You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Obama actually win by 20 million votes? ( TIA ) [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 08:58 PM
Original message
Did Obama actually win by 20 million votes? ( TIA )
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 09:42 PM by tiptoe

Did Obama actually win by 20 million votes?
A Conversation about the 2008 Election

TruthIsAll      source: http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/Conversation2008...

Dec. 15, 2008


Whats the latest 2008 Recorded Vote Count?
 
 
 
 

Vote Count
 

Obama
 

McCain
 

Other

There are 131.071 million recorded.

Obama leads by exactly 9.456 million votes:
 
131.071m
 
 
69.284m
 
 
 
59.828m
 
 
 
1.959m

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52.86%
 
 
 
45.65%
 
 
 
1.49%


Who voted?

Returning Kerry, Bush and third-party voters, first-timers and others who sat out the 2004 election but voted in a prior election.

Can we estimate the number of returning-Election-2004-voters in 2008?

There were 122.3 million official Recorded Votes in 2004. Bush won by 3 million, 62 59m  ( 50.73 48.27% ).
Assuming a 4-year voter mortality rate of 5 percent, 6 million died.
Therefore, about 116m who voted in 2004 were alive in 2008.
About  95% of them  (110 million)  turned-out and voted in 2008.
New voters in 2008, then, number (131.07m 110m) or approximately 21.1m.
Assuming Bush- and Kerry-returning-voter turnout rates were both 95%, approximately, then,

 
 
Returning Kerry voters
=
53m

 
 
Returning Bush voters
=
56m

 
 
Returning 'Other' voters
=
1m

 
 
'New' voters
=
21.1m

 
 
 
 
131.1m


Youre assuming the 2004 Recorded Vote was equal to the True Vote. Researchers have concluded that Kerry won the True Vote by 810 million. What about that?

Lets not get bogged down by a discussion of election fraud.  Check out the 2008 Final National Exit Poll (Final NEP) it confirmed the Vote Count:

Vote for President in 2004:    (4,195 Respondents)

 
 
   
 
 
 
Obama
 
McCain
 
'Other'

John Kerry
 
37%
(
Returning Kerry voters
=
48.5m
)
89%
( =
43.16m)
 
9%
( =
4.36m)
 
2%
( =
0.97m)

George W. Bush
 
46%
(
Returning Bush voters
=
60.3m
)
17%
( =
10.25m)
 
82%
( =
49.44m)
 
1%
( =
0.60m)

Someone else
 
4%
(
Returning 'Other' voters
=
5.2m
)
66%
( =
3.46m)
 
24%
( =
1.26m)
 
10%
( =
0.52m)

Did Not Vote
 
13%
(
'New' voters
=
17.0m
)
71%
( =
12.10m)
 
27%
( =
4.60m)
 
2%
( =
0.34m)


 
 
100%
 
 
 
 
131.1m
 
 
68.97m
 
 
 
59.66m
 
 
 
2.44m 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52.62%
 
 
 
45.52%
 
 
 
1.86%


How could 46% of 131.1m (60.3m) have been returning Bush voters?
He had 62.0m votes in 2004. About 59m were alive in 2008. Assuming 95% turned out in 2008, only 56m voted. The NEP is off by 4.0m Bush voters.

And just 37% (48.5m) were Kerry voters?
How could returning Bush-voters outnumber Kerry-voters by 11.8 million? Bushs 2004 vote margin was only 3.0m.

How could 4% of the 2008 electorate (5.2m) consist of third-party 2004 voters?
There were only 1.2m in 2004. The NEP is off by 4.0m third-party voters.

Hold on. I thought this discussion was going to be based on the 2008 National Exit Poll and Recorded Vote.

But its obvious that the returning-2004-Voter Mix in the Final NEP is implausible. How could that be?

Heres how. There are three possibilities:
a)  returning Kerry-voters misspoke to exit-pollers in 2008 and claimed they voted for Bush in 2004
b)  returning Bush-voters misspoke and claimed they voted for third-parties in 2004
c)  the Final NEP was 'forced' to match the Vote-Count; the poll-category's Voter Mix and/or Vote Shares had to be 'adjusted'

Oh. Are you now going to claim that the 46/37 Bush/Kerry mix in the Final 2008 NEP was due to Kerry voters who indicated that they voted for Bush despite his current 22% approval rating? Is this the 2008 Kerry version of the 2004 Gore voter false recall theory? What would motivate returning Kerry voters to say that they voted for Bush?

Ok, they just forgot that they voted for Kerry. Not that they wanted to identify with Bush, mind you. They just forgot they voted for Kerry in 2004. And returning Bush voters did not want to admit they voted for him, so they lied and said they voted for a third-party candidate.

But the Final NEP is always forced to match the Recorded Vote-Count, right? So why should we even bother to conjecture about the motivation of returning voters?

Yes, its always forced to match. You have a point there.

Check out these Final 2008 NEP Scenarios based on a plausible returning-voter mix and these assumptions:
In 2004, there were 3.45m uncounted votes, 6 million died (1.2% annual mortality), 113.7m returning 2004 voters (95% turnout).

 Scenario 1     2004 Recorded Vote Shares
a) Obama wins by 17.5m:   75.2 57.7 (55.742.7%) assuming 4.0m uncounted votes (3.0% of 135.1m cast).
b) Obama wins by 15.7m:   72.3 56.5 (55.243.2%) assuming no uncounted votes.


