|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform |
tiptoe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Sep-28-10 02:48 PM Original message |
9/26 House & Senate RV/LV Polls, Projections, Pollsters, Probabilties and Election Fraud (TIA) |
Edited on Tue Sep-28-10 03:35 PM by tiptoe
2010 Midterm House & Senate Forecast Model: RV/LV Polls, Undecided Voters & Election Fraud bit.ly/dsmBIl/b] Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll) source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionForecastModels.htm Sept. 26, 2010 Registered and Likely Voter Projections The House and Senate forecast models provide Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) projections. The assumption is that the election is held today. Pre-election polls all interview registered voters; likely voters are a sub-sample. They are not separate polls. Democrats always do better in the full RV sample than in the LV sub-sample (see the LVCM model below). LV polls exclude millions of registered voters who actually vote—and most of them are Democrats. In addition, millions of votes are cast but never counted in every election—and most of them are Democratic as well. The good news is that proliferation of electronic voting has reduced the uncounted vote rate. The bad news is that votes can be switched, stuffed or dropped at the voting machine and/or the central tabulator where they are counted. Since 2000, the LV poll projections have closely matched recorded vote-count shares and final exit polls (which are "forced" to match the recorded vote). The RV poll projections closely matched the unadjusted-state and preliminary-national exit polls. In the weeks prior to the election, the MSM phases out RV polls and replaces them with LV polls that lowball projected Democratic shares. In so doing, they lay the foundation for matching their final predictions to a fraudulent recorded vote-count. Midterm Forecast (Probability of GOP majority) Senate Seats 200 simulated election trials LV polls: RV polls: Dem 50.5 52.7 Repub 47.5 45.3 (5%) (0%) House Seats LV polls: RV polls: 198 207 237 228 (100%) (91%) The media/pollster drumbeat of a “horse race” is largely based on LV polls. The narrative conditions the public to expect a recorded vote which in fact understates the True Democratic share. The pollsters discount the RV sample for a fraud component, fully expecting that the LV projections will be a close match to the recorded vote — but they never mention the F-word. They know that votes are miscounted in every election. And so their final LV-based polling forecasts are usually quite accurate. Pollsters are paid to predict the recorded vote—not the True Vote. The 2010 midterms are different from the last four elections in that a low Democratic voter turnout is expected. Election fraud will very likely cost the Democrats a few seats in the House and Senate. And the number will be close to the difference between the RV and LV samples. But there may not be RV samples for us to calculate the difference on Election Day. And once again, pollsters will be complemented on how closely their final LV predictions matched the (recorded) vote. For the Senate races, polling websites generally display only LV polls. CNN/Time provides both RV and LV samples, but only the LVs are listed at realclearpolitics.com. The Senate RV forecast model is therefore a mix of RV and LV polls. The Democrats lead the RV 12-poll average by 47.8–41.1%. The GOP leads the LV 25-poll average by a much bigger margin:51.6–38.6%. Without a full corresponding RV poll for every LV sample, a comparable analysis is difficult. In the House, Generic polls have had a more equitable mix of RV and LV samples. But expect a shift to virtually all LV samples as Election