Election Fraud: Obama Should Have Won the Nomination By Now

[tiptoe]

Election Fraud: Obama Should Have Won the Nomination By Now
TruthIsAll    http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008PrimariesLinks.htm

April 28, 2008

Hillary thought she would have the nomination locked up by Super Tuesday, Feb.5. It didn’t happen. The GOP wanted to run against her from the start. They knew that they couldn’t beat Edwards in the GE, so they made sure that he would be out of the race if they got the media to ignore him. But Obama proved to be a much tougher opponent than either the GOP or Clinton ever expected.

So now Clinton and the GOP are doing everything they can to prop up Hillary and derail Obama. Beginning with her miraculous New Hampshire “win”, there has been an ongoing effort to pad her votes at Obama's expense. Rovian tactics are being used to divide and conquer: it’s the only way that McCain can win. Just before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries, Rush Limbaugh called for an "Operation Chaos" to get Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton.


The Pennsylvania primary is just the most recent example of how dirty tricks caused votes (and pledged delegates) to be stolen from Obama. Hillary won the recorded vote by 54.7–45.3%. But 100% of the votes were machine-counted.

Exit polls are adjusted to conform with the actual recorded vote tally, even if it is corrupted. The unadjusted, “pristine” early exit poll had Obama leading 52–47%. His 5% exit poll margin became a 9% recorded vote loss – a highly unusual 14% WPE (Within Precinct Error). The average WPE is the difference in the average precinct exit poll margin and the recorded vote margin. Clinton led the adjusted exit poll by 52–47.

In Jan 2005 exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky reported that Kerry led the unadjusted exit polls by 51.8–47.2. There was a 7% difference between Kerry 4.6% exit poll margin (51.8–47.2, WPE) and Bush’s 2.4% recorded vote margin (50.7–48.3).

There is every reason to expect that election fraud will again take place in the upcoming North Carolina and Indiana primaries. Obama’s solid pre-election NC 10% poll margin will be reduced to less than 5%. And just like PA, Indiana will morph from a close race to a solid 5–10% Clinton “victory”. It’s all so predictable without hand-counted paper ballots and no means to verify the votes.

Obama currently leads Clinton by 500,000 in the recorded vote. But if the exit polls and caucuses reflect the True Vote, he would be leading by more than 1.5 million votes. That would make a tremendous difference in his pledged delegate margin. Obama would be the nominee right now were it not for election fraud.

The media doesn’t talk about the many indications of election fraud. They want the “horserace”; it’s good for the ratings. So expect it to continue.

For Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates, she needs 69% of the vote in the remaining primaries. But if Obama wins 50%, he will need just 32% of the 295 uncommitted super delegates () to clinch the nomination. Since Super Tuesday there has been a steady trend () in SDs to Obama.

Primaries, Caucuses and Exit Polls
Obama does much better in human-counted caucuses than in machine-counted primaries. Texas is a perfect example. There’s a 30% difference in Obama’s margin between the primaries (49.2–47.5%) and the caucuses (66.3–33.7%). His recorded vote margin is dwarfed by his lead in the exit polls. But that’s not unexpected; the progressive (i.e. Democratic) candidate always does better in the exit polls than in the vote count due to the endemic fraud: uncounted and switched votes. It’s not due to biased exit polling. Ideally, the exit poll discrepancies would be equally distributed between the two parties. The fact that they always move in favor of the most conservative candidate indicates a pattern of fraud which is beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the 21 primaries in which there were exit polls:
Obama leads by an average 50.4–45.8% (4.6% margin) in the exit polls.
Clinton leads by an average 48.4–47.1% (1.3% margin) in the recorded vote.
The discrepancy in margin from exit poll to the recorded vote is 5.9%.

The exit poll-to-vote shift was in favor of Clinton in 18 of the 21 states.
The 2.5% Exit Poll MoE was exceeded in 11 of the 18 states.
The margin discrepancy () exceeded 13% in 5 states.
The probability that all of these discrepancies would be due to chance is as close to zero as you can get.

New Hampshire
The Final pre-election polls (3–4% MoE) gave Obama an average 8% margin over HRC. The early (unadjusted) exit poll had Obama winning by 8%. He won New Hampshire hand-counts by 5.90% but lost machine-counts by exactly the same margin.

