible?

The 2012 True Vote Model contains a comprehensive Early vs. Late Vote sensitivity analysis.
1. Obama and Romney shares of early, Election Day and late votes
2. Vote shares required to match the Calculated Total Vote
3. Obama’s Total Vote Share Sensitivity to Early and Election Day Shares

Correlation
The 2008 and 2012 recorded total and late votes are highly correlated:
Recorded Vote: 0.983
Late Vote: 0.813
Late Vote percent of recorded: 0.831

2008-2012 Summary Comparison
Note the uniform 2% difference between 2008 and 2012 voting statistics.

1. Total Recorded Vote
Obama had 52.9% of 131.4 million in 2008 and 51.0% of 129.1 in 2012 (1.9% difference).

2. Early Voting
Although the exact numbers are unknown, media reports indicated that Obama led the early voting by substantial margins in both 2008 and 2012. Based on his estimated 2008 and 2012 True Vote Model shares (58% and 55%, respectively), recorded (53%, 51%) and late shares (59%, 58%), then in both 2008 and 2012, his early share (57%, 55%) was 4% better than recorded and 2-3% lower than his late share.

3. Election Day Recorded Vote (including early votes)
Obama had 52.4% in 2008 and 50.3% in 2012 (2.1%)

4. Late Vote
In 2008, Obama had 59.2% of 10.2 million late votes. He had 58.0% of 11.7 million late votes in 2012 (1.2%).

5. True Vote Model
Obama led by 58.0-40.5% in 2008 (1% lower than the late vote) and by 55.2-43.1% in 2012 (3% lower).

6. Weighted State Late Vote / True Vote match
The weighted average 2008 late vote share (57.4-38.6%) closely matched (within 1%) the independent True Vote Model. The 2012 weighted late share (54.0-41.8%) closely matched the TVM (within 1%).

7. 2008 Exit Poll / Late Vote Match
Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted 2008 weighted aggregate of the state exit polls and 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll. He had 59.2% of the late vote. Just 31 states had exit polls in 2012. Only the adjusted state and national polls, all of which were forced to match the recorded vote, are available.

Related 2012 Election Analysis Posts:
Election Fraud Model: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/a-model-for-estimating-presidential-election-day-fraud/
Third-party Votes: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/election-fraud-2012-the-third-party-vote/
Election Fraud Proof: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/2012-election-fraud-a-true-vote-model-proof/
Late Votes and the True Vote Model: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/late-votes-and-the-true-vote-model-indicate-that-obama-may-have-won-by-16-million-votes/


....................Pct Obama Romney Other
Early/Elect Day.....91% 50.34% 48.07% 1.59%
Late.................9% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72%
Total..............100% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78%

………………..Pct Obama Romney Other
Early……………31% 55.00% 44.00% 1.00%
Election Day……..60% 48.00% 50.00% 2.00%
Late……………..9% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72%
Total…………..100% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78%

Recorded
Calculated………100% 51.07% 47.09% 1.84%
Official………..100% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78%

Obama Vote Shares Required to Match 51.0% Recorded Share
(Obama had 58.0% of 11.7 million Late Votes)
Early Election Day
48% 51.62%
49% 51.10%
50% 50.58%
51% 50.07%
52% 49.55%
53% 49.03%
54% 48.52%
55% 48.00%
56% 47.48%
57% 46.97%

Vote Share Sensitivity to Early and Election Day Shares

…………Obama Election Day Share
Early 48.00% 50.00% 52.00% 54.00% 56.00%
Share………Obama Total Share
58% 52.00% 53.20% 54.40% 55.60% 56.80%
57% 51.69% 52.89% 54.09% 55.29% 56.49%
56% 51.38% 52.58% 53.78% 54.98% 56.18%
55% 51.07% 52.27% 53.47% 54.67% 55.87% < True Vote
54% 50.76% 51.96% 53.16% 54.36% 55.56%

53% 50.45% 51.65% 52.85% 54.05% 55.25%
52% 50.14% 51.34% 52.54% 53.74% 54.94%
51% 49.83% 51.03% 52.23% 53.43% 54.63%
50% 49.52% 50.72% 51.92% 53.12% 54.32%
49% 49.21% 50.41% 51.61% 52.81% 54.01%

2012 True Vote Model (2-party)

2008… True Share Alive Cast…………Mix Obama Romney Obama Romney
Obama. 76,196 58.00% 72,386 68,767………54.2% 90% 10% 61,890 6,877
McCain 52,995 40.34% 50,346 47,828………37.7% 7% 93% 3,348 44,480
Other….2,185 01.66% 2,076 1,972………..1.5% 50% 50% 986 986
DNV……………………..8,265……….6.5% 59% 41% 4,874 3,390

