Here is Richard Charnin's powerful analysis of the "official" National Exit
Poll results for the 2008 election. As he makes very clear, those numbers are
For example, the final NEP for the '08 election tells us that there were
5.25 million returning third-party voters (4% of the electorate). This is
impossible, as there had been only 1.2 million recorded third-party votes in 2004. And, according to the final '08 NEP, that election saw a quite
incredible turnout of 103% of
living Bush 2004 voters.
Crunching all the numbers, Charnin finds--and, it would seem, proves--that
Obama did not win the last election by some 9 million votes, but by over
20 million votes. So the people's vote for "change" was not a mere "decisive victory," as the press
repeatedly asserted, but a landslide pure and simple.
A Simple Proof that Obama Won by Much More than 9.5 Million Recorded
So what do mainstream pollsters make of Richard's numbers? What, for
example, does the New York Times's Nate Silver have to say about them? Does he
credit them, or has he found some flaw in Richard's math or reasoning?
We don't know, since Silver has refused to say a word about them. On Sept.
30, Richard posted the following comment on Silver's NYT blog--and, within
minutes, that post simply disappeared.
- Advertisement -
This is how the MSM has always dealt with inconvenient evidence--not by
making any argument against it, but by just refusing to discuss it.
Here, below, is Richard's post (a little rough, just as he typed it). Feel
free to urge Nate Silver to reply, or at least explain why he will not.
You gauge polling accuracy by comparing the average results to the recorded
vote. You should at some point acknowledge that final LV poll projections have
been accurate in matching fraudulent vote shares and that the recorded vote is
never equal to the True Vote due to systemic Election Fraud.
In fact, final RV poll projections (adjusted for allocation of
undecided voters) have closely matched the unadjusted and preliminary exit polls
that exposed the fraudulent 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections. In each election, the
Final National Exit Poll (which is always FORCED to match the recorded vote)
required more returning Bush voters from the prior election than were alive in
2004 and 2008.
But you never mention the F-word. The fraud component is included in my
2010 Midterms House and Senate Forecast Model:
For the record, my 2004 Election Model Monte Carlo simulation gave Kerry
52% and 337 electoral votes, matching the 114,000 sample aggregate of the
unadjusted state exit polls. The Final 2004 National Exit Poll required 6
million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were living in 2004.
Bush had 50.45 million votes in 2000; the Final 2004 NEP indicated that
there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters. Given 1.25% annual voter
mortality and assuming 97% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters, there could have
been no more than 46 million returning Bush voters. So we have over six million
Kerry won the 2004 True Vote by nearly 10 million. Yet Rasmussen had a high
ranking from from you a few years ago based on his the close match of his LV to
the bogus recorded Bush 3 million vote margin.
In 2008, the Election Model predicted 53.1% for Obama (he had 52.9%
recorded) and exactly macthed his 365 EV. But it was wrong. The post-election
True Vote model (based on the Final 2008 exit poll with a feasible
returning voter mix) indicated that he had 57-58% and nearly 420 EV.
The Final 2008 NEP required an impossible 12 million more returning Bush
than Kerry voters to match the recorded vote. Bush won the bogus 2004 recorded
vote by 3 million. He had 22% approval on Election Day 2008. So where did all
those millions of phantom Bush voters come from? Based on the True 2004 vote,
there were 10 million MORE returning Kerry voters than Bush voters.
Mark's new book, Loser Take All
: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008, a collection 14 essays on Bush/Cheney's election fraud since (and including) 2000, is just out, from Ig Publishing.
He is also the author of Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform
which is now out in paperback (more...
|The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.