South Carolina
Even though he finished third, Edwards would have done better in the general election than either Clinton or Obama.

Super Tuesday
Just like the 2004 battleground states exit poll red-shift to Bush, Clinton’s recorded vote share in 14 of 16 primaries () have exceeded her exit poll share. In New York, over 80 precincts, many in black areas, recorded Zero votes for Obama. Mayor Bloomberg called it fraud. In Los Angeles, 90,000 independent votes were uncounted due to the confusing ballot design (shades of the infamous Florida 2000 “Butterfly” which cost Gore over 3,000 votes).

Ohio
Clinton's vote share exceeded her 9pm exit poll share by 3.6% (55.2–51.6%). She won the recorded vote by 10.6% (55.3–44.7%) over Obama. But her exit poll margin was just 3.4% (51.7–48.3%). As always, the Final Exit Poll was adjusted to match the vote count. In addition, there is concrete evidence that Republican cross-over voters played a significant role in delivering votes to Clinton. In Cuyahoga County 17,000 Republicans followed Rush Limbaugh’s advice and voted for her. And this was also the case in many other counties.

Texas
There was a strange, impossible result: Zero votes were cast for Republicans in 21 counties (all 36,239 ballots cast were for Democrats). There were zero votes cast for Democrats in 3 counties (all 1865 ballots cast were for Republicans). Did Republicans follow Rush Limbaugh’s advice and cross over to vote for Clinton? We can assume that crossovers, even if not 100%, occurred in other counties.

Mississippi
Obama won by 61–37%, but 25% of Clinton’s votes came from Republicans who followed the advice of Rush Limbaugh. Obama won 65% of Democrats and Independents.

The Delegate Calculator is an Excel worksheet model for projecting the total number delegates.

[Tarc]

1. Don't look now but here comes the "try to distract em away from Rev. Wright" ploys

Transparent to the last, you O-Bots are.

[DJ13]

2. You should send a copy to both Olbermann and Dean

K&R!

[rinsd]

8. Why so they could laugh at cherry picked polls?

TruthISAll was tombstoned from this place for being a bullshit artist.

[FogerRox]

30. He lost his temper a bit too often IIRC

[indimuse]

3. I bet if we were to really LQQK...we find out, Obama knows more about stealing election...

" border=0 alt="Banner generated at Pimp-My-[br />
Profile.com"></a]

[nebula]

4. They gonna steal it one way or another

this is a preview of what is in store for the GE.


Ask yourself a question: Is there any such thing as a peaceful revolution?

[crimsonblue]

27. We'd need a Ghandi...

and I don't see any leader out there taking up that role.

[truedelphi]

40. We had one such leader

Too hedonistic a person to match Ghandi's brand of spirituality, but certainly warm and loving enough to fit his shoes

Andy Stephenson RIP

[Junkdrawer]

5. 2008 will go down as a "Theft by Primary" year...

Been saying so for a long, long time.

[tiptoe]

14. k!

[NashVegas]

6. Please Stop This Farce

Barack Obama has been very happy to have Republican voters cross party lines to vote and caucus for him. He even went so far as to make a video explaining to PA voters how to get around their closed primary rules.

[Zodiak]

There is a difference between doing that because you truly support someone

And doing it in order to mess up the primary process for the other party so it is easier to win the election for your party.

One is honest democracy in action, the other is election fraud.

ON EDIT: sorry, ignored, no response from me. I put you in the trash heap for a reason.

[rinsd]

13. Before Rush's Operation Chaos, there was Sean Hannity's Stop Hillary Express.

[Brundle_Fly]

25. Oh? Link it then...

Link me the video of Barack Obama explaining this... PLEASE.

waiting...

[rinsd]

7. Only a nutjob TruthisAll would consider National Review's exit poll "pristine"

More cherry picking of polls to get the results he wants.

His math may be good but his science sucks.

[indimuse]

9. I bet if we were to really LQQK...we find out, Obama knows more about stealing election...

" border=0 alt="Banner generated at Pimp-My-[br />
Profile.com"></a]

[Triana]

10. "Cross-over" voting is being encouraged in Indiana too. Just heard on NPR

Repigs will be voting for Hillary there as well. It is indeed part of their plan because they KNOW they can beat Hillary in November (their seething hatred will help them do that). They're scared of Obama and don't want to run against him. They don't hate him enough.

[tiptoe]

16. thnx for the report.

[tritsofme]

11. TIA is a nut case.

He could really use to find a new hobby.

[rinsd]

12. But but but unsourced exit polls released by National Review are pristine!

[ej510]

17. I don't by this voter fraud shit.

[BeFree]

37. Wow to all three of you

rinsd, trist and ej, all I can say is that yall are uneducated and maybe unwilling to be educated. TIA pretty much singlehandedly provided enough evidence to those willing to be educated, so that they became a force causing election reform to happen, from sea to shining sea.

And yall come out of the closet spewing garbage at him. Yall's comments are what I call the real idiocy.

[jbnow]

15. I found a study I can't get off my mind

This is a pdf file National Election Data Archive
January 11, 2008 – updated 1/16/2008
New Hampshire Democratic Primary Election Results
Hand Count versus Machine Counts
by Kathy Dopp, M.S., Beth Clarkson, M.S., and Ron Baiman, Ph.D
This analysis is like nothing I've seen. Variables of size and location are controlled for.
The New Hampshire election officials cooperated with sharing data with the authors. I don't have a clue.
There is much more detail and analysis at the link but I'll note some key findings.

In more basic comparisons done earlier McCain/Romney showed a similar pattern to Obama/Clinton but analyzed here there were very different conclusions

Paired-Precinct Study of Obama & Clinton Hand vs. Machine Counts by Kathy Dopp

Each pair in this study of 25 pairs of New Hampshire precincts (50 precincts) is in the same county and has almost the same total number of votes counted. In this paired sample, the average size of a Diebold machine count is 754 votes cast and the average size of a hand-count is 763 votes cast.

A Paired-Precinct Study of the Republican NH Primary Election Results
The apparent “machine effect” of increased vote share due to Diebold machine counts for Republican Mitt Romney can be explained by precinct size I.e. Romney did better in larger precincts which may have been in less rural areas.

But some findings for Obama Clinton analyzed by the same method:

1. Clinton out-performs Obama (39.7% to 36.3% overall) whenever ballots are counted by Diebold machine rather than by hand; and
2. Obama out-performs Clinton (38.6% to 35.2% overall) whenever ballots are counted by hand;

If the same paired-precinct analysis is done by calculating vote shares as a percentage of Obama and Clinton votes only, the results are consistent with a vote flip between Obama and Clinton, as if a ballot programming error caused a vote cast for Clinton to be machine counted for Obama and vice-versa.

A couple minor points. I know we aren't suppose to hear what late exit polls show before correction but of course after New Hampshire Chris Matthews got irritated when everyone was dismissing the Bradley effect by giving reasons voters just changed their mind by blurting out it was the raw exit poll data he was handed that night that showed Obama winning big. He said in a couple of times.

Then after Super Tuesday on Tim Russert's weekend show. A couple of panelists were talking again about the raw data from final exit polls before any adjustment. The two that made no sense to them were Massachusetts and New Jersey. They were sure he had won both by a smaller margin in Massachusetts, so they could shrug that one off but New Jersey didn't make any sense to them.
I was pretty sure New Jersey had updated but as it turns out they extended the date for implementing from January to June 3, 2008. The AG refused request to give primary voters the choice of casting paper ballots request.

As far as the other states:
Super Tuesday

New Jersey was one of the states most at risk with the others being New York, Tennessee, Georgia, Delaware, and Arkansas, said the Common Cause/Verified Voting Foundation report. All of those states, except New York, use electronic voting machines without paper ballots in all or part of the state. New York has passed a paper record law but has not yet replaced lever machines used across most of the state, the groups said. Lever machines can malfunction and are subject to tampering, the groups said.
(snip)
n addition, another five states -- Alabama, Arizona, Massachusetts, Utah, and Oklahoma -- use paper ballots along with their e-voting machines, but don't require regular audits to check the electronic results, the groups said. Four states with primaries on Tuesday use voting machines but also require regular audits, and were listed as low-risk in the report. Those states were California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Missouri.

And just opinion? I suspect the thumb of Diebold smushed Bill Clinton's mouth a bit in SC

Of course PA was also unrecountable, unverifiable, and unauditable

I think about what Obama says at town halls about warrantless wiretaps and the unitary executive. He said you don't have to prove someone is doing anything wrong to object, you don't even have to suspect them. No matter how much you trust them you always have to have somebody watching the watcher.