Total 131,372 100.0% 124,808 126,832………100% 56.1% 43.9% 71,099 55,733

…………………………………..Recorded 51.0% 47.2% 64,709 59,881
……………………………………2-party 51.9% 48.1%
………………………………….Projected 51.6% 48.4%

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 9, 2013 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

Richard Charnin
Jan. 2, 2013
Updated: Aug.31, 2015

An objective analysis of the 2012 election shows that Obama must have done much better than his recorded margin. The 2012 True Vote Model indicates that Obama had an approximate 55-43% True Vote (a 15 million margin) and overcame the systemic 4-5% red-shift fraud factor. He won the recorded vote by just 51.0-47.2% (a 5.0 million margin) .

Media Gospel
Media pundits, academics and politicians are quick to accept the recorded result in every election as gospel. But the landslide was denied, just like it was in 2008 and six previous elections.

Exit pollsters always assume that both prior and current elections were fair but that the exit poll samples were biased. So they adjust exit poll weights and vote shares to match the sacrosanct recorded vote. They never consider the possibility that the exit poll sampling was good but that the elections were fraudulent.

The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of six mainstream media giants which funds the exit polls. In 2012, just 31 states were polled. This effectively prevents a calculation of the total aggregate vote share.

Unadjusted 2012 state and national presidential exit polls have not been made available. Furthermore, in another omission, the How Voted in 2008 category was not included in the adjusted National Exit Poll demographic cross tabs displayed on media polling websites.

Is it just a coincidence that the past vote has consistently been a key factor in proving systemic election fraud in every election since 1988? In order to match the recorded vote in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the National Exit Poll indicated millions more returning Bush voters from the prior election than actually voted. 

Why does the NEP place such onerous restrictions on exit poll transparency?  It’s bad enough that analysts never get to view raw unadjusted exit poll data. Why is the NEP hiding this critical information? There can only be one reason: the data would provide absolute proof that the elections were fraudulent. If election fraud was non-existent, the data would have been released. But a robust statistical analysis of the red-shift to the GOP in state and national unadjusted exit polls proves beyond all doubt that election fraud is systemic.

Conspiracy Theory?
Those not convinced by the overwhelming statistical and factual evidence and still maintain that election fraud is just a conspiracy theory are welcome to try and refute the following analysis.

Naysayers claim that Obama stole the 2012 election. They cite as proof the fact that he won 100% of the vote in 59 black Philadelphia precincts. They consider it impossible. They are wrong. It is entirely possible. This math proof will put an end to this canard.

If the 2008 election was not fraudulent, then the 2008 recorded vote (Obama had 52.9%, a 9.5 million vote margin) is a reasonable basis for estimating returning voters in 2012. Assuming plausible vote shares applied to returning and new voters results in a close match to Obama’s recorded margin.

On the other hand, if the 2008 election was fraudulent, then Obama’s 2008 unadjusted state 58.0% exit poll aggregate, 61.0% unadjusted National Exit Poll and 58.0% True Vote Model shares were essentially correct. Using the 58.0% share as the basis for estimating returning voters in 2012 (and applying the same plausible vote shares as above) Obama won the 2012 True Vote by 56.1-43.9% (2-party), a 15.5 million margin.

There are some who believe that Election Fraud was thwarted in 2012 by the Anonymous hack or government oversight. These factors may have prevented some late vote-rigging. But the True Vote Model and Late Vote results were consistent with 2008. Vote switching algorithms were in effect on Election Day in most states. Why should 2012 have been any different?

Smoking Gun: The Past Vote
All 2012 National Exit Poll demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. About 80 questions were posed to 25,000 respondents, but the most important one is missing: Who did you vote for in 2008? The past vote question was always asked before 2012. In at least four presidential elections (1988, 1992, 2004, and 2008), the returning voter mix displayed in the adjusted NEP was mathematically (and physically) impossible. Each poll indicated that there were millions more returning Bush voters from the previous election than were still living – a clear indication of a fraudulent vote count.

Problem:Calculate by trial and error the average number of voters per Philadelphia division required for Obama to have 100% in 59 divisions. Assume that Obama had 97% of blacks  in 1700 divisions, 59 of which  voted 100% for Obama

Calculate the probability that 100% of voters in 59 Philadelphia divisions voted for Obama. Estimate an average of 182 voters/division. The  Margin of Error=3.22% for N=182 voters; Obama 97% share; 0.3 Cluster effect. Then there is  a 3.4% (1 in 29) probability that a division voted 100% for Obama ( 59 total, where 59 = 1700/29.)