Day approaches. The GOP leads the average of 55 LV polls by 45.4-38.5%. For the 83 RV polls the margin is much lower:45.2-43.7%. The majority of polls are Rasmussen LVs and Gallup RVs. The Fraud Component In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls underestimated voter turnout and yet closely matched impossible final exit polls and fraudulent recorded vote counts. Projections based on final pre-election RV polls (adjusted for undecided voters) were a close match to the unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote. Pre-election Model: Recorded vote share = LV poll projection = RV poll projection + Fraud component Post-election Model: Recorded vote share = Final Exit Poll = Unadjusted exit poll + Fraud component Applying the formula to the latest Senate and House Generic Polls: Projected GOP Senate Vote Share: Share = 52.4 = 50.5 + Fraud component Fraud component = 1.9% (3.8% margin). Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud): Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 2 seats (Table 5). Projected GOP House Vote Share: Share = 54.1= 52.0 + Fraud component Fraud component = 2.1% (4.2% margin) Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud): Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 4 seats (Table 7). The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) In 2004, there were 22 million voters who did not vote in 2000. Nearly 60% of newly registered voters were Democrats for Kerry. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic tsunami gave them control of both houses. In 2008, there were approximately 15 million new voters, of whom 70% voted for Obama. All pre-election polls interview registered voters. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the full Registered Voter (RV) sample. LV polls exclude most "new" registered voters–first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election. Most pollsters use the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM), a series of questions regarding past voting history, residential transience, intent to vote, etc. Since students, transients, low-income voters, immigrant new voters, etc. are much more likely to give "No" answers than established, wealthier, non-transient voters, Republicans are more likely to exceed the cutoff than Democrats. A respondent who indicates “yes” to four out of seven questions might be down-weighted to 50% compared to one who answers “yes” to all seven. bit.ly/a8UYRb The LVCM assigns a weight of zero to all respondents falling below the cutoff, eliminating them from the sample. But these potential voters have more than a zero probability of voting. The number of "Yes" answers required to qualify as a likely voter is set based on how the pollster wants the sample to turn out. The more Republicans the pollster wants in the sample, the more "Yes" answers are required. This serves to eliminate many Democrats and skews the sample to the GOP. Undecided Voters, Turnout and Election Fraud In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote count shares. Projections based on the final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. Undecided voters typically break heavily for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challengers, but many pollsters did not allocate accordingly. Democratic voter turnout was underestimated by the pre-election LV polls (see 2004 Final Pre-election Polls). bit.ly/d2yEQh bit.ly/claROe bit.ly/aW4gYX Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote count, (i.e. the final pre-election LV polls). The underlying assumption is that the recorded vote count is correct (i.e. zero fraud). In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Polls required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (110% and 