To Believe the Official 2008 Recorded Vote, You Must Also Believe … ( TIA )

[tiptoe]

To Believe the Official 2008 Recorded Vote, You Must Also Believe …

TruthIsAll      http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/ToBelieve2008.htm

Feb. 11, 2009

If you believe that 2008 was fraud-free and Obama won the recorded vote by 9.5 million, then you must also believe that …

1. Bush won in 2004 by 12.5 million votes (54.6–44.4%), assuming 2008 NEP vote shares and a 95% turnout, despite the fact that his official recorded margin was 3.0 million (50.7–48.3%). The Final NEP is always 'forced' to match the official recorded vote.
(Tables 9, 10)

2. Pre-election likely-voter (LV) polls that did not include new voters (Obama 51.0–43.6%) were more accurate than registered voter (RV) polls (52.3–40.0%).
(Table 5)

3. The Final NEP is correct in stating that 5.2 million (4%) of the 2008 recorded 131.37m were returning 2004 third-party voters, despite the fact that there were only 1.2 million third-party voters in 2004 (less than 1% of the 2008 recorded vote).
(Table 1)

4. The Final NEP is correct in stating there were 17 million (13% 'DNV') new voters in 2008, despite the fact that 122.3 million votes were recorded in 2004, and approximately 6 million (5%) died. Of the 116m living in 2008, approximately 110m (95%) voted. Therefore there had to be 21 million new voters (16%). Is it just a coincidence that the 13% new voter stat is 3% too low and the 4% third-party stat is 3% too high?
(Table 1)

5. The Final NEP is correct in stating that Obama won returning voters by a slim 50–48% margin, despite the fact that he led the final LV polls (i.e. returning voters) by 50.45–43.91%. Assuming Obama had 75% of the undecided vote, he won returning voters by 54–45%. The NEP states that Obama won all voters who did not vote in 2004 by 71–27% and newly-registered voters by 69–30%. Therefore, Obama won 82% of the 2% who did not vote in 2004 but did in a prior election.
(Table 2)

6. The Final NEP is correct in stating that Obama won returning (likely) voters by 50–48%, despite the fact that Obama led the LV polls by 50–44% (see #5). McCain needed 100% of the undecided 4%. But McCain was the de facto incumbent running for Bush’s third term, and Bush had 22% approval. The challenger (Obama) typically gets over 70% of the undecided vote, depending on incumbent approval.
(Table 4)

7. The Final NEP is correct in stating that 60.4 million (46%) were returning-2004-Bush voters, despite the fact that Bush had 62 million recorded votes, approximately 3 million (5%) died, and 56–57 million (95–97%) of 59m living Bush voters returned in 2008. Therefore, the NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 4 million. However, if Kerry won by the unadjusted (WPE) exit poll margin (52–47%), then 51 million Bush voters returned in 2008, and the number of returning Bush voters was overstated by 9 million!
(Table 8.1)

8. The Final NEP is correct in stating that there were just 49 million (37%) returning Kerry voters, despite the fact that Kerry had 59 million recorded votes. Approximately 3 million (5%) died, and 53–54 million (95–97%) of 56m living Kerry voters returned in 2008. Therefore, the NEP understated the number of returning-Kerry-voters by 4 million. However, if Kerry won by 52–47%, the number of returning-Kerry-voters was understated by 9 million!
(Table 8.2)

9. The Final NEP is correct in stating that there were 11 million more returning-Bush than -Kerry voters, despite the fact that Bush won by only 3.0m votes.
(Table 1)

10. There is nothing suspicious about the fact that the 2004 Final NEP had an impossible 43/37% Bush/Gore returning voter mix (Gore won by 0.5%), the 2006 Midterm Final NEP an implausible 49/43% Bush/Kerry mix, and the 2008 Final an impossible 46/37% Bush/Kerry mix.

11. A plausible explanation for the impossible 46% of the 2008 electorate who claimed to be former Bush voters was that a) they were really returning Kerry voters who loved Bush and wanted to associate with him or b) simply forgot that they voted for Kerry and “falsely recalled” voting for Bush and c) they voted for Obama regardless. The explanation for the impossible 4 million (3%) who claimed to be returning third-party voters was that they were really Bush voters who were ashamed that they voted for him and therefore lied to the exit pollsters.

