Did Obama actually win by 20 million votes? ( TIA )

[tiptoe]

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

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

Dec. 15, 2008


What’s 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

You’re assuming the 2004 Recorded Vote was equal to the True Vote. Researchers have concluded that Kerry won the True Vote by 8–10 million. What about that?

Let’s 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? Bush’s 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 it’s obvious that the returning-2004-Voter Mix in the Final NEP is implausible. How could that be?

Here’s 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, it’s 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 (55.7–42.7%) assuming 4.0m uncounted votes (3.0% of 135.1m cast).
b) Obama wins by 15.7m:   72.3 – 56.5 (55.2–43.2%) 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 (57.5–40.9%) assuming 4.0m uncounted votes.
b) Obama wins by 20.7m:   74.8 – 54.1 (57.1–41.3%) 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 59.2–37.5%.  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 52.3–46.3%; 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 53.2–45.4% (67–57m). That’s a 13m increase in margin over the recorded vote. Now, what about the unadjusted 2008 state exit polls?

We don’t have those numbers yet. Exit Pollsters Edison-Mitofsky should release a summary precinct-based report in a few months.

Didn’t the E-M Jan. 2005 report indicate that Kerry won the state exit polls by 52–47%, 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. Wasn’t 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 you’re 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 wasn’t a viable hypothesis then, and it’s 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 17–23m votes not by the recorded 9m.  Isn’t 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? It’s a catch-22.  Without the raw 2004 exit polls, you can’t prove that returning Gore voters told the truth about their vote.  Without the raw 2008 exit polls, you can’t prove that the final adjusted exit polls, which were forced to match the vote, were bogus.  Without a paper ballot, you can’t prove that touch screen votes were rigged; the evidence is lost in cyberspace forever.  Without a full recount of paper ballots, you can’t 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.  Let’s HAVA drink.

 

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. IOW, there was even more electoral fraud in 2008 than in 2004.

But Obama's lead was so massive it negated the effect of the fraud.

Why am I not surprised.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. A massive turnout will always beat the fraud

Unfortunately, we can't depend on a massive turnout in every election, especially the mid-term in 2010. The electro-fraud machines have got to GO. :nuke:

[BzaDem]

2. Just keep in mind that his margin mathed most pre-election polls.

Obama won by 7.2 percent; the RCP average was 7.6 percent. Gallup had him ahead as much as 11%, but that's pretty far from the 14.4% that 20 million votes would be.

[tiptoe]

3. The data blurs distinction & results of RV & LV pre-election polls & mishandles 'Undecided Voters'

If media want to present a pre-election picture of a "close contest" (e.g., a "horserace" is better for ratings), they'll utilize pollsters' Likely Voter (LV) poll results instead of their Registered Voter (RV) poll results.

From the article's source:

...
Hold on. I thought this discussion was going to be based on the 2008 National Exit Poll recorded vote. The average national pre-election poll had Obama winning by 51-43. Allocating undecided voters equally, that equates to 53-45, exactly matching the vote.

That is misleading for these reasons:  1) the challenger (Obama) typically get 75% of undecided voters and  2) the final national pre-election polls differed by type: the average registered voter (RV) poll had Obama leading by 12 points (52–40%) while the likely voter LV polls had him up by just 6 (50–44%). After allocating the undecided vote, Obama won the RVs by 56–42% and the LVs by 53–45%. But the RV polls were more realistic: they included the large number of new voters*, unlike the LV polls. And according to the Final NEP, Obama won 71% of new voters. The RV polls matched the True Vote based on Final NEP vote shares and a plausible return-voter mix.

*New voters (2004 DNV) estimate = 21.1 million and would include at least 2 million newly-registered Democrats (data from just 28 states).

Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by 11(?) million, and at least 344,000 Republicans changed registration for 2008.

Record electorate of 131+ million recorded votes currently, but many analysts expected 140+ million and one anticipated 148m to turnout. The number of uncounted votes remains to be assessed.

[Turbineguy]

5. More people voted for Obama

than the repubs could steal. That was necessary all along. It seemed he would need a 10 to 15% margin just to break even.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[althecat]

6. Kick

[BeFree]

7. kICK

[Scuba]

8. Simple explanation....

ES&S quietly purchased Diebold last fall, giving them 80% of market for electronic voting machings. And it's not just the un-auditable vote-counting; they now also own polling place check-in software (electronic pollbooks), voter registration software and vote-by-mail authentication software.

http://www.benalexandra.com/cool_stuff/diebold_ess.htm

This link has very scary information, all with appropriate citations, regarding what could easily be a mass-manipulation of our elections.

[DakotaBlue75]

9. Wow

Very interesting. Voting machines....

[tiptoe]

11. Learn about the pre-election polling scam, setting us up the election fraud in Nov 2010:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9254028