The 2012 True Vote Model rectifies the NEP return voter anomaly by calculating feasible estimates of returning voters from the prior election.

Sensitivity Analysis
Pollsters and pundits and academics never analyze alternative returning voter turnout and corresponding vote share scenarios. Is it because a sensitivity analysis would reveal scenarios that they would rather not talk discuss?

The 2012 True Vote Model base case assumed that:
1. Obama won the 2008 True Vote: 58%-40.3%
2. A 95% turnout of Obama and McCain voters in 2012
3. Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters;7% of McCain
4. Obama had 59% of new voters; McCain had 41%
In this base case scenario, Obama had a 56.1% (two-party) True Vote Share and won by 15.5 million votes.

Romney needed to win 18% of returning Obama voters and 93% of returning McCain voters in order to match the recorded share (given the 2008 voter turnout assumption). In other words, there had to be an implausible 11% net defection of Obama voters to Romney.

Given the base case vote assumptions, Romney needed an implausibly low 72% turnout of Obama 2008 voters and a 95% turnout of McCain voters in order to match the recorded vote.

2008 National Exit Poll
To put the base case assumptions in context, let’s review the 2008 National Exit Poll. Obama had 89% of returning Kerry voters, 17% of returning Bush voters and 72% of those who did not vote in 2004. In order to match the recorded vote (Obama by 52.9-45.6%), the poll indicated an impossible 46% (60.3 million) of the 2008 electorate were returning Bush voters and just 37% (48.6 million) were returning Kerry voters. It implies that 103% of living Bush 2004 voters returned to vote in 2008.

On the other hand, assume a) that Kerry won the 2004 True Vote by 53.7-45.3% and therefore b) 47.5% of the 2004 electorate were returning Kerry voters vs. 40% Bush voters, then Obama won by 23 million votes with a 58.0% share.

The Late Vote – a True Vote Confirmation
The recurring pattern of Democratic presidential late vote shares exceeding the Election Day shares by approximately 7% is further confirmation of fraud. In 2012, Obama led 50.3-48.1% in the 117.4 million votes cast early and on Election Day. But he had a whopping 58.0-38.3% margin in the 11.7 votes recorded Late. Nearly half of his total margin came from late votes.

In 2008, Obama had 59% of 10.2 million late votes compared to 52.4% of votes cast early or on Election Day. Is it just a coincidence that he won the 2008 unadjusted state aggregate exit polls by a nearly identical 58.0-40.5% and the National Exit Poll by 61.0-37.5%? In 2012, there were just 31 adjusted state exit polls; unadjusted state and national poll results have not been released.

But is the late vote a legitimate proxy of the True Vote? To find out, we need to weight (multiply) each state’s late vote share by its total vote. In 2008, Obama won the weighted aggregate state late vote by 57.4-38.6%, within 1% of the weighted state exit polls and the True Vote Model. In 2012, he won the late vote by 54.0-41.8%. The 12.2% margin exactly matched the 2-party True Vote Model (56.1-43.9%). The fact that the weighted late shares matched the True Vote Model in both 2008 and 2012 is compelling evidence that the Late vote is fairly representative of the electorate.

Given Obama’s 58.0-38% margin for the 11.7 million late votes, this 2012 Vote share sensitivity analysis displays his total vote share over a range of Early and Election Day vote shares.

Red Shift
There was an overwhelmingly one-sided exit poll red-shift to the Republicans in all presidential elections since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national unadjusted exit polls by 52-42%. The True Vote Model indicates a 53-41% margin, yet they won the official recorded vote by just 48-46%. The final published exit polls are always adjusted to match the recorded vote – come hell or high water.

National Exit Poll Crosstab Adjustments
The 2012 National Exit Poll Party-ID category indicates a 39D-32R-29I split. Was the unadjusted Democratic share lowered to force a match to the recorded vote?

Let’s consider the 2004 and 2008 elections.The 2008 unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a 45.5D-27.3R-27.2I Party-ID split. It was adjusted to 39/32/29 to force a match to the recorded vote.

In 2004, the Democrats led the pre-election Party ID polling by 38-35-27. The split was changed to 37-37-26 in the adjusted NEP to force a match to the recorded vote.

In 2004, Bush had a 48% average approval rating in 11 pre-election polls and a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate. The rating was adjusted to 53% in the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote.