103%, respectively). In the 2004 Final NEP (13660 respondents), the Bush vote shares were increased dramatically over the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (13047 respondents). For 2008, the NEP media consortium of news outlets FOX, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC has suppressed results of fifty-one unadjusted-state and three un-forced preliminary-national exit polls. bit.ly/bAc6OK bit.ly/amsJiB bit.ly/bRhlz4 bit.ly/diYEJ5 bit.ly/a2j7xl bit.ly/bsL7lk bit.ly/dfIPTI Once again, as in every election cycle, the media avoids the real issues. Martha Coakley won the hand-counts in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s seat but lost to Scott Brown; Vic Rawl won the absentee vote but lost to unknown Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary; Mike Castle won the absentee ballots but lost to Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware GOP Senate primary. But there has not been a peep about any of this in the mainstream media. Apparently, we must just accept the conventional wisdom that even though the votes have vanished in cyberspace and can never be verified, they were not tampered with. The media lockdown is not limited to past stolen elections. The MSM prepares us for election fraud by listing final pre-election LV polls and ignoring RV polls. Table 1 2010 Midterms: Senate and House Forecast Model Senate Forecast Simulation http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate bit.ly/azDXlw 26-Sep Current Seats Polls 12 25 37 Type RV LV RV&LV Simulation Forecast¹ 37 RV&LV Net Gain Win Prob² 25 LV Net Gain Win Prob² Dem 57 Avg % Vote 47.8 38.6 41.6 Seats 52.7 - 100.0% 50.5 - 85.5% GOP 41 Share 41.1 51.6 48.2 45.3 4.3 0.0% 47.5 6.5 14.5% Ind 2 Undec 11.1 9.8 10.2 2 - - 2 - - ASSUMPTIONS Fraud MoE UVA 0.0% 4.0% 50.0% Projection (table) RV&LV Seats Flip to Lean Safe Tossup Dem 54 1 4 7 7 GOP 44 4 3 16 0 NOTES: ¹ Average of a 200 election trial simulation ² Probability of winning 50 senate seat majority Senate Simulation with Weighted Averages 26-Sep tossup* Type Poll Share % GOP % Projection % (after UVA) GOP % GOP Within AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MD MO NC ND NH NV NY NY OH OK OR PA SC SD UT WA VT WI WV Seat Held By R R D R D D* D D R R D R R D* D R R R D R* R D R* D* D D R R D D* R R R D D D D* OnlyLV RV&LV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV Dem 42.5 44.0 42 30 34 31 51 47 52 59 34 34 68 35 27 41 29 23 46 33 55 41 36 25 44 42 57 63 42 24 54 45 30 30 25 50 64 48 47 GOP 47.2 45.1 48 59 54 53 43 44 45 34 36 52 20 55 64 44 50 67 46 54 39 54 56 69 49 34 31 30 49 67 37 45 70 70 52 44 29 46 45 Unsure 10.3 10.8 10 11 12 16 6 9 3 7 30 14 12 10 9 15 21 10 8 13 6 5 8 6 7 24 12 7 9 9 9 10 0 0 23 6 7 6 8 Margin 4.7 1.1 6 29 20 22 (8) (3) (7) (25) 2 18 (48) 20 37 3 21 44 0 21 (16) 13 20 44 5 (8) (26) (33) 7 43 (17) 0 40 40 27 (6) (35) (2) (2) Dem 47.6 49.5 47.0 35.5 40.0 39.0 54.0 51.5 53.5 62.5 49.0 41.0 74.0 40.0 31.5 48.5 39.5 28.0 50.0 39.5 58.0 43.5 40.0 28.0 47.5 54.0 63.0 66.5 46.5 28.5 58.5 50.0 30.0 30.0 36.5 53.0 67.5 51.0 51.0 GOP 52.4 50.5 53.0 64.5 60.0 61.0 46.0 48.5 46.5 37.5 51.0 59.0 26.0 60.0 68.5 51.5 60.5 72.0 50.0 60.5 42.0 56.5 60.0 72.0 52.5 46.0 37.0 33.5 53.5 71.5 41.5 50.0 70.0 70.0 63.5 47.0 32.5 49.0 49.0 Margin 4.7 1.1 6.0 29.0 20.0 22.0 (8.0) (3.0) (7.0) (25.0) 2.0 18.0 (48.0) 20.0 37.0 3.0 21.0 44.0 0.0 21.0 (16.0) 13.0 20.0 44.0 5.0 (8.0) (26.0) (33.0) 7.0 43.0 (17.0) 0.0 40.0 40.0 27.0 (6.0) (35.0) (2.0) (2.0) Win Prob² 5.0% 0.0% 93% 100% 100% 100% 2% 23% 4% 0% 69% 100% 0% 100% 100% 77% 100% 100% 50% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 89% 2% 0% 0% 96% 100% 0% 50% 100% 100% 100% 7% 0% 31% 31% Flip 5 GOP GOP GOP Dem GOP MoE 14 AK CA