TruthIsAll
03-14-2009, 11:36 AM
Five million phantom Bush voters: "bandwagon effect", rBr and "false recall"
The reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis was proposed by the exit pollsters in 2004 in order to explain the massive exit poll/vote discrepancies. But that dog did not hunt since the Final 2004 National Exit Poll (NEP) indicated that returning Bush voters made up an impossible 43% of the 2004 electorate and returning Gore voters just 37%. Simple MATH shows that 43% of 122.3m votes is 52.6m; he only had 50.5m recorded votes in 2000. And since about 2.5 million passed on before the 2004 election, there could have been no more than 48 million returning Bush voters. In other words, the Final NEP had to dig up at least 48.5 million phantom Bush voters in order to match a bogus recorded vote.
This April 2005 DU post proposed the "bandwagon effect" to explain the impossible returning Bush/Gore voter 43/37% split of the 2004 electorate: Returning Gore voters misstated their past vote and told the exit pollsters in 2004 that they voted for Bush in 2000. They jumped on the Bush bandwagon even though his approval rating was at 48%. They may have forgotten that the 2000 election was stolen and their votes were for naught. Right.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x352402
And then "false recall" was proposed based on a 600 sample NES survey. The Bush "bandwagon effect" was due to "slow drifting fog" of Gore voter "false recall".
Hmmm....
But what about the U.S. Census survey of voters? What about THAT survey of 60,000 sampled voters. It shows that in every election millions of votes (70-80% Democratic) are uncounted. What is the IMPACT of UNCOUNTED votes on the True Vote?
See the tables below.
Now it's 2008. Are we expected to believe that returning Kerry voters also suffered from "false recall"? How else to explain the impossible Bush/Kerry 46/37% returning voter mix in the 2008 NEP?
Someone should explain it because the bogus returning voter mix cut Obama's landslide margin by at least half.
Calling Olberman and Maddow. We assume you know about this being the analytical truth-seekers that you are. It's time already. Let's hear a commentary on Election Fraud.
qwghlmian (768 posts) Tue Apr-05-05 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Thanks for asking - too many people
here tend to dismiss anything that does not fit their preconceptions out of hand, without examining it at all.
http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/...
Here is a study done on this "post-election bandwagon effect" examining the 1992 election. It involves two surveys - one done very shortly before the election, which matched almost exactly with the election results - (Clinton: 43%; Bush: 38%; Perot: 19%). The second was done in early December, 1992, less than a couple of months (!) after the election. It asked how people voted. The results: Clinton: 49%; Bush: 32%; Perot: 20%. That is a HUGE shift, completely outside the margin of error, and illustrates a definite tendency for people to lie about the way they voted, even very shortly after the election.
I have seen other studies that suggest that this effect actually increases with time. So TIA's reliance on the "who did you vote for in 2000" poll that was done in 2004 is extremely misguided.
..................................................
qwghlmian,
We know much more about election fraud today then we did back in 2004.
According to the U.S. Census, 10.63 million votes were uncounted in 1988 and 9.45m were uncounted in 1992. Approximately 70-80% were for Dukakis and Clinton.
Clinton won the UNADJUSTED exit poll by 46-35%. Not surprising. The Democrat always does better in the UNADJUSTED exit poll than in the recorded vote.
Recall that the Final NEP is ALWAYS FORCED TO MATCH the recorded vote by adjusting the returning voter mix and/or the vote shares. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. Rather, it's the Final NEP equivalent of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
To avoid the fundamentalist trap, the Election Calculator (EM) determined a FEASIBLE returning voter mix based on total votes CAST (not RECORDED) in 1988 and 1992. The number of returning 1988 voters is approximated by deducting the number of voter deaths from total votes cast. Then the turnout percentage is estimated for those prior election voters still living. A no-brainer.
Now we can proceed to approximate the True Vote. The EM indicates that Clinton won the True Vote by a whopping 50.6-32.5%! The Final 1992 NEP vote shares were applied to returning 1988 voters and new voters to derive the True Vote shares.
Are you reading this, OTOH (oops, qwghlmian)?
[code]
UNCOUNTED VOTES -U.S. Census, 60,000 sample, 0.60% MoE
(in millions)
Year Unctd %cast
1984 9.88 9.66%
1988 10.63 10.40%
1992 9.45 8.30%
1996 8.74 8.32%
2000 5.41 4.86%
2004 3.45 2.74%
Calculated True Vote Preliminary Exit Poll Recorded Vote True Vote WPE Diff
Dem Rep Margin Dem Rep Margin Dem Rep Margin Margin Rec-EP Calc-EP
Average 52.14% 42.20% 9.95% 48.82% 44.12% 4.70% 47.90% 45.96% 1.94% 11.83 -3.82% 4.01%
2008 57.2% 41.1% 16.1% na na na 52.9% 45.6% 7.2% 21.82 na na
2004 53.1% 45.5% 7.6% 52.0% 47.0% 4.9% 48.3% 50.7% -2.5% 9.58 -7.4% 2.7%
2000 49.9% 46.0% 3.9% 49.4% 46.9% 2.5% 48.4% 47.9% 0.5% 4.31 -2.0% 1.4%
1996 52.2% 38.9% 13.2% 50.2% 39.8% 10.4% 49.2% 40.7% 8.5% 13.90 -1.9% 2.8%
1992 50.6% 32.5% 18.1% 45.7% 34.7% 11.0% 43.0% 37.4% 5.6% 20.60 -5.4% 7.1%
1988 49.8% 49.1% 0.7% 46.8% 52.2% -5.3% 45.6% 53.4% -7.7% 0.74 -2.4% 6.1%
1988- 2004 SUMMARY STATISTICS
Calculated True Vote, Unadjusted (preliminary) Exit Poll, Recorded vote
1988-2004 Avg Total Dem Rep Other Margin Dem Rep Other Margin
Calculated 111.53 57.09 47.26 7.18 9.83 51.1% 42.4% 6.5% 8.7%
Recorded 104.00 48.83 47.94 7.23 0.89 46.9% 46.0% 7.1% 0.9%
Prelim EP 104.00 50.91 45.86 7.23 5.05 48.8% 44.1% 7.1% 4.7%
Discrepancies
Calc - Recorded 7.53 8.26 -0.68 -0.05 8.93 4.2% -3.6% -0.6% 7.8%
Calc - Exit poll 6.18 1.40 -0.05 4.77 2.3% -1.7% -0.6% 4.0%
EP - Recorded 2.08 -2.08 0.00 4.16 1.9% -1.9% 0.0% 3.8%
1992 TRUE VOTE CALCULATION
1988 Dukakis Bush Other Total Margin
Recorded 41.809 48.887 0.899 91.595 (7.078)
Share 45.65% 53.37% 0.98% 100.0% -7.73%
10.63 million uncounted votes (70-80% to Dukakis)
1992 Clinton Bush Perot Total Margin
Recorded 44.910 39.105 20.409 104.424 5.81
Share 43.01% 37.45% 19.54% 100.0% 5.56%
9.45 million uncounted votes (70-80% to Clinton)
Est 1992 NEP
Unctd Rate Votes Total Cast Clinton Share Final
1992 8.30% 9.45 113.88 DNV 46% 46%
1988 10.37% 10.60 102.19 Dukakis 83% 83%
Bush 21% 21%
1992 Share 1988 Share Other 50% 50%
Clinton 75% Dukakis 75%
Bush 10% Bush 25% Bush
Other 15% Other 0% DNV 32% 32%
Dukakis 5% 5%
1992 Annual Voter Mortality Bush 59% 59%
Rate 1.28% Other 50% 50%
Died 5.83
Perot
1988 Voter Turnout in 1992 DNV 22% 22%
Dukakis 97% Dukakis 12% 12%
Bush 97% Bush 20% 20%
Other 97% Other 0% 0%
1992 Calculated Vote
1988 Recd Unctd Cast Deaths Alive Turnout Voted Mix Clinton Bush Perot
DNV 20.88 18.3% 46% 32% 22%
Dukakis 41.81 7.09 48.90 2.50 46.39 97% 45.00 39.5% 83% 5% 12%
Bush 48.89 0.95 49.83 2.55 47.28 97% 45.86 40.3% 21% 59% 20%
Other 0.90 1.42 2.32 0.12 2.20 97% 2.13 1.87% 50% 50% 0%
Total 91.60 9.45 101.05 5.17 95.87 93.0 113.88 100% 50.63% 32.54% 16.83%
Cast 113.88 57.65 37.06 19.17
Recorded 43.01% 37.45% 19.54%
104.42 44.91 39.11 20.41
Sensitivity Analysis
Clinton Vote Shares
Table 1 Table 2
Share
of New Share of Dukakis Share of Bush
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25%
50% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 52.9% 50% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0%
48% 49.4% 50.2% 51.0% 51.8% 52.6% 48% 49.4% 50.2% 51.0% 51.8% 52.6%
46% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 46% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2%
44% 48.7% 49.5% 50.3% 51.1% 51.8% 44% 48.7% 49.5% 50.3% 51.1% 51.9%
42% 48.3% 49.1% 49.9% 50.7% 51.5% 42% 48.3% 49.1% 49.9% 50.7% 51.5%
Margin
50% 18.7 20.5 22.3 24.1 25.9 50% 18.6 20.4 22.3 24.1 25.9
48% 17.8 19.6 21.4 23.2 25.0 48% 17.8 19.6 21.4 23.3 25.1
46% 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 46% 16.9 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.3
44% 16.2 18.0 19.8 21.6 23.4 44% 16.1 17.9 19.8 21.6 23.4
42% 15.3 17.1 18.9 20.7 22.5 42% 15.3 17.1 18.9 20.8 22.6
Table 3 Table 4
Unctd
Rate Share of Dukakis Share of Bush
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25%
10% 49.38% 50.18% 50.98% 51.78% 52.59% 10% 49.40% 50.19% 50.98% 51.78% 52.57%
9% 49.18% 49.98% 50.77% 51.57% 52.36% 9% 49.17% 49.97% 50.77% 51.58% 52.38%
8% 48.99% 49.78% 50.57% 51.35% 52.14% 8% 48.95% 49.76% 50.57% 51.37% 52.18%
7% 48.79% 49.57% 50.36% 51.14% 51.92% 7% 48.73% 49.54% 50.36% 51.17% 51.99%
6% 48.60% 49.37% 50.15% 50.92% 51.70% 6% 48.51% 49.33% 50.15% 50.97% 51.79%
Margin
10% 18.0 19.8 21.7 23.6 25.4 10% 18.0 19.9 21.7 23.5 25.4
9% 17.4 19.2 21.0 22.9 24.7 9% 17.4 19.2 21.0 22.9 24.7
8% 16.8 18.6 20.4 22.2 24.0 8% 16.7 18.6 20.4 22.2 24.1
7% 16.3 18.0 19.8 21.5 23.3 7% 16.1 17.9 19.8 21.6 23.4
6% 15.7 17.4 19.2 20.9 22.6 6% 15.5 17.3 19.2 21.0 22.8
Table 5 Table 6
Mortality
Rate Share of Dukakis Share of Bush
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25%
1.6% 49.01% 49.79% 50.57% 51.35% 52.13% 1.6% 48.98% 49.77% 50.57% 51.36% 52.15%
1.4% 49.03% 49.82% 50.60% 51.39% 52.18% 1.4% 49.00% 49.80% 50.60% 51.41% 52.21%
1.2% 49.06% 49.85% 50.64% 51.44% 52.23% 1.2% 49.03% 49.84% 50.64% 51.45% 52.26%
1.0% 49.08% 49.88% 50.68% 51.48% 52.28% 1.0% 49.05% 49.87% 50.68% 51.50% 52.31%
0.8% 49.11% 49.92% 50.72% 51.53% 52.33% 0.8% 49.08% 49.90% 50.72% 51.54% 52.37%
Margin
1.6% 17.0 18.8 20.5 22.3 24.1 1.6% 16.9 18.7 20.5 22.3 24.2
1.4% 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 1.4% 16.9 18.7 20.6 22.4 24.2
1.2% 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 1.2% 16.9 18.8 20.6 22.5 24.3
1.0% 17.0 18.8 20.7 22.5 24.3 1.0% 16.9 18.8 20.7 22.5 24.4
0.8% 17.0 18.9 20.7 22.5 24.4 0.8% 16.9 18.8 20.7 22.6 24.4
Table 7 Table 8
Dukakis
1988 Vote Share of Dukakis Share of Bush
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25%
52% 51.8% 52.7% 53.5% 54.4% 55.3% 52% 52.1% 52.8% 53.5% 54.3% 55.0%
51% 51.3% 52.2% 53.1% 54.0% 54.8% 51% 51.6% 52.4% 53.1% 53.8% 54.5%
50% 50.9% 51.8% 52.6% 53.5% 54.3% 50% 51.1% 51.9% 52.6% 53.4% 54.1%
49% 50.5% 51.3% 52.2% 53.0% 53.8% 49% 50.7% 51.4% 52.2% 52.9% 53.7%
48% 50.1% 50.9% 51.7% 52.5% 53.4% 48% 50.2% 50.9% 51.7% 52.5% 53.2%
Margin
52% 22.8 24.8 26.8 28.8 30.8 52% 23.6 25.2 26.8 28.4 30.1
51% 21.9 23.9 25.8 27.8 29.8 51% 22.5 24.2 25.8 27.5 29.1
50% 21.0 22.9 24.9 26.8 28.7 50% 21.5 23.2 24.9 26.5 28.2
49% 20.1 22.0 23.9 25.8 27.7 49% 20.4 22.2 23.9 25.6 27.3
48% 19.1 21.0 22.9 24.8 26.7 48% 19.4 21.1 22.9 24.7 26.4
Table 9 Table 10
Clinton Turnout:97%
Bush
Turnout Share of New Voters Dukakis Turnout in 1992
42% 44% 46% 48% 50% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99%
95% 50.1% 50.5% 50.8% 51.2% 51.6% 95% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8% 51.0% 51.1%
96% 50.0% 50.4% 50.7% 51.1% 51.5% 96% 50.4% 50.6% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0%
97% 49.9% 50.3% 50.6% 51.0% 51.4% 97% 50.3% 50.5% 50.6% 50.8% 50.9%
98% 49.8% 50.2% 50.5% 50.9% 51.2% 98% 50.2% 50.4% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8%
99% 49.7% 50.1% 50.4% 50.8% 51.1% 99% 50.1% 50.3% 50.4% 50.6% 50.7%
Margin
95% 19.3 20.2 21.1 22.0 22.8 95% 19.3 19.9 20.5 21.1 21.7
96% 19.1 20.0 20.8 21.7 22.6 96% 19.1 19.7 20.3 20.8 21.4
97% 18.9 19.8 20.6 21.4 22.3 97% 18.8 19.4 20.0 20.6 21.2
98% 18.7 19.5 20.4 21.2 22.0 98% 18.6 19.2 19.8 20.4 20.9
99% 18.5 19.3 20.1 20.9 21.7 99% 18.3 18.9 19.5 20.1 20.7
Table 11 Table 12
Share
of Bush Share of Dukakis Clinton Share of Uncounted
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 52% 70% 75% 80% 90%
25% 50.7% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0% 53.8% 25% 51.2% 52.0% 52.2% 52.5% 52.9%
23% 49.9% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0% 23% 50.4% 51.2% 51.4% 51.7% 52.1%
21% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 21% 49.5% 50.4% 50.6% 50.9% 51.3%
19% 48.2% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 19% 48.7% 49.6% 49.8% 50.1% 50.6%
17% 47.4% 48.2% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 17% 47.9% 48.8% 49.0% 49.3% 49.8%
Margin
25% 20.7 22.5 24.3 26.1 27.9 25% 22.1 23.8 24.3 24.7 25.7
23% 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 26.0 23% 20.2 21.9 22.4 22.9 23.9
21% 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 21% 18.3 20.1 20.6 21.1 22.1
19% 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 19% 16.4 18.2 18.8 19.3 20.3
17% 13.3 15.1 16.9 18.7 20.5 17% 14.4 16.4 16.9 17.5 18.5
The reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis was proposed by the exit pollsters in 2004 in order to explain the massive exit poll/vote discrepancies. But that dog did not hunt since the Final 2004 National Exit Poll (NEP) indicated that returning Bush voters made up an impossible 43% of the 2004 electorate and returning Gore voters just 37%. Simple MATH shows that 43% of 122.3m votes is 52.6m; he only had 50.5m recorded votes in 2000. And since about 2.5 million passed on before the 2004 election, there could have been no more than 48 million returning Bush voters. In other words, the Final NEP had to dig up at least 48.5 million phantom Bush voters in order to match a bogus recorded vote.
This April 2005 DU post proposed the "bandwagon effect" to explain the impossible returning Bush/Gore voter 43/37% split of the 2004 electorate: Returning Gore voters misstated their past vote and told the exit pollsters in 2004 that they voted for Bush in 2000. They jumped on the Bush bandwagon even though his approval rating was at 48%. They may have forgotten that the 2000 election was stolen and their votes were for naught. Right.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x352402
And then "false recall" was proposed based on a 600 sample NES survey. The Bush "bandwagon effect" was due to "slow drifting fog" of Gore voter "false recall".
Hmmm....
But what about the U.S. Census survey of voters? What about THAT survey of 60,000 sampled voters. It shows that in every election millions of votes (70-80% Democratic) are uncounted. What is the IMPACT of UNCOUNTED votes on the True Vote?
See the tables below.
Now it's 2008. Are we expected to believe that returning Kerry voters also suffered from "false recall"? How else to explain the impossible Bush/Kerry 46/37% returning voter mix in the 2008 NEP?
Someone should explain it because the bogus returning voter mix cut Obama's landslide margin by at least half.
Calling Olberman and Maddow. We assume you know about this being the analytical truth-seekers that you are. It's time already. Let's hear a commentary on Election Fraud.
qwghlmian (768 posts) Tue Apr-05-05 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Thanks for asking - too many people
here tend to dismiss anything that does not fit their preconceptions out of hand, without examining it at all.
http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/...
Here is a study done on this "post-election bandwagon effect" examining the 1992 election. It involves two surveys - one done very shortly before the election, which matched almost exactly with the election results - (Clinton: 43%; Bush: 38%; Perot: 19%). The second was done in early December, 1992, less than a couple of months (!) after the election. It asked how people voted. The results: Clinton: 49%; Bush: 32%; Perot: 20%. That is a HUGE shift, completely outside the margin of error, and illustrates a definite tendency for people to lie about the way they voted, even very shortly after the election.
I have seen other studies that suggest that this effect actually increases with time. So TIA's reliance on the "who did you vote for in 2000" poll that was done in 2004 is extremely misguided.
..................................................
qwghlmian,
We know much more about election fraud today then we did back in 2004.
According to the U.S. Census, 10.63 million votes were uncounted in 1988 and 9.45m were uncounted in 1992. Approximately 70-80% were for Dukakis and Clinton.
Clinton won the UNADJUSTED exit poll by 46-35%. Not surprising. The Democrat always does better in the UNADJUSTED exit poll than in the recorded vote.
Recall that the Final NEP is ALWAYS FORCED TO MATCH the recorded vote by adjusting the returning voter mix and/or the vote shares. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. Rather, it's the Final NEP equivalent of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
To avoid the fundamentalist trap, the Election Calculator (EM) determined a FEASIBLE returning voter mix based on total votes CAST (not RECORDED) in 1988 and 1992. The number of returning 1988 voters is approximated by deducting the number of voter deaths from total votes cast. Then the turnout percentage is estimated for those prior election voters still living. A no-brainer.
Now we can proceed to approximate the True Vote. The EM indicates that Clinton won the True Vote by a whopping 50.6-32.5%! The Final 1992 NEP vote shares were applied to returning 1988 voters and new voters to derive the True Vote shares.
Are you reading this, OTOH (oops, qwghlmian)?
[code]
UNCOUNTED VOTES -U.S. Census, 60,000 sample, 0.60% MoE
(in millions)
Year Unctd %cast
1984 9.88 9.66%
1988 10.63 10.40%
1992 9.45 8.30%
1996 8.74 8.32%
2000 5.41 4.86%
2004 3.45 2.74%
Calculated True Vote Preliminary Exit Poll Recorded Vote True Vote WPE Diff
Dem Rep Margin Dem Rep Margin Dem Rep Margin Margin Rec-EP Calc-EP
Average 52.14% 42.20% 9.95% 48.82% 44.12% 4.70% 47.90% 45.96% 1.94% 11.83 -3.82% 4.01%
2008 57.2% 41.1% 16.1% na na na 52.9% 45.6% 7.2% 21.82 na na
2004 53.1% 45.5% 7.6% 52.0% 47.0% 4.9% 48.3% 50.7% -2.5% 9.58 -7.4% 2.7%
2000 49.9% 46.0% 3.9% 49.4% 46.9% 2.5% 48.4% 47.9% 0.5% 4.31 -2.0% 1.4%
1996 52.2% 38.9% 13.2% 50.2% 39.8% 10.4% 49.2% 40.7% 8.5% 13.90 -1.9% 2.8%
1992 50.6% 32.5% 18.1% 45.7% 34.7% 11.0% 43.0% 37.4% 5.6% 20.60 -5.4% 7.1%
1988 49.8% 49.1% 0.7% 46.8% 52.2% -5.3% 45.6% 53.4% -7.7% 0.74 -2.4% 6.1%
1988- 2004 SUMMARY STATISTICS
Calculated True Vote, Unadjusted (preliminary) Exit Poll, Recorded vote
1988-2004 Avg Total Dem Rep Other Margin Dem Rep Other Margin
Calculated 111.53 57.09 47.26 7.18 9.83 51.1% 42.4% 6.5% 8.7%
Recorded 104.00 48.83 47.94 7.23 0.89 46.9% 46.0% 7.1% 0.9%
Prelim EP 104.00 50.91 45.86 7.23 5.05 48.8% 44.1% 7.1% 4.7%
Discrepancies
Calc - Recorded 7.53 8.26 -0.68 -0.05 8.93 4.2% -3.6% -0.6% 7.8%
Calc - Exit poll 6.18 1.40 -0.05 4.77 2.3% -1.7% -0.6% 4.0%
EP - Recorded 2.08 -2.08 0.00 4.16 1.9% -1.9% 0.0% 3.8%
1992 TRUE VOTE CALCULATION
1988 Dukakis Bush Other Total Margin
Recorded 41.809 48.887 0.899 91.595 (7.078)
Share 45.65% 53.37% 0.98% 100.0% -7.73%
10.63 million uncounted votes (70-80% to Dukakis)
1992 Clinton Bush Perot Total Margin
Recorded 44.910 39.105 20.409 104.424 5.81
Share 43.01% 37.45% 19.54% 100.0% 5.56%
9.45 million uncounted votes (70-80% to Clinton)
Est 1992 NEP
Unctd Rate Votes Total Cast Clinton Share Final
1992 8.30% 9.45 113.88 DNV 46% 46%
1988 10.37% 10.60 102.19 Dukakis 83% 83%
Bush 21% 21%
1992 Share 1988 Share Other 50% 50%
Clinton 75% Dukakis 75%
Bush 10% Bush 25% Bush
Other 15% Other 0% DNV 32% 32%
Dukakis 5% 5%
1992 Annual Voter Mortality Bush 59% 59%
Rate 1.28% Other 50% 50%
Died 5.83
Perot
1988 Voter Turnout in 1992 DNV 22% 22%
Dukakis 97% Dukakis 12% 12%
Bush 97% Bush 20% 20%
Other 97% Other 0% 0%
1992 Calculated Vote
1988 Recd Unctd Cast Deaths Alive Turnout Voted Mix Clinton Bush Perot
DNV 20.88 18.3% 46% 32% 22%
Dukakis 41.81 7.09 48.90 2.50 46.39 97% 45.00 39.5% 83% 5% 12%
Bush 48.89 0.95 49.83 2.55 47.28 97% 45.86 40.3% 21% 59% 20%
Other 0.90 1.42 2.32 0.12 2.20 97% 2.13 1.87% 50% 50% 0%
Total 91.60 9.45 101.05 5.17 95.87 93.0 113.88 100% 50.63% 32.54% 16.83%
Cast 113.88 57.65 37.06 19.17
Recorded 43.01% 37.45% 19.54%
104.42 44.91 39.11 20.41
Sensitivity Analysis
Clinton Vote Shares
Table 1 Table 2
Share
of New Share of Dukakis Share of Bush
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25%
50% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 52.9% 50% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0%
48% 49.4% 50.2% 51.0% 51.8% 52.6% 48% 49.4% 50.2% 51.0% 51.8% 52.6%
46% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 46% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2%
44% 48.7% 49.5% 50.3% 51.1% 51.8% 44% 48.7% 49.5% 50.3% 51.1% 51.9%
42% 48.3% 49.1% 49.9% 50.7% 51.5% 42% 48.3% 49.1% 49.9% 50.7% 51.5%
Margin
50% 18.7 20.5 22.3 24.1 25.9 50% 18.6 20.4 22.3 24.1 25.9
48% 17.8 19.6 21.4 23.2 25.0 48% 17.8 19.6 21.4 23.3 25.1
46% 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 46% 16.9 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.3
44% 16.2 18.0 19.8 21.6 23.4 44% 16.1 17.9 19.8 21.6 23.4
42% 15.3 17.1 18.9 20.7 22.5 42% 15.3 17.1 18.9 20.8 22.6
Table 3 Table 4
Unctd
Rate Share of Dukakis Share of Bush
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25%
10% 49.38% 50.18% 50.98% 51.78% 52.59% 10% 49.40% 50.19% 50.98% 51.78% 52.57%
9% 49.18% 49.98% 50.77% 51.57% 52.36% 9% 49.17% 49.97% 50.77% 51.58% 52.38%
8% 48.99% 49.78% 50.57% 51.35% 52.14% 8% 48.95% 49.76% 50.57% 51.37% 52.18%
7% 48.79% 49.57% 50.36% 51.14% 51.92% 7% 48.73% 49.54% 50.36% 51.17% 51.99%
6% 48.60% 49.37% 50.15% 50.92% 51.70% 6% 48.51% 49.33% 50.15% 50.97% 51.79%
Margin
10% 18.0 19.8 21.7 23.6 25.4 10% 18.0 19.9 21.7 23.5 25.4
9% 17.4 19.2 21.0 22.9 24.7 9% 17.4 19.2 21.0 22.9 24.7
8% 16.8 18.6 20.4 22.2 24.0 8% 16.7 18.6 20.4 22.2 24.1
7% 16.3 18.0 19.8 21.5 23.3 7% 16.1 17.9 19.8 21.6 23.4
6% 15.7 17.4 19.2 20.9 22.6 6% 15.5 17.3 19.2 21.0 22.8
Table 5 Table 6
Mortality
Rate Share of Dukakis Share of Bush
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25%
1.6% 49.01% 49.79% 50.57% 51.35% 52.13% 1.6% 48.98% 49.77% 50.57% 51.36% 52.15%
1.4% 49.03% 49.82% 50.60% 51.39% 52.18% 1.4% 49.00% 49.80% 50.60% 51.41% 52.21%
1.2% 49.06% 49.85% 50.64% 51.44% 52.23% 1.2% 49.03% 49.84% 50.64% 51.45% 52.26%
1.0% 49.08% 49.88% 50.68% 51.48% 52.28% 1.0% 49.05% 49.87% 50.68% 51.50% 52.31%
0.8% 49.11% 49.92% 50.72% 51.53% 52.33% 0.8% 49.08% 49.90% 50.72% 51.54% 52.37%
Margin
1.6% 17.0 18.8 20.5 22.3 24.1 1.6% 16.9 18.7 20.5 22.3 24.2
1.4% 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 1.4% 16.9 18.7 20.6 22.4 24.2
1.2% 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 1.2% 16.9 18.8 20.6 22.5 24.3
1.0% 17.0 18.8 20.7 22.5 24.3 1.0% 16.9 18.8 20.7 22.5 24.4
0.8% 17.0 18.9 20.7 22.5 24.4 0.8% 16.9 18.8 20.7 22.6 24.4
Table 7 Table 8
Dukakis
1988 Vote Share of Dukakis Share of Bush
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25%
52% 51.8% 52.7% 53.5% 54.4% 55.3% 52% 52.1% 52.8% 53.5% 54.3% 55.0%
51% 51.3% 52.2% 53.1% 54.0% 54.8% 51% 51.6% 52.4% 53.1% 53.8% 54.5%
50% 50.9% 51.8% 52.6% 53.5% 54.3% 50% 51.1% 51.9% 52.6% 53.4% 54.1%
49% 50.5% 51.3% 52.2% 53.0% 53.8% 49% 50.7% 51.4% 52.2% 52.9% 53.7%
48% 50.1% 50.9% 51.7% 52.5% 53.4% 48% 50.2% 50.9% 51.7% 52.5% 53.2%
Margin
52% 22.8 24.8 26.8 28.8 30.8 52% 23.6 25.2 26.8 28.4 30.1
51% 21.9 23.9 25.8 27.8 29.8 51% 22.5 24.2 25.8 27.5 29.1
50% 21.0 22.9 24.9 26.8 28.7 50% 21.5 23.2 24.9 26.5 28.2
49% 20.1 22.0 23.9 25.8 27.7 49% 20.4 22.2 23.9 25.6 27.3
48% 19.1 21.0 22.9 24.8 26.7 48% 19.4 21.1 22.9 24.7 26.4
Table 9 Table 10
Clinton Turnout:97%
Bush
Turnout Share of New Voters Dukakis Turnout in 1992
42% 44% 46% 48% 50% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99%
95% 50.1% 50.5% 50.8% 51.2% 51.6% 95% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8% 51.0% 51.1%
96% 50.0% 50.4% 50.7% 51.1% 51.5% 96% 50.4% 50.6% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0%
97% 49.9% 50.3% 50.6% 51.0% 51.4% 97% 50.3% 50.5% 50.6% 50.8% 50.9%
98% 49.8% 50.2% 50.5% 50.9% 51.2% 98% 50.2% 50.4% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8%
99% 49.7% 50.1% 50.4% 50.8% 51.1% 99% 50.1% 50.3% 50.4% 50.6% 50.7%
Margin
95% 19.3 20.2 21.1 22.0 22.8 95% 19.3 19.9 20.5 21.1 21.7
96% 19.1 20.0 20.8 21.7 22.6 96% 19.1 19.7 20.3 20.8 21.4
97% 18.9 19.8 20.6 21.4 22.3 97% 18.8 19.4 20.0 20.6 21.2
98% 18.7 19.5 20.4 21.2 22.0 98% 18.6 19.2 19.8 20.4 20.9
99% 18.5 19.3 20.1 20.9 21.7 99% 18.3 18.9 19.5 20.1 20.7
Table 11 Table 12
Share
of Bush Share of Dukakis Clinton Share of Uncounted
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 52% 70% 75% 80% 90%
25% 50.7% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0% 53.8% 25% 51.2% 52.0% 52.2% 52.5% 52.9%
23% 49.9% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0% 23% 50.4% 51.2% 51.4% 51.7% 52.1%
21% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 21% 49.5% 50.4% 50.6% 50.9% 51.3%
19% 48.2% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 19% 48.7% 49.6% 49.8% 50.1% 50.6%
17% 47.4% 48.2% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 17% 47.9% 48.8% 49.0% 49.3% 49.8%
Margin
25% 20.7 22.5 24.3 26.1 27.9 25% 22.1 23.8 24.3 24.7 25.7
23% 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 26.0 23% 20.2 21.9 22.4 22.9 23.9
21% 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 24.2 21% 18.3 20.1 20.6 21.1 22.1
19% 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 19% 16.4 18.2 18.8 19.3 20.3
17% 13.3 15.1 16.9 18.7 20.5 17% 14.4 16.4 16.9 17.5 18.5