Richard Charnin: Proof that Obama Won by Much More than 9.5 Million Recorded Votes

[tiptoe]

Proof that Obama Won by Much More than 9.5 Million Recorded Votes    bit.ly/asy3aV

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         source: http://richardcharnin.com/ObamaProof.htm     

October 10, 2010

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 62–59 million.

It is a standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force the final exit poll to match the recorded vote-count.
Do you agree that the 2004 Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote?
Yes.

Bush had 50.46 million recorded votes in 2000.
Approximately 2.5 million Bush voters died, and 2 million did not return to vote in 2004.

Therefore, there could not have been more than 46 million returning Bush voters.
Do you agree?
Yes.

But the Final 2004 NEP indicates that 52.6 million Bush voters returned in 2004.
That means there were 6.6 million phantom returning Bush voters.

That is an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters.
Do you agree?
Yes.

Did you ever hear or read about this anomaly in the mainstream media?
No.

 

Table 1
2004 Final National "Exit Poll"
Returning 2000 voters and 2004 vote shares forced to match the 2004 recorded vote:

93% turnout of living Gore 2000 voters
110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters
98% turnout of living Nader and other third-party 2000 voters

Electn 2000


Votes
Cast
-
53,959
52,854
4,160

 

110,973
Census
( 0.3% MoE )

 





Gore
Bush
Other

 

   5,556

Votes  
70–80%  

Election


Vote
Shares

48.38%
47.87%
3.75%

 

5.01%

Uncounted
Democratic

2000


Votes
Counted
-
51,004
50,460
3,953

 

105,417
Recorded

Assume 5%
4yr mortality

Est. # Voters
'00 Alive '04
-
48,454
47,937
3,756

 

 

 

2004 Turnout–Final NEP
Final NEP  forced-match
results are  impossible .
New in 2004 and

'00 Returns & Votes '04

20,790
45,249
52,586
3,669

 

Cast

125,737

Votes

Counted

122,294

Votes

:
Final NEP Discrepancy :

4.6 million more Bush-
2000-voters than alive

Turnout Mix
required to force the
match of the category
 Pres. Vote in 2000 
Weights

DNV
Gore
Bush
Other

17%
37%
43%
3%

100%

100%
(near exact match)

2004 Final National "Exit Poll"
Vote shares
Prelim NEP shares adjusted so category matched recorded secret vote count

Kerry

54%
90%
9%
71%

48.48%

48.27%
   .21%

Bush

45%
10%
91%
8%

50.72%

50.73%
  -.01%

Other

1%
0%
0%
21%

0.80%

1%
 -.20%

Corresponding Votes
after the Final NEP forced match with
the 2004 recorded vote count share

Kerry

11,227
40,724
4,733
2,605

59,288

59,028
259

Bush

9,355
4,525
47,853
294

62,027

62,041
-13

Other

208
0
0
770

978

1,224
-246

Implied Turnout
from
Election 2000


-
93%

 110% 

98%

 

That’s not all.
According to the Census, nearly 111 million votes were cast in 2000 but only 105.4 million recorded.
Approximately 4.5 of the 6 million uncounted votes were for Gore.

Did you ever hear or read about this anomaly in the mainstream media?
No.

Table 2
2004 True Vote Model  (An Introduction...)

Assumptions:
98% returning voter turnout; based on 2000 total votes cast
2004PreliminaryNEP vote shares (12:22am, 13047 respondents, 1% MoE)

Kerry wins by 10.5 million (53.5–45.2%)

Electn 2000


Votes
Cast
-
56,130
51,270
3,573

 

110,973
Census
( 0.3% MoE )

 





Gore
Bush
Other

 

   5,556

Votes  
70–80%  

Election

 

Vote
Share

48.38%
47.87%
3.75%

 

5.01%

Uncounted
Democratic

2000

 

Votes
Counted
-
51,004
50,450
3,953

 

105,417
Recorded

Assume 5%
4yr mortality

Est. # Voters
'00 Alive '04
-
53,324
48,706
3,395

 

105,424

 

2004 Turnout–True Vote
Votes Cast 2000 & 2004,
5% mort, 98% turnout:
New in 2004 and

'00 Returns & Votes '04

22,421
52,257
47,732
3,327

 

Cast

125,737

Votes

Counted

122,294

Votes

:
Final NEP Discrepancy :

 

Turnout Mix
for 98% of living
2004 voters returning
and new voters
Weights

DNV
Gore
Bush
Other

17.8%
41.6%
38.0%
2.6%

100%

100%

2004 Preliminary National Exit Poll
Vote shares
Independent confirmation v Final NEP

Kerry

57%
91%
10%
65%

53.50%

48.27%
  5.23%

Bush

41%
8%
90%
13%

45.15%

50.73%
  -5.58%

Other

2%
1%
0%
22%

1.35%

1.00%
  .35%

Corresponding Votes

Kerry

12,780
47,554
4,773
2,162

67,270

59,028
+8,241

Bush

9,194
4,182
42,959
432

56,767

62,041
-5,273

Other

447
521
0
732

1,700

1,224
476

Election 2004
Assume a
Feasible Turnout
of 2000 voters

-

98%

98%

98%

 

OK, now let's move on to 2008.

Do you agree that the Final 2008 NEP was forced to match the recorded vote-count?
Yes.

Then you must believe the Final NEP Obama and McCain weights and shares of returning and new voters.
Yes.

 

Table 3
2008 Final  National "Exit Poll"
Returning 2004 voter turnout forced to match the 2008 recorded vote count:
87% turnout of living Kerry 2004 voters
103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters
452% turnout of living third party 2004 voters

Obama wins the recorded vote by 9.5 million (52.9–45.6%)

Electn 2004


Votes
Cast
-
61,115
63,356
1,266

 

125,737
Census
( 0.3% MoE )

 





Kerry
Bush
Other

 

   3,443

Votes  
70–80%  

Election


Vote
Shares

48.27%
50.73%
1%

 

2.74%

Uncounted
Democratic

2004


Votes
Counted
-
59,028
62,041
1,224

 

122,294
Recorded

Assume 5%
4yr mortality

Est. # Voters
'04 Alive '08
-
56,077
58,939
1,163

 

116,179

 

2008 Turnout–Final NEP
Forced  weightings
indicate  impossible 
numbers of return voters

'04 Returns & Votes '08

17,078
48,607
60,430
5,255

 

131,370

Recorded Vote-Count :
Final NEP Discrepancy :

1.5 million more Bush-
2000-voters than alive.
4.1 mil more 3rd-party
2000-voters than alive.

Turnout Mix
required to force the
match of the category
 Pres. Vote in 2004 
Weights

DNV
Kerry
Bush
Other

13%
37%
46%
4%

100%

100%
(near exact match)

2008 Final National "Exit Poll"
Vote shares
Prelim NEP suppressed. Forced to match recorded secret vote count

Obama

71%
89%
17%
73%

52.90%

52.87%
   .03%

McCain

27%
10%
82%
16%

45.57%

45.62%
  - .05%

Other

2%
1%
1%
11%

1.53%

1.51%
 - .02%

Corresponding Votes
after the Final NEP forced match with
the 2008 recorded vote count share

Obama

12,125
43,260
10,273
3,836

69,495

69,457
38

McCain

4,611
4,861
49,553
841

59,866

59,935
-70

Other

341
486
604
578

2,010

1,978
32

Implied Turnout
from
Election 2004


-
87%

 103% 
452% 

 

The Final 2008 NEP indicates that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters.
But that is not plausible (Bush had a 22% approval rating on Election Day 2008).

Do you agree?
Yes, 12 million more is not plausible – but is possible.

But the Final 2008 NEP indicates a 103% turnout of living 2004 Bush voters.
That is impossible, right?
Yes.

Therefore the Final NEP 46% returning Bush voter weighting must be incorrect, right?
Yes.

The 2008 Final NEP also indicates there were 5.25 million returning third-party voters (4% of the electorate).
But there were only 1.2 million recorded third-party votes in 2004.

Therefore the Final NEP 4% returning third-party weighting must also be incorrect, right?
Yes.

The 2008 Final NEP inflated the number of returning Bush and third-party voters.
Therefore, Obama must have won by more than 9.5 million votes, right?
Yes.

Assume a feasible 97% turnout of living Bush, Kerry and third-party voters in 2008.
We will also assume that there was zero fraud in 2004 (i.e., the recorded vote was equal to the True Vote).

Table 4
Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
(feasible returning voter mix)

Assumptions:
97% returning voter turnout; 5% voter mortality
2004 recorded vote share (Bush by 50.7-48.3%)

Obama wins by 14.7 million (55.0–43.8%)

Electn 2004


Votes
Cast
-
62,158
62,313
1,266

 

125,737
Census
( 0.3% MoE )

 





Kerry
Bush
Other

 

   3,443

Votes  
70–80%  

Election

Assume

Vote
Share

48.27%
50.73%
1.00%

 

2.74%

Uncounted
Democratic

2004

 No Fraud

Vote
Count
-
59,028
62,041
1,224

 

122,294
Recorded

Assume 5%
4yr mortality

Est. # Voters
'04 Alive '08
-
56,077
58,939
1,163

 

116,179

 

2008 Turnout–Adjstd NEP
Assume zero '04 fraud,
5% mort & 97% turnout:
New in 2008 and

'04 Returns & Votes '08

18,677
54,395
57,170
1,128

 

131,370

Recorded Vote-Count :
Final NEP Discrepancy :

 

Turnout Mix



Weights

DNV
Kerry
Bush
Other

14.2%
41.4%
43.5%
0.9%

100%

100%

Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
Vote shares
Prelim NEP suppressed. Final shares
matched to recorded secret vote count

Obama

71%
89%
17%
73%

54.97%

52.87%
  2.10%

McCain

27%
10%
82%
16%

43.80%

45.62%
  -1.82%

Other

2%
1%
1%
11%

1.23%

1.51%
 -.28%

Corresponding Votes

Obama

13,260
48,411
9,719
824

72,214

69,457
+2,757

McCain

5,043
5,440
46,880
181

57,543

59,935
-2,393

Other

373
544
572
124

1,613

1,978
32

Election 2008
Assume a
Feasible Turnout
of 2004 voters

-

97%

97%

97%

 

But virtually all election analysts have concluded that the 2004 election was stolen.
Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-47%.
If Kerry won by the aggregate exit poll margin, then Obama won by 22 million votes – even assuming the Final NEP vote shares.

Table 5
2008 True Vote Model I
(based on 2004 total votes cast)

Assumptions:
97% returning 2004 voter turnout; 5% voter mortality
Kerry won by 52-47% (Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate)

Obama wins the True Vote by 22.0 million (57.0–41.8%)

Electn 2004


Votes
Cast
-
65,340
59,138
1,259

 

125,737
Census
( 0.3% MoE )

2004

51 State
Aggreg
Exit Poll

51.97%
47.03%
1.00%

 

   3,443

Votes  
70–80%  

Historical
Discrepancy

 

Kerry
Bush
Other

 

2.74%

Uncounted
Democratic

2004

 

National
Vote
Count
-
48.27%
50.73%
1.00%

 

122,294
Recorded

Assume 5%
4yr mortality

Est. # Voters
'04 Alive '08
-
62,073
56,181
1,196

 

119,450

 

2008 Turnout–TrueVote I
VotesCast, St Exit Poll
5% mort, 97% turnout:
New in 2008 and

'04 Returns & Votes '08

16,441
60,211
54,496
1,160

 

131,370

Recorded Vote-Count :
Final NEP Discrepancy :

 

Turnout Mix



Weights

DNV
Kerry
Bush
Other

12.4%
45.5%
41.2%
0.9%

100%

100%

2008 True Vote Model I
Vote shares

Obama

71%
89%
17%
73%

56.97%

52.87%
+4.10%

McCain

27%
10%
82%
16%

41.80%

45.62%
-3.80%

Other

2%
1%
1%
11%

1.23%

1.51%
 -.28%

Corresponding Votes

Obama

11,673
53,588
9,264
847

75,372

69,457
+5,915

McCain

4,439
6,021
44,687
186

55,333

59,935
-4,603

Other

329
602
545
128

1,603

1,978
-374

Election 2008
Assume a
Feasible Turnout
of 2004 voters

-

97%

97%

97%

 

But Table 2 shows that Kerry won the True Vote by over 10 million, with a 53.5% vote share.
Let’s calculate the 2008 True Vote based on the 2004 True Vote.

Table 6
2008 True Vote Model II
Returning voter 97% turnout, turnout based on 2004 True Vote

Assumptions:
97% returning voter turnout; 5% voter mortality
Kerry won the True Vote by 53.5-45.1% (Table 2)

Obama wins the True Vote by 22.8 million (58.0–40.7%).

Electn 2004


Votes
Cast
-
67,219
56,959
1,559

 

125,737
Census
( 0.3% MoE )

2004

True
Vote
Share

53.50%
45.15%
1.35%

 

   3,443

Votes  
70–80%  

Election

 

Kerry
Bush
Other

 

2.74%

Uncounted
Democratic

2004

 

Vote
Count
Share
-
48.27%
50.73%
1.00%

 

122,294
Recorded

Assume 5%
4yr mortality

Est. # Voters
'04 Alive '08
-
63,858
54,111
1,481

 

119,450

 

2008 Turnout– TrueVote II
'04 VotesCast, TrueVote,
5% mort, 97% turnout:
New in 2008 and

'04 Returns & Votes '08

22,421
61,942
52,488
1,437

 

Cast

132,308

Votes

Counted

131,370

Votes

:
Final NEP Discrepancy :

 

Turnout Mix



Weights

DNV
Kerry
Bush
Other

12.4%
46.8%
39.7%
1.1%

100%

100%

2008 True Vote Model II
Vote shares

Obama

71%
89%
17%
73%

58.03%

52.87%
  5.16%

McCain

27%
10%
82%
16%

40.74%

45.62%
  -4.88%

Other

2%
1%
1%
11%

1.23%

1.51%
  -.27%

Corresponding Votes

Obama

11,673
55,129
8,923
1,049

76,774

69,457
7,317

McCain

4,439
6,194
43,040
230

53,903

59,935
-6,032

Other

329
619
525
158

1,631

1,978
-347

Election 2008
Assume a
Feasible Turnout
of 2004 voters

-

97%

97%

97%

 

Summary Arguments

The Final National Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote.
The 2008 True Vote Model used the same vote shares as the 2008 Final.
So there can be no argument there.

The 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters as indicated in the Final 2004 NEP was impossible.
The impossible turnout was adjusted to a feasible 98%.
So there can be no argument there.

The 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters as indicated in the Final 2008 NEP was impossible.
The impossible turnout was adjusted to a feasible 97%.
So there can be no argument there.

The 5.25 million returning third-party voters as indicated in the Final 2008 NEP was impossible.
The impossible 452% turnout was adjusted to a feasible 97%.
So there can be no argument there.

Q. E. D.

Sensitivity Analysis

The following tables show that Obama won by a minimum of 20 million votes — even assuming his National Exit Poll vote shares are reduced by 2%. The margin of error for new (DNV) voters is 1.6%; the MoE is 1.1% for returning Kerry and Bush voters.

Worst case scenario (2% reduction in National Exit Poll vote shares):
Obama has 56.8%, assuming a 69% share of new (DNV) voters and an 87% share of Kerry voters, a 19.7 million vote margin.

Base case scenario (National Exit Poll vote shares):
Obama has 58.0%, assuming a 71% share of new (DNV) voters and an 89% share of Kerry voters, a 22.8 million vote margin.

Best case scenario (2% increase in National Exit Poll vote shares):
Obama has 59.2%, assuming a 73% share of new (DNV) voters and a 91% share of Kerry voters, a 26.0 million vote margin.

Coincidentally, Obama had 59.2% of the 10 million late (paper ballot) votes recorded after Election Day.


See Source:

A)  Turnout — Kerry x Bush
B)  Obama Share of New Voters (DNV)
C)  Obama Share of Kerry Voters

[NYC_SKP]

1. Kick and Rec!

Another great post by one of this board's most valued members.

:thumbsup:

[BeFree]

3. You got that right, Truth is All ranks way high.

Did you know that 'official count' percentage increase in voters was greater from 2000 to 2004, than the increase from 2004 to 2008, when all those new voters came out for Obama?

