http://richardcharnin.com/2010SenateMidtermsPostElection.htm
There was no reason to suspect that the midterms would be any different than prior elections. The pundits typical reaction promotes the conventional wisdom that it was a GOP blowout of epic proportions - even bigger than 1994. The party in power nearly always loses seats in the midterms. But the true number is unknown. The unconventional wisdom is that in every election the Democrats do significantly better than the recorded vote indicates. The 2010 midterms were no exception.
This analysis utilizes final likely and registered state and national pre-election polls along with preliminary and final exit polls. The 2010 Election Forecast Model predicted that the final LV pre-election would closely match the recorded vote and they did. Final exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote (Table 3 lists late adjustments made to the exit polls without any additional respondents). On the other hand, pre-election RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. At least they did until 2008, when the National Election Pool (the consortium of six mainstream media giants which pay the exit pollsters) decided that it was bad for business to release the pristine data.
National (Generic) Exit Poll vs. Pre-election polls
As expected, the final 2010 National Exit Poll margin discrepancy from the average of 30 pre-election generic LV polls was a near-perfect -0.62.
The returning voter mix was set to the 2008 recorded vote. The discrepancy from the 19 pre-election RV poll average was an even lower 0.07%.
State exit polls vs. Pre-election polls
The final state exit poll (i.e. recorded vote) discrepancy from the average LV poll was 1.52%.
The state exit poll returning voter mix was set to the 2008 recorded vote. The discrepancy from the RV poll average was an even lower 0.83%.
As usual, the pundits are quoting the final exit polls as gospel. They warn Obama that he must move to the center as if he has been part of the "professional left" all along. They never question the official results. That's why they're pundits: they know that they are paid to present the recorded vote as if it represented the will of the voters. So they avoid the subject of: systemic election fraud - otherwise they might find themselves suspended indefinitely at best.
Now the 2010 midterms are history. The GOP won the House big-time. The Democrats held on to the Senate. Given what we know about election fraud, what does the combination of pre-election registered and likely voter polls, preliminary and final exit polls and recorded vote data indicate? Well, we still have unverifiable elections and a strange reluctance of the Democratic leadership to do anything about it.
The Democrats were going to lose seats in the Senate and House. They were going surely going to lose in Arkansas. They did. They were expected to hold on to CA, WA, WV, NY, DE and OR. And they did. The IL, NV, PA, CO and WI senate elections were expected to be close. And they were. The Democrats won NV and CO. They lost WI, IL and PA. Or did they? Oregon could hold the answer.
In 1998 Oregon decided to implement voting by mail, probably as a result of the 1992 debacle in which the state had the highest exit poll discrepancy (13.6%). In 1996, 10% of votes cast were uncounted. Oregon was the only "battleground" state in which Kerry improved his share over Gore. Kerry's 51.4% share closely matched the unadjusted exit poll aggregate (52%) as one would expect being a battleground state. Since Bush won the recorded vote with 50.7-48.3%, Kerry did 3.1% better in Oregon than nationally. Oregon gave Obama 56.7% in 2008 (3.8% more than his 52.9% recorded national share).
But at this late date, the evidence (statistical and documented) is overwhelming: the 2004 election was stolen. The Oregon recorded vote confirms it. But since exit pollsters have not released 2008 unadjusted exit polls, we can't compare them to the recorded vote shares. We do have the Final 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that there was a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 450% turnout of living third-party voters. According to the Final, there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Therefore, Obama must have done much better than the recorded 52.9% share than the NEP indicates. Oregon had it right in 2008, just like it did in 2004.
Unlike other Democratic states, the 2010 Oregon senate race was never in question. Wyden led by a consistent 20% in the pre-election LVpolls. How come? Wyden had a 57% share - just as the polls predicted. It matched Obama's Oregon share in 2008. But if Oregon is a measure for the National electorate, how do we explain the GOP 52-47% Generic margin in 2010?
How come all the Battleground states shifted to the GOP while solid Democratic states did not? Is Oregon no longer a Battleground state? If so, why the unique change in classification? Could it be that Oregon is the only state which mandates random full hand-counts of the optically-scanned paper ballots to check the central tabulator machine-counts?
