TruthIsAll
11-28-2009, 11:57 AM
A Preliminary 2008 Recorded and True Vote Projection
May 17, 2008
TruthIsAll
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionCalculator.htm
The 2008 Election Calculator projects that Obama will win the True Vote in a landslide: 71-59m (54.1-44.7%). The model calculates the true vote based on vote shares applied to returning 2004 voters and the allocation of uncounted votes. But election fraud will reduce Obama’s recorded vote margin to 64-61m. The landslide will be denied due to election fraud, just like it was in the 2006 midterms in which the Democrats won 10-20 more seats than official results indicate. Obama is expected to do better than Kerry did in 2004 among blacks, Hispanics, new voters, moderate Republicans and Independents. He may not do as well among other, white Democrats. This analysis is based on an estimate of total votes cast; it does not include the millions of (mostly Democratic) disenfranchised voters.
In 2000 Al Gore won the recorded vote by 51.0-50.5m (48.4-47.9%). The Election Calculator determined that he won the True Vote by 55.3-51.4m (49.9-46.6%) which closely matched his 49.4% unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share. The U.S. Census reported that 110.8m total votes were cast in 2000 but only 105.4m were recorded. If not for 5.4m uncounted votes, Gore’s margin would have exceeded 3 million. In Florida, 185,000 spoiled ballots (not including absentee and provisional ballots) cost Gore 120,000 votes. He won the state by a minimum of 60,000 votes, but Bush won the recorded vote (and the Presidency) by 537.
In 2004 Bush won the recorded vote by 62-59m (50.7-48.3%). Once again, the Election Calculator determined that Kerry won the True Vote by 67-57m (53.2-45.4%). Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52.1-46.9% and the adjusted 12:22am Composite National Exit Poll by 50.8-48.2%. The analysis was based on 12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares applied to an estimate of returning 2000 voters. The Census reported that 125.7m total votes were cast as opposed to the 122.3m recorded. Approximately 2.5m of the 3.4m discrepancy were Kerry votes. The Census figure was confirmed by investigative reporter Greg Palast who provided government records which indicated that 3.0m uncounted votes were a combination of provisional, absentee and spoiled ballots.
There is no reason to believe that 2008 will be any different than 2000 and 2004. At least 3% of total votes cast will be uncounted and 75-80% will be Obama’s.
The Sensitivity Analysis consists of two sets of tables.
They indicate Obama’s vote share and margin for 25 scenario combinations of:
1)Obama’s share of returning Kerry and Bush voters.
2)Obama’s share of returning Kerry and new voters (Did Not Vote in 2004).
Download the Excel file to run your own scenarios:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionCalculator.xls
posted by TruthIsAll : 10:56 AM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Technically speaking, I think anyone who receives votes in the nominating convention has been 'nominated,' and then the vote determines the nominee, who is the winner of the vote on those who all were nominated.
If this is right, Jesse Jackson has been nominated at least twice, and even Shirley Chisholm got nominated in '72.
But that's a side point. The real problem isn't only that Democrats aren't eager to deny an African-American the nomination when he's leading the race. The problem is ALSO that leading party figures and/or lib/prog type punditry has promulgated a false history of why the party has super delegates, and the role which they were designed to play.
That role is PRECISELY to have the graybeards of the party leadership save the party from its less rational voting base, should they be about to give the nomination to someone who will likely take the party to defeat at the top of the ticket and down ticket.
Instead, that essential safeguard has been lied about, and its role, if used as designed, vilified as the worst undemocratic action possible. And their own de facto rule change is portrayed backwards, as if using the super delegates for the function they have always had since the reforms the party put in place would itself be the change in the rules we started with.
It is a well-known practice for some states in multi-candidate races, that when the front-runner doesn't receive a majority but only a plurality, that there is another runoff election among the top tier candidates. It is not always the case that a plurality winner is awarded the race, and this doesn't cause much controversy as a rule.
The Obama people have obscured the fact that he is not the majority winner (yet), but only a plurality winner, and they have asserted without argument that a plurality winner must be awarded the race, out of fairness.
That isn't an automatic rule, nor is using the alternative method, denying the race to anyone who has not made a majority showing, some evil outcome.
...sofla
posted by Anonymous : 10:56 AM
_______________________________________________________________________________
TIA, this time around, I just don't know the basis of your statements. But based on polling and election dynamics, I can't see Obama winning Florida, Ohio, PA, MO, MI and VA. That's in a FAIR fight. Vote fraud can only make the sitch worse.
He just can't win.
Frankly, I would not bet on Hillary either, although her chances are somewhat better.
Yes, yes, I realise all of the problems with reliance on polling; there is no need to spout cliches at me. Polls must be used cautiously. Still, they represent the data that we have. I see NO reason for optimism in the purple states.
Actually, I think Obama may be such a down-ticket drag that he will flip the Senate.