CO CT FL IL KY NH NV OH PA WA WI WV Table 2 Probability Distribution of GOP Net Gains OnlyLV Gain Seats Probability Exact At least 0 41 0.0% 100.0% 1 42 0.0% 100.0% 2 43 0.0% 100.0% 3 44 1.0% 100.0% 4 45 5.0% 99.0% 5 46 17.5% 94.0% 6 47 25.0% 76.5% 7 48 37.0% 51.5% 8 49 9.5% 14.0% 9 50 5.0% 5.0% 10 51 0.0% 0.0% Table 3 Projection Trend Date LV Polls Net GOP RV/LV Polls Net GOP 8/26 9/1 9/10 9/15 9/26 Dem 49.0 48.2 47.9 47.8 47.6 GOP 51.0 51.8 52.1 52.2 52.4 Seats 6.2 8.0 7.3 6.7 6.5 Dem 50.5 49.5 49.6 49.3 49.5 GOP 49.5 50.5 50.4 50.7 50.5 Seats 4.4 6.0 5.3 4.3 4.3 Table 4 GOP Senate Seat Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Poll Type Vote Share % Seats (table) Seats (simulation) Net Gain (simulation) UVA 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% LV 51.3 51.8 52.4 52.9 53.4 RV/LV 49.5 50.0 50.5 51.1 51.6 LV 47 48 48 48 48 RV/LV 42 43 44 46 46 LV 46.3 47.0 47.5 48.0 48.6 RV&LV 43.5 44.3 45.3 46.1 46.7 LV 5.3 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.6 RV/LV 2.5 3.3 4.3 5.1 5.7 Table 5 GOP Senate Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch Projections RV/LV – Undecided Vote Allocation to GOP 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 3 Vote Switch % to GOP 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 1 3 6 8 10 2 5 8 8 10 3 5 8 8 10 5 7 8 10 12 5 8 9 10 12 44 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 42 44 47 49 51 43 46 49 49 51 44 46 49 49 51 46 48 49 51 53 46 49 50 51 53 Table 6 House Generic Poll Forecasting Model Polls POLL AVERAGE PROJECTED 2-PARTY % Projected Seats 3% MoE GOP Latest LV RV Total 2010 LV RV A Total Count 9 11 20 Count 55 83 3 141 GOP 47.9 46.7 47.3 45.4 45.2 40.0 45.2 Dem 39.8 42.6 41.4 38.5 43.7 43.3 41.6 GOP 54.1 52.0 53.0 53.5 50.8 48.3 51.8 Dem 45.9 48.0 47.1 46.5 49.2 51.7 48.2 GOP 237 228 232 235 223 212 227 Dem 198 207 203 200 212 223 208 WinProb 100% 91% 97% 99% 69% 14% 88% Table 7 GOP House Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch Projections Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 228 Vote Switch % to GOP 0% 1% 2% 3% 224 228 232 237 226 230 235 239 228 233 237 241 231 235 230 244 233 237 242 246 Table 8 Latest Generic Polls POLL PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE GOP GOP PROJECTED MOVING AVERAGE GOP Pollster CNN/Opinion Research Reuters/Ipsos Gallup Rasmussen Reports FOX News CBS News/NY Times Associated Press/GfK PPP (D) Politico/GWU/Battleground Gallup Rasmussen Reports Quinnipiac Gallup Rasmussen Reports CNN/Opinion Research ABC News/Wash Post FOX News USA Today/Gallup Rasmussen Reports Gallup Newsweek Date 9/21 - 9/23 9/16 - 9/19 9/13 - 9/19 9/13 - 9/19 9/14 - 9/16 9/10 - 9/14 9/8 - 9/13 9/10 - 9/13 9/7 - 9/9 9/6-9/12 9/6-9/12 8/31-9/7 8/30 - 9/5 8/30 - 9/5 9/1 - 9/2 8/30 - 9/2 9/1 - 9/2 8/27 - 8/30 8/23 - 8/29 8/23 - 8/29 8/25 - 8/26 Sample 506 953 2925 3500 900 na na 590 1000 1527 3500 1905 1651 3500 936 na 900 928 3500 1540 856 Type LV RV RV LV RV LV LV RV LV RV LV RV RV LV RV LV RV RV LV RV RV GOP 53 45 45 48 46 40 53 44 43 48 48 42 46 48 52 53 46 49 45 51 45 Dem 44 46 46 38 40 38 43 45 43 43 37 37 46 36 45 40 37 43 39 41 45 GOP 54.6 49.5 49.5 55.0 53.0 51.0 55.0 49.5 50.0 52.5 55.5 52.5 50.0 56.0 53.5 56.5 54.5 53.0 53.0 55.0 50.0 Dem 45.5 50.5 50.5 45.0 47.0 49.0 45.0 50.5 50.0 47.5 44.5 47.5 50.0 44.0 46.5 43.5 45.5 47.0 47.0 45.0 50.0 Seats 239 217 217 241 232 224 241 217 219 230 243 230 219 246 235 248 239 232 232 241 219 WinProb 100% 37% 37% 100% 98% 74% 100% 37% 50% 95% 100% 95% 50% 100% 99% 100% 100% 98% 98% 100% 50% GOP 51.95 52.05 52.35 52.40 52.50 52.55 53.10 53.05 53.40 53.70 53.95 53.40 53.20 53.35 53.20 53.15 52.70 52.60 52.90 52.95 52.60 Dem 48.05 47.95 47.65 47.60 47.50 47.45 46.90 46.95 46.60 46.30 46.05 46.60 46.80 46.65 46.80 