Recorded
 
 
Mix
 
 
 
Obama
 
McCain
 
'Other'

2004 Vote
DNV
 
15.8%
 
'New' voters
=
21.41m
 
71%
  =
15.2m 
 
27%
  =
5.8m 
 
2%
  =
0.4m 

48.27%
Kerry
 
41.2%
 
Returning Kerry voters
=
55.72m
 
89%
  =
49.6m 
 
9%
  =
5.0m 
 
2%
  =
1.1m 

50.73%
Bush
 
42.1%
 
Returning Bush voters
=
56.86m
 
17%
  =
9.7m 
 
82%
  =
46.6m 
 
1%
  =
0.6m 

1.00%
Other
 
0.8%
 
Returning 'Other' voters
=
1.14m
 
66%
  =
0.8m 
 
24%
  =
0.3m 
 
10%
  =
0.1m 


 
 
 
100%
 
 
 
 
135.12m
 
 
75.21m
 
 
 
57.69m
 
 
 
2.23m 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
55.66%
 
 
 
42.69%
 
 
 
1.65%



 Scenario 2     2004 Unadjusted State Exit Poll (WPE) Aggregate Shares
a) Obama wins by 22.5m:   77.7 55.2 (57.540.9%) assuming 4.0m uncounted votes.
b) Obama wins by 20.7m:   74.8 54.1 (57.141.3%) assuming no uncounted votes.


Unadjusted
 
 
Mix
 
 
 
Obama
 
McCain
 
'Other'

Exit Poll
DNV
 
15.8%
 
'New' voters
=
21.41m
 
71%
  =
15.2m 
 
27%
  =
5.8m 
 
2%
  =
0.43m 

52.0%
Kerry
 
43.8%
 
Returning Kerry voters
=
59.13m
 
89%
  =
52.6m 
 
9%
  =
5.3m 
 
2%
  =
1.18m 

47.0%
Bush
 
39.6%
 
Returning Bush voters
=
53.44m
 
17%
  =
9.1m 
 
82%
  =
43.8m 
 
1%
  =
0.53m 

1.0%
Other
 
0.8%
 
Returning 'Other' voters
=
1.14m
 
66%
  =
0.8m 
 
24%
  =
0.3m 
 
10%
  =
0.11m 


 
 
 
100%
 
 
 
 
135.12m
 
 
77.67m
 
 
 
55.20m
 
 
 
2.26m 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
57.48%
 
 
 
40.65%
 
 
 
1.67%


Since Election Day, Obama has won the final 9.9 million votes (late absentee, provisional, etc.) by 59.237.5%.  Kerry and Gore also won late votes with 7% higher vote shares than they had on Election Day. What does that indicate to you?

Not a damn thing. Obama won on Election Day by 52.346.3%; 10 million is too small a sample to draw any conclusions.

Similar adjustments made to the impossible Final 2004 NEP returning-2000-voter mix indicates that Kerry won the True Vote by 53.245.4% (6757m). Thats a 13m increase in margin over the recorded vote. Now, what about the unadjusted 2008 state exit polls?

We dont have those numbers yet. Exit Pollsters Edison-Mitofsky should release a summary precinct-based report in a few months.

Didnt the E-M Jan. 2005 report indicate that Kerry won the state exit polls by 5247%, based on the within precinct discrepancy (WPE)?

Yes, but there was a catch.

You must be referring to the E-M claim that the ridiculous 2004 WPE was due to Bush voter reluctance (rBr) to be interviewed. Wasnt that theory refuted by other statistics in their report, not to mention in the Final 2004 NEP 43/37 Bush/Gore returning voter mix?

Yes, rBr was refuted. But there was false recall on the part of returning Gore voters; they misspoke when they indicated they voted for Bush.

Oh, now youre going to rehash the false recall argument. Why would Gore voters not tell the truth?

They wanted to identify with the Bush, the winner of the 2000 election. False recall is still a viable hypothesis. It may be implausible to believe that Gore voters misspoke, but you cannot prove otherwise. Subconsciously, Gore voters wanted to identify with Bush anyway.

Everyone knows that Bush stole that election. Come on. False recall is implausible. It wasnt a viable hypothesis then, and its not one now. Gore won by 540,000 votes and Bush had a 48% approval rating. Not only that, the 2000 Census reported 110.8m votes were cast but only 105.4m recorded. Assuming Gore won 70-80% of the 5.4m uncounted votes, his true margin was close to 3 million.

But the evidence strongly suggests that Obama won by 1723m votes not by the recorded 9m.  Isnt it likely that fraud occurred?


There you go again. Back to your old conspiracy theories, just like in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006.Obama won. Get over it.

Conspiracy theories? Its a catch-22.  Without the raw 2004 exit polls, you cant prove that returning Gore voters told the truth about their vote.  Without the raw 2008 exit polls, you cant prove that the final adjusted exit polls, which were forced to match the vote, were bogus.  Without a paper ballot, you cant prove that touch screen votes were rigged; the evidence is lost in cyberspace forever.  Without a full recount of paper ballots, you cant prove that optical scan votes were miscounted.  Without the liberal mainstream media focusing on the statistical and exit poll anomalies, the majority of the public will remain ignorant about the full extent of election fraud.  Without interviewing whistleblowers like Stephen Spoonamore and Clint Curtis, who have already testified in Congress under oath, the public will never ask why there have been no indictments. The only thing that you can prove is that the voting machines can be hacked, and experts have already done it.  Lets HAVA drink.





 

Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

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