12. The Final NEP is accurate despite the fact that a mathematically impossible returning-voter mix was required to match the recorded vote.
(Table 1)

13. There is nothing odd in the fact that Obama won 52.3% of the 121 million votes recorded on Election Day and 59.2% of the 10 million recorded since.
(Table 11)

14. There is no reason to suspect that votes were uncounted, despite the fact that 5.4 million were uncounted in 2000 and 3.4 million in 2004. Since 70-80% are Democratic (50% in minority districts), the Gore and Kerry vote shares were reduced by 1-2%.

15. The 2008 recorded vote share is the True Vote, despite the fact that an impossible returning-voter mix was required to match the vote.

16. The Election Calculator Model True Vote share (Obama 57.5%) is bogus since the assumptions are not justified. The base case estimate of the number of returning 2004 voters is based on unknown mortality, uncounted vote and turnout rates. But the assumptions are based on historical evidence. More important, a sensitivity analysis shows that incremental changes in the assumptions have minimal impact on the True Vote. Returning voters are calculated for two scenarios: a) the 2004 recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%) which assumes a fraud-free election, and b) the 2004 aggregate state exit poll (Kerry 52-47%) which indicates that the election was stolen.
(Table 12)

Table 1
2008 Final National Exit Poll — 'Vote for President in 2004'

How Voted
in 2004
Did Not Vote
Kerry
Bush
Other

Total

 

'Adjusted'
Mix
13%
37%
46%
4%

100%

 

'04 Electorate
Returning in '08
17.08
48.61
60.43
5.25

131.37 m

 

Obama
71%
89%
17%
66%

52.6%

Shares
(= 12.13)
(= 43.26)
(= 10.27)
(=   3.47)

(= 69.13)

 

McCain
27%
 9%
82%
24%

45.5%

Shares
(=  4.61)
(=  4.37)
(= 49.55)
(=  1.26)

(= 59.89)

 

'Other'
 2%
 2%
 1%
10%

 1.9%

Shares
(= 0.34)
(= 0.97)
(= 0.60)
(= 0.53)

(= 2.44)

 

Table 2
2008 Final National Exit Poll — 'Is This the First Year You Have Ever Voted?'

Yes
No

Total

 

Mix
11%
89%

100%

 

First-Time and
Returning Voters
 14.45
116.92

131.37 m

 

Obama
69%
50%

52.1%

Shares
(=   9.97)
(=  58.46)

(=  68.43)

 

McCain
30%
48%

46.0%

Shares
(=   4.34)
(=  56.12)

(=  60.46)

 

'Other'
 1%
 2%

 1.8%

Shares
(=  0.14)
(=  2.34)

(=  2.48)

 

Table 3
National Exit Poll DNV (13.0%) shares

Share

11%
2%

13%

Votes

14.45
2.63

17.08

DNV

New
Prior

Total

Mix

84.6%
15.4%

100%

Obama

69%
82%

71.0%

McCain

30%
13%

27.4%

Other

1%
5%

1.60%

 

Table 4
Calculated DNV (15.8%) shares

Share

11.0%
4.80%

15.8%

Votes

14.45
6.31

20.76

DNV

New
Prior

Total

Mix

69.6%
30.4%

100%

Obama

69%
82%

73.0%

McCain

30%
13%

24.8%

Other

1%
5%

2.20%

 

Table 5
Final November Pre-election LV and RV poll averages before undecided voter allocation (UVA).

Polls

 

Obama

McCain

Other

 

Undecided

LV (9)
RV (3)

 

51.00%
52.33%

43.56%
40.00%

1.50%
1.50%

 
 

3.94%
6.17%

 

Final RV Polls (before and after 75% Obama UVA)

RV Poll

 

Poll Date

 

RV Sample

 

Obama

McCain

Spread

 

75%
Obama

UVA
 

25%
McCain

 
 

Spread

Average

 

 

 

 

 

52.33

40.00

12.33

 

56.96

 

41.55

 

15.42

Gallup
ABC/WP
Pew

 
 
 

10/31 - 11/02
10/31 - 11/02
10/29 - 11/01

 
 
 

2,824
2,762
2,995

 
 
 

53
54
50

40
41
39

13
13
11

 
 
 

57.125
56.625
57.125

 
 
 

41.375
41.875
41.375

 
 
 

15.75
14.75
15.75

 

Table 6
Final November Pre-election LV and RV poll average (50/50% UVA).