46.85 47.30 47.40 47.10 47.05 47.40 Margin 3.90 4.10 4.70 4.80 5.00 5.10 6.20 6.10 6.80 7.40 7.90 6.80 6.40 6.70 6.40 6.30 5.40 5.20 5.80 5.90 5.20 Seats 228 228 230 230 230 230 233 233 234 236 237 234 233 234 233 233 231 231 232 232 231 Table 9 Pollster Averages POLL AVERAGE PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE GOP GOP Polling Firm Rasmussen Reports Gallup FOX News PPP (D) Democracy Corps (D) CNN/Opinion Research ABC News/Wash Post Ipsos/McClatchy USA Today/Gallup Quinnipiac Newsweek Reuters/Ipsos Time McLaughlin & Associates (R) Associated Press/GfK Count 36 30 12 8 7 9 5 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 2 Sample 3500 1396 900 784 869 892 na 913 970 1977 882 917 915 1000 445 MoE 1.7% 2.6% 3.3% 3.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.0% 3.2% 3.1% 2.2% 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 4.6% GOP 45.2 46.4 42.8 44.3 46.0 48.9 47.4 43.5 46.0 41.3 45.3 45.7 42.5 42.0 51.0 Dem 36.9 45.1 38.7 42.5 44.1 45.3 45.0 44.8 45.3 39.0 45.0 45.0 40.0 36.0 44.0 GOP 54.2 50.6 52.1 50.9 50.9 51.8 51.2 49.4 50.3 51.1 49.5 50.3 51.3 53.0 53.5 Dem 45.8 49.4 47.9 49.1 49.1 48.2 48.8 50.6 49.7 48.9 50.5 49.7 48.8 47.0 46.5 Seats 238 222 228 223 223 227 225 217 221 224 217 221 225 232 235 WinProb 100% 66% 91% 72% 73% 88% 78% 34% 59% 77% 37% 59% 79% 98% 99% Table 10 2006-2010 Registered and Likely Voter Poll Summary (refer to source) Reference:2004–2008 Pre-election polls Projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote count shares. Projections based on final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. The projected shares (in parenthesis) are based on the allocation of undecided voters (UVA). bit.ly/claROe Undecided voters typically break for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challenger. Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote (i.e. the final LV polls). bit.ly/aoovHh In 2004, the Final National Exit Poll required an impossible 110% turnout of returning Bush voters to match the fraudulent vote count. bit.ly/amsJiB In addition, the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (1% MoE) had to be inflated in the Final NEP. bit.ly/9UW2Ck bit.ly/bllwmx (compare with Voted 2000 Category) bit.ly/bAc6OK In 2008, the Final NEP required an impossible 103% turnout of returning Bush voters to match the fraudulent vote count. bit.ly/amsJiB 2004 Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7–48.3% (matched by the Final National Exit Poll). bit.ly/dwaOZH bit.ly/bsL7lk National pre-election polls RCP The final 15 pre-election polls listed by RCP were all likely voter (LV) polls. RCP- 2004 Pre-election Polls bit.ly/b4xn3h The Oct 2 Newsweek poll–exactly one month before the election–was the last RV poll listed. Kerry led by 47–45 (52–47%). An Oct 31 Gallup poll -- RV and unlisted -- had Kerry ahead 48–46% (projected 51–47%). Bush led the final RCP 15–poll average by 48.9–47.4–1.0 (2.7% were undecided). RCP projected Bush would capture 50% of the undecided vote and win by 50.0–48.5, closely matching the recorded vote. Gallup projected that Kerry, the challenger, would win 88% of the undecided vote. Zogby and Harris had 75–80%. bit.ly/claROe TIA Election Model Kerry led the average of 18 national polls (9 RV and 9 LV) by 47.2–46.9 (projected 50.9–48.1%) Charnin:2004 Pre-election RV/LV Polling Trend Analysis. bit.ly/9nwW3G State Pre-election Polls Bush led the unweighted average by 47.6–45.7%. Charnin:2004 Pre-election State Polling Trend bit.ly/bSgeyI The unweighted average is misleading. State polls must be weighted by voting population to determine the overall national share. Kerry led the 2004 Election Model weighted aggregate by 47.9–46.9% (projected 51.1–47.9%). bit.ly/cwya4J Battleground state pre-election