I think this applies to voting.
People are criticized for paranoia in suspecting but the problem is we have voting systems that demand paranoia.

[knight_of_the_star]

18. Your argument would be convincing if the evidence was with you

Considering that only in Mississippi did Republicans break heavily for Clinton, in Texas they went more for Obama and Ohio it was dead even. I don't think that supports that Operation Chaos had serious impact.

[PATRICK]

19. Thank you

This is the first time I have had a clear opportunity to put people on an ignore list. The depth of dumbness in any candidate's supporters in using election fraud as a divisive issue is beyond the pale for me. Rind and the post itself have raised the issue, vital to any Democrat or American in such a way as to be totally useless except to add to its main purposes.

Don't quote hostile sources much less use them as an "intellectual" base. Wary use of what crap is being presented and force-fed to the people is the only use for such data or punditry. Clinton is owned by playing this game, and a future compromised punching bag to the detriment of the rest of the world if not her minimalist ambition. Obama is far too silent on the open theft of votes in general to promote the party of tyranny and the appeasement policies of some Dems. If there was one horse race issue close to the process and all All the other crying crises it is extremely open election fraud.

As i said. the main poster and the most cogent critic walk the stupid line to avoid the issue for what it is- a gun pointed at all of us. The service they render is in attracting those who cross that line easily, blindly, bluntly in full service of the GOP. They are lucky I am not in charge of tombstones. The same can be said for using GOP propaganda to prop your candidate. Stupid beyond comprehension, but I suppose emblematic of America under Bush and cannibal corporatists.

This whole primary process is only accidentally a remnant of democracy simply because the quick submission rule has been thrown under the bus by the early presumptive nominee juggernaut running on empty. Instead of everyone quickly submitting to the early frontrunner the primary process(as it was intended by party leaders) has been turned on its head. No one can even grasp how to evaluate this turned inside out process to unravel the flaws from the incursions of the people enjoying some small reduced democratic choice maybe for the first time in decades.

The Obama campaign should be learning. Instead, after HRC finally has to give an inch on the nomination, the only people benefiting will have been the GOP who have had a bloody dry run stealing the usual, gaming and spinning the usual, and making a mockery of truth, law and, oh yeah, the Democratic party. the only ones leading on this issue as usual are the election advocacy heroes and organizations trying to repair the system as best they can- without the necessary central focus. Meanwhile, the people DO have the sense of how votes are counted or not and are left in the dark, defrauded, discouraged, distracted and powerless.

If the Obama campaign is learning and will do something about this in the near future other than gripe about it after the fact to get at the irritating foe who won't go away, well, hurray. hasn't happened yet. Dems quietly presume they can fix all these things somehow by winning a fraud diminished victory this fall. The GOP machine INTENDS to steal(and is doing the job now) this election against the stained Democratic candidate of their choosing. This clear plot makes the Bush GOP appear more rational than anyone in this one solitary exception.

We used to have substantive, scientific debates about the exit polls and other theories(theories because Dems are too cowardly to go after the evidence and the obvious crimes).

Absent all the evidence and the open examination, I have to go by my opinion. The GOP wants Hillary. Plenty of evidence for that. We know the means and opportunity. We see results that tend to confirm this everywhere in every expected venue of attack. You would have to prove to me that the elections have been fair under these circumstances. And you can't in many cases because that is the way the GOP structured the system. Attacking the "loser" or complainer does absolutely nothing to change that.

Within the complexity and confusion of the primary it seems to me that GOP doesn't care if it shows its hand and the "5% solution" suddenly appears. Especially since the Dems in all factions can't get their collective head out of their (deleted) to do or say anything about it except for squeaks of resentment that are used against their fellow Dems.

We know what happens in that imperfect caucus system. You can go to one and see. The GOP owns a huge chunk of the secret ballot secret counting system and if you believe they do little with that sole advantage then you are their staunchest core. No one really knows about a huge chunk of that process because that's the way it has been "reformed" to function. With stupid Dem votes for HAVA etc.

We should demand BOTH candidates observe and attack the system that is being fine tuned to take down America this November.

[Mme. Defarge]

20. Recommended & bookmarked!

Thanks.

[tiptoe]

21. ok!

[psychmommy]

22. i believe there is election fraud.

keep on reporting. some of us are listening.

[Kurovski]

23. Machines calibrated to give Clinton 500-1,500 votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5696805

[snot]

24. K&R'd. we canNOT let the mofos wear us out. nt.

[OHdem10]

26. Some exuse is better than none.

Obama lost . Obama has been willed our candidate. The GOP are
counting on a 40 state win when Obama is our nominee.

[FogerRox]

31. This is not GDP territory. This is the ER forum.

>wink<

[L. Coyote]

28. Nothing new here. Same old, same old.

"... dirty tricks caused votes (and pledged delegates) to be stolen ..." HOW?

"Exit polls are adjusted to conform with the actual recorded vote tally, ..." HOW?
Are they not adjusted to fit the actual demographic?

"There is every reason to expect that election fraud will again take place ... It’s all so predictable" ??
If you have a glass ball, maybe.

"Obama does much better in human-counted caucuses than in machine-counted primaries. Texas is a perfect example..."
False logic. They are not the same populations! Caususes are a subset of activists.

"The probability that all of these discrepancies would be due to chance is as close to zero as you can get."
First say they are discrepancies without showing how ....

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. as for the adjustments

You probably know all this, but for what it's worth....

The exit poll tabs are "adjusted to fit the actual demographic" in the sense that the interviewers are supposed to tally the race, sex, and (rough) age of non-respondents, and the tabs are supposed to be weighted consistent with those tallies.

(In the 2004 exit poll, the non-response rate was much greater among older respondents. Upweighting older respondents, in principle, should compensate for this phenomenon -- if the non-response is distributed at random between Obama and Clinton supporters. It probably isn't, but we have no way of knowing how it is distributed.)

The exit poll tabs are also "adjusted to conform with the actual recorded vote tally," I think at the geostratum level. (I should check the fine print, but I need to do my day job.) That is, if a state is divided into five regions, the final tabs should match the vote shares in each region as of whenever the final tabs were prepared. This is why exit poll tabs change during the course of the night.

It seems pretty clear that the underlying exit poll interviews have generally overstated Obama's vote share. We don't know exactly what those interviews show -- and when people leak "raw" or "early" results, there is no way to tell whether those even incorporate an adjustment for the (likely) observed age bias. But my impression is that the vote counts generally conform more closely with pre-election polls than with exit polls. On Super Tuesday we saw some initial exit poll tabs (such as MA) that looked unlikely; the final counts were closer to pre-election expectations. (If I ever get some down time, I'll try to pull together all the numbers we have access to.) Of course this offers no comfort to people who are convinced that the pre-election polls are biased against Obama.

I agree, naturally, that the difference between caucus and primary results can't be attributed to counting method alone. (I have seen no evidence that it can be attributed to counting method at all.)

[BeFree]

36. Now we have......get ready for it....."Age Bias"

Got to hand it to you.... you do come up with some zingers.

What will you think up to explain a close McCain victory? I can hardly wait to hear what you invent then.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. against all odds, you've misinterpreted yet another post

AFAIK no one disputes that the non-response rate was higher among older respondents in 2004. Whether that has anything to do with the exit poll discrepancies, then or now, is unknown.

Hey, thanks for stalking by.

[BeFree]

39. Always glad

To bite the hand that feeds BS.

On second thought, I CAN wait to hear what excuses you come up with to explain away another republican victory. Hopefully you won't be able to say a damn thing, but I imagine we'll have to take it in stride, sadly.

[hokies4ever]

29. CNN Election Map after Mississippi

John King showed a comparison of the electoral map of the MS Dem primary and the 2004 election. It was sickening. Pretty much every county that went for Hillary in the MS primary went strongly Republican in the 2004 election. After Hillary's comments about being shocked that Iowa was on par with Mississippi on anything, I knew she lucked out only losing by 24 percentage points thanks to Operation Chaos.

[Bonn1997]

32. They're trying to make Obama look weak, impotent

We hear "He can't close the deal" all the time. This seemed unfair to Obama to me but this morning I realized that if he won't stand up to election fraud, then he is weak, impotent.

[Wilms]

34. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=132

:hi:

[Bonn1997]

35. huh?

What's the point of the link? I don't understand your reply.

[helderheid]

41. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[tiptoe]

42. direct your itchin-to-rec digits in this direction:

:hi: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x505613

And TIA.