Obama’s 56.2% (18.3m margin) is the sum of his DNV and LV shares of returning 2004 voters.

Poll

LV
RV

Obama

52.97%
55.41%

McCain

45.53%
43.09%

Other

1.50%
1.50%

 

True Vote based on Obama’s 73% share of DNV and 53% share of returning (LV) voters

2004

New
Return

Total

Mix

15.80%
84.20%

100%

Voted

20.76
110.61

131.37

Obama

73.0%
53.0%

56.2%

McCain

24.8%
45.5%

42.2%

Other

2.2%
1.5%

1.6%

Obama

15.14
58.63

73.77

McCain

5.15
50.33

55.48

Other

0.46
1.66

2.12

Margin 18.28

 

Table 7
Final November Pre-election LV and RV poll averages (75/25 % UVA)

Obama’s 57.0% (20.5m margin) is the sum of his DNV and LV shares of returning 2004 voters.

Poll

LV
RV

Obama

53.96%
56.96%

McCain

44.55%
41.55%

Other

1.50%
1.50%

 

True Vote based on Obama’s 73% share of DNV and 54% share of returning (LV) voters

2004

DNV
Return

True Vote

Mix

15.80%
84.20%

100%

Voted

20.76
110.61

131.37

Obama

73.0%
54.0%

57.0%

McCain

24.8%
44.5%

41.4%

Other

2.2%
1.5%

1.6%

Obama

15.14
59.73

74.87

McCain

5.15
49.22

54.38

Other

0.46
1.66

2.12

Margin 20.50

 

Table 8
True Vote based on 2008 National Exit Poll vote shares and 95% turnout of returning 2004 election voters.

Scenario 1. Obama’s 55.2% share (15.8m.margin) is based on the recorded vote (Bush 50.7-Kerry 48.3%).

2004

Kerry
Bush
Other

Total


Turnout


95%
95%
95%

    

Actual

48.27%
50.73%
1.00%

100.0%


2004

New
Kerry
Bush
Other

Total

ExitPoll

52.0%
47.0
1.0%

100.0%


Mix

15.8%
40.6%
42.7%
0.8%

100.0%

Voted

59.03
62.04
1.22

122.30


Voted

20.76
53.39
56.11
1.11

131.37

Died

2.83
2.98
0.06

5.87


Obama

71%
89%
17%
66%

55.21%

Alive

56.20
59.06
1.16

116.43


McCain

27%
9%
82%
24%

43.15%

Turnout

95%
95%
95%

95%


Other

2%
2%
1%
10%

1.64%

Voted08

53.39
56.11
1.11

110.61


Obama

14.74
47.52
9.54
0.73

72.53

%Voted

91%
108%
475%

100%


McCain

5.61
4.81
46.01
0.27

56.69

%Alive

87%
102%
451%

95%


Other

0.42
1.07
0.56
0.11

2.15

Margin 15.84

 

Scenario 2. Obama’s 57.5% share (21.8m margin) is based on the unadjusted exit poll (Kerry 52.0-Bush 47.0%).

2004

Kerry
Bush
Other

Total


Turnout


95%
95%
95%

   

Actual

48.27%
50.73%
1.00%

100.0%


2004

New
Kerry
Bush
Other

Total

ExitPoll

52.0%
47.0%
1.0%

100.0%


Mix

15.8%
43.8%
39.6%
0.8%

100.0%

Voted

63.60
57.48
1.22

122.30


Voted

20.76
57.52
51.99
1.11

131.37

Died

3.05
2.76
0.06

5.87


Obama

71%
89%
17%
66%

57.47%

Alive

60.54
54.72
1.16

116.43


McCain

27%
9%
82%
24%

40.86%

Turnout

95%
95%
95%

95%


Other

2%
2%
1%
10%

1.67%

Voted08

57.52
51.99
1.11

110.61


Obama

14.74
51.19
8.84
0.73

75.50

%Voted

85%
116%
475%

100%


McCain

5.61
5.18
42.63
0.27

53.68

%Alive

80%
110%
451%

95%


Other

0.42
1.15
0.52
0.11

2.2

Margin 21.82

 