The presumption of fraud in 2008 is just that: A presumption. The infrastructure for fraud may not be there this time around. The situation has changed in Florida, I think, and Kenny is not in his old position in Ohio.
posted by Joseph : 11:17 AM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph,
With all due respect, your concerns are unfounded.There is no way in hell that McCain will even beat a ham sandwich.The Democrats WILL unite. Look at the last 3 Republican congressional seats which flipped to the Dems.
Please read the detailed analysis of 2000,2004 and 2006 in the TruthisAll link.
There is no way that the GOP can pull off the massive ELECTION FRAUD (not voter fraud) to win this time around.But they will surely try.And regarding those swing states, it is my view that Obama is a sure thing in PA, MI and OH, with a good shot in MO and VA. If he gets 52% of the vote he will win 330 EV. With the projected 54%, it's over 400.
Remember, the Democrats have won the TRUE VOTE EVERY election since 1988Do you realize that Dukakis led Bush in the exit polls? The Repukes can only win when they cheat- but we are finally on to their game. The head to head polls mean nothing now. They will IMMEDIATELY move solidly to Obama in June after he clinchers the nomination.
Be prepared for an Obama LANDSLIDE. But also expect that his margin will be reduced from 12 to 3-5 million. The GOP lives off uncounted and switched votes.
posted by Anonymous : 11:46 AM
_______________________________________________________________________________
TIA, you're making me regret ever saying nice things about you in these pages.
Your words are just...dumb. Obama win Florida? After being the single obstacle to a revote? Even though every single poll shows him losing handily to McCain? Even though he does not do well with seniors, Hispanics, and Jews?
Are you freaking NUTS?
Your problem is that you spend too much time over on DU. Those guys have gone out of their freaking gourds, man.
There will be no Democratic unity. Sorry to burst your bubble, dude. But if you want to know why, just read DU. Read Kos.
You're rationalizing. You lack the corage to face reality. But when reality finally slaps you in the face, don't blame vote fraud. Instead, remember what you heard here:
Obama ran a smear campaign in a primary. That is always a BAAAAD idea.
Obama's forces falsely accused the Clintons of racism. That move brouht the black vote around, but it also got a lot of people like me PISSED OFF. And I mean pissed off forever. As Iraq was to Bush, so the race-card was to Obi. It was a party-rending, and perhaps party-ENDING, miscalculation.
posted by Joseph : 3:40 PM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ah hell. TIA, I just figured it out.
You've never shown up here before -- at least, not for a long, long time. Suddenly, here you are, trying to reassure everyone that Obama is a sure thing, as sure as any other Democrat.
At the same time, I stopped receiving my usual hate mail from the two or three cranks who were hitting me on an hourly basis.
I really think Obi IS paying for this crap!
posted by Joseph : 4:23 PM
May 17, 2008
TruthIsAll
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionCalculator.htm
The 2008 Election Calculator projects that Obama will win the True Vote in a landslide: 71-59m (54.1-44.7%). The model calculates the true vote based on vote shares applied to returning 2004 voters and the allocation of uncounted votes. But election fraud will reduce Obama’s recorded vote margin to 64-61m. The landslide will be denied due to election fraud, just like it was in the 2006 midterms in which the Democrats won 10-20 more seats than official results indicate. Obama is expected to do better than Kerry did in 2004 among blacks, Hispanics, new voters, moderate Republicans and Independents. He may not do as well among other, white Democrats. This analysis is based on an estimate of total votes cast; it does not include the millions of (mostly Democratic) disenfranchised voters.
In 2000 Al Gore won the recorded vote by 51.0-50.5m (48.4-47.9%). The Election Calculator determined that he won the True Vote by 55.3-51.4m (49.9-46.6%) which closely matched his 49.4% unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share. The U.S. Census reported that 110.8m total votes were cast in 2000 but only 105.4m were recorded. If not for 5.4m uncounted votes, Gore’s margin would have exceeded 3 million. In Florida, 185,000 spoiled ballots (not including absentee and provisional ballots) cost Gore 120,000 votes. He won the state by a minimum of 60,000 votes, but Bush won the recorded vote (and the Presidency) by 537.
In 2004 Bush won the recorded vote by 62-59m (50.7-48.3%). Once again, the Election Calculator determined that Kerry won the True Vote by 67-57m (53.2-45.4%). Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52.1-46.9% and the adjusted 12:22am Composite National Exit Poll by 50.8-48.2%. The analysis was based on 12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares applied to an estimate of returning 2000 voters. The Census reported that 125.7m total votes were cast as opposed to the 122.3m recorded. Approximately 2.5m of the 3.4m discrepancy were Kerry votes. The Census figure was confirmed by investigative reporter Greg Palast who provided government records which indicated that 3.0m uncounted votes were a combination of provisional, absentee and spoiled ballots.
There is no reason to believe that 2008 will be any different than 2000 and 2004. At least 3% of total votes cast will be uncounted and 75-80% will be Obama’s.
The Sensitivity Analysis consists of two sets of tables.
They indicate Obama’s vote share and margin for 25 scenario combinations of:
1)Obama’s share of returning Kerry and Bush voters.
2)Obama’s share of returning Kerry and new voters (Did Not Vote in 2004).
Download the Excel file to run your own scenarios:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionCalculator.xls
posted by TruthIsAll : 10:56 AM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Technically speaking, I think anyone who receives votes in the nominating convention has been 'nominated,' and then the vote determines the nominee, who is the winner of the vote on those who all were nominated.
If this is right, Jesse Jackson has been nominated at least twice, and even Shirley Chisholm got nominated in '72.
But that's a side point. The real problem isn't only that Democrats aren't eager to deny an African-American the nomination when he's leading the race. The problem is ALSO that leading party figures and/or lib/prog type punditry has promulgated a false history of why the party has super delegates, and the role which they were designed to play.
That role is PRECISELY to have the graybeards of the party leadership save the party from its less rational voting base, should they be about to give the nomination to someone who will likely take the party to defeat at the top of the ticket and down ticket.
Instead, that essential safeguard has been lied about, and its role, if used as designed, vilified as the worst undemocratic action possible. And their own de facto rule change is portrayed backwards, as if using the super delegates for the function they have always had since the reforms the party put in place would itself be the change in the rules we started with.
It is a well-known practice for some states in multi-candidate races, that when the front-runner doesn't receive a majority but only a plurality, that there is another runoff election among the top tier candidates. It is not always the case that a plurality winner is awarded the race, and this doesn't cause much controversy as a rule.
The Obama people have obscured the fact that he is not the majority winner (yet), but only a plurality winner, and they have asserted without argument that a plurality winner must be awarded the race, out of fairness.
That isn't an automatic rule, nor is using the alternative method, denying the race to anyone who has not made a majority showing, some evil outcome.
...sofla
posted by Anonymous : 10:56 AM
_______________________________________________________________________________
TIA, this time around, I just don't know the basis of your statements. But based on polling and election dynamics, I can't see Obama winning Florida, Ohio, PA, MO, MI and VA. That's in a FAIR fight. Vote fraud can only make the sitch worse.
He just can't win.
Frankly, I would not bet on Hillary either, although her chances are somewhat better.
Yes, yes, I realise all of the problems with reliance on polling; there is no need to spout cliches at me. Polls must be used cautiously. Still, they represent the data that we have. I see NO reason for optimism in the purple states.
Actually, I think Obama may be such a down-ticket drag that he will flip the Senate.
The presumption of fraud in 2008 is just that: A presumption. The infrastructure for fraud may not be there this time around. The situation has changed in Florida, I think, and Kenny is not in his old position in Ohio.
posted by Joseph : 11:17 AM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph,
With all due respect, your concerns are unfounded.There is no way in hell that McCain will even beat a ham sandwich.The Democrats WILL unite. Look at the last 3 Republican congressional seats which flipped to the Dems.
Please read the detailed analysis of 2000,2004 and 2006 in the TruthisAll link.
There is no way that the GOP can pull off the massive ELECTION FRAUD (not voter fraud) to win this time around.But they will surely try.And regarding those swing states, it is my view that Obama is a sure thing in PA, MI and OH, with a good shot in MO and VA. If he gets 52% of the vote he will win 330 EV. With the projected 54%, it's over 400.
Remember, the Democrats have won the TRUE VOTE EVERY election since 1988Do you realize that Dukakis led Bush in the exit polls? The Repukes can only win when they cheat- but we are finally on to their game. The head to head polls mean nothing now. They will IMMEDIATELY move solidly to Obama in June after he clinchers the nomination.
Be prepared for an Obama LANDSLIDE. But also expect that his margin will be reduced from 12 to 3-5 million. The GOP lives off uncounted and switched votes.
posted by Anonymous : 11:46 AM
_______________________________________________________________________________
TIA, you're making me regret ever saying nice things about you in these pages.
Your words are just...dumb. Obama win Florida? After being the single obstacle to a revote? Even though every single poll shows him losing handily to McCain? Even though he does not do well with seniors, Hispanics, and Jews?
Are you freaking NUTS?
Your problem is that you spend too much time over on DU. Those guys have gone out of their freaking gourds, man.
There will be no Democratic unity. Sorry to burst your bubble, dude. But if you want to know why, just read DU. Read Kos.
You're rationalizing. You lack the corage to face reality. But when reality finally slaps you in the face, don't blame vote fraud. Instead, remember what you heard here:
Obama ran a smear campaign in a primary. That is always a BAAAAD idea.
Obama's forces falsely accused the Clintons of racism. That move brouht the black vote around, but it also got a lot of people like me PISSED OFF. And I mean pissed off forever. As Iraq was to Bush, so the race-card was to Obi. It was a party-rending, and perhaps party-ENDING, miscalculation.
posted by Joseph : 3:40 PM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ah hell. TIA, I just figured it out.
You've never shown up here before -- at least, not for a long, long time. Suddenly, here you are, trying to reassure everyone that Obama is a sure thing, as sure as any other Democrat.
At the same time, I stopped receiving my usual hate mail from the two or three cranks who were hitting me on an hourly basis.
I really think Obi IS paying for this crap!
posted by Joseph : 4:23 PM