polls LV polls All final pre-election polls listed by RCP were likely voter polls. RCP- 2004 Battleground States bit.ly/9YajFS Bush led the final unweighted average by 47.3–46.9% Kerry led the LV poll projection by 50.5–48.5% RV polls Assuming Kerry did 1% better in the RV polls, he led by 51.5–47.5%. Charnin:2004 Battleground pre-election LV polls, Exit polls and Recorded votes bit.ly/d8v0wT Gallup 28 RV and 28 LV polls:FL 6, IA 4, MN 2, OH 6, PA 5, WI 5 LV:Bush led by 48.5–46.7 (projected 49.5–49.4% ). RV:Kerry led by 47.1–46.4 (projected 50.9–47.7%). Charnin:2004 Gallup Pre-election RV and LV Polls bit.ly/cgzNNk State and National Exit Polls Kerry led the unadjusted 2004 State Exit Poll weighted Aggregate by 52–47%. bit.ly/cIuWyL Kerry led the un-forced Preliminary 2004 National Exit Poll ( <1% MoE ) by 50.8–48.2%. bit.ly/aukdM1 The election was stolen. 2006 The Democrats won the recorded vote count by 52-46% (matched by the Final National Exit Poll). bit.ly/21JF8h House Generic Congressional ballot In 2006, 120 Generic polls were listed at pollingreport.com:53 LV and 67 RV. bit.ly/cI7S1p The Democrats led the average RV poll by 49.4–30.3—19.1% margin. The Democrats led the average LV poll by 49.6–38.4—11.2% margin. The LV–RV margin differential indicated a pre-election 7.9% advantage for the GOP in the LV polls. Of the final 20 generic polls advertised pre-election, eighteen (18) were LV. Only two (2) were RV. (post-election: In the 2006 midterms...) bit.ly/bAc6OK RCP listed eight (8) final LV polls. The Democrats led by 52–40.6% (projected 56–42%). RCP- Generic Congressional Ballot bit.ly/9jR6EG The Oct 30 NBC/WSJ RV poll had the Democrats leading by 52–37 (projected 58–40%). The unadjusted-final National Exit Poll (i.e., Roper, 13,251 respondents) had the Democrats winning 56.4–41.3%. The Democratic Landslide was denied. bit.ly/a3QVNZ Charnin:Landslide Denied:2008 was an exact rerun of the 2006 midterms bit.ly/aBS8Zk 2008 Obama won the recorded vote count by 52.9–45.6%, matched (as usual) by the forced Final National Exit Poll. bit.ly/HP4Mq Obama led the final 15 LV polls by 52.1–44.5—(projected 53–45%), matching the recorded vote. bit.ly/dwaOZH RCP- General Election:McCain vs. Obama bit.ly/1X6u4E The final 4 RV polls from Gallup, Pew, CBS and ABC/WP were not listed. bit.ly/dvFxJq Obama led the RV average by 52.7–39.8—projected (57.2–41.3%). Charnin:Why the Final Pre-election Polls and the National Exit Poll Confirm an Obama 20m Vote Landslide bit.ly/9vEpUR The Democratic landslide was denied. bit.ly/cDc8SI Charnin:2008 Election Fraud Analytics bit.ly/dmUhmT Uadjusted State and unforced Preliminary National Exit polls have not been released. bit.ly/dfIPTI Conclusion If you believe that Kerry won in 2004 and that landslides were denied in 2006 and 2008, then you must also believe that the a) pre-election RV polls were essentially correct b) pre-election LV polls were wrong c) unadjusted exit polls were essentially correct d) Final National Exit Poll was impossible e) Elections were fraudulent and resulted in a 4–5% reduction in the True Democratic share If you believe that Bush won fairly in 2004 and the Democratic landslides of 2006 and 2008 were not denied, then you must believe that the a) Recorded vote matched the True Vote b) Pre-election LV polls matched the recorded vote c) Pre-election RV polls overstated the Democratic True vote d) Unadjusted exit polls overstated the Democratic True vote e) Final National Exit polls matched the recorded (True) vote, even though an impossible number of returning Bush voters were required f) Elections were fraud-free even though the votes were not and could not be verified |
Refresh | +2 Recommendations | Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC