Could it be that since the winner has been decided, there is no longer an incentive on the part of the perennial vote thieves to continue switching late votes?
Could it be that the late votes are on paper ballots (provisionals, absentees), not DREs?
Could it be that the bulk of late votes are coming in from Democratic strongholds? That is true, but Obama has a 10.5% margin when the late vote shares are weighted by total state votes, which tends to refute that argument.
The consistent Democratic late vote discrepancies from the Election Day shares are not proof of fraud. But there is no reason why the phenomenon is ignored in the mainstream media and academia. Without an accurate composition of late vote demographics we cannot make a definitive judgment as to whether they are representative of the total electorate. But there are a number of reasons why Obama would be expected to do better in the late vote. The only question is: how much better?
1) Late votes are cast on paper ballots, not DREs or optiscans. Check.
2) There is no incentive to miscount votes after the election. Check.
3) Democratic late vote shares always far exceed Election Day shares. This is indicative of a structural phenomenon. Check.
4) Blacks, Hispanics and Asians votes increased for Obama in 2012. Since the total vote declined, there were fewer white voters, increasing Obama's total share. Check.
5) When late shares are weighted by total state votes, Obama's 10.5% margin far exceeds the 2.3% Election Day Margin. Check.
Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model
2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Kerry: 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV
2008 Election Model