IOW, more new voters supposedly came out to vote for Bush in 2004 than did the number of those who turned out first time for Obama in 2008. 'Officially' speaking.

[Tansy_Gold]

2. I'm no statistician, but. . . .

Gut common sense tells me that using the voters from one election to project the numbers for a subsequent election is a faulty assumption.

A. Not all eligible voters vote. Those who don't vote in one election may decide for whatever reason to vote in the next election, or those who voted decide not to vote.

B. Assuming voters will always vote the same way from one election to another is also a faulty assumption. Where's the allowance for those who experience buyer's remorse?

C. Exit polling and census taking are not exact sciences. People lie, to put it bluntly. Maybe the lies on either side cancel each other out in terms of exit polling, but the census is kinda like asking people if they were at Woodstock. Maybe a million were, but I'll bet you could easily find three million who say they were.

Just my thoughts.


TG, who is sometimes wrong

[tiptoe]

6. You don't need to be a statistician to SEE what's going on in the Final Nat'l Exit Polls: Cover-up

...of Election Fraud...the lowballing of Dem projected vote-share is being played out now, for November.

"Gut common sense tells me that using the voters from one election to project the numbers for a subsequent election is a faulty assumption."

This is not a projection. It is a post election analysis.

A. Not all eligible voters vote. Those who don't vote in one election may decide for whatever reason to vote in the next election, or those who voted decide not to vote.

No one says that all eligible voters voted. This is a post-election True Vote analysis -- not a projection. "Projections" are made in the pre-election period, using RV and LV polls...And we are being scammed by many media and Poll-aggregator websites who, in the final pre-election weeks, withhold RV samples and display and "project" election outcomes from onlyLV samples, totally baseless in high turnout elections as we had in 2004 and 2008 (record turnouts). The latter "projections" align with official recorded vote counts, the consequence of forced-matching to which of ALL Final Exit Polls results in IMPOSSIBLE numbers of return voters. That is what is being presented for your EYES to SEE in the Obama Proof: The weights of return voters and the vote-shares for Obama and McCain in the 2008 Final National Exit Poll yield IMPOSSIBLE numbers for the return voters. The same thing happened in 2004 and other elections. (See Charnin's Proving Election Fraud) The logical implication must be that the recorded vote-count -- the forced-match basis of all impossible Final NEP numbers -- must, itself, be impossible. This is simple analysis by Richard Charnin using "forbidden variables" (like mortality and uncounted votes) that other "professionals" totally ignore. This is analysis of the offical vote-count numbers reported by Secretaries of State offices to the Clerk of the House. After adding up the separate state vote-counts and analyzing the implications, the official recorded vote-counts show themselves to be fraudulent...because their implications for numbers of return voters are impossible. No projections are being made, here, just 1) the presentation of the impossiblities and 2) alternative "True Vote" analysis using sources from the US Census, historical turnouts of "habitual voters" (97-98% -- Plutzer, 2002 "Becoming a Habitual Voter" -- factual and certainly more feasible than impossible 103%, 110% aand 452% "turnouts"!)

No one says that all eligible voters voted. This is a post-election True Vote analysis. We know that there can be no more returning Bush or Kerry or 3rd party voters than actually voted. Millions died millions did not vote.

B. Assuming voters will always vote the same way from one election to another is also a faulty assumption. Where's the allowance for those who experience buyer's remorse?

There is no such assumption or any assumption at all about how people will vote. The Final National Exit Poll indicates that 89% of returning Kerry voters voted for Obama, 11% for McCain. And 17% of returning Bush voters voted for Obama, 82% for McCain. We know that there can be no more returning Bush or Kerry or 3rd party voters than actually voted. Millions died millions did not vote.

What's presented is how people HAVE voted via exit polls of large numbers of randomly selected voters (less than 1% Margin of Error in 2004 and even less for the larger random sample in 2008)-- and, to be clear, not all exit polls are alike! And to be informative, the 2008 Preliminary polls are being suppressed by your PAID cable news outlets of FAUX, CNN, ABC, CBS NBC and AP (links in Table 3 & 4) Preliminary exit polls are "un-forced" (see link in first paragraph), while Final exit polls shouldn't even be called "polls" at all, because they're mere mathematical jiggering of the Preliminary poll demographic numbers with purpose of "forcing" a match to the recorded vote count -- regardless the vote count is fraudulent! Does your gut tell you it's pretty unprofessional and unscientific to do such thing, since the presumption must be that election fraud doesn't exist, while the FACTS tell us LOUD and CLEAR that election fraud in America is systemic and it's near-100% "GOP" systemic. Richard Charnin did an exquisite, detailed tabulation of data reported by exit pollster Edison-Mitofsky in 2004 that shows historical discrepancies from 1988 through 2004 between exit polled responses of voters and the official recorded vote counts of their (supposed) votes. (The link is in Table 5.)

C. Exit polling and census taking are not exact sciences. People lie, to put it bluntly. Maybe the lies on either side cancel each other out in terms of exit polling, but the census is kinda like asking people if they were at Woodstock. Maybe a million were, but I'll bet you could easily find three million who say they were.

There is such as thing as margin of error. The MoE for a poll of 17,000 respondents is lower than 1%.

The Census MoE is less than 0.5%

There are also otehr ways to CONFIRM the reliability of one exit poll vs another: See Table 2's link for the beautiful Independent Confirmation of the 2004 Preliminary Exit Poll that showed John Kerry winning the voters and the exposed fraudulent Final NEP that matched and reflected the recorded vote count.

Don't broadly wipe away the validity of exit polls. The radical GOP did that already in 2006, with an anti-exit poll campaign that's since been removed from its webiste. That garbage purely-political campaign is preserved here. Now why would an organization exposed as political beneficiary nearly 100% of the time of fraud-implicit shifts in vote-share margin from exit polls of voters to secret recorded vote counts of their votes be so "anti-exit poll"? What does you GUT (and the evidence of Historical Discrepancies) tell you?

BTW, for a detailed comparison of the mathematical jiggering of Preliminary weights and shares in all categories of the 2004 Natl Exit Poll done to "force" the match of the vote count shate in the FInal NEP, click the "adjusted" link in Tabke 1.

[Tansy_Gold]

19. But it seems to me that the beginning numbers are assumed to be

accurate in order to make the analysis, and then deemed to be INaccurate based on the analysis. I don't see how that can work.

If you admit the foundation numbers are false, how can you use them to build a hypothesis?

"XX number of people voted in 200Y for Candidate Q." Is your opening statement correct? Are the numbers accurate? If you're assuming that they ARE NOT accurate, everything that follows has to be equally (or even more) inaccurate.

And if you're not using this analysis to make some projection, what the hell good is it? We can argue from now until the cows come home whether John Kerry really won in 2004, but that's six years ago. What importance do these numbers have for the future?

I'm not a statistician, so spare me the statistical analysis. Give me "plain English" answers.


TG

[Statistical]

21. Not disagreeing with you but no statistician would make that mistake either.

You did clearly highlight the "flaw" in this (the article in OP) line of thinking.

It uses the results from two exit polls (2004 & 2008) and treats them as verified and correlated when neither claim is true.
Everything built upon that is simply garbage. Once you have a foundation of garbage it doesn't matter how high you stack it (and how complicated you make it to obfuscate) it is garbage.

People routinely don't tell the truth in exit polls. One can look back over 20 years of polls and see various discrepencies. People "voted" more often in the past that in possible. People more often "voted" for the winner (everyone loves a winner). People are richer than is possible (who likes a poor guy), etc.

People just tend to lie even about trivial things like "did you vote last election and who for".

[Tansy_Gold]

26. thank you.

I even clicked on some of the links in the OP but they just went back to the same analysis. I was told/taught that it's much better to cite independent references as evidence to support one's theory, not one's other research.

Do I think there was a lot of election fraud in 2004? Sure! Do I think there was election fraud in 2008? Sure! Do I think there will be election fraud in 2010? Sure!

But do I think this analysis provides robust evidence supporting any of those hypotheses? Sorry, but no I don't.


If the information consisted of something like (hypothetical):

We know 59.2 million votes were counted for GWB in 2000. We know that statistically 2.5% of those voters would die between 2000 and 2004, meaning we should not have any more than 97.5% of 59.2 million repeat voters. But the exit polling in 2004 suggests that there were 62.5 million "repeat" voters for GWB. We know this to be impossible, so there must be something wrong with EITHER the exit polling or the original number of votes counted in 2000. . . . or the actual votes cast/counted for GWB in 2004 Doesn't the process of analysis have to determine first of all which of the three numbers -- Actual Votes (AV) 2000, AV 2004, Exit Polling 2004 -- is accurate, if any?

And if NONE of them can be demonstrated to be reasonably accurate, doesn't it stand to reason that NONE of the conclusions can be relied upon either?

Seriously, I'm asking this for myself, but also for those lurkers who might be interested.


Tansy Gold, takin' one for the team

[tiptoe]

32. I was told/taught that it's much better to cite independent references as evidence.." Did you click

the "Independent Confirmation" link in Table 2
that exposes the FRAUD of the 2004 Final Exit Poll by citing the polls of CBS + Gallup + ABC + FOX + Pew ?

You have to scroll down a little bit to the "2004 Pre-Election Polls" section.

THAT is INDEPENDENT confirmation of the Kerry 57% Share of DNV (new voters) in the Preliminary exit poll and the exposure are freaudlualent the 54% share in the Final Exit Poll. Since the Final is a mirror reflection of the recorded vote count, it means the work of FIVE Independent pollsters CBS + Gallup + ABC + FOX + Pew challenge the validity of the recorded vte count in 2004 that reported Bush "won" while the independently-confirmed Preliminary exit poll said Kerry won.

Is Gallup, Fox, CBS, ABC, and Pew Research enough independent proof for you?

The aggregate of un-forced 50 State Exit polls also said Kerry won, 52-47%.

Table 2 makes use of the Census LOW margin of error "Votes Cast" for 2000 and 2004, a 5% voter mortality and a feasible (based on factual 97-98% turnout for "habitual voters") to establish the "True Vote" in 2004 in difference from the confirmed by Gallup+CBS+ABC+Fox+Pew fraudulent record vote count. Or do you believe 110% return of voters is possible or more feasible than the factually based turnout for "habitual voters"? (A habitual voter is anyone who has voted at least once. Their measured turnout in subsequent elections is high: 97-98%. That is also the logic behind "likely Voter" criteria including questions about past voting behavior: "New" registered voters and others who "Did not Vote" in the prior election are known not as reliable as "habitual voters" to vote on election day and are often excluded from Pre-election "LV" samples. Other registered "habitual voters" are VERY LIKELY to turnout and vote on election day.)

tt

BTW, the 3% difference of the "forced" 54% Share of "new" voters for Kerry is equivalent to the theft of 1.5 million votes for Kerry -- just among "new" voters.

[Tansy_Gold]

34. You're still using "exit polls" as if they were something

accurate and specific and precise. They are none of the above. That's why elections don't turn on exit polls.

Once again, I am not a statistician. I have never taken a statistics class in my life, and I have a post-graduate degree.

That said -- I see nothing logical in your premise. You seem to have taken the assumption that the 2004 election was stolen and that the 2008 election, though not stolen, was undercounted for Obama, and then you seem to have played with some numbers to support that assumption. But none of your numbers seem to me to be anything that constitutes hard evidence.

Evidence, not proof. That's the scientific language, even for "soft" social sciences.

anyway, you lost me with the jargon so I'm finished. You're welcome to your theories and your evidence. Pardon me if I just don't agree with you or find any validity/usefulness in it.


TG

[tiptoe]

58. They are something, and accurate within margins of error. You, like the media and Nate Silver,

ignore miscounts as explanation for the discrepancies with exit polls, and make no distinction between the Final Exit Polls and the numerous other exit polls, seemingly preferring to stick your head in the sand by blurring any difference.

Do you acknowledge that Final Exit Poll vote shares reflect adjustments made in order to match the recorded vote count?

[Tansy_Gold]

71. I acknowledge nothing

I don't know how or why or who or even IF final exit polls were manipulated. Your numbers haven't demonstrated anything other than you know how to manipulate numbers. Big deal.

[tiptoe]

75. The 'who' of data manip=the exit pollster (not me). 'Why'&'How'&*publishd proof*. Open two links!

'Statistical' misguided you (#21) by informing you neither about what is KEY in the sameness of the two Final polls of 2004 and 2008 nor about the existence of another KEY Preliminary poll by the pollster and the relevancy of its difference from its corresponding Final "poll".

First link:
2nd paragraph of text: "force"
Explains the How and Why and Who.

Second Link from Table 1: "adjusted"
Provides the PROOF within the weights and vote-share details of each and every poll category in the pollster's published exit poll data.

The DATA MANIPULATION was performed by pollster Edison-Mitofsky (NOT BY ME!). One category's changes in vote share and weights between Prelim and Final Exit Polls are highlighted, to help in recognizing the actual "forcing" the pollster did (as matter of standard operating procedure every election).

Table 1 displays the Final exit poll vote-shares in the poll category "Presidential Vote in 2000" while Table 2 displays the Preliminary poll vote-shares that were manipulated to become the Final vote-shares of Table 1.

Table 1 link takes you to the exit pollster's source data that you can see for yourself HIS (not my!) data manipulation between HIS (not my!) Preliminary Exit polling of 13,047 random-selected respondents (1% Margin of Error) and HIS (not my!) Final exit "polling" of 13,660 respondents (yes, the very same sample of voters plus 613 more). The Final Exit Poll votes-shares, as described in the first link, are manipulations of the Prelim vote shares until they are a "carbon copy" of the recorded vote count. An overview comparison of the exit pollster's three preliminary polls and his final "exit poll" is available here. All exit polls are not alike. This guy doesn't want exit polls exposing his "vote count caretaking" activities. Nor does the trashy dregs controlling the GOP that moved lifelong Republican Susan Eisenhower and a known 344,000 other Republicans to de-register from betwen 2006 and 2008.

Link from Table 1 vote shares: "adjusted" that you may have overlooked.
...
The National Exit Poll Timeline

Kerry won the 12:22am National Exit Poll (13047 respondents) by a 4.6 million vote margin.
Bush won the 2pm Final National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) by a 3.2 million vote margin.
Final recorded vote (mil.)
Kerry Bush Other
59.03 62.04 1.23
48.27% 50.73% 1.01%

[Tansy_Gold]

76. You've lost me, Richard, and I'm through with you

If you can't put your ideas into plain and simple English for the non-statisticians, you're not going to get anywhere. I won't want to click on a bunch of links -- I want explanations. You don't seem able to do that. You cut and pasted from your website -- and if you're not Richard Charnin aka TruthIsAll, then you're violating the DU rules on copyrighted material -- and you keep linking back to it, but you're not offering any readily understandable explanations.

If I, or another non-statistician like me, couldn't understand the OP, then we aren't going to understand the exact same stuff when you link us back to in on another website.

I don't care about the verbal histrionics, the bolded and colored and CAPS and all the other bullshit. Maybe if you could just tell people what happened in a reasoned and reasonable way, they might listen to you. But throwing all the charts and numbers and self-referenced links isn't getting it for me, and probably not for a lot of other people.

Besides which, if you're actually WRONG about something, you seem so resistant to any kind of questioning that I don't think you really want to find an answer; I think you just want to find additional evidence supporting what you already "know" is your answer.

Once again, if you really were sincere and honest about this, you'd never use the word "proof." That belongs in geometry. What you have is evidence that supports a theory; you really have proof of nothing.





Tansy Gold

[tiptoe]

80. First, I'm not Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll).

RW attacks on his work posted at DU have included that sleazy tactic against me.

Second, TIA does not restrict anyone from copying his full post. I've done the same with other excellent research and information from Dr. John Cannell's website on vitamin D, which offers a Creative Commons Attribution License that "permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." An example of CCAL: Cannell and four co-authors made available for reproduction the currently most-cited Virology Journal article "On the Epidemiology of Influenza", which opportunity I took to reproduce for DUer access to a "questioning of assumptions" about infuenza and effectiveness of vaccines, especially for elderly who diligently follow their doctors' 'stay out of the sun' advice.

Just as use of a term like "exit polling" recklessly blurs distinction between "preliminary exit polls", "final exit polls", "unadjusted state exit polls" and ignores "jargon" elements like "forced", "margin of error", "random sample", and "sample size", so, too, are not all published articles alike in copyright stature. Reckless charges about violations of DU rules might be misconstrued as more of the same radical-RW attempt to stifle the truth from being reported about the reality of systemic GOP election fraud. (Warning: That link is full of columns of numbers and jargon like "margin of error" and "shifts of vote-share margin" from "state exit poll" to vote count.)

You might try contacting Richard, directly, at his blog. The link is at his website: http://richardcharnin.com. He's usually eager to respond any questions about his work.

 

[spin]

33. I know a number of voters who voted both times for Bush the Junior ...

but voted for Obama not McCain. I also know voters who voted for Junior the first time and Kerry the second.

Voters do not always vote for one party.

I vote absentee but if I ever vote at the polls and am exit polled, I'll lie just for the sheer fun of it and I make a habit of NOT lying. Sometimes, you just can't resist breaking the rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. Voting Habits Are Unpredictable

I know people who voted for Bush (R) and MscKay (D) in the 88 presidential and senate election in Florida

My friend's mom voted for Obama (D) in 08 but plans to vote for Marco Rubio (Teabagger) in the 010 Florida Senate election. Interestingly, she voting for Alex Sink (D) for governor.

This is in one of the few subjects I hate to discuss on DU because participants in it approach it from the same vantage point fundamentalists approach religion. But I guess the theists are right in the final analysis; everybody has to believe fervently in something.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. The truth will 'out'.

Time for a hard look at what kind of government we will demand. Can we become enlightened again?


Thanks for your efforts, tiptoe.

[Bitwit1234]

5. And, including mine, I have seen post after post after post

saying the reason the MSM and the republican corporate polls are pushing that republican lead is because the electronic ballot boxes have already been programmed for a republican win. If this election isn't challenged in most places, we might as well give in and let the republicans take over the country permanently. they will continue to steal the elections anyway.

I for one will never forget the fact that the servers for OHIO with the election run by republican Kenneth Blackwell went thru the same servers in the white house that served for Rove and the rest of the white house's emails and websites. How brazen was that ...and they got away with it.

[Enthusiast]

11. I have an observation.

I live in a reliably Republican area of Ohio. It is split but there are more Republicans in my area.

I observed something strange during the 2004 election. The strange thing was the preponderance of Kerry signs in yards everywhere, some even in the yards of Republicans. Obviously in 2004 the people wanted Bush out of office and they wanted it badly. Many yards had more than one Kerry sign and some yards had a huge number of signs. I'm 57 years old and I have NEVER seen anything like it. My wife and I actually drove around looking at political signs. Bush/Cheney signs were small in number.

I fully understand a casual observation of yard sign numbers is unscientific but I can't imagine that Bush won Ohio in 2004.

[tiptoe]

13. kick! nt

[4lbs]

18. Your observation matches the 2000 and 2004 election results in Ohio.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2000&fips=39


In 2000,
GWB got 2,351,209 votes in Ohio, or 49.97% of the votes cast.

Gore got 2,186,190 votes, or 46.46% of the votes cast.

Other candidates (Nader, Buchanon, etc.)got about 165,000 votes total for the remaining 3.57%.

GWB won Ohio by about 165,000 votes.

About 4,700,000 votes were cast that election in Ohio, out of 11,350,000 total people in the state population. That was about 62% of the eligible voters that voted in 2000.

---------

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2004&fips=39

In 2004,

GWB received 2,859,768 votes, 50.81% of those cast.

Kerry received 2,741,167 votes, 48.71% of those cast.

Other candidates received a total of only about 27,000 votes.

GWB won Ohio by about 118,000 votes.

About 5,627,000 votes were cast by Ohioans in the 2004 election, which is almost 70% of the eligible voters.

That's an increase of almost a million more votes in 2004, from 2000.

The difference between 2004 and 2000 is that not only did almost a million more people vote than in 2000, much fewer people voted for "Other" candidates. The two main candidates each got hundreds of thousands of more votes cast for them.

The Democratic candidate in 2004 received about 560,000 more votes in 2004 than did the 2000 candidate.

The Repuke incumbent in 2004 received about 508,000 more votes in 2000 than he did in 2000.

SO, it is likely that you saw many more Kerry signs, hundreds of thousands more, but there were also hundreds of thousands of extra Bush voters.

[Enthusiast]

41. I do not believe Bush

actually won Ohio in 2004. I believe Republican operatives fudged the results in several ways.

[4lbs]

49. I agree they jerryrigged the results.

You said you saw many more Kerry signs even in your Republican district. The fact that more than 500,000 people in Ohio voted Democratic in 2004, than 2000, supports this.

However, Bush also got a half-million more votes than he did in 2000.


What I do believe, is that Kerry should have gotten another 200,000 votes above that, but were cancelled because of Repuke shenanigans and intimidation at the polling places on election day.

Remember when Blackwell told the polling places to close, even though there were many people still waiting in line to vote? He knew that Repukes historically vote early in the day, and Democratic voters typically wait until AFTER work to vote. So it was very likely that the majority of voters still waiting in line at 10:00pm Ohio time in 2004 were going to vote Democratic.

Then there were the electronic voting machines that defaulted to voting for the Republican candidate, so any confusion or "error" automatically benefitted the Repukes.

So, instead of losing by 108,000 votes, I think Kerry should have won by about 80,000 votes.

[BzaDem]

7. This post is proof that kooks are not just limited to the Republican party. n/t

[diane in sf]

9. You should read the posts from the time of these elections and Bradblog and inform yourself.

[BzaDem]

10. You act as if I haven't read BradBlog. n/t

[tritsofme]

12. Even better, I called these voter fraud fantasies

garbage, at the time of these elections.

[EFerrari]

17. It's election fraud, not voter fraud. n/t

[tiptoe]

56. Thank you!

Some people never learn...

...especially those swallowing Karl Rove's and Nate Silver's swill.

[SoCalDem]

8. Is this gonna be on the test?

:P...my eyes are bleeding..

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, tiptoe.

[tiptoe]

15. thanks for the k&R...

let's get and keep people informed.

and GOTV this November...to counter the radical "GOP" system of election fraud.

Do you think the King Klown of Kounting was "joking" (his explanation)?

[Uncle Joe]

16. In the same way that some people joke;

as a means to cover or gloss over an inconvenient truth.

[Statistical]

20. Exit polls are based on unverified responses.

Most of the time people don't want to admit to not voting previously. There is a stigma attached to it.

People routinely lie about the most trivial and stupid things. Exist polls are no different.

Just because someone says they voted for Bush last year doesn't mean they did vote for Bush last year (or even voted at all).

[EFerrari]

22. Does that only apply to Americans? Because I've yet to see an explanation

why exit polls work pretty well all over the world but they suddenly don't work here.

/typo

[Statistical]

23. Exit polls do WORK but they are never taken considered verified results in the US

or in any country.

Exit polls work for what they are intended to work for. A smoke detector notifies you of a fire it doesn't stop one. Your claim they don't "work" because people sometimes lie would be like saying a smoke detector doesn't work because it doesn't put out the fire. Exit polls were never intended (in any country) to be catch multi-year anomolies in voting output.

Exit polls really serve only three purposes:
a) to allow quicker results
b) to see some demographic information about voters (who did gun owners vote for, who did unions vote for etc).
c) to prevent the crudest of election fraud.

None of those require absolute accuracy and none require all results to be truthful.

All polls (including exit polls) have error.

Most people are ware of sampling error that is the sample is less than total population thus the total population may differ by +- x% due to sampling. However there are many other forms of error and a lack of truthfulness from the person being polled is a source of error.

No poll (including exit poll) claims to be the EXACT number. They also show a margin of error and confidence interval. As an exmplae +/- 5% with 95% confidence. That means the results are 95% likely to be within 5% of the reported results. Note there are two uncertainties. One the results can vary by as much as 5% and that will happen 95% of the time, and 5% of the time the results will differ by MORE than 5%.

No poll can EVER tell you 100% the outcome of anything. Period. Anyone thinking that is using polls for the wrong thing. Polls are an approximation and many times having a 95% confidence about something within 5% is useful. If it is then the poll doesn't need to be more accurate.

People lie. People lie all the time about everything. You could right now do a poll on virtually anything ... say income and the results wouldn't match reality. Your polled results would likely show people richer than other forms of data (income tax, wage statements, etc) show. People have no reason to lie and they still will. Not everyone and most will lie "a little bit" but enough to reduce the confidence of the results.

Another example if you could do a rolling poll every month asking people who they voted last election and you would see a trend that Obama "vote" as reported in the polling closer matches his popularity than his actual vote outcome.

No Statistician treats unverified results as verified, one certainly doesn't strip them together form year to year and try to build a mathematical proof to show voter fraud. All polls have error and not just from sampling. Unless the expected outcome is outside that error (which can be verify large for unverified results) one can't make a determination of fraud. Fraud may exist but the numbers can't prove it.

[EFerrari]

25. I didn't claim they didn't work in the United States in 2004.

That was someone else.

[Statistical]

27. Not sure what you are asking or saying.

Simple version.
1) polls serve a purpose but not the purposes used in the OP
2) no poll can ever say with 100% confidence the outcome of anything
3) people lie and that among a dozen other things introduce errors into polls.
4) this phenomenon is well understood by Statisticians and occurs all over the world on any possible topic not limited to only the US.

[BAU]

24. So, this should put to bed the myth that the far left...

...won him the election and prove that it was indeed the middle who should be considered "his base". Correct?

[NeedleCast]

28. completely illogical

I stopped reading here:

Bush had 50.46 million recorded votes in 2000.
Approximately 2.5 million Bush voters died, and 2 million did not return to vote in 2004.

Therefore, there could not have been more than 46 million returning Bush voters.
Do you agree?
Yes.


Author appears to be implying that because Bush got 50.46 million votes in 2000 and that 4.5 million of those voters died or did not vote in 2004 that Bush could not have received more than 50.46 million votes. And that's just a stupid implication.

[Tansy_Gold]

36. Where's the evidence showing 2 million did not return to vote?

Where's the evidence showing that some other 2 million took their places?

:shrug:


Just askin'.




TG

[tiptoe]

37. you obviously did not read or understand a thing...

...

Nowhere does the analysis imply that Bush could not have had more than 50.46m in 2004.
In fact, the model gives Bush 57 million True Votes in 2004. See Table 2 "Corresponding Votes"

"Therefore, there could not have been more than 46 million returning Bush voters."

...i.e., for the literate and logically competent: Bush voters from 2000 returning to vote in 2004.

For those, unlike yourself, who proceeded and viewed TABLE 1 "2004 Turnout- Final NEP", there is clearly boxed-in "47,937" Bush-2000 voters surviving to 2004 and also -- right next to it so even the barely literate can view and comprehend -- clearly boxed-in "52,586", corresponding to the 2004 Final NEP's 43% of 122,294 as having returned form 2000 to vote in 2004.

That's an impossible 110%. Simple arithmetic.

Why does the Final NEP in 2004 report an impossible 46%? Because the matching with the reocrded vote count required that number to be invoked in order to make it's bottomline vote share equal the Bush "winning" vote share in the recorded vote count.

If the Final NEP required an impossible number of return voters, then the foundational vote count, itself, must be impossible.

The Preliminary national exit polls are not bastardized by jiggering of its demographics as is done in Final Exit polls emulating the recorde vote count.

The Unadjusted 51 State Exit Polls suffer from no such abomination either (see Table 5)

[tblue37]

29. I've always assumed he won by a much larger landslide, and also

that the Dems won many more seats than were called for them, but vote hacking stole any that were even a little bit close.

[tblue37]

30. k&r

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I Have A Question

Are ghosts of banned members allowed to post?

Might as well bring back clowns like seventhson and the clown who used his real name.

[deaniac21]

35. Richard Charnin is a joke.

[tiptoe]

38. RIchard Charnin's bio and credentials:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x475913

Richard Charnin Bio

Upon graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, Richard Charnin (“TruthIsAll”) began his career as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer. In 1976, he moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for three major investment banks. When personal computers became available in 1982, he converted many of these application programs to spreadsheets. As a software consultant, he has specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. He has an MS in applied mathematics (Adelphi University, 1969) and an MS in Operations Research (Polytechnic Institute of NY, 1973).

The firms for which he worked or consulted include (among many others) Grumman Aerospace, Merrill Lynch, Smith Barney, E.F. Hutton, Chase Manhattan, Bank of Montreal, Algemene Bank of the Netherlands, AT&T, PepsiCo, Eastman Kodak and Nomura Securities.

Charnin never imagined that years later he would become a prolific Internet poster. But after the 2000 election fiasco, he was motivated to develop a robust election forecast model. In July 2004 he began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls. Immediately following the election, he began posting exit poll analyses on a frequent basis. The postings sparked heated debates and attracted hundreds of viewers.

[slay]

39. +1

i used to read all his stuff before he was banned (left?) from DU. after looking over most of the charts and info he prepared over the years, i have come to the conclusion that he is correct. thanks for posting some good info on him to smack down the haters. TIA does the best - recorded votes vs real votes - analysis i've ever seen.

[deaniac21]

73. Look at his work. Joke.

[crazyjoe]

40. OMFG, not this again. TIA should be posting from a room with padded walls

does it matter to anyone that stealing Federal Elections, over and over again, would require a highly organized, large group of genius conspirators.
Yet not one person has ever come forward, and no real proof has ever been found, to back this up. And even though this unbelievable group of people have never been caught, a single time, they decided to let the Democrats take the congress in 2006, let Obama win the presidency, and even gave the Democrats a 60 vote majority !!(which they wasted and pissed away)
I suggest a forum, right next to the Sept 11 forum, where stupid and embarrassing posts like this can hide. Oh Yea, and lets send Bev Harris some more money so she can hang out in a five star hotel and investigate "election fraud" or "voter fraud" or whatever the proper term is now.
News flash....THIS IS GOING NO WHERE, PEOPLE ARE LAUGHING AT YOU, WHY DON'T YOU SPEND YOUR TIME TRYING TO HELP PROGRESSIVES TO GET ELECTED, INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE WHY THEY DIDN'T !!

[Tansy_Gold]

42. It's a shame I can't rec your post!

:yourock:

[tiptoe]

46. TruthIsAll: "Kerry is LEADING in 7 of 12 polls..." Tansy Gold: "I believe ya, TruthIsAll"

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1465762&mesg_id=1465984
TruthIsAll
13. Kerry is LEADING in 7 of 12 polls. His 12-poll average lead is 1.73%
Edited on Sat Apr-24-04 12:04 PM by TruthIsAl
lOnly a slight drop from 2.64% in March. And only due to the pro-Bush shills at CNN, ABC and IBD who had a 10% Bushit turnaround. I don't trust their numbers. I don't believe Kerry lost a vote.

I predicted a month ago that they would not let Bush fall further. I believe they are rigging the polls to keep it "close".

Its NOT really close. Kerry is leading. He has the Big Mo and will only lengthen his lead..

Check Zogby, Newsweek, ARG, CBS.

And Kerry is raising megabucks at a record pace. Bush has shot a $50 million load already. Now its time for Kerry to spend some of that money. And watch his lead grow - but not on CNN, Fox, Msnbc or IBD. They are propping up Bush.

Look to Zogby for the truth.

12 -POLL AVERAGE
Month Kerry Bush Spread
Jan 40.50 51.25 -10.75
Feb 47.38 45.50 1.88
Mar 47.36 44.73 2.64
Apr 47.00 45.27 1.73
...

16. I believe ya, TruthIsAll.
But I still think it's true that the media shills/whores/liars are gonna spin it this way, no matter what. They'll do it until December, even if Kerry wins by 20,000,000 votes and takes every state but Wyoming. (No offense to Wyomingans. . . . .)


And personally I think Kerry and his campaign are extremely wise in not getting out there now. I think their relative silence keeps the * team guessing and off balance.

But some people say I think too much. . . .

I think, therefore I am

Tansy Gold

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1465762#1466172

[Tansy_Gold]

48. That was then, this is now

It's one thing to have a theory on April of 2004, and it's another to extrapolate from that theory in October 2010.

Did you expect me to fall on my knees and confess, omfg, you're right? I believed you then and I should believe you now, regardless what I've learned in the meantime? And I'll never ever ever doubt you again?

Fat chance. I ain't that stupid.

Comparing polls before the election illustrated a trend, but it wasn't an election.

Personally, I think you're obsessing, and I know from personal experience that that's not healthy.


But then again, maybe I think too much.


Tansy Gold, who may change her mind occasionally but is still Tansy Gold

[tiptoe]

50. You may be thinking too much

and still not appreciating the concept of the Final Exit Poll being, literally, twisted to match the vote counnt to the point of implying IMPOSSIBLE numbers of returning-voters. Preliminary polls and state exit polls are NOT forced. All exit polls are not alike.

The Final NEP returning voters are impossible.
The Final was forced to match the recorded vote (110% Bush voter turnout).
Therefore the recorded vote was impossible.

The analysis replaces the impossible returning voters from the bogus Final NEP with a feasible return voter mix. You do agree that 97% or 98% for returning voters is more feasible than an impossible 110%, don't you?
The returning voter mix is based on 95% of votes cast in the 2000 election (5% of voters die over 4-yrs) and a best estimate 98% voter turnout of LIVING 2000 voters. (97% and 98% retunring-voter rates are factual, having been measured and reported by Eric Plutzer, 2002, "Becoming A Habitual Voter')

The True Vote is then calculated based on feasible and plausible returning voters.


If you still don't understand the logic of the analysis, answer this question.


In 2000 Bush had 50.5m votes.
2.5m died and 2m did not vote in 2004.
There were 46m returning Bush voters.

The Final 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 52.6m (43%) of the 122.3m who voted were returning Bush voters.

Do you agree that the Final NEP indicated there were 6.6m phantom Bush voters?
I assume you do since 6.6 = 52.6- 46


Therefore you must agree that the Final National Exit Poll was bogus.
But the Final was forced to match the recorded vote.
Therefore the recorded vote is bogus.


To calculate the True Vote, we must have a feasible, realistic estimate of returning voters.
Do you agree?


And do you agree that we need to use total votes cast from 2000 (i.e., add back uncounted votes to the recorded vote)?
After allocating uncounted votes (75% to Gore). we must than consider voter mortality.
The model uses a very accurate 1.25% annual voter mortality rate (5% over 4 years).


You must agree that some of the living 2000 voters did not return to vote in 2004.
The best estimate is that 98% of LIVING voters returned.
That's what the model uses.


Well, that is what the True Vote model calculates.
And therefore Kerry is a 10 miillion vote winner.


Do the math.


Any questions?

[Tansy_Gold]

55. "The True Vote is then calculated based on feasible and plausible returning voters."

That's a supposition, a speculation, a calculation based on feasible and plausible but not verifiably actual. It's not a verifiable number. It's not counted votes.

In 2000 Bush had 50.5m votes.
2.5m died and 2m did not vote in 2004.
There were 46m returning Bush voters.

So what?

First of all, you're starting with an assumption: Bush's 50.5M votes. Are you assuming that's an accurate, honest, non-manipulated number? If you are NOT accepting that as a valid number, then all your subsequent calculations/assumptions/suppositions/extrapolations are invalid.

The problem is, Richard, that if you accept the 2000 vote count as accurate, how can you then say that the 2004 and 2008 vote counts were wildly inaccurate? You can't have your cake and eat it too. One or the other, honey; it can't be both.

You estimate that 2.5M died, but that's just an estimate, I'm sure based on actuarial tables. But how do you know exactly what the mix of Bush voters was? Were there a lot more older people than younger, so maybe more of them died than a normal statistical mix? Were they mostly wealthier people who had better health care and might have lived longer? How do you come up with your 2.5M deaths? Is that just a broad average, that 5% of any given adult population will die over a four year period? What if that 5% doesn't hold true for the set of Bush voters? (Even at a statistical average of 1.25% per year, that's not really 5% of the total, because the total decreases each year. The tiny fraction of a percentage difference still adds up to thousands of voters.)

Where do you come up with the number that 2M didn't vote? Are you saying they didn't vote at all, or they didn't vote for Bush? What's the basis for your number? What's your calculation, but more important, what's your justification? Did you just decide "some" Bush voters didn't return, and pull 2M as a nice round "some" number?

So no, Richard, I don't buy the 6.6M "phantom" Bush voters in 2004 as a manipulation of the NEP. An exit poll is just that -- a poll. It's not an election. People say things for whatever reason, and if the poll isn't conducted exactly according to Hoyle, it can be skewed. It's a sample; it's not the whole electorate. I'm sure it has a margin of error. How far outside the margin of error was it? So far that it would seem to be indicating some kind of massive fraud?

I'm not even going to waste my time looking it up. I'm sure you'll do that, and I'm sure you'll make all kinds of assumptions about me and about how certain you are of the way I'll answer your questions. The thing is, I'm not a statistician, but I'm not stupid either. If you can't start with the basics and explain your very first numbers, then why should I or anyone else accept the validity of your conclusions?

You said in the OP that you had "proof" of Obama's 20M margin or whatever it was. In fact, you have no proof of anything. You may have evidence supporting a theory, but "evidence" is not "proof."

The bizarre thing is, Richard, I wouldn't be surprised if your ultimate conclusions are correct. What I mean by that is that I think Kerry did win, though not by very much, but at least enough to have carried Ohio and thus taken the presidency. And I think Obama probably got more votes than he's credited with. That being said, however, I don't buy the number crunching scenarios you've presented, and I certainly don't buy it as "proof" of anything other than your own personal obsession with it.

The overall national total numbers don't matter anyway. What really matters is evidence of true election fraud -- electronic machines that flip votes, destroyed or uncounted ballots, disqualified voters, that sort of thing. Maybe if you put your talents to uncovering that sort of fraud, you'd make a better case.


I am still


Tansy Gold

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Conspiracy Theorists , Whether They Be On The Left Or Right, Are Seriously Deranged

There I said it...

[tiptoe]

51. 80K NYers seeking re-investigation of 9/11, incl 1100 architects & engineers are seriously deranged?

The truth will out in time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Click

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQTRP5ZNDkE

[EFerrari]

57. You're kidding, right? Two people WENT TO JAIL

for stacking the Ohio recount. Books have been written about all the fraud in that election. That grifter Harris aside, there's plenty of evidence of fraud that year.

[crazyjoe]

67. ok, I looked that up, here's some excerps.

County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter opened the Cuyahoga trial by charging that "the evidence will show that this recount was rigged, maybe not for political reasons, but rigged nonetheless." Baxter said three election workers "did this so they could spend a day rather than weeks or months" on the recount. "This was a very hush operation."

and

The county prosecutors have not yet alleged vote fraud. No do they say mishandling the recount affected the election's outcome. Dreamer's defense attorney, Roger Synenberg, said the defendants "were just doing the way they were always doing it."

Sorry EFerrari, but you FAIL. This does not sound like a plot run by Bush and Rove involving a conspiracy to steal a presidential election in 2004. Sounds more like some lazy poll workers who just wanted to go home.
I would say "nice try", but that was pretty weak

[EFerrari]

74. I can't believe the trouble people go to not to think about elections.

Lazy poll workers do less, not more. They don't try to stack the audit for a result.

If you actually want some information, I gave you a good start. Even if you only watch the CSPAN video, and take in the testimony, you'll have to admit that 2004 was a total clusterfuck. All of those successful, acomplished, educated witnesses were not there because their tinfoil was on too tight and to suggest that is lazy.

[crazyjoe]

77. I do not deny that 2004 was a clusterfuck, as a matter of fact,

I'll go so far as to say that most national elections, in most if not all states, are clusterfucks. This just comes down to the fact that poll workers are usually volunteers, or temporary low paid workers, which by definition are going to be less educated, less intelligent, and in many cases are just looking for something to do. Now I am not trying to diss poll workers, I thank them for the service to their community. When we have a situation like we did in Ohio in 04, and of course Florida in 2000, all eyes become fixated on these areas, and the incompetence of many of these people becomes evident.
What I do deny, is that Florida and Ohio, were some masterfully planned and executed conspiracy to steal elections by the right, and the thousands of people that would have to be involved who none of which has ever come forward, or told the story to someone who has never came forward, or has left a shred of evidence. To me, that's just ridiculous, and why all self respecting journalist would not make such a claim as they would not be taken seriously ever again. (except maybe Jesse Ventura)

[EFerrari]

62. Voting Irregularities in Ohio 2004

Members and witnesses testified before an ad hoc committee on voting irregularities in the Ohio 2004 elections. Among the topics they addressed were civil rights issues, variations in election procedures between local areas and states, proposed election reforms, and various events and decisions by officials prior to , during, and following the election. Several members of the audience in the hearing room were also allowed to give comments.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/184728-1

Mark Crispin Miller, Fooled Again

Mark Crispin Miller talked about his book Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them), published by Basic Books. Professor Miller argued that the outcome of the 2004 election, in many states including Ohio, was manipulated to favor George Bush and the Republican Party. He talked about the evidence for this charge and talked about the reaction that Senator John Kerry had when presented with the evidence. Professor Miller also argued that the Republican Party had been taken over by religious fundamentalists who see their opponents as evil and whose ultimate goal is to bring about Armageddon. He also answered questions from the audience. This was the keynote presentation of "Communication in Crisis," an interdisciplinary conference on communication and culture at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/191987-1

Greg Palast, The Election Files

1 of 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGosCI6jqTk
2 of 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozr3KrWtPMQ&feature=related
3 of 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIbQSzCDWn4&feature=related
4 of 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Iceq_m_2A&feature=related
5 of 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZroDQud3Os&feature=related


John Conyers, What Went Wrong in Ohio

http://www.academychicago.com/conyers.html

Bob Fitrakis, What Happened in Ohio?

http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title&metaproductid=1597

[crazyjoe]

68. I'm not going through all this crap, so I'll just make one point.

Mark Crispin Miller talked about his book Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)

So tell me, how did we stop them? If they had the voting machines rigged, and the hundreds upon hundreds of people in place from the previous elections that they stole, why did they allow the first Black president to be elected, along with a veto proof congress?
How did we do it without exposing any of this vast network of people?( besides a couple of lowly poll workers who just wanted to go home ) How did we do it without any proof whatsoever? Beside a couple of books that nobody paid any attention to ( maybe because they were full of bullshit? )

I bet you think building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition too, right? am i right?

[EFerrari]

72. Is this how you managed not to know any evidence of fraud in 2004?

You refused to "go through all that crap"? Pathetic.

[crazyjoe]

78. are you serious? the cspan video is an hour and a half long

look, you seem very well versed on this subject, can't you just share some of your knowledge with me, maybe I'm wrong and your right. If you can answer two questions for me (with answers that are feasible) I will look at all the information (?) you provided, I promise.

1) How is it that the biggest story in 100 years, that the right has actually stolen 2 presidential elections, and countless house and senate seats, by a network of conspirators from the very top of the US government, to the CEO's, the management, and all the software developers of these vote counting machines, right down to the lowly poll workers that nobody has ever come forward to "blow the whistle", none of these hundreds of co conspirators has ever told a friend or family member, who then came forward and told the story to Robin Roberts or Matt Lauer.
Oh, and no definitive evidence has ever been found ( yes, including TIA's wonderful spread sheets )

2) If, by some miracle, what you and TIA believe is true, despite that this huge network of super duper secret election stealing villains being in place, and have avoided all detection up till now (except for math genius TIA), we enjoy huge majorities in both houses, and we have in the white house the first black president. (you would think these racist bastards never would have allowed that one, why didn't they at least give it to hillary?)

If you can come close to explaining these points, I will be happy to study all the material you provided. But what i suspect is you will just call me another name and ignore the points i just made, because you EFerrari, are the enlighten one, and I'm just pathetic.

[crazyjoe]

81. Nothing more to say I guess......

[greytdemocrat]

43. I thought TIA got banned???

LOL!!! Sorry, couldn't resist. Interesting facts.

[Scuba]

44. Why would anyone doubt the Republicans...

...committed election fraud?

The have the means and the mean spirit. Nothing in their track record would suggest that they wouldn't jump all over it.

[tiptoe]

53. For evidence of near 100% systemic *GOP* election fraud, refer to Table 5's link:

Historical Discrepancies

between what voters tell exit pllsters and how they're votes were counted, 1988-2004

The vote count sees a shift in vote margins from the exit poll nearly 100% in favor of the GOP.
The vote-margin shifts should be 50D-50R in honest, non-fraudulent elections.
But the discrepancies between exit poll and vote count is always in one direction -- teh GOP -- and it's in the secret counting of the vote that nearly always favors the GOP.


"It's not the exit polls, morans...It's the vote count, stupid."

[In Truth We Trust]

45. Hand Counted Paper Ballots Now! nt

[emcguffie]

52. Truth is All

I haven't been around DU in a very long time. Is TIA still gone? He's my hero.

Edited to add question:

Is there any way to send him a note, to post a reply to him? I just want to say thanks and pat him on the back.

[tiptoe]

54. He's doing excellent. Have you seen his bio and credentials? See #38. nt

[emcguffie]

59. Thank you.

I found his website, no reply available there, then I found him on Facebook. I'm really not a Facebook user. Too old for social networking, I guess.

So then I wrote him a long note. And as I was spiffing it up, boom! it vanished. So I'll do it again tomorrow, I think. In any case, if you are in a position to do so, give him regards from an old admirer, and thank him for doing what he does.

Personally, I believe he's absolutely right. I also believe they're getting ready to swipe some seats in November, and those polls forecasting disaster for Dems are just groundwork.

They couldn't steal enough votes from Obama to win in 2008 -- that would have been way outside the margin of error. I believe they did steal about 4 million votes, which just wasn't enough. Not even close! Obama actually won by a tremendous margin.

I also don't believe that most Americans have lost their marbles in the last two years, or that they have forgotten the eight years before that. There's no way they would really put lots of Repubs back in there. No way! And so many Americans are in so much trouble, sure, it makes sense they're going to vote for Boehner, for goodness sake! Yeah, I like losing my job and my house, being poor -- It's really wonderful not to be able to buy fresh veggies anymore. Who likes vegetables? Certainly not me! And my daughter hates them! Thank God I don't have to force her to eat them anymore! I just love giving all my money to the richest people on earth. And yeah, I also love to to go without any healthcare. I sure do hate to take my little girl to the doctor! She really hates shots. And now we don't have to go, because we can't afford it! (True)And I just cannot wait until they take away my Medicare and Social Security! Yippee! Then I get to be really poor and eat dog food, and then complain about it!

Yes, indeedy, that was sarcasm. :sarcasm:

Why do we Dems believe folks are so stupid? They're not.

Anyway, thanks again.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tiptoe]

60. You can drop in to his blog (just started) or see his book by clicking the link at his website:

http://richardcharnin.com

[disillusioned73]

61. Those that think that the last few elections were on the up & up...

need to reconsider their logic.

[EFerrari]

63. Study Shows 2008 CA Prop 8 Results Appear to Have Been Corrupted

The following study of suspect Proposition 8 election results in Los Angeles County, CA, is drawn from data gathered in EDA's Election Verification Exit Poll (EVEP) analysis of the 2008 Presidential election, which reports similarly questionable election results in several states.

Although this exit poll analysis cannot provide conclusive proof of election fraud (because such proof would require access to memory cards and computer code accorded proprietary exemption from public examination) it does provide the strongest indirect proof available that election results have almost certainly been altered by manipulation of the computerized voting systems.

Deviations between exit polls and official results far outside margins of error, cannot be explained away by demographics or polling factors. The facts established in these reports cannot responsibly be dismissed or evaded.

Election Defense Alliance calls on legislators, secretaries of state, attorneys general, the voting public, and especially candidates in upcoming elections, to read these reports and seriously confront their implications.

http://electiondefensealliance.org/CA-Prop-8-Corrupted

[crazyjoe]

69. what do you mean? that democrats didn't really win everything,

and they stole the elections?

[warrior1]

70. bush didn't not win, he was selected by the supreme court

and stole Ohio.

[Doctor_J]

79. "Privatized Elections" was probably the final nail in the coffin of democracy

We now have proof that every election since 2000 has been a fraud, and yet there is no call to do anything about it. In a civilized country like France, buildings would have been commandiered or burned until this was fixed.