Table 9
2004 vote shares required to match 2008 recorded vote

 

2004 Vote

2008

Required%

 

(4.8% Mort)

 

(95% RetV)

 

2008

Final NEP 'Vote for Pres in 2004'

2004

Did Not Vote
Kerry
Bush
Other

Total

Required


54.31
66.75
1.23

122.29

Share


44.4%
54.6%
1.0%

100%

of Actual 


92.0%
107.6%
100.0%

 

Alive in '08


51.70
63.55
1.17

116.42

Voted '08

20.77
49.12
60.37
1.11

131.37

Per Adjusted Mix
(2004 Vote Req'd)

2008 Recorded
Vote-Count

Adj. Mix

15.8%
37.4%
46.0%
0.85%

100%
131.37

100%
131.37

Obama

71%
89%
17%
66%

52.87%
69.46

52.87%
69.46

McCain

27%
9%
82%
24%

45.52%
59.80

45.62%
59.94

Other

2%
2%
1%
10%

1.61%
2.11

1.51%
1.98

 

Table 10
2004 True Vote

2000:  US Census Votes-Cast and State Records of Votes-Counted
 

 
 

2004 Calculated True Vote

 True  'Voted in 2000'  Mix 

 
 

12:22am NEP  ('13047')
'Voted in 2000' Shares

Total Votes
Cast in '00

Gore
Bush
Nader/Other

110.8
million

 

Recorded
Vote-Count

51.00
50.46
3.96

105.42

 

Uncounted
Allocation

4.04
1.18
0.16

5.38

 

Vote-Count
Adjusted

55.04
51.64
4.12

110.80

 

Deaths

2.69
2.52
0.20

5.41

 

Alive

52.35
49.12
3.92

105.39

 

Est '04 Turnout
of 'Voted 2000'
DNV
95%
95%
95%

100.13

 

Total Votes
Cast in '04

25.62
49.73
46.67
  3.72

125.74
True Vote

Recorded
Vote 2004

 

'Voted 2000'
Weight

20.4%
39.6%
37.1%
2.96%

100.0%
125.74

100.0%
122.29

 

Kerry

57%
91%
10%
64%

53.21%
66.91

48.27%
59.03

 

Bush

41%
8%
90%
17%

45.42%
57.11

50.73%
62.04

 

Other

2%
1%
0%
19%

1.36%
1.72 

1.00%
1.22 

 

 
 

2004 votes shares required to match 2008 Vote-Count
(reconciled as per Table 9 Vote-Shares and Voter-Mix)

 
 

'04 Required
To Match '08

 

100.0%
122.29

 

44.41%
54.31

 

54.59%
66.75

 

1.00%
1.23

[NMDemDist2]

1. could you summerize that in a couple paragraphs?

I'm lost...

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. get used to it

I won't say that TIA actually intends not to make sense. But I'll say that he has a particular knack for incomprehensible tables, and that it's common for people to make comments along the lines of "I don't know exactly what this means, but it supports what I already believed."

ETA: Basically, this seems to recapitulate errors that TIA has made repeatedly in interpreting the 2004 results. TIA's analysis here relies heavily on people's reports of their past votes. For instance, in the weighted 2008 exit poll, roughly 46% of respondents said they voted for Bush in 2004, and 37% that they voted for Kerry. (MSNBC tables) But Bush didn't beat Kerry by nearly that much. For TIA, that means that the pollsters must have created lots of extra McCain voters, and thereby, lots of extra Bush '04 voters.

However, as I point out here and in more detail here (PDF), previous winners -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- almost always do better in the retrospective question ('who did you vote for four years ago?') than they did in the official returns. This is true not only in the exit polls, but in the two best-known academic surveys (ANES and GSS).

So, TIA is wrong from point 1. He says that to believe that Obama won by 9.5 million votes, I must also believe that Bush won in 2004 by 12.5 million votes. If I thought that the 46% and 37% figures were accurate, that might be true. But decades of polling experience indicate that those figures are very unlikely to be accurate. So, I don't have to believe that Bush won by 12.5 million votes, and I don't.

As to how many votes Obama won by, I'm open to serious argument. TIA's rehash of old mistakes doesn't pass muster.

[JuniperLea]

2. I believe Obama won

But I'm betting there was a lot of fraud... not in favor of Obama.

[MineralMan]

3. Break it down. What is your point, please?

The deal is, you tell us what you think these charts and tables have to say. Don't leave us to try to figure out your reasoning. Nobody does that. You use statistics to demonstrate that your point is correct. But first, you tell us your point.

[MissWaverly]

4. thank you very much, we need to keep on this

Maryland results according to uselectionatlas.org
2008
Obama 1,629,467 61.92%
McCain 959,862 36.47%
everyone else including the Mickey Mouse vote accounted for less than 2% of the rest include Nader with that.

2004
Kerry 1,334,493 55.91%
Bush 1,024,703 42.93%
everyone else including the Mickey Mouse vote accounted for less than 1% of the rest include Nader

when Bush ran in 2000 in Maryland, he rec'd only 813,77 votes-40%, Gore got 57% of the vote with 1,145,782.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Essentially, you are saying that the 2008 EP data confirm that the 2004 results

were distorted? I know from your past analysis that the 2004 EP did not match with the official results. This time, what people reported in the EP on their 2004 vote reaffirms your 2004 analysis...am I correct?

On edit: ooops, meant to reply to tiptoe...

[MissWaverly]

9. yes, I am saying that too

[tiptoe]

12. Yes, the ‘forcing’ of the 2008 Final EP to match ‘08 vote-count-shares required a huge distortion of

the official 2004 election results (Table 10), confirming Kerry won the 2004 popular vote in a landslide. Here's why:

Just as the returning-Bush/Kerry voter-mix required to match the Obama recorded vote was impossible, so too was the returning-Bush/Gore voter mix required to match the Bush vote in 2004 (see #10 for links).

In 2004, the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis was initially promoted by exit pollsters Edison/Mitofsky to explain the 7% difference in margin between the exit poll and the recorded vote. But this theory conflicted with the Final National Exit Poll 43%-to-37% Bush-to-Gore returning-voter mix. Not only that, the 43% statistic was mathematically impossible: It implied that there were 52.6 million returning-Bush-2000 voters, when Bush only had 50.5 million total votes in 2000 — and approximately 2.5 million of those voters died.  Therefore, there could have been no more than 48 million former-Bush-voters alive to return-and-vote in 2004 — but that's assuming 100% turnout. If only 46m (96%) actually voted, then that means the number of returning-2000-Bush voters was, in effect, inflated in the Final NEP by 6.6 million and carrying the category's associated 91%-share for Bush in 2004 (see '13660').  And, of course, incorporating the impossible must have been of necessity for  'forcing' of Final NEP vote-shares to match recorded vote-count shares (which, thereby, also must have been impossible proportionately).

To deal with the 43/37 conundrum, exit poll naysayers had to come up with another hypothesis — "false recall":  Returning-Gore-voters misspoke (lied, forgot) and told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush in 2000 because they wanted to associate with his win of the 2000 (stolen) election, and he was a war president (who ignored warnings of 911) and had a 48% approval rating to show for his efforts.

But the 2008 Final NEP put the final nail in the "false recall" coffin — and in so doing confirmed that the 2004 election was stolen. To suggest that the 46/37 Bush/Kerry returning-voter mix was due to Kerry voter "false recall" that they voted for Bush (at 22% approval in '08) makes absolutely no sense, just like Gore voter "false recall" made no sense in 2004. The odds are smaller than getting hit by lightening two days in a row.

But no one has yet suggested Kerry voter "false recall" as an explanation of the 46/37 mix.

 

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. fact check

To deal with the 43/37 conundrum, exit poll naysayers had to come up with another hypothesis — "false recall": Returning-Gore-voters misspoke (lied, forgot) and told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush in 2000 because they wanted to associate with his win of the 2000 (stolen) election, and he was a war president (who ignored warnings of 911) and had a 48% approval rating to show for his efforts.

As far as I know, the assertion that respondents "wanted to associate with (Bush's) win of the 2000 (stolen) election" was invented by TIA himself. Nevertheless, the evidence of routine overstatement of support for a previous winner -- in survey after survey, election after election, exit polls and other polls -- is extensive. I've linked to some summaries in post #8 for your convenience. TIA never has offered a satisfactory response to this evidence, so I don't expect one now.

To suggest that the 46/37 Bush/Kerry returning-voter mix was due to Kerry voter "false recall" that they voted for Bush (at 22% approval in '08) makes absolutely no sense...

TIA, to be charitable, has managed to misunderstand the argument all this time, so I guess it's not surprising that he still has failed to examine or to comprehend any of the historical evidence. It is TIA's assertion alone that false reporting of past votes depends on the popularity of the president in question, although there may be some correlation. If anything, the magnitude of the gap between retrospective reports and the previous results seems to depend more heavily on the prominence of the losing candidate. John Kerry was not especially prominent after the 2004 election, so his (roughly average) retrospective decline in the exit poll isn't surprising.

It isn't a matter of "getting hit by lightening (sic) two days in a row." As I've pointed out to TIA repeatedly, this phenomenon has occurred in every presidential exit poll in the ICPSR archives.

[Old and In the Way]

15. IIRC, Autorank's analysis indicates that Bush lost the rural vote in 2004.

That was the key to his selection in 2000 when he only lost by 500,000 votes....he actually won the rural vote quite significantly. But he lost that vote in 2004 and still won? By making up more ground in the largest cities which traditionally are strong Democratic strongholds? Places where he didn't campaign? The only campaign rallies I saw were inside buildings with tightly controlled cameras. I saw Kerry getting 30,000 - 40,000 draws at the end, but never saw any indication of Bush-Cheney having rallies of any significance.

So we are to believe that-

(1) The voters approved the 2000 stolen election
(2) Let Bush-Cheney have mulligan on letting 9/11 happen (even after the 8.6 Presidential briefing was released).
(3) Approved of the elective Iraq War and the fact that the casus belli didn't exist.
(4) Forgave the institutional corruption/incompetence that was fostered by the Bush administration

And somehow this translates into 10's of millions of more votes for Bush in 2004?

I'll never believe the results of 2004. Your statistical data only corroborates what my gut tells me.

[MissWaverly]

16. I believe the numbers were padded in Bush's favor

Okay, Bush was not a popular president like Gerald Ford, the Bush team were not interested in centrist politics, they shoved legislation in w/o compromise. So in Maryland where the Democrats outnumber the Republicans by roughly a two to one margin, we are to believe that an unpopular president increased his votes from 813,797 in 2000 to 1,024,703 in
2004. That is an increase of 21% which he would have had to pull off in an overwhelmingly blue state, it did not happen.

[Laelth]

6. I certainly did NOT believe the 2008 results out of Georgia. n/t

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[MissWaverly]

17. I do not believe the Geroge results in 2008 either

I am wondering what the campaign strategy will be for the dems there next time around.

[Laelth]

19. Good question.

The Obama team flirted with GA last year, but, in the end, it was a bluff. Some money was spent here, but nearly all the people left and all the advertising was pulled two weeks before the election. In the end, Georgia was a state Obama forced the R's to defend, but one he didn't need to win. He was right about that. On the other hand, I think he did win Georgia. He just didn't get its electoral votes ... this time.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Mnemosyne]

7. KnR for more truth from TIA. n/t

[DCKit]

10. Only Kkkarl's math is officially sanctioned.

I've been asking since the election just how much of a margin Obama *really* needed to "win" the election. I'm thinking anything less than 8% and I'd now be packing to move out of the country.

[Bonn1997]

11. Dems have full power now

They must reform our elections. If they don't, then they can't complain if they get Diebolded.

[bleever]

13. The playing field is still tilted. Just because we won this time

doesn't mean that we don't still have to fix this.

Best wishes to TIA. His role in rousing the efforts of election protectors is, to me, an historic one.

[MissWaverly]

18. yes, I believe you are right

I think that they can't pull off a victory against overwhelming odds, but they can adjust voting margins within a 5-10% margin.

[tiptoe]

20. k! nt