2012 True Vote Model
Voted...2008 2012 2-party vote shares
2008 Implied Votes Mix Obama Romney
DNV.......... 10.4 8.20% 59.0% 41.0%
Obama...58.0% 67.6 53.3% 90.0% 7.00%
McCain..40.4% 46.9 37.0% 7.00% 93.0%
Other...1.60% 1.90 1.50% 50.0% 50.0%

Total…100% 126.8 100% 56.1% 43.9%
Votes…………..126.8 71.1 55.7

2012 Sensitivity Analysis
….Pct of returning Obama
…. 82.5% 90.0% 92.0%
%McCain
…..Obama 2-party Share
10% 53.1% 57.2% 58.3%
7% 51.9% 56.1% 57.1%
4% 50.8% 54.9% 56.0%
……. Margin
10% 7.8 18.2 21.0
7% 5.0 15.4 18.1
4% 2.1 12.5 15.3

Sensitivity Analysis I: 2008 WAS FRAUDULENT
Obama had 58.0% (True Vote)
Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters

a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters
Obama pct of returning Obama 2008 voters
Pct EV Share Margin
90% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote
88% 371 54.97% 12,614
86% 333 53.89% 9,864
84% 318 52.80% 7,113
82% 315 51.72% 4,362 Recorded

b)Obama 90% of returning Obama
Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate
Rate EV Share Margin
95% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote
90% 371 55.05% 12,807
85% 333 53.95% 10,032
80% 318 52.77% 7,018
77% 318 52.00% 5,083 Recorded

Sensitivity Analysis II: 2008 WAS NOT FRAUDULENT
Obama had 52.9% (recorded)
Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters

a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters
Obama pct of returning 2008 Obama voters
Pct EV Share Margin
91% 332 52.16% 5,491 Recorded
90% 303 51.67% 4,238
88% 285 50.68% 1,730
86% 272 49.69% -777
84% 253 48.71% -3,285

b)Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters
Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate
Rate EV Share Margin
95% 303 51.67% 4,238 Recorded
93% 303 51.25% 3,177
91% 285 50.82% 2,087
89% 285 50.38% 964
87% 272 49.92% -191

Late Vote Confirms the True Vote
Year 2pty Obama Repub Other Margin
2008 59.8 57.4 38.6 4.0 18.8 late
2008 59.0 58.0 40.3 1.7 17.7 true
2012 56.4 54.0 41.8 4.2 12.2 late
2012 56.1 55.0 43.0 2.0 12.0 true

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll
2004 Sample Kerry Bush Other
Total 13,660 7,064 6,414 182
Share 100.0% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3%

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 23,116 18.4% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore 48,248 38.4% 91.0% 8.00% 1.0%
Bush 49,670 39.5% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other 4,703 3.70% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0%

Total 125.7 100% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3%
Votes…… 125.7 65.1 58.8 1.8

Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
(17,836 respondents)
2008 Sample Obama McCain Other
Total 17.836 10,873 6,641 322
Share 100.0% 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%

2008 Party ID
2008 Sample Dem Rep Other
Total 17,774 8,096 4,851 4,827
Share 100.0% 45.5% 27.3% 27.2%

Final 2008 National Exit Poll
(forced to match recorded vote)
Voted…2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV……….. 17.1 13.0% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry…42.5% 48.6 37.0% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush….52.9% 60.5 46.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other…4.60% 5.30 4.00% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total…100% 131.5 100% 52.87% 45.60% 1.54%
Votes…………. 131.5 69.50 59.95 2.02

How Voted in 2004
Voted Kerry Bush Other DNV Total
2004….1,815 1,614 188 561 4,178
Share…43.5% 38.6% 4.5% 13.4% 100%

2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
Voted…2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV……….. 17.7 13.4% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry…50.2% 57.1 43.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush… 44.6% 50.8 38.6% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other…5.20% 5.92 4.50% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total…100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes………….. 131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2

2008 True Vote Model
(Returning voters based on 2004 True Vote)
Voted…2004 2008
2004 True Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV………. 15.3 11.6% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry…53.7% 62.4 47.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush….45.3% 52.6 40.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other…1.00% 1.16 0.90% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total…100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes…………. 131.5 76.2 53.2 2.1

____________________________________________________________________

Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Kerry:
Projected 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
Recorded: 48.3%, 255 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2006 Midterms
Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37%

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 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

 
5 Comments

Posted by on January 2, 2013 in 2012 Election, True Vote Models

 

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

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis