Part I is a comprehensive statistical analysis of the 2004 and 2006 elections. The raw data consists of state and national recorded votes, pre-election and exit polls, Census total votes cast and mortality. Analytical models were created to calculate the True Vote. The models are Excel-based and available for download. Users can enter their own assumptions and then view a “sensitivity analysis” of resulting state and national vote shares and margins. The scenarios are displayed in numeric tables and charts. Many examples are provided in this document.
This would all be unnecessary if the Recorded Vote accurately represented the True Vote. In 2000, Al Gore won by several million more than his recorded 540,000 vote margin. In 2004, John Kerry actually won by 8-10 million votes. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic Tsunami gave them control of congress, but the landslide was denied; they did much better than the official results indicate. The Excel models all confirm massive documented evidence that the elections were severely compromised by a combination of uncounted and miscounted votes. And the True Vote does not include the disenfranchised, the great majority of whom are Democratic minority voters.
Bush had a 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day. The Nov.1, 2004 Election Model, based on the final state and 18 national pre-election polls, projected Kerry as the 51.8-48.2% winner of the two-party vote. His expected 337 electoral vote was calculated as the average of a 5000 election-trial Monte Carlo simulation. The projection model was confirmed by the state and national exit polls. Science works by assuming that the explanation that best fits the data is correct - and is tested against new data, which either strengthens those assumptions or causes them to be rejected in favor of a better explanation.
Edison-Mitofsky provided four state exit poll measures. Kerry won the first three; Bush won the Final:
1) WPE 51.8-47.2% (unadjusted)
2) GEO 51.0-48.5% (adjusted to incoming recorded votes)
3) Composite 50.3-49.1% (12:22am-adjusted to pre-election polls)
4) Final 48.5-51.1% (matched to recorded vote)
WPE is the only unadjusted (“pristine”) measure. It was based on the average discrepancy between the exit poll result and recorded vote for all state precincts which were polled. Measures (2) and (3) are adjusted estimates which incorporate pre-election polls and recorded votes. The final state exit polls were forced to match the recorded votes, therefore implying ZERO election fraud. Why should we believe them? And why bother doing exit polls at all if they will just assume that the recorded vote count was the True Vote?
Some say that exit polls are not designed to predict the True Vote but to provide a demographic snapshot of the electorate. But if that’s the case, and the recorded vote count is corrupted, then so are the demographics.
Kerry also had a steady 51-48% lead throughout the National Exit Poll timeline: at 4pm (8349 respondents); 7:30pm (11027); 12:22am (13047) - after the polls closed. Of course, Bush won the Final NEP by 51-48% (13660 respondents) which was posted at 2pm the day after the election. The Final NEP was forced to match the Recorded Vote count with impossible weights and implausible vote shares, so why should we believe it?
The Election Calculator and Interactive Election Simulation models determined that Kerry probably did 1-2% better than the exit polls indicate.
The Election Calculator is an Excel model for analyzing 1988-2004 elections. Users can override the pre-set default assumptions for voter mortality, uncounted vote rates, prior election voter turnout and vote shares of prior and new voters. The base case scenario indicates that Kerry won by nearly 10 million votes with a 53.2-45.4% vote share. Interested readers can download the model, review the base case scenario and then enter their own assumptions. Sensitivity analysis tables provide an instant view of vote shares over a range of input assumption scenarios.
The Interactive 2004 Election Simulation Model (also Excel) enables users to run simulations based on state and national pre-election and exit polls. State exit poll vote shares are based on the following user options: 1) WPE, 2) Best GEO and 3) Composite (12:22am). The National Exit poll data includes the 12:22am update and the 2pm Final. The only pre-election model assumption is Kerry’s projected share of Undecided Voters. The only state exit poll inputs are the method (1, 2, or 3) and assumed cluster effect. A Monte Carlo simulation consisting of 200 election trials generates both the projected popular and expected electoral vote. The probability of Kerry winning the election is the percentage of trials in which Kerry received at least 270 EV. Additional model analysis includes National Exit Poll timeline, Gender vote, exit poll response optimizer, Census data and the Ohio exit poll.
In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic Tsunami gained 31 congressional seats. But they actually did much better than that. A regression trend analysis of 120 pre-election Generic polls (all won by the Democrats) projected they would win by 56-42% and gain over 40 seats. The 7pm National Exit Poll update (55 Dem-43% Rep) confirmed the pre-election trend. But the next day, the Final NEP was once again forced to match a corrupted vote count with implausible weights and vote shares. The Democratic margin was cut in half to 52-46%. The fraud resulted in the loss of 10-20 seats.
(* indicates recent update)
Summary Overview
Gore won by 3 million more votes than the 540,000 official total; Florida uncounted votes by county
Smoking Gun: The Final National Exit Poll
Voted in 2000 – preliminary, final, adjusted - sensitivity analysis
The Democratic Underground “Game” thread
Impossible/ feasible NEP weights, implausible vote shares, rBr -defection rates - false recall
State and National Pre-Election Polls
The 2004 Election Model: Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
Final State polls- 18 National polls –undecided voters- EV win probabilities - sensitivity analysis
18 Final Polls – Correlation of monthly polls vs. Bush approval rating
Average- weighted average- monthly/weekly projections - Zogby battleground polls
State Pre-election Polls vs. Exit Polls vs. Recorded Vote
State vs. NEP- Gender- Voted2k- True Vote Models
Interactive Election Simulation
Monte Carlo Polling Simulation
Conservative Scenario Analysis *
True Vote Sensitivity analysis based on two factors: Nader 2000 and New voter share
Exit Poll MoE exceeded in 29 states for Bush
Battleground vs. Red states – Composite (12:22am) vs. WPE-adjusted exit polls
Exit Poll Response Optimization
Excel Solver – True Vote- 1250 precincts by partisanship, 5 location-size groups, states by partisanship
State Deviations by Voting Method
Deviations based on percentage voting machine/method mix applied to WPE-based Exit Poll discrepancies
Demographic weights- vote shares- sensitivity analysis
Effect of changes in demographic vote shares on Kerry’s national vote
2000/2004 first-time and other new voters – 16m recorded Bush voter increase from 2000
Base case - Bush vs. Gore 2000 voter turnout- sensitivity analysis - probabilities
Implausible urban and suburban vote shares
2000-2004 Exit Poll analysis (Voted in 2000; Location-size)
Correlation with monthly Pre-election polls; weights and vote shares adjusted to match the recorded vote
Weights and vote shares were adjusted to match the recorded vote
Party ID *
Weights and vote shares were adjusted to match the recorded vote
Implausible increase in Bush’s share of women voters from 2000 to 2004
Did Kerry Win More Than 360 Electoral Votes?
State adjustments: Gore 2000 uncounted votes, Kerry share of Nader and new voters
True Vote Model- uncounted/ switched votes by state- electoral vote effect
Reconciling the Final 5 Million Vote Anomaly
Difference in vote share between the initial 117m and final 5m votes; exit poll vs. late vote correlation
True Vote Analysis: Models, Counties, Machines
County Vote Database (2000-2004)
Database filtering for absolute and percent changes by state, county, voting method
Florida *
Ohio *
Election Calculator: Prior and Current election total votes cast adjusted for voter mortality, turnout; NEP shares
True Vote: Prior election Recorded and Current election total votes cast adjusted for total mortality, turnout; NEP shares
Switched Vote: Current election Recorded Vote adjusted for uncounted and switched vote rates
Quantifying the risk- likely fraud contests- Democratic Tsunami – Generic polls- projections
Generic 120-Poll Trend vs. 7:07pm and Final Exit Poll
Demographics- Linear Regression - NEP Timeline- probabilities
CBS reported state votes-Wikipedia vote count
Generic 120-Poll Trend vs. Final 10 Poll Average
Allocating undecided voters- Final 10 polls- probabilities
The Math: Probability and Statistics
Part II: Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ
A TruthIsAll (TIA) FAQ (Mark Lindeman)
The "Rules": Did They Favor Kerry?
Explaining the Exit Poll Discrepancies
_____________________________________________________________________
Dec.12, 2000 is a day that will live in infamy. Bush needed the help of five right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop the recount in Florida and enable him to steal the election. There has been an ongoing controversy regarding the 2004 election. State and national pre-election and exit polls pointed to a Kerry victory. Those who claim that Bush won fair and square are relentless in their attempts to thrash polling analyses which suggest that fraud occurred. Since the media will not release tell-tale precinct-level data, analysts must rely on publicly available polling data. And they have determined that the polls provide powerful statistical evidence of fraud. “Voter fraud” has been shown to be a non-existent distraction from the evidence of massive “election fraud”. Voters don’t fix elections, corrupt officials do. The corporate media was quick to dismiss the statistical polling analyses and claims of election fraud by “spreadsheet-wielding Internet bloggers” as another left-wing conspiracy theory.
This is what Richard Morin , a Washington Post staff writer, wrote on Thursday, November 4, 2004:
“An Election Day filled with unexpected twists ended with a familiar question: What went wrong with the network exit polls?... In two previous national elections, the exit polls had behaved badly. Premature calls by the networks in Florida led to a congressional investigation in 2000. Two years later, a computer meltdown resulted in no release of data on Election Day…. Results based on the first few rounds of interviewing are usually only approximations of the final vote. Printouts warn that estimates of each candidate's support are unreliable and not for on-air use.….That is why the early leaks anger Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research, which conducted Tuesday's exit poll with Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool, a consortium of the major television networks and the Associated Press…. After the survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics”.
The media never considered the possibility that the votes may have been miscounted and that the exit polls were essentially correct. They just took it for granted that the vote count was accurate (i.e. the election was fraud-free). After all, isn’t that why the exit poll results are always adjusted to match the vote count? Of course, they never did an analysis which would have shown that the adjusted Final NEP weights were impossible and that the adjusted vote shares were implausible. And they would have come to the same conclusion as the spreadsheet-wielding bloggers: the election was stolen.
A dwindling number of naysayers continue to argue that the exhaustive statistical analysis of 2004 pre-election and exit polls by a number of independent researchers does not provide convincing evidence that the election was stolen. Their “case” consists of faith-based theories, factual avoidance, misstatements and misrepresentations. And they cannot reconcile the many statistical anomalies which all point to massive fraud. Some of their “explanations” include the following: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; over 7% of returning Gore voters told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000; pre-election and exit polls are not pure random samples; exit polls are not designed to detect fraud in the United States; early exit poll results overstated Kerry’s vote; women voted early and Republicans voted late; Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry. None are supported by factual data and all have been refuted.
Uncounted Votes
In every election, millions of mostly Democratic votes are never counted – and are a significant contribution to the exit poll discrepancies. According to the 2000 Census, approximately 5 million votes were never counted. Since they were from heavily democratic minority districts, if Gore won 75% his true margin was close to 3 million votes - not the 540,000 recorded. And that does not include the very real possibility that a certain percentage of recorded Gore votes were switched to Bush. The 2000 election was not even close, although the media would like us to believe it was. Only the 5-4 Supreme Court decision was close. Consider the Florida 2000 fiasco. Bush “won” by 537 “official” votes - before the recount was aborted. But 185,000 spoiled (under and over-punched) ballots were never counted. Since approximately 65% of them were intended for Gore, he actually won the state by at least 60,000 votes.
According to the U.S.
Census, 125.7 million votes were cast in 2004. The recorded vote was 122.3m
and 3.4m were uncounted. The Census survey margin of
error is 0.30%. Therefore there is a 97.5% probability that at least 125
million cast votes. According to detailed information provided by investigative
reporter Greg
Palast, 3.006m votes cast were never counted. They were comprised of 1.389m
spoiled ballots, 1.091m provisional and .0.526m absentee. The 0.40 million
(0.31%) discrepancy between the Census and Palast matches the Census MoE.
First-time Voters
They claimed that the vaunted 2004 Republican GOTV campaign brought Bush millions of new Christian fundamentalist votes. But they failed to note that since 1992, according to the National Exit Poll, the Democrats won first-time voters by a 14% average margin. Ruy Teixeira wrote about it in The Emerging Democratic Majority.
Bush Approval
They dismissed the significance of the Bush 48.5% approval rating on Election Day. But historically, incumbents with approval below 50% lost re-election (Ford, Carter, Bush I) while incumbents above 50% won (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton). The near-perfect 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly approval rating and average national poll is further evidence. The correlation was confirmed when Kerry won the 12:22am National Exit Poll by 51-48%. The Final Exit Poll forced a bogus 53% Bush approval weighting to in order to match the vote count.
The Urban Legend
They can’t explain The Urban Legend myth: How did Bush gain vote share in heavily Democratic urban locations, yet lose share in highly Republican small towns and rural areas? An analysis of the 2000 and 2004 NEP location-size demographic shows a 9% increase in the Bush share of the heavily Democratic urban vote and a 3% decline in share of the heavily Republican small town and rural voter. And how did he manage a 3% increase in the suburbs which has been trending Democratic in recent elections?
The Final 5 Million Votes
They can’t explain these anomalies in the recorded state vote shares: 1) the strong correlation between the state exit polls and late vote shares (Kerry led in both), 2) the small discrepancies between the exit polls and the late vote shares, and 3) the consistent pattern of a higher Kerry share of late votes compared to his initial share. But it’s further evidence that the "pristine" exit polls were close to the true vote. Bush won 51.0% of the initial 117.28m votes; Kerry won 53.0% of the final 5.0m. Kerry exceeded his initial vote share in 38 states, including 15 of 19 in the battleground. A false impression was created early that Bush was winning as the first reported votes came in from the East. But even as the recorded votes were being reported on TV, state and national exit polls showed that Kerry was winning the popular and electoral vote. The vote-rigging apparently ended before the final 5m were recorded; Bush had already “won” the electoral vote and held a 3.5m lead in the popular vote. After the final 5m votes were recorded, his “mandate” declined by 0.5m to the official total of 62.04-59.03m.
Weighted Average State Vote shares
They claimed that Bush led in the pre-election state and national polls. But they forgot to calculate the national vote as a weighted average (based on the voting population) of the state poll shares. State polling data shows that Kerry led the weighted average from July to Election Day except for a brief period in September. Bush led the unweighted average. Kerry also led the national pre-election polls. In both poll sets, before undecided voter allocation, Kerry led by less than 1% nationally. But he led by 3% in the battleground states.
Vote Share Projection and Electoral Vote Simulation
They disputed the fact that the Nov.1, 2004 Election Model projections were accurate and that the final pre-election polls matched the exit polls. But assuming that Kerry captured 67-75% of the undecided vote, the pre-election state (Kerry 47.9 - Bush 46.9%) and national polls (Kerry 47.2 - Bush 46.9%) closely matched the 12:22am National Exit Poll (50.8 -48.2%). The state and national models projected Kerry as the winner by 51-48%, matching the 12:22am NEP and the weighted average state exit polls (51.8-47.2%). The Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation (5000 election trials) forecast that Kerry would win 320-337 electoral votes, assuming that he captured 60-75% of the undecided vote. Pollsters Harris, Zogby and the National Exit Poll said he won the undecided vote by 60-75%. The pre-election projections were also confirmed by the state and national exit polls in the Interactive Election Simulation Model.
Undecided Voters
They rejected the evidence that late undecided voters virtually always break for the challenger. But world-class pollsters Zogby and Harris, who have a combined 60 years of experience, indicated that late polling showed that Kerry won 67-75% of undecided voters. The National Exit Poll also reported that Kerry won a clear majority of undecided voters. This was not unusual; historical evidence indicates that undecided voters break for the challenger over 80% of the time - especially when the incumbent is unpopular. Bush had a 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day. The final Zogby polls in nine battleground states had Kerry leading by a 50-45% average. He was projected to win all nine by 53-46% - but won only five by 50-49%. The margin of error was exceeded in six of the nine states, a 1 in 52 million probability.
E-M Methods Statement
They declared that exit polls were not true random samples. But Edison-Mitofsky state in the notes to the National Exit Poll and in the NEP Methods Statement that respondents were randomly-selected with a 1% overall margin of error. And the pre-election polls all provide a margin of error based on the number of respondents.
National Exit Poll Timeline
They forgot about the Law of Large Numbers. Kerry led the National Exit Poll by 51-48% at 4pm (8349 respondents), 7:30pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047). But Bush won the 2pm Final NEP (13660) by 51-48% through the use of impossible weights and implausible vote shares which were required in order to match the recorded vote.
Matching the Exit Polls to the Recorded Vote
They dismissed the accuracy of the early exit polls. But it’s standard operating procedure that the final exit polls are always fixed to match the recorded vote even if it means using impossible weights and implausible vote shares. This implies that the recorded vote was fraud-free – not exactly a reality-based assumption. Preliminary state and national exit polls are “contaminated” when they are forced to match a corrupt vote count.
The Gender Vote
They need to explain how sharply increased his share of Democratic women voters while his share of Republican males declined? One would normally expect to see a positive correlation in the Demographic Trend between the two groups. But to believe that Bush won by the 62-59m recorded vote, one must believe that his “mandate” was provided by women who in 2000 either a) did not vote, b) voted for Gore, or c) voted for Nader. According to the NEP, Kerry won New voters by 57-41%, Gore voters by 91-8% and Nader voters by 64-17%. So why should you believe it?
Democratic Bias
They noted a built-in Democratic bias in the exit polls. But they did not account for uncounted and switched votes. Exit polls overstate the recorded Democratic vote in every election. Part of the discrepancy is due to uncounted votes in heavily Democratic minority districts. In addition, solid documented evidence exists of direct vote-switching directly at DREs and on central tabulators where touch-screen, optical scanner, lever and punched card votes are counted. Republicans manufacture the voting machines which can easily be hacked.
Margin of Error
They said that the margin of error used in calculating the probabilities of the exit poll discrepancies was too low. But even assuming a 60% “cluster effect”, the probabilities were still near zero. The WPE-adjusted state exit polls discrepancies, even assuming a 30% cluster effect, exceeded the margin of error in 24 states for Bush. The Composite (12:22am) discrepancies exceeded the margin of error in 16 states - all in favor of Bush. Not a single state deviated beyond the MoE for Kerry. Assuming a zero cluster effect, the probability that the MoE would be exceeded in 16 states by Bush is 1 in 19 trillion. A probability sensitivity analysis gave Kerry a 98% probability of winning a popular vote majority - assuming a 50% cluster effect.
Regions and Time Zones
They cannot explain why the margin of error was exceeded (using the average state WPE) in 29 states for Bush and in just one for Kerry. All 21 Eastern Time Zone states red-shifted to Bush and 14 exceeded the MoE. But the probability that the exit poll margin of error would be exceeded in 29 states is ZERO.
Red-shift vs. Blue-shift
They overlooked the fact that 41 states switched to Bush from the final pre-election polls to the recorded vote. But none of the 10 states which switched to Kerry was a battleground state. Forty-three states red-shifted to Bush from the 12:22am exit polls. Oregon was the only battleground state which shifted to Kerry – by less than one percent. It’s also the only state in which voting is done by mail. Was this all just a coincidence, a case of bad polling or an indication that fraud occurred?
They neglected to ask why six of the eight states which deviated to Kerry from the exit polls were strong Bush states: TN (1.63), TX (1.65), SD (1.67), ND (2.51), KS (2.37) and MT (0.22). The exit poll discrepancies (shown in parenthesis) were all within the exit poll margin of error. But only two competitive states deviated to Kerry: OR (0.75) and HI (1.25). Is it just a coincidence that Oregon is the only state which votes exclusively by mail (100% paper ballots), and that any discrepancy in that state would be small and could favor either Bush or Kerry? And is it just a coincidence that Hawaii was not exactly a critical state?
They agreed that the vote-rich battleground states would decide the election. But was it just a coincidence that six deep-red states deviated to Kerry and not a single blue state? Or was it because Bushco did not want to explain a 50-state red-shift? Did they disregard the six states knowing that Kerry would not come close to winning them? Instead they focused on thwarting a nationwide blue-shift in competitive states. The beast was in the East, the rest were in the West.
Mortality
They suggested that up to one million more Gore 2000 voters died than Bush voters had a major impact on the Bush “mandate”. They cited Gore’s 51-47% advantage in the Final NEP for the 60+ age group and calculated a 1.15% annual voter mortality rate (4.60% over the four years between elections). Therefore, approximately 5m of the 110.8m who cast votes in 2000 died prior to Nov 2004. But Gore’s 51% share of 5m is 2.55m; the Bush 47% share is 2.35m; the 0.20m difference is inconsequential. The Election Calculator showed Kerry winning by 10m votes with 53.5% of the popular vote.
Implausible Party ID Weights
They need to explain why the Party ID mix changed from a 3-5% Democratic edge over the last 4 elections to an even 37/37 split in the Final National Exit poll. The 12:22am NEP update had a Party ID mix of 38% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 27% Independents; corresponding Kerry vote shares were 91%, 7% and 52%. In the Final NEP (which was forced to match the recorded vote) the mix was changed to 37/37/26 with Kerry vote shares of 89%, 6% and 49%, respectively. The adjustments turned Kerry's 51-48% win into a 51-48% loss. But the changes to the weights and vote shares left footprints which exposed the fraud. A Pew study shows that the Democrats have held a steady 4-5 point Party ID advantage in the four presidential elections since 1992. And the 1992-2004 Final National Exit polls indicate that the Democratic candidate won first-time voters by an average 14% margin. It’s only logical to conclude that a solid majority of first-timers were Democrats. So why should we believe the net 3% red-shift in weights in the Final NEP?
Reluctant Bush Responders
They hypothesized that Bush voters were reluctant to respond to exit pollsters. But the rBr theory was contradicted by the 2004 Final Exit Poll. In the Final, Bush 2000 voters comprised 43% of the respondents, compared to 37% for Gore voters. And rBr was also contradicted by a linear regression analysis: exit poll non-response rates increased going from the strongest Bush states to the strongest Kerry states, which suggests that non-responders were Kerry voters. So they had to come up with another explanation. It was a perfect Hobson’s choice. If they believed the final Exit Poll (which Bush won by 51-48%), they would have to accept the weights which indicated that Bush voters were over-represented. But then they could not claim the rBr theory.
Mathematically Impossible Voted 2000 Weights
They claimed that it was standard operating procedure to re-weight the exit polls based on the recorded vote. But the Final NEP “Voted in 2000” weights (Bush 43/Gore 37%) were mathematically impossible. Bush 2000 voters could not have comprised 43% of the 122.3mm votes recorded in 2004, since 43% of 122.3 is 52.6mm and Bush only had 50.5mm votes in 2000. The 43/37 weights were irrelevant and misleading since they were mathematically impossible. Furthermore, since approximately 1.8mm Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election, the maximum number who could have voted in 2004 was 48.7 million, even assuming an impossible 100% turnout. This physical, incontrovertible mathematical fact totally confounded the naysayers. And the longer they tried to refute the facts, the sillier they looked.
The Game
They finally agreed in the Democratic Underground Game thread that the Final NEP Bush/Gore weights were impossible and came up with a new set of feasible weights. But they had to compensate for the change to feasible weights in order to match the recorded vote by inflating the Bush vote shares to implausible levels. This was necessary even though the shares were previously inflated in the Final with impossible weights in order to match the recorded vote. It was a feeble, last-ditch Hail Mary pass to justify the Bush “mandate”. They had to deal with an inconvenient truth: the Final National Exit Poll inflated the Bush tally by more than 4 million votes. But even though the weights were mathematically impossible, the exit-pollsters had no choice but to use them hoping that no one would notice. And so they lost the “Game”. Their use of implausible vote shares meant that they could not come up with one believable Bush win scenario.
To match the recorded vote, they were forced to make the following implausible assumptions:
1) 14.6% of Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush.
The 12:22am NEP reported that 8% defected; it was changed to 10% in the 2pm Final.
The probability of a 6.6% discrepancy is ZERO.
2) Kerry won 52.9% of those who did not vote (DNV) in 2000.
The NEP reported a 57-41%
spread; it was changed to 54-45% in the Final.
3) 7.2% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry.
The NEP reported that 10% defected; it was changed to 9% in the Final.
False Recall
They knew that every theory they had proposed to explain the exit poll discrepancies was refuted. So they were forced to suggest “false recall” as a last-ditch explanation and cited a post-election NES 600-sample survey to account for the impossible Final 43/37% Bush/Gore weights. This was the basis for their claim that 14.6% of Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush in 2004. They implied that approximately 6.6% of Gore 2000 voters (8.6% higher than the 12:22am NEP defection rate) misrepresented their vote and told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush in 2000. The reason: a long-term bandwagon effect: Gore voters wanted to associate with the “winner”.
But “false recall” is not a plausible explanation since a) Gore won by 540,000 votes, b) according to the pristine 12:22am NEP, Kerry captured 91% of Gore voters and 10% of Bush voters, c) Bush had a 48.5% approval rating on Election Day 2004, d) false recall is not applicable to pre-election polls and e) the pre-election polls matched the exit polls. Why would Gore voters want to be associated with Bush? Even if returning Gore voters lied about their vote in 2000, it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is a) their factual 2000 recorded Gore vote and b) that 91% said they just voted for Kerry. We use this factual data to compute feasible and plausible weights by adjusting the 2000 recorded vote for mortality and estimated 2004 turnout.
They also need to explain how the “false recall” hypothesis applies to other demographics. In the 12:22am NEP, 13047respondents were asked who they just voted for: Kerry won the Gender demographic by 50.78-48.22%. But only 3200 of the 13047 respondents were asked how they voted in 2000. But Kerry won the other 10,000 respondents (who were not asked who they voted for) by 51-48%. This totally contradicts the “false recall” argument. Why would 10,000 respondents tell the exit pollsters that they just voted for Kerry if they wanted to be associated with Bush?
Model Assumptions
They maintain that the base case assumptions in the True Vote Model are not feasible and plausible. But the assumptions were based on feasible weights applied to plausible 12:22am NEP vote shares. The model determined that Kerry won by 66.1 - 58.4mm (52.6 - 46.4%). Applying the weights to the 2pm Final NEP (which used inflated Bush vote shares to match the vote count) Kerry was still the winner by 3.4 million (51.2 - 48.4%). The True Vote Model input consists of the following: 1) feasible “Voted 2000” weights (ratio of Kerry, Bush, Nader/other and new voters). The 2000 recorded vote was reduced by 3.5% for mortality and 95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004; 2) 12:22am NEP vote shares; 3) 3.4mm uncounted votes: 125.7mm reported by the 2004 Census Bureau less 122.3mm recorded; 4) 2.6mm (75%) of the uncounted votes were for Kerry; historically, the majority of uncounted votes have been in Democratic minority districts.
Switched Votes
The True Vote model also determined that 4.5m (6.8%) of Kerry’s true vote must have been switched to Bush. The simple formula is True Vote = Recorded + Uncounted + Switched. Kerry’s True Vote was 66.1m, his recorded vote 59.0m and 2.6m were uncounted. The model also concluded that Kerry won 336 electoral votes. This result matched the Nov.1 Election Model which used Monte Carlo Simulation to calculate Kerry’s expected electoral vote.
The Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS)
According to the 2004 EIRS, 86 of 88 touch screen vote switching incidents were from Kerry to Bush, a 1 in 79 sextillion probability.
Sixteen Million New Bush Voters
They failed to explain how Bush found 16m new voters (DNV2k) to reach 62m in 2004. He had 50.5m votes in 2000. But only 46m returned to vote in 2004. Approximately 2m Bush voters died and an estimated 2.5m did not vote, assuming a 95% turnout. According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, Bush won 41% of 26.3m new voters. The 19% discrepancy was 11 times the 1.72% margin of error. The probability of the discrepancy is ZERO. It’s important to note that a solid majority of new voters were Democrats and Independents who gave Bush an approval rating much lower than his total 48.5% average on Election Day 2004.
They need to explain how Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004, even though he won a solid 57-41% share of new (DNV2k) voters. Of the DNV2k voters, Kerry won first-time voters by 55-43% and other new voters by 61-37%. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 even though Bush captured new (DNV96) voters by 52-44%. But this is quite strange, especially since Gore won first-timers (52-43%) and Bush won others (71-26%). How could there have been such a wide discrepancy in vote share between first-timers and others? Did Bush really win 71% of other new voters?
2000 Voter Turnout Breakeven Scenarios
They belittled a comprehensive sensitivity analysis which indicated that Kerry won all plausible scenarios of voter turnout and new voter share. But assuming 12:22am NEP vote shares and 100% Bush 2000 voter turnout, Gore voter turnout had to be 73% for Bush to tie Kerry and 64% to match the recorded 62-59mm vote.
Implausible Vote Shares
They need to explain these implausible changes in Bush NEP vote shares from 2000 to 2004:
-The Bush share of females increased by 4.2% while his share of males decreased by 0.2%
-His share of white females increased by 5.0% while his share of white males decreased by 0.9%
-His share of non-white females increased by 4.0% while his share of non-white males increased by only 0.76%
-His share of female independents increased by 1.8% while his share of male independents decreased by 5.6%
Didn’t females vote 54-45% for Kerry? Didn’t over 90% of blacks vote for him? Weren’t independents for Kerry by 52-44%? Why would independent males defect to Kerry at triple the rate that independent females defected to Bush? Didn’t Nader voters break 3-1 for Kerry?
Swing vs. Red-shift
They claimed that the raw exit poll data which have not been made public indicates that there was no tendency for Bush to do better in 2004 relative to 2000 (“swing”) than he did in the 2004 exit poll (“red-shift”). They presented their analysis in a swing vs. red-shift scatter chart and concluded from the flat regression line that the exit poll discrepancies did not indicate fraud. But they did not consider the following factors: According to the 2004 National Exit Poll, Kerry won 71% of returning Nader voters compared to 21% for Bush. A similar split would have increased Gore’s margin by 1.4mm. Assuming that 75% of approximately 5 million uncounted votes were for Gore, his margin increases by another 2.5 million. When added to his recorded 540,000 vote margin, Gore’s adjusted margin becomes 4.5 million. And that does not consider the effects of vote-switching. We know a lot more about vote-switching than we did in 2000. It’s very likely that Gore votes were switched to Bush. But assuming zero vote-switching, Gore’s adjusted, true margin was close to 4.5 million: 2.5m uncounted + 1.4m Nader + 0.54m recorded. They never normalized the 2-party state vote shares in calculating “swing”. Actual adjusted swing was 3.9%, recorded swing 2.0%; red-shift 4.1%. An adjusted swing vs. red-shift bar graph displays the deviations. Another scatter chart shows that adjusted swing exceeded 4% in 18 states while red-shift exceeded 4% in only 4 states. The naysayer swing vs. red-shift argument is just another ruse meant to divert, confuse and mislead.
Ohio
They argued that the Final Ohio exit poll does not indicate fraud. But they ignored the massive documented evidence of uncounted and switched votes, apart from voter disenfranchisement. And two election workers were convicted of rigging the recount. Kerry won the 12:22am Ohio exit poll Gender demographic (1963 respondents) by 52.06-47.94% and the WPE-adjusted exit poll by 54.2-45.4%. But he lost the 2:06pm Final (2020 respondents) by 50.94-49.06%. In the Final, vote shares and weights were changed in favor of Bush to match the miscounted Ohio recorded vote. This was just like the final 2pm NEP in which vote shares and weights were changed from the 12:22am update in order to match the miscounted National vote. Two models confirmed that Kerry won Ohio. The first was based on 12:22am NEP vote shares with weights adjusted to the Ohio 2000 recorded vote. Kerry was the 51.74-48.26% winner, within 0.32% of the exit poll. The second was based on uncounted (3%) and switched vote (6.15%) assumptions applied to the recorded vote. Kerry was the 52.6-47.4% winner. An exhaustive statistical study of actual ballots in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) indicated that 6.15% of Kerry’s votes were switched.
Using the original 12:22am Ohio exit poll weights for the following demographics, it would have been necessary to inflate the Bush vote shares to implausible levels to match the recorded vote. So the weights were changed in favor of Bush to minimize the change:
First-time voters
Of the 14% who were first-time voters, 55% were for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 47% of the other 86%?
When Decided
Of the 21% who decided in the month prior to the election, 62% voted for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 45% of the 79% who decided earlier? Did Bush lead by 10% in any of the early polls?
Party ID
The weights changed from 38D/35R to 35D/40R, a 7.9% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 17% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. He had 8%.
Ideology:
Liberal/Conservative weights changed from 21/32 to 19/34, a 9.5% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 23% of Liberals to match the recorded vote. He had 13%.
Voted for Senate
Democratic/Republican weights changed from 43/57 to 36/64, a 16.3% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 14% of those who voted for the Democratic candidate. He had 7%.
Florida
They ignored Florida’s implausible vote count by machine type and party registration. In 2000, Bush supposedly “won” by 547 official votes. Given Gore’s 70% share of 180,000 uncounted under/over votes, Gore won by at least 60,000 votes. In 2004, Bush supposedly “won” by 52-47%, a 368,000 vote margin. The final Zogby pre-election poll had Kerry winning by 50-47%. Kerry led the WPE-adjusted exit poll by 50.9-48.3%.
Dan Rather's voting machine expose showed that poor-quality paper used in punch card machines was a major cause of election fraud in heavily Democratic precincts, thus illustrating a previously unknown method used to hack mechanical voting machines, whether punch card or lever.
The Democrats had a 41- 37% registration advantage in Touch Screen (TS) counties and a 42-39% edge in Optical Scan (OS) counties. Kerry won the TS counties (3.86mm votes) by 51-47%, but Bush won the OS counties (3.43mm votes) by a whopping 57-42%. Kerry’s low vote shares in the three most heavily populated (and Democratic) TS counties (Palm Beach, Broward, Dade) are highly suspect. Florida voter registration by party is the same in TS and OS counties, so we aren’t comparing apples and oranges. The TS county vote share matched the 12:22am NEP to within 0.43% for Bush and 0.31% for Kerry. The OS county share deviated by 9.0% for Bush (307,000 votes) while the Kerry discrepancy was -8.1% (278,000).
Several models indicate that Kerry won Florida. The first was based on voting machine type (optical scanners and touch screens) and used 2004 NEP “Party ID” vote shares with party registration percentage weights. Kerry won by 50.7-47.7% (closely matching the exit poll) - a 221,000 vote margin. The second was based on uncounted (1%) and switched vote (6.9%) assumptions applied to the 2004 recorded vote. Kerry won by an identical 221,000 votes. In a third calculation based on 12:22am NEP vote shares with weights adjusted based on the Florida 2000 recorded vote, Kerry was a 52.6-46.7% winner. In a fourth calculation, based on uncounted (3%) and switched vote (7%) assumptions applied to the recorded vote, Kerry was a 51.3-48.2% winner. Assuming that Kerry won 70,000 of 96,000 Nader 2000 votes (based on his 71% NEP share), he had a built-in 100,000 vote advantage on Election Day … assuming all the votes would be counted. Given a 1.0% margin of error, the probability is 1 in 12.7 trillion that Kerry's total TS county vote share would exceed his total Florida share by 4.2%.
New York
They cherry-picked the final NY pre-election poll in a feeble attempt to prove that the pre-election polls didn’t match the exits. Kerry won the final NY pre-election poll by 59-40%. The recorded vote was 58.5-40.2%. But they cannot explain how Kerry won 66% of the final 497,000 votes recorded. They claimed that the NY pre-election poll was correct and that the WPE-adjusted exit poll (Kerry 64.1- Bush 34.4- Other 1.5) was wrong. The Exit Poll MoE is 2.6% for 1452 respondents (3.2% if a 30% cluster effect is assumed).
They claimed that the NY pre-election poll matched an accurate recorded vote. Their proof: Lever voting machines have a low 1% spoilage rate. But they cannot provide evidence that ALL the votes were counted accurately in ALL the precincts and they failed to consider absentee and provisional ballots. Historical evidence indicates that Lever machines are vulnerable to rigging. Dan Rather's voting machine expose was a clear example. In Florida 2000, poor-quality paper used in punch card machines was a major cause of election fraud in heavily Democratic precincts, thus illustrating a previously unknown method used to hack mechanical voting machines, whether punch card or lever.
There are four fundamental flaws in their argument.
The first flaw: they ignored the theoretical margin of error. It’s well-known that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polls. There was a 5% discrepancy between Kerry's NY pre-election (59%) and exit poll (64%). The MoE is 4% for a typical 600-sample pre-election state poll, meaning there is a 95% probability that Kerry's True vote was in the 55-63% range. The 3.2% NY exit poll MoE means there was a 95% chance that Kerry's True vote was in the 60.9-67.3% range. Therefore, a Kerry vote share in the 60.9-63.0% range would be within the MoE for both pre-election and exit polls. On the other hand, the weighted average of 51 state pre-election polls (adjusted for undecided voters) matched the National Exit Poll to within 1%. Once again, it’s the Law of Large Numbers taking effect.
The second flaw: they failed to consider the NY 2000 vote: Gore 60.5 - Bush 35.4 - Nader 4.1. But their argument implies that the 2004 recorded vote was fraud-free and that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush - clearly an impossible scenario. In fact, according to the 12:22am NEP, Kerry won Nader voters by 71-21%; 10% of Bush voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. Adjusting the NEP weights based on the NY 2000 recorded vote and assuming the 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry won the adjusted exit poll by 60.8-Bush 38.1%.
The third flaw: they failed to consider that Kerry’s vote share was 10% higher in NY than nationally. Adjusting the NEP vote shares to plausible NY levels increased Kerry’s margin to 62.5-36.4%. The 1.6 - 2.0% discrepancy from the exit poll is well within the 2.6% margin of error. But that’s not all. The NY 2004 Election Calculator model assumptions were: 2% uncounted votes, Kerry won 93% of Gore voters, 10% of Bush voters and 60% of new (DNV2k) voters. A sensitivity analysis shows that if Kerry won 91-95% of returning NY Gore voters and 56-64% of DNV2k, his NY vote share ranges from 59.8 to 65.2%.
The fourth flaw: they assumed zero fraud in believing that the recorded vote as the true vote. An analysis of the effects of uncounted and switched votes indicates that Kerry won by 63-36%. The assumptions were: 2% of total votes cast were uncounted (75% to Kerry) and 7% of Kerry’s votes were switched to Bush. The uncounted vote assumption is lower than the 2.74% national average (NY uses lever voting machines). The switched vote assumption reflects the national result based on the 12:22am National Exit Poll adjusted for feasible weights. Who is going to question the switching of votes, especially since Kerry won the state by 18%? But we have just shown that the true margin was close to 27%.
Exit Poll Response: Four matching models
Four independent mathematical methods applied to three distinct sets of precinct, national and location-size exit poll data each produced the identical result. The USCV simulation; 1250 precincts by partisanship; location-size; NEP Voted in 2000 were in near-perfect confirmation.
The Exit Poll Optimizer employed the Excel Solver algorithm to obtain a feasible solution for the 2-party vote (Kerry 52.15-Bush 47.85%). The data constraints included the recorded vote (Bush 51.24-Kerry 48.76%), response rates and within precinct error (WPE) categorized into five partisanship groupings: Strong Bush, Bush, Even, Kerry, Strong Kerry.
The Optimizer confirmed the USCV simulation. Both models analyzed summary exit poll data for 1250 precincts supplied by Edison-Mitofsky and in so doing, debunked the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. The Optimizer also exactly matched the 12:22am National Exit Poll “Voted in 2000” demographic two-party result: Kerry 52.15- Bush 47.85%. The identical result was obtained by running the Optimizer for five NEP location-size category groupings (Big Cities, Small Cities, Suburban, Small Towns and Rural, given the WPE for each category.
The 2006 Midterms
Except for the notorious 2006 FL-13 congressional race in which 18,000 mostly Democratic votes were mysteriously missing, the evidence of massive fraud in the midterm elections is hardly mentioned in the corporate media. But a Pew 2006 Election Analysis describes voting “anomalies” and computer “glitches” that occurred in virtually every state. The fraud probably cost the Democrats 10-20 congressional seats.
The 2006 National Exit Poll “How Voted in 2004” weights were changed from 47 Bush / 45 Kerry at 7pm on Election Day to 49/43 in the Final NEP at 1pm on the following day. Once again, just like in 2004, the exit pollsters had to match the vote count by expanding the weight spread from 2% to 6%! This had a major effect in cutting the Democratic margin in half - from 55-43% to 52-46%. As noted earlier, the 2004 12:22am NEP “How Voted in 2000” Bush/Gore 41/39 weights were changed to 43/37 in the 2pm Final, turning a 51-48% Kerry victory into a 51-48% loss.
If plausible 49 Kerry/ 46 Bush weights (based on the 2004 NEP) are used, the TRUE Democratic margin becomes 56.7-42.1%, exactly matching the 120 pre-election Generic Poll trend line. Was this just a coincidence or another confirmation that the pre-election polls matched the 7pm National Exit Poll? You decide.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In every election, millions of votes are never counted. They represent a significant component of the exit poll discrepancies. According to the 2000 Census, 110.8m votes were cast but only 105.4m recorded, leaving 5.4m uncounted. Most were from heavily democratic minority districts. Assuming that 75% were Gore votes, his true margin was close to 3 million, not the 540,000 recorded. But that doesn’t include likely vote-switching to Bush on DREs and optical scanners. And don’t forget the millions of disenfranchised Democrats who never even got to the voting booth. Gore’s 540,000 “official” vote margin is a long-running media myth.
The 2000 election wasn’t even close, although the media would like us to believe it was. Only the 5-4 Supreme Court decision was close. Consider the Florida fiasco. Bush “won” by 537 “official” votes before the Supreme Court aborted the recount - and 175,010 spoiled (under-punched and over-punched) ballots were never counted. Since approximately 75% were intended for Gore, he probably won Florida by more than 80,000 votes. The spoiled punched cards in Florida were just the tip of the national iceberg.
2000 Recorded (mil) Gore Bush Other 51.00 50.46 3.96 48.4% 47.9% 3.7% Exit Poll:Gore Bush Other49.4% 47.1% 3.5% Election CalculatorGore Bush Other55.81 51.65 3.34 50.4% 46.6% 3.0% Assumptions:Uncounted Votes Gore Bush Other 75% 20% 5% 4.04 1.08 0.279 1996 Annual Mortality Total Voters 1.24% Clinton share 50%
1996 Voter Turnout in 2000 Clinton 96%
Dole 96% Perot 96% 1996 Voted Recorded Unctd Cast Deaths AliveClinton 47.40 6.54 53.94 2.60 51.34
Dole 39.20 1.75 40.94 2.10 38.84Perot 9.676 0.44 10.11 0.50 9.61 Total 96.28 8.73 105.00 5.21 99.79 2000 Calculated (NEP vote shares) Turnout Voted Weight Gore Bush OtherDNV - 15.00 13.5% 52% 43% 5%Clinton 96% 49.29 44.5% 82% 15% 3%Dole 96% 37.29 33.7% 8% 91% 1%Perot 96% 9.23 8.3% 50% 42% 8% Total 95.80 110.8 100% 50.37% 46.62% 3.01% 55.81 51.65 3.34 Sensitivity Analysis 1 Gore Share of New voters 48.0% 50.0% 52.0% 54.0% 56.0%Gore% Clinton Gore National Vote Share
86% 51.6% 51.9% 52.1% 52.4% 52.7%84% 50.7% 51.0% 51.3% 51.5% 51.8%82% 49.8% 50.1% 50.4% 50.6% 50.9%80% 48.9% 49.2% 49.5% 49.8% 50.0%78% 48.0% 48.3% 48.6% 48.9% 49.1% Margin (mil) 86% 6.9 7.5 8.1 8.7 9.3 84% 4.9 5.5 6.1 6.7 7.3 82% 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 80% 1.0 1.6 2.2 2.8 3.4 78% (1.0) (0.4) 0.2 0.8 1.4 Sensitivity Analysis 2 Clinton Voter Turnout in 2000
92.0% 94.0% 96.0% 98.0% 100.0%Clinton%
Unctd96 Gore National Vote Share95% 50.9% 51.2% 51.5% 51.8% 52.1%85% 50.4% 50.7% 50.9% 51.2% 51.5%75% 49.8% 50.1% 50.4% 50.6% 50.9%65% 49.3% 49.5% 49.8% 50.1% 50.4%55% 48.7% 49.0% 49.3% 49.5% 49.8% Margin (mil) 95% 5.4 6.1 6.7 7.3 7.9 85% 4.2 4.8 5.4 6.0 6.6 75% 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.3 65% 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.1 55% 0.5 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.8 ______________________________________________________________ Florida 2000 Uncounted Votes by County
Bush was leading by 537 votes when the recount was aborted by the Supreme Court. A full count of 175,010 spoiled ballots indicated that Gore won Florida by a minimum of 80,000 votes. Of the spoiled ballots, 54% were in black districts where Gore won 91% of the vote. Assuming the other 46% were evenly split between Gore and Bush, then a simple calculation shows that approximately 126,000 (72%) were Gore votes. In addition, thousands of Gore voters mistakenly voted for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, due to the infamous “Butterfly” ballot. Buchanan's vote share was 0.80% in PBC and 0.25% in the other counties.
Final Recorded Vote
Gore 2,912,253
Bush 2,912,790
Nader 97,488
Buchanan 17,021
Other
23,558
Total 5,963,110
Recorded Vote County Precincts Total Gore Bush Buchanan Nader Other Gore Bush Buchanan Nader Totals 5884 5963 2912 2913 17 97 24 48.83% 48.85% 0.29% 1.63% Alachua 53 86 47 34 0 3 1 55.2% 39.8% 0.3% 3.8%Baker 8 8 2 6 0 0 0 29.3% 68.8% 0.9% 0.6%Bay 47 59 19 39 0 1 0 32.1% 65.7% 0.4% 1.4%Bradford 21 9 3 5 0 0 0 35.5% 62.4% 0.7% 1.0%
Brevard 177 218 97 115 1 4 1 44.6% 52.7% 0.3% 2.0% Broward 618 573 387 177 1 7 2 67.4% 30.9% 0.1% 1.2%Calhoun 13 5 2 3 0 0 0 41.7% 55.5% 1.7% 0.8%Charlotte 63 67 30 35 0 1 0 44.3% 53.0% 0.3% 2.2%
Citrus 35 57 26 30 0 1 0 44.6% 52.0% 0.5% 2.4%Clay 51 57 15 42 0 1 0 25.5% 72.8% 0.3% 1.0% Collier 96 92 30 60 0 1 0 32.5% 65.6% 0.1% 1.5%Columbia 31 19 7 11 0 0 0 38.1% 59.2% 0.5% 1.4%
Miami-Dade 614 625 329 290 1 5 1 52.6% 46.3% 0.1% 0.9%DeSoto 15 8 3 4 0 0 0 42.5% 54.5% 0.5% 2.0%Dixie 11 5 2 3 0 0 0 39.1% 57.8% 0.6% 1.6%
Duval 268 265 108 152 1 3 1 40.8% 57.5% 0.2% 1.0%Escambia 108 117 41 73 1 2 0 35.1% 62.6% 0.4% 1.5%
Flagler 27 27 14 13 0 0 0 51.3% 46.5% 0.3% 1.6%Franklin 8 5 2 2 0 0 0 44.1% 52.8% 0.7% 1.8%
Gadsden 16 15 10 5 0 0 0 66.1% 32.4% 0.3% 0.9%
Gilchrist 10 5 2 3 0 0 0 35.4% 61.2% 0.5% 1.8%Glades 13 3 1 2 0 0 0 42.9% 54.7% 0.3% 1.7%Gulf 14 6 2 4 0 0 0 39.0% 57.8% 1.2% 1.4%Hamilton 8 4 2 2 0 0 0 43.4% 54.1% 0.6% 0.9%
Hardee 12 6 2 4 0 0 0 37.5% 60.4% 0.5% 1.2% Hendry 22 8 3 5 0 0 0 39.8% 58.3% 0.3% 1.3%Hernando 51 65 33 31 0 2 0 50.1% 47.0% 0.4% 2.3%Highlands 28 35 14 20 0 1 0 40.3% 57.5% 0.4% 1.6%
Hillsboro 320 360 170 181 1 7 2 47.1% 50.2% 0.2% 2.1%
Holmes 16 7 2 5 0 0 0 29.4% 67.8% 1.0% 1.3% Indian River 41 50 20 29 0 1 0 39.8% 57.7% 0.2% 1.9%
Jackson 27 16 7 9 0 0 0 42.1% 56.1% 0.6% 0.8%
Jefferson 13 6 3 2 0 0 0 53.9% 43.9% 0.5% 1.3%
Lafayette 5 3 1 2 0 0 0 31.5% 66.7% 0.4% 1.0%
Lake 86 89 37 50 0 1 0 41.3% 56.5% 0.3% 1.6%
Lee 150 184 74 106 0 4 1 39.9% 57.6% 0.2% 1.9%Leon 95 103 61 39 0 2 0 59.6% 37.9% 0.3% 1.9%Levy 21 13 5 7 0 0 0 42.4% 53.9% 0.5% 2.2%Liberty 8 2 1 1 0 0 0 42.2% 54.6% 1.6% 0.8%
Madison 11 6 3 3 0 0 0 48.9% 49.3% 0.5% 0.9%
Manatee 135 110 49 58 0 2 0 44.6% 52.6% 0.2% 2.3%Marion 96 103 45 55 1 2 1 43.4% 53.6% 0.5% 1.8%Martin 40 62 27 34 0 1 0 42.9% 54.8% 0.2% 1.8%Monroe 33 34 16 16 0 1 0 48.7% 47.4% 0.1% 3.2%
Nassau 21 24 7 16 0 0 0 29.2% 69.0% 0.4% 1.1%
Okaloosa 48 71 17 52 0 1 0 24.0% 73.7% 0.4% 1.4%Okeechobee 18 10 5 5 0 0 0 46.6% 51.3% 0.4% 1.3%Orange 232 280 140 135 0 4 1 50.1% 48.1% 0.0% 1.4%Osceola 66 56 28 26 0 1 0 50.6% 47.1% 0.3% 1.3%Palm Beach 531 433 270 153 3 6 2 62.3% 35.3% 0.8% 1.3%
Pasco 132 143 70 69 1 3 1 48.7% 48.0% 0.4% 2.4%
Pinellas 345 398 201 185 1 10 2 50.3% 46.4% 0.3% 2.5%Polk 163 169 75 90 1 2 1 44.6% 53.6% 0.3% 1.2%Putnam 50 26 12 13 0 0 0 46.2% 51.3% 0.6% 1.4%St. Johns 57 61 20 40 0 1 0 32.1% 65.1% 0.4% 2.0%
St. Lucie 78 78 42 35 0 1 0 53.3% 44.5% 0.2% 1.8%Santa Rosa 36 50 13 36 0 1 0 25.4% 72.1% 0.6% 1.4%
Sarasota 142 161 73 83 0 4 1 45.3% 51.6% 0.2% 2.5%
Seminole 133 138 59 76 0 2 1 43.0% 55.0% 0.1% 1.4%Sumter 24 22 10 12 0 0 0 43.3% 54.5% 0.5% 1.4%
Suwannee 16 12 4 8 0 0 0 32.8% 64.4% 0.9% 1.4%
Taylor 14 7 3 4 0 0 0 38.9% 59.6% 0.4% 0.9%
Union 11 4 1 2 0 0 0 36.8% 61.0% 0.9% 0.9%Volusia 172 184 97 82 0 3 1 53.0% 44.8% 0.3% 1.6%Wakulla 12 9 4 5 0 0 0 44.7% 52.5% 0.5% 1.7% Walton 33 18 6 12 0 0 0 30.8% 66.5% 0.7% 1.4%Washington 15 8 3 5 0 0 0 34.9% 62.3% 1.1% 1.2%
Uncounted Votes (000):
Votes ShareGore 126.3 72.1%Bush 45.0 25.7Nader 2.6 1.5Buchanan 0.5 0.3Other 0.7 0.4Total 175 (2.85% of 6138k) Unctd Adj Unctd% Adjusted Count (total votes cast) Adjusted Vote ShareCounty Total Total Adj Gore Bush Buch Nader Other Gore Bush Totals 175 6138 2.85% 3039 2958 18 100 23 49.51% 48.19% Alachua 0.33 86 0.38% 48 34 0.3 3.2 0.8 55.3% 39.8%Baker 0.14 8 1.69% 2 6 0.1 0.1 0.0 30.1% 68.1%Bay 0.66 59 1.11% 19 39 0.2 0.8 0.2 32.5% 65.3%Bradford 0.73 9 7.80% 4 6 0.1 0.1 0.0 38.3% 59.6%
Brevard 1.03 219 0.47% 98 115 0.6 4.5 0.9 44.7% 52.6% Broward 14.61 588 2.48% 397 181 0.8 7.3 1.7 67.5% 30.8%Calhoun 0.08 5 1.49% 2 3 0.1 0.0 0.0 42.1% 55.1%Charlotte 3.16 70 4.51% 32 36 0.2 1.5 0.2 45.6% 51.7%
Citrus 0.22 57 0.38% 26 30 0.3 1.4 0.3 44.7% 51.9%Clay 0.15 58 0.27% 15 42 0.2 0.6 0.2 25.6% 72.6% Collier 3.18 95 3.34% 32 61 0.1 1.4 0.3 33.8% 64.3%Columbia 0.69 19 3.61% 8 11 0.1 0.3 0.2 39.3% 58.0%
Miami-Dade 28.60 654 4.37% 349 297 0.6 5.8 1.3 53.4% 45.4%DeSoto 0.70 9 8.24% 4 4 0.0 0.2 0.0 45.0% 52.2%Dixie 0.33 5 6.64% 2 3 0.0 0.1 0.0 41.3% 55.7%
Duval 26.91 292 9.23% 127 159 0.7 3.2 1.4 43.7% 54.5%Escambia 4.37 121 3.61% 44 74 0.5 1.8 0.5 36.4% 61.3%
Flagler 0.06 27 0.23% 14 13 0.1 0.4 0.1 51.3% 46.5%Franklin 0.42 5 8.28% 2 3 0.0 0.1 0.0 46.4% 50.6%
Gadsden 2.07 17 12.3% 11 5 0.0 0.2 0.1 66.8% 31.5%
Gilchrist 0.29 6 5.07% 2 3 0.0 0.1 0.1 37.3% 59.4%Glades 0.37 4 9.98% 2 2 0.0 0.1 0.0 45.8% 51.8%Gulf 0.41 7 6.27% 3 4 0.1 0.1 0.0 41.1% 55.8%Hamilton 0.39 4 8.94% 2 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.0% 51.6%
Hardee 0.41 7 6.14% 3 4 0.0 0.1 0.0 39.7% 58.3% Hendry 0.80 9 8.95% 4 5 0.0 0.1 0.0 42.7% 55.4%Hernando 0.25 65 0.38% 33 31 0.2 1.5 0.2 50.1% 46.9%Highlands 1.01 36 2.79% 15 20 0.1 0.6 0.1 41.2% 56.6%
Hillsboro 9.17 369 2.48% 176 183 0.9 7.6 1.7 47.7% 49.6%
Holmes 0.14 8 1.84% 2 5 0.1 0.1 0.0 30.2% 67.0% Indian River 1.94 52 3.76% 21 29 0.1 1.0 0.2 41.1% 56.5%
Jackson 1.16 17 6.63% 8 9 0.1 0.2 0.1 44.1% 54.0%
Jefferson 0.57 6 9.22% 3 3 0.0 0.1 0.0 55.6% 42.2%
Lafayette 0.17 3 6.39% 1 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.1% 64.0%
Lake 3.61 92 3.92% 39 51 0.3 1.5 0.3 42.5% 55.2%
Lee 4.57 189 2.42% 77 107 0.3 3.7 0.8 40.7% 56.8%Leon 0.18 103 0.18% 62 39 0.3 1.9 0.4 59.6% 37.9%
Levy 0.76 13 5.64% 6 7 0.1 0.3 0.1 44.1% 52.3%Liberty 0.19 3 7.24% 1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4% 52.6%
Madison 0.48 7 7.23% 3 3 0.0 0.1 0.0 50.6% 47.6%
Manatee 1.41 112 1.26% 50 58 0.3 2.5 0.3 45.0% 52.2%Marion 3.35 106 3.15% 47 56 0.6 1.9 0.8 44.3% 52.7%
Martin 0.61 63 0.97% 27 34 0.1 1.1 0.2 43.2% 54.5%Monroe 0.18 34 0.53% 17 16 0.0 1.1 0.2 48.8% 47.3%
Nassau 1.58 25 6.28% 8 17 0.1 0.3 0.1 31.9% 66.3%
Okaloosa 0.77 71 1.07% 17 52 0.3 1.0 0.4 24.5% 73.2%Okeechobee 0.86 11 8.01% 5 5 0.0 0.1 0.0 48.6% 49.3%Orange 2.40 278 0.86% 142 135 0.0 3.9 1.1 50.3% 47.9%Osceola 1.68 57 2.94% 29 27 0.1 0.8 0.4 51.3% 46.5%Palm Beach 29.70 457 6.49% 291 161 3.5 6.0 1.6 62.9% 34.7%
Pasco 3.92 147 2.67% 72 70 0.6 3.5 0.6 49.4% 47.5%
Pinellas 8.49 407 2.09% 207 187 1.0 10.1 2.0 50.8% 46.0%Polk 0.90 170 0.53% 76 91 0.5 2.1 0.5 44.7% 53.4%Putnam 0.17 26 0.64% 12 13 0.1 0.4 0.1 46.3% 51.1%St. Johns 3.24 64 5.06% 22 40 0.2 1.3 0.3 34.1% 63.1%
St. Lucie 0.34 78 0.43% 42 35 0.1 1.4 0.2 53.4% 44.4%Santa Rosa 0.37 51 0.72% 13 36 0.3 0.7 0.2 25.8% 71.8%
Sarasota 0.56 162 0.35% 73 83 0.3 4.1 0.6 45.4% 51.5%
Seminole 0.65 138 0.47% 60 76 0.2 2.0 0.6 43.1% 54.8%Sumter 0.76 23 3.31% 10 12 0.1 0.3 0.1 44.2% 53.5%
Suwannee 0.73 13 5.56% 5 8 0.1 0.2 0.1 34.9% 62.2%
Taylor 0.60 7 8.09% 3 4 0.0 0.1 0.0 41.6% 56.8%
Union 0.26 4 6.32% 2 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0% 58.8%Volusia 0.50 184 0.27% 98 82 0.5 2.9 0.6 53.0% 44.8%Wakulla 0.42 9 4.68% 4 5 0.0 0.2 0.0 46.0% 51.3% Walton 0.22 19 1.18% 6 12 0.1 0.3 0.1 31.3% 66.0%Washington 0.33 8 3.94% 3 5 0.1 0.1 0.0 36.4% 60.8%
______________________________________________________________
2000 Recorded State Vote(in thousands) State Gore Bush Nader Other Total Weight Total 51,004 50,460 2,883 1,070 105,417 100% Alabama 696 944 18 14 1,673 1.59%
Alaska 79 167 29 10 286 0.27%
Arizona 685 782 46 21 1,534 1.46%
Arkansas 423 473 13 13 922 0.87%
California 5,861 4,567 419 119 10,966 10.40%
Colorado 738 884 91 28 1,741 1.65%
Connecticut 816 561 64 18 1,460 1.38%
Delaware 180 137 8 2 328 0.31%
D. C. 172 18 11 1 202 0.19% Florida 2,912 2,913 97 41 5,963 5.66%
Georgia 1,116 1,420 13 47 2,597 2.46%
Hawaii 205 138 22 3 368 0.35%
Idaho 139 337 12 14 502 0.48%
Illinois 2,589 2,019 104 30 4,742 4.50%
Indiana 902 1,246 19 33 2,199 2.09%
Iowa 639 634 29 13 1,316 1.25%
Kansas 399 622 36 15 1,072 1.02%
Kentucky 639 872 23 10 1,544 1.46%
Louisiana 792 928 20 25 1,766 1.67%
Maine 320 287 37 8 652 0.62%
Maryland 1,146 814 54 12 2,025 1.92%
Massachusetts 1,616 879 174 34 2,703 2.56%
Michigan 2,170 1,953 84 25 4,233 4.02%
Minnesota 1,168 1,110 127 34 2,439 2.31%
Mississippi 405 573 8 9 995 0.94%
Missouri 1,111 1,190 39 20 2,360 2.24%
Montana 137 240 24 9 411 0.39%
Nebraska 232 434 25 7 697 0.66%
Nevada 280 302 15 12 609 0.58%
New Hampshire 266 274 22 7 569 0.54%
New Jersey 1,789 1,284 95 20 3,187 3.02%
New Mexico 287 286 21 4 599 0.57%
New York 4,108 2,403 244 67 6,823 6.47%
North Carol 1,258 1,631 0 22 2,911 2.76% North Dakota 95 175 9 9 288 0.27% Ohio 2,186 2,351 118 50 4,705 4.46%
Oklahoma 474 744 0 16 1,234 1.17%
Oregon 720 714 77 23 1,534 1.46%
Pennsylvania 2,486 2,281 103 43 4,913 4.66%
Rhode Island 250 131 25 4 409 0.39% South Carolina 566 786 20 11 1,384 1.31%
South Dakota 119 191 0 7 316 0.30%
Tennessee 982 1,062 20 13 2,076 1.97%
Texas 2,434 3,800 138 36 6,408 6.08%
Utah 203 515 36 17 771 0.73%
Vermont 149 120 20 5 294 0.28%
Virginia 1,217 1,437 59 25 2,739 2.60%
Washington 1,248 1,109 103 29 2,489 2.36%
West Virginia 295 336 11 5 648 0.61%
Wisconsin 1,243 1,237 94 24 2,599 2.47%
Wyoming 60 148 5 5 218 0.21%
2000 Recorded Vote vs. Exit Poll Recorded Exit Poll 2-partyState Gore Bush Nader Other WPE Gore GoreTotal 48.38% 47.87% 2.73% 1.02% -2.01 49.39% 51.31% Alabama 41.6% 56.5% 1.1% 0.8% -5.5 44.3% 45.2%
Alaska 27.7% 58.6% 10.1% 3.6% 27.7% 32.1%
Arizona 44.7% 51.0% 3.0% 1.4% 44.7% 46.7%
Arkansas 45.9% 51.3% 1.5% 1.4% -3.2 47.5% 48.8%
California 53.4% 41.7% 3.8% 1.1% -3.8 55.3% 58.2%
Colorado 42.4% 50.8% 5.3% 1.6% -5.6 45.2% 48.5%
Connecticut 55.9% 38.4% 4.4% 1.2% -0.9 56.4% 59.7%
Delaware 55.0% 41.9% 2.5% 0.6% -7.1 58.5% 60.4%
D. C. 85.2% 9.0% 5.2% 0.7% 85.2% 90.5%Florida 48.8% 48.8% 1.6% 0.7% -0.6 49.1% 50.3%
Georgia 43.0% 54.7% 0.5% 1.8% -5.6 45.8% 46.9%
Hawaii 55.8% 37.5% 5.9% 0.9% 55.8% 59.8%
Idaho 27.6% 67.2% 2.5% 2.7% 2.5 26.4% 27.8%
Illinois 54.6% 42.6% 2.2% 0.6% -6.4 57.8% 59.5%
Indiana 41.0% 56.6% 0.8% 1.5% -3.6 42.8% 43.8%
Iowa 48.5% 48.2% 2.2% 1.0% 3.0 47.0% 48.6%
Kansas 37.2% 58.0% 3.4% 1.4% -4.4 39.4% 41.4%
Kentucky 41.4% 56.5% 1.5% 0.6% 4.4 39.2% 40.0%
Louisiana 44.9% 52.6% 1.2% 1.4% -0.6 45.2% 46.4%
Maine 49.1% 44.0% 5.7% 1.2% -2.1 50.1% 53.9%
Maryland 56.6% 40.2% 2.7% 0.6% -4.3 58.7% 60.7%
Massachusetts 59.8% 32.5% 6.4% 1.3% -4.3 62.0% 67.1%
Michigan 51.3% 46.1% 2.0% 0.6% -2.2 52.4% 53.8%
Minnesota 47.9% 45.5% 5.2% 1.4% 0.5 47.7% 51.0%
Mississippi 40.7% 57.6% 0.8% 0.9% -3.2 42.3% 43.0%
Missouri 47.1% 50.4% 1.6% 0.9% 1.8 46.2% 47.4%
Montana 33.4% 58.4% 5.9% 2.3% 3.2 31.8% 34.6%
Nebraska 33.3% 62.2% 3.5% 1.0% -4.1 35.3% 37.0%
Nevada 46.0% 49.5% 2.5% 2.0% -6.0 49.0% 51.3%
New Hampshire 46.8% 48.1% 3.9% 1.2% -2.4 48.0% 50.6%
New Jersey 56.1% 40.3% 3.0% 0.6% -0.4 56.3% 58.4%
New Mexico 47.9% 47.8% 3.6% 0.7% 5.1 45.4% 47.4%
New York 60.2% 35.2% 3.6% 1.0% -3.3 61.9% 64.8%
North Carolina 43.2% 56.0% 0.0% 0.8% -9.8 48.1% 48.5%
North Dakota 33.1% 60.7% 3.3% 3.0% 2.0 32.1% 34.2%
Ohio 46.5% 50.0% 2.5% 1.1% -1.0 47.0% 48.7%
Oklahoma 38.4% 60.3% 0.0% 1.3% 4.7 36.1% 36.5%
Oregon 47.0% 46.5% 5.0% 1.5% 47.0% 50.2%
Pennsylvania 50.6% 46.4% 2.1% 0.9% -0.8 51.0% 52.6%
Rhode Island 61.0% 31.9% 6.1% 1.0% -0.4 61.2% 65.9% South Carolina 40.9% 56.8% 1.5% 0.8% -3.5 42.7% 43.6%
South Dakota 37.6% 60.3% 0.0% 2.1% -0.9 38.0% 38.8%
Tennessee 47.3% 51.1% 1.0% 0.6% 2.2 46.2% 46.9%
Texas 38.0% 59.3% 2.2% 0.6% -0.4 38.2% 39.2%
Utah 26.3% 66.8% 4.7% 2.2% 1.0 25.8% 27.7%
Vermont 50.6% 40.7% 6.9% 1.7% 0.4 50.4% 55.2%
Virginia 44.4% 52.5% 2.2% 0.9% -2.0 45.4% 46.9%
Washington 50.1% 44.6% 4.1% 1.2% -3.7 52.0% 54.9%
West Virginia 45.6% 51.9% 1.6% 0.8% 4.5 43.3% 44.5%
Wisconsin 47.8% 47.6% 3.6% 0.9% 2.4 46.6% 48.9%
Wyoming 27.7% 67.8% 2.1% 2.4% -1.0 28.2% 29.5%
________________________________________________________________________________________
The Final 2004 National Exit Poll (NEP) is the smoking gun of election fraud. The NEP has always been matched to the recorded vote on the assumption that it is accurate. But it is a fact that in every election millions of votes are cast but never counted and most of them (70-80%) are Democratic. Therefore, it is immediately obvious that the recorded vote did not reflect the true vote. Uncounted votes are a combination of spoiled, absentee and provisional ballots. Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 are obvious examples. In addition to these uncounted votes, we will show that millions of votes must have been switched from Kerry to Bush.
If we assume a 95% turnout (46.27mm) of Bush 2000 voters in 2004, the Bush weighting is reduced to a feasible 37.8% (46.27/122.3). Since impossible weights were required in order to match the recorded vote, the only logical conclusion is that the recorded vote must also have been impossible. The weights become Bush 37.0/Kerry 37.4% when they are calculated based on the Census 2004 total of 125.7 million votes cast (assuming a 95% turnout and 3.0% mortality rate).
Other (third-party) shares of both new (DNV2k) and Gore voters declined to near zero in the Final, reducing the vote from 1.2 to 0.50 million. The recorded third-party vote was 1.23mm (1.0%). This discrepancy accounts for the difference between the (62.0-59.0 million) recorded vote and the Final NEP (62.5-59.3).
Kerry won the 12:22am National Exit Poll (13047 respondents) by a 4.6mm vote margin.
Bush won the 2:04pm Final National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) by a 3.2mm margin.
Final recorded vote count
Kerry Bush Other48.27% 50.73% 1.01%
59.03 62.04 1.23
National Exit Poll 12:22am (13047 respondents) 2pm Final (13660 respondents)
Voted2k Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherDNV2k 17% 57% 41% 2% 17% 54% 45% 1%Gore 39% 91% 8% 1% 37% 90% 10% 0%Bush 41% 10% 90% 0% 43% 9% 91% 0%Other 3% 71% 21% 8% 3% 71% 21% 8% Share 100% 51.41% 47.62% 0.97% 100% 48.48% 51.11% 0.41%Votes 122.3 62.87 58.24 1.19 122.3 59.29 62.50 0.50 _________________________________________________________ Election Calculator Model Assumptions:1) 1222am NEP: (13047 respondents)2) 2000 voter turnout in 2004: 95%3) Census: 125.7m votes cast in 2004 vs. 122.3m recorded; 3.4m (2.74%) uncounted4) Census: 110.8m votes cast in 2000 vs. 105.4m recorded; 5.4m (4.86%) uncounted5) Annual voter mortality: 1.22% (4.88% over 4 years) 2000 Recorded Voted Recd Unctd Cast Died AliveGore 51.00 4.04 55.04 2.72 52.32Bush 50.46 1.08 51.53 2.48 49.06Other 3.96 0.27 4.23 0.21 4.02 Total 105.42 5.38 110.8 5.41 105.39 2004 Calculated Turnout Voted Weight Kerry Bush OtherDNV - 25.61 20.4% 57% 41% 2%Gore 95% 49.70 39.5% 91% 8% 1%Bush 95% 46.60 37.1% 10% 90% 0%Other 95% 3.82 3.0% 64% 17% 19% Total 100.1 125.7 100% 53.23% 45.39% 1.38% 66.94 57.07 1.74 Input assumptions: impact on vote shares 2000 Voter Weights Gore Bush Turnout Mort Unctd Kerry 1- Final NEP 37% 43% - - - 48.48% 2- 1222am NEP 39% 41% - - - 51.40% Election Calculation Model3- 2000 Voter Turnout 39.6% 39.2% 95% 0% 0% 52.26% 4- 2004 Unctd Votes 38.5% 38.1% 95% 0% 2.74% 52.39% 5- 2000 Unctd Votes 41.6% 38.9% 95% 0% 4.86% 53.06% 6- Voter Mortality 39.5% 37.1% 95% 4.88% - 53.23%
Mark’s implausible Bush win scenario was based on the following assumptions:
1) One in 7 (14.63%) Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush in 2004.
The 12:22am NEP reported 8% (10% in the 2pm Final).
2) Kerry won just 52.90% of DNV (new voters and others who did not vote in 2000).
The NEP reported 57% (54% in the Final).
3) Just 7.20% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry.
The NEP reported 10% (9% in the Final).
On the other hand, the TIA True Vote model used feasible weights and plausible vote shares and calculated that Kerry won by a 52.6-46.4% - a 7.7 million vote landslide. The assumptions: 1) Only Gore, Bush and Nader 2000 voters still living could vote in 2004 (it took a while for the naysayers to see this), 2) 12:22am NEP vote shares, 3) 0.87% annual mortality, 4) 95% turnout of Gore, Bush and other 2000 voters, 5) 125.74mm total votes cast (Census).
The mortality rate and 2000 voter turnout assumptions have minimal effect on the national vote share. Kerry wins easily regardless of the assumptions used. The 125.7mm Census estimate does not change the NEP vote shares, but it provides a more accurate estimate of the True Vote count than the 122.3mm recorded vote.
TIA True Vote Model Lindeman “Game” Model Pct Kerry Bush Other Pct Kerry Bush OtherDNV 21.49% 57% 41% 2% 21.72% 52.90% 46.50% 0.60%Gore 38.23% 91% 8% 1% 37.84% 84.83% 14.63% 0.54%Bush 37.83% 10% 90% 0% 37.44% 7.20% 92.31% 0.49%Other 2.45% 71% 21% 8% 3.00% 65.90% 18.10% 16.00% Share 100.00% 52.56% 46.43% 1.01% 100.00% 48.26% 50.74% 1.00% Votes Kerry Bush Other Votes Kerry Bush OtherDNV 27.02 15.40 11.08 0.54 26.56 14.05 12.35 0.16Gore 48.07 43.74 3.85 0.48 46.28 39.26 6.77 0.25Bush 47.57 4.76 42.81 0.00 45.79 3.30 42.27 0.22Other 3.08 2.19 0.65 0.25 3.67 2.42 0.66 0.59 Total 125.74 66.09 58.38 1.27 122.30 59.02 62.05 1.22
Which scenario are we to believe: the implausible 14.63% Gore defection rate or the mathematically impossible 43 Bush/ 37 Gore weights? Was the exit poll match to the recorded vote based on a) plausible 37.84 Gore/ 37.44% Bush weights and an implausible 14.63% Gore defection rate, or b) impossible NEP 43 Bush/ 37% Gore weights and a plausible (8-10%) Gore defection rate?
But “false recall” is not a plausible explanation since a) Gore won by 540,000 votes, b) according to the pristine 12:22am NEP, Kerry captured 91% of Gore voters and 10% of Bush voters, c) Bush had a 48.5% approval rating on Election Day, d) false recall is not applicable to pre-election polls and e) the pre-election polls matched the exit polls.
Why would Gore voters want to be associated with Bush? Even if returning Gore voters lied about their vote in 2000, it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is a) their factual 2000 recorded Gore vote and b) that 91% said they just voted for Kerry. We use this factual data to compute feasible and plausible weights by adjusting the 2000 recorded vote for mortality and estimated 2004 turnout.
False recall cannot be used as an explanation to explain the other demographic weightings. In the 12:22am NEP, 13047respondents were asked who they just voted for – and Kerry won. But only 3200 respondents were asked how they voted in 2000. Kerry must have also won the 10,000 who were not asked how they voted in 2000. This fact alone totally contradicts the “false recall” argument. Why would respondents lie to the exit pollsters and claim to have voted for Kerry if they voted for Bush? Did they also lie about their gender? Kerry won the Gender demographic by 50.78-48.22%.
GENDER Weight Kerry Bush OtherMale 46% 47% 52% 1%Female 54% 54% 45% 1% Share 100% 50.78% 48.22% 1.00%Votes 122.3 62.10 58.97 1.22
Voted NEP Share Deviation MoE ProbabilityDNV2k 57% 52.90% 4.10% 1.72% 1 in 629,000Gore 91% 84.83% 6.17% 0.99% ZEROBush 10% 7.20% 2.80% 1.04% 1 in 15 million DNV2k Probability CalculationStDev = sqrt (0.57 * 0.43/3200) = 0.0088MoE = 1.96 * StDev = 1.96 * 0.0088 = 1.72%Z-score = Dev / StDev = .041 / 0.0088 = 4.67 Probability = NORMDIST (Share, NEP, StDev, true)Prob (DNV2k) = NORMDIST (.529, .57, 0.0088, true) = 1 in 629,000Prob (Gore) = NORMDIST (.848, .91, 0.0051, true) = ZEROProb (Bush) = NORMDIST (.720, .10, 0.0053, true) = 1 in 15 million
___________________________________________________________________________
Sensitivity Analysis I Weights based on adjusted 2000 recorded vote / 2004 recorded vote Adjusted 2000 recorded vote: reduce by 3.5% mortality; assume 95% turnout Kerry wins by 52.6-46.4% (66.1-58.4 million). Voted2k Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other DNV 27.02 21.49% 57% 41% 2% Gore 48.08 38.23% 91% 8% 1% Bush 47.56 37.82% 10% 90% 0% Other 3.08 2.46% 71% 21% 8% Share Total 100.0% 52.56% 46.43% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.09 58.38 1.27 Kerry Vote Share Gore for DNV2k for Kerry Kerry 51.0% 52.0% 53.0% 54.0% 55.0% 56.0% 57.0% 85% 49.0% 49.2% 49.4% 49.6% 49.8% 50.1% 50.3%86% 49.4% 49.6% 49.8% 50.0% 50.2% 50.4% 50.7%87% 49.7% 50.0% 50.2% 50.4% 50.6% 50.8% 51.0%88% 50.1% 50.3% 50.6% 50.8% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4%89% 50.5% 50.7% 50.9% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8%90% 50.9% 51.1% 51.3% 51.5% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2%91% 51.3% 51.5% 51.7% 51.9% 52.1% 52.3% 52.56% Gore for Bush 2000 voters for Kerry Kerry 7.0% 7.5% 8.0% 8.5% 9.0% 9.5% 10.0% 85% 49.1% 49.3% 49.5% 49.7% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3%86% 49.5% 49.7% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7%87% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8% 51.0%88% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4%89% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8%90% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2%91% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.56%
___________________________________________________________________________
Sensitivity Analysis II Weights based on adjusted 2000 recorded vote / 2004 total votes cast Adjusted 2000 recorded vote: reduce by 3% mortality; assume 95% turnout Kerry wins by 52.7-46.3% (66.2-58.2 million). Voted2k Votes Weight Kerry Bush OtherDNV 29.22 23.24% 57% 41% 2%Gore 47.00 37.38% 91% 8% 1%Bush 46.50 36.98% 10% 90% 0%Other 3.02 2.40% 71% 21% 8% Total 100% 52.66% 46.31% 1.03% 125.74 125.74 66.22 58.22 1.30 Kerry Vote Share Gore for DNV2k for Kerry Kerry 51.0% 52.0% 53.0% 54.0% 55.0% 56.0% 57.0% 85% 49.0% 49.3% 49.5% 49.7% 50.0% 50.2% 50.4%86% 49.4% 49.6% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 50.6% 50.8%87% 49.8% 50.0% 50.2% 50.5% 50.7% 50.9% 51.2%88% 50.1% 50.4% 50.6% 50.8% 51.1% 51.3% 51.5%89% 50.5% 50.8% 51.0% 51.2% 51.5% 51.7% 51.9%90% 50.9% 51.1% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.1% 52.3%91% 51.3% 51.5% 51.7% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.66% Gore for Bush 2000 voters for Kerry Kerry 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.0% 12.0% 85% 48.9% 49.3% 49.7% 50.1% 50.4% 50.8% 51.2%86% 49.3% 49.7% 50.1% 50.4% 50.8% 51.2% 51.5%87% 49.7% 50.1% 50.4% 50.8% 51.2% 51.5% 51.9%88% 50.1% 50.4% 50.8% 51.2% 51.5% 51.9% 52.3%89% 50.4% 50.8% 51.2% 51.5% 51.9% 52.3% 52.7%90% 50.8% 51.2% 51.6% 51.9% 52.3% 52.7% 53.0%91% 51.2% 51.6% 51.9% 52.3% 52.66% 53.0% 53.4%
___________________________________________________________________________
Sensitivity Analysis III – Uncounted and Switched Vote RatesBase case: True Vote = Recorded + Uncounted + Switched Uncounted Votes: 3.45mm (2.74%) of 125.74mm castUncounted share: Kerry 75%/ Bush 24%/ Other 1%Switched-votes: 4.49mm (6.8%) of 66.1mm Kerry total votes cast Kerry Bush Other Total Kerry Bush OtherRecorded 59.03 62.04 1.23 122.30 48.27% 50.73% 1.00%Uncounted 2.58 0.83 0.03 3.45 2.06% 0.66% 0.03%Cast 61.61 62.87 1.26 125.74 49.00% 50.00% 1.00%Switched 4.49 -4.49 0.00 0.00 3.57% -3.57% 0.00% True 66.10 58.38 1.26 125.74 52.57% 46.43% 1.00%Exit Poll 65.13 59.35 0.88 125.74 51.80% 47.20% 1.00% Unctd Switched Kerry Dem% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 48.3% 48.7% 49.2% 49.7% 50.2% 50.7% 51.2% 51.6%1% 48.5% 49.0% 49.5% 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.4% 51.9%2% 48.8% 49.3% 49.8% 50.3% 50.8% 51.2% 51.7% 52.2%3% 49.1% 49.6% 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.5% 52.0% 52.5%4% 49.3% 49.8% 50.3% 50.8% 51.3% 51.8% 52.3% 52.8%5% 49.6% 50.1% 50.6% 51.1% 51.6% 52.1% 52.6% 53.1%
State and National Pre-election Polls
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation - The Nov.1 Election Model
With a base case 75% projected share of the undecided vote in the 2004 Election Model Monte Carlo Simulation, Kerry was expected to win 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote with a 99.8% EV win probability. Assuming a 60% projected share, he was expected to win 320 EV and 51.0% with a 98.0% probability. The final Kerry/Bush state (weighted) and 18 national (unweighted) poll averages were 47.17–46.89% and 47.88-46.89%, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
Monte Carlo EV Simulation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projection |
Elec. Vote |
Pop. Vote % |
Win Prob. % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry |
337 |
51.80 |
99.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush |
201 |
48.20 |
0.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National |
National |
State |
|
|
|
MC EV Simulation (5000 trial elections) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 Poll |
18 Poll |
51 Poll |
|
|
|
State Model |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current % |
Average |
Average |
Wtd Avg |
|
Undecided% |
Allocation |
|
Base Case |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry |
47.11 |
47.17 |
47.88 |
|
Kerry |
60% |
67% |
75% |
80% |
87% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush |
46.56 |
46.89 |
46.89 |
|
Trial Wins |
4901 |
4972 |
4990 |
4997 |
4999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proj. 2-party% |
|
|
|
|
Projected% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry |
51.86 |
51.63 |
51.80 |
|
Kerry |
51.02 |
51.38 |
51.80 |
52.07 |
52.43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush |
48.14 |
48.38 |
48.20 |
|
Bush |
48.98 |
48.62 |
48.20 |
47.93 |
47.57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Win Prob % |
1.03 MoE |
0.73 MoE |
EV Wins/5000 |
|
Win Prob% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry |
99.98 |
100.00 |
99.80 |
|
Kerry |
98.02 |
99.44 |
99.80 |
99.94 |
99.98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush |
0.02 |
0.00 |
0.20 |
|
Bush |
1.98 |
0.56 |
0.20 |
0.06 |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-Party Vote |
1992-2000 |
Vote |
Kerry |
|
Electoral Vote |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democrat |
138.8 mil |
52.61 |
50.52 |
|
Average |
320 |
328 |
337 |
343 |
352 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republican |
125.0 mil |
47.39 |
49.48 |
|
Median |
322 |
329 |
338 |
345 |
353 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum |
379 |
388 |
405 |
405 |
412 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum |
211 |
237 |
229 |
243 |
254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Battleground |
Kerry current 2-party poll % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
AZ |
47.37 |
NH |
50.00 |
|
95% Conf. Interval |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AR |
50.00 |
NC |
48.14 |
|
Upper Limit |
361 |
368 |
376 |
382 |
389 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CO |
49.47 |
OH |
51.55 |
|
Lower Limit |
278 |
288 |
299 |
305 |
315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FL |
51.55 |
PA |
52.63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IA |
53.19 |
TN |
48.73 |
|
National 18-Polls |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MI |
53.61 |
VA |
47.96 |
|
Vote% |
50.73 |
51.15 |
51.63 |
51.92 |
52.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MN |
54.17 |
WA |
54.17 |
|
Prob% |
97.55 |
99.90 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MO |
47.31 |
WV |
48.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NV |
50.00 |
WI |
53.68 |
|
States Won |
26 |
27 |
27 |
28 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gore won |
Kerry leads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
States |
21 |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elec. Vote |
266 |
322 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-party% |
50.27 |
50.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These graphs depict the 2004 projection trend: Independent National Pollsters Monthly Average Trend
National State–weighted average Trend
Electoral and National Vote Projection Trend
Kerry Electoral Vote Frequency Histogram
The following 2004 National Pre-election Polls Monthly Trend of projections assumes that 75% of undecided voters break for Kerry. Kerry led the pre-election poll average every month except for January and September. There was a near-perfect 0.87 statistical correlation between the Bush average monthly approval rating and polling share.
The Bush 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day is a key indicator of fraud, based on the following correlation analysis of pre-election national polls and the mysterious divergence of National Exit Poll approval weights from the average.
Correlation
There was a near-perfect 0.87 statistical correlation between Bush’s average monthly approval rating and his average national pre-election poll.
Bush approval ratingsDate Nwk Fox CNN Pew Harris CBS ABC Time NBC AP Zogby Mean Jan-04 50 58 60 56 na 50 58 54 54 56 49 54.4 Feb-04 48 48 51 48 51 50 50 54 na 47 na 49.5 Mar-04 48 48 49 46 na 51 50 na 50 48 na 48.8 Apr-04 49 50 52 48 48 46 51 49 na 48 47 48.6 May-04 42 48 47 44 na 41 47 46 47 48 42 45.2 Jun-04 na 48 49 48 50 42 47 na 45 48 46 47.0 Jul-04 48 47 47 46 na 45 50 50 48 50 49 47.8 Aug-04 45 51 51 46 48 46 50 51 47 49 44 48.0 Sep-04 48 50 52 46 45 48 50 53 47 54 47 49.1 Oct-04 46 49 46 44 na 49 53 53 49 47 49 48.5 Average monthly pre-election polling Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept OctKerry 40.78 47.80 47.58 46.31 46.86 46.64 47.47 47.40 44.33 47.17Bush 51.56 46.10 44.83 45.62 44.71 45.71 45.20 45.40 48.28 46.89
Average monthly approval 54.4 49.5 48.8 48.6 45.2 47.0 47.8 48.0 49.1 48.5 Poll:Appr 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.97
Projections (75% of undecided to Kerry) Kerry 45.78 51.62 52.52 51.62 52.43 51.62 52.22 52.05 49.12 50.88Bush 53.22 47.38 46.48 47.38 46.57 47.38 46.78 46.95 49.88 48.12Other 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2-party Kerry 46.53 52.38 53.27 52.37 53.18 52.38 52.97 52.80 49.88 51.63Bush 53.47 47.62 46.73 47.63 46.82 47.62 47.03 47.20 50.12 48.37 National Pre-election polls and Kerry projected vote TIPP Kerry na 44 45 40 43 43 46 44 46 44Bush na 41 43 44 42 44 43 44 45 45Proj na 54.5 53.3 51.3 53.5 52.0 53.5 52.3 52.0 51.5 ABC Kerry na 52 53 48 49 53 47 49 45 48Bush na 43 44 49 47 45 49 48 51 47Proj na 55.0 54.5 49.5 51.3 53.8 49.3 50.5 47.3 51.0 AP Kerry 37 na 45 44 43 43 45 48 42 49Bush 54 na 46 45 46 46 49 45 51 46Proj 43.0 na 51.0 51.5 50.5 50.5 48.8 52.5 46.5 52.0 NWK Kerry 41 50 48 50 46 46 51 52 45 45Bush 52 45 45 43 45 45 45 44 50 48Proj 45.5 53.0 52.5 54.5 52.0 52.0 53.3 54.3 48.0 49.5 ARG Kerry 47 48 50 50 47 48 49 49 46 49Bush 46 46 43 44 44 46 45 46 47 48Proj 51.5 51.8 54.5 53.8 53.0 51.8 52.8 52.0 50.5 50.5 NBC Kerry 35 na 43 43 42 44 45 45 46 47Bush 54 na 46 46 46 45 47 47 49 48Proj 42.5 na 50.5 50.5 50.3 51.5 50.3 50.3 49.0 50.0 FOX Kerry 32 43 44 42 42 42 42 45 43 48Bush 54 47 44 43 42 48 43 44 45 45Proj 41.8 49.8 52.3 52.5 53.3 48.8 52.5 52.5 51.3 52.5 CBS Kerry 48 47 48 48 49 45 49 45 41 46Bush 43 46 43 43 41 44 44 44 49 47Proj 54.0 51.5 54.0 54.0 55.8 52.5 53.5 52.5 47.8 50.5 Gallup
Kerry 43 48 52 46 49 48 51 48 44 48Bush 55 49 44 51 47 49 44 47 52 46Proj 43.8 49.5 54.3 47.5 51.3 49.5 54.0 51.0 46.3 51.8 Pew Kerry 41 47 48 47 50 46 46 47 40 46Bush 52 47 44 46 45 48 44 45 48 45Proj 45.5 50.8 53.3 51.5 53.0 49.8 52.8 52.3 48.3 52.0 LAT Kerry na na na 49 49 51 48 46 43 48Bush na na na 46 46 44 46 49 47 47Proj na na na 52.0 52.0 54.0 51.8 49.0 49.8 51.0 Zogby Kerry na na 48 47 47 44 48 50 44 47Bush na na 46 44 42 42 43 43 47 48Proj na na 51.8 53.0 54.5 53.8 54.0 54.5 50.0 50.0 TIME Kerry 43 48 na na 51 51 50 46 44 46Bush 54 50 na na 46 46 45 46 48 51Proj 44.5 48.8 na na 52.5 52.5 53.0 51.3 49.3 47.5 Dem Corp Kerry na 51 47 48 49 49 50 52 49 48Bush na 47 50 49 47 48 47 45 49 47Proj na 51.8 48.5 49.5 51.3 50.5 51.5 53.5 49.8 51.0 Marist Kerry na na na na na na 45 45 45 49Bush na na na na na na 44 44 47 48Proj na na na na na na 52.5 52.5 50.3 50.5 Harris Kerry na na na na na na na na 46 48Bush na na na na na na na na 48 47Proj na na na na na na na na 49.8 51.0 Economist Kerry na na na na na na na na 46 49Bush na na na na na na na na 46 45Proj na na na na na na na na 51.3 52.8 ICR Kerry na na na na na na na na 43 44Bush na na na na na na na na 50 46Proj na na na na na na na na 47.5 50.8
|
Date |
Poll |
Size |
Type |
KERRY |
BUSH |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
November |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
2 |
Harris |
1509 |
LV |
48 |
47 |
||||||
|
2 |
Zogby |
1200 |
LV |
47 |
48 |
||||||
|
1 |
Marist |
1166 |
LV |
49 |
48 |
||||||
|
1 |
Econ |
2903 |
RV |
49 |
45 |
||||||
|
1 |
TIPP |
1284 |
LV |
44 |
45 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
1 |
CBS |
1125 |
RV |
46 |
47 |
||||||
|
October 31 |
FOX |
1400 |
RV |
48 |
45 |
||||||
|
31 |
Dem Corp |
1018 |
LV |
48 |
47 |
||||||
|
31 |
Gallup |
1866 |
RV |
48 |
46 |
||||||
|
31 |
NBC |
1014 |
LV |
47 |
48 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
31 |
ABC |
3511 |
RV |
48 |
47 |
||||||
|
30 |
ARG |
1258 |
LV |
49 |
48 |
||||||
|
30 |
Pew |
2408 |
RV |
46 |
45 |
||||||
|
29 |
Nwk |
1005 |
RV |
45 |
48 |
||||||
|
26 |
ICR |
817 |
RV |
44 |
46 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
24 |
LAT |
1698 |
RV |
48 |
47 |
|
|||||
|
21 |
Time |
803 |
LV |
46 |
51 |
|
|||||
|
20 |
AP |
976 |
LV |
49 |
46 |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Pre-election Polling Trend
The Election Model Monte Carlo Simulation forecast was updated during the four months leading up to the election as new state polling data was introduced. The projections below assume that Kerry, running against the unpopular Bush, would win 60-75% of undecided voters (UVA).
7-Sep 7-Oct 1-Nov Final Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry BushBefore UVA:Unweighted Average 43.94 47.65 46.84 46.86 45.70 47.60 Weighted Average 45.54 46.45 47.97 46.66 47.88 46.89 Projection (75% UVA): 2-party vote 51.54 48.46 51.99 48.01 51.80 48.20Total vote (Other: 1%) 50.79 48.21 51.24 47.76 51.05 47.95 Projection (60% UVA): 2-party vote 50.71 49.29 51.10 48.90 51.02 48.98Total vote (Other: 1%) 50.21 48.79 50.60 48.40 50.52 48.48 State Date Pollster Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush AL Oct 27 Survey USA 34 54 40 56 39 57
AK Sep 11 ARG 33 56 39 55 30 57AZ Oct 26 Rasmussen 42 45 47 50 45 50AR Oct 29 Mason-Dixon 47 48 47 47 48 48CA Oct 27 Field Poll 50 42 51 43 49 42 CO Oct 30 Zogby 47 47 49 48 47 48CT Oct 28 Research 2000 45 38 47 38 52 42DE Sep 25 W Chester U 55 42 45 38 45 38
DC Sep 13 ARG 86 9 78 11 78 11FL Oct 30 Zogby 44 48 50 48 50 47 GA Oct 29 Zogby 38 55 42 53 42 52HI Oct 20 SMS Res 48 41 51 41 45 45ID Sep 10 ARG 25 55 30 59 30 59IL Oct 29 Survey USA 52 38 55 38 54 42
IN Oct 29 Survey USA 40 52 40 53 39 58
IA Oct 30 Zogby 47 47 51 44 50 44KS Oct 27 Survey USA 36 56 35 57 37 60
KY Oct 20 Bluegrass 39 56 38 53 39 56
LA Oct 22 SE LA U 36 52 42 50 40 48
ME Oct 21 Zogby 49 44 42 39 50 39 MD Oct 29 Survey USA 53 42 48 45 54 43
MA Oct 5 Merrimack 56 30 64 27 64 27
MI Oct 30 Zogby 48 44 52 42 52 45MN Oct 30 Zogby 46 46 53 44 52 44MS Sep 17 ARG 30 61 42 51 42 51 MO Oct 29 Mason-Dixon 45 49 49 50 44 49MT Oct 20 Mason-Dixon 33 53 36 54 36 57NE Oct 20 RKM Research 33 62 30 61 32 61NV Oct 29 Survey USA 48 46 48 47 49 49
NH Oct 30 ARG 51 43 51 44 47 47 NJ Oct 29 Survey USA 50 46 50 45 50 42
NM Oct 30 ARG 42 45 55 43 49 49NY Oct 28 Survey USA 56 37 53 41 57 39
NC Oct 26 Mason-Dixon 45 51 47 50 47 50ND Oct 19 Minn St U 33 61 33 62 35 55
OH Oct 30 Zogby 42 48 48 47 50 47OK Oct 24 Wilson Res 38 57 29 52 28 61
OR Oct 29 Mason-Dixon 54 43 55 44 50 44PA Oct 30 Zogby 46 47 52 46 50 45RI Oct 27 Survey USA 49 25 55 37 56 36
SC Oct 24 Survey USA 42 53 37 55 42 55
SD Oct 24 McLaughlin 40 54 40 52 42 52TN Oct 21 Mason-Dixon 50 48 48 50 48 50TX Oct 28 Survey USA 33 57 37 58 37 59
UT Oct 28 Dan Jones 22 67 27 64 24 69 VT Oct 12 Research2k 51 36 50 40 53 40VA Oct 29 Survey USA 45 49 47 50 47 51
WA Oct 27 Strat Vision 48 43 54 44 52 44WV Oct 29 Mason-Dixon 42 49 44 50 46 49WI Oct 30 Zogby 49 45 51 48 51 44WY Sep 11 ARG 28 68 29 65 29 65
___________________________________________________________________
Weekly Average Trend
Although Bush led in the unweighted average, Kerry led the weighted average trend (based on 1992-2000 state vote) from July to Election Day, except for the first two weeks in September. The projections assume Kerry would win 75% of the undecided vote.
Poll Unweighted Weighted 2-party Projected Date Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush2-Jul 43.5 46.5 45.4 44.6 50.5 49.5 52.2 46.810-Jul 43.8 46.7 45.8 44.9 50.5 49.5 52.0 47.017-Jul 44.5 46.5 46.5 44.3 51.2 48.8 52.6 46.424-Jul 44.2 46.1 45.6 43.6 51.1 48.9 52.9 46.1 2-Aug 44.4 46.5 46.3 44.6 50.9 49.1 52.3 46.710-Aug 44.3 46.4 46.4 44.3 51.2 48.8 52.7 46.318-Aug 44.1 46.4 46.2 44.3 51.0 49.0 52.6 46.426-Aug 45.2 47.5 47.2 46.6 50.3 49.7 51.1 47.9 7-Sep 43.9 47.6 45.5 46.5 49.5 50.5 50.8 48.214-Sep 43.7 48.4 45.6 47.3 49.1 50.9 50.2 48.822-Sep 45.0 48.7 47.3 47.1 50.1 49.9 50.8 48.229-Sep 44.1 47.6 46.0 45.5 50.3 49.7 51.7 47.3 7-Oct 45.7 47.6 47.9 46.7 50.7 49.3 51.2 47.814-Oct 45.4 47.9 47.3 46.7 50.3 49.7 51.0 48.021-Oct 46.0 48.1 48.4 46.4 51.1 48.9 51.5 47.528-Oct 45.4 47.4 47.1 45.9 50.7 49.3 51.6 47.4 1-Nov 45.55 48.28 47.88 46.89 50.52 49.48 51.05 47.95
___________________________________________________________________
Pre-election Battleground State Polls
Final pre-election Zogby polls for nine battleground states were included in the Election Model Monte Carlo simulation forecast. Kerry was leading in 8 of the 9 states by an average of 50.2-44.8%. The base case assumption was that he would capture 75% of the undecided (UVA) vote and win all 9 states by a 53.7-45.9% margin. The conservative assumption was that he would capture 55% UVA and capture 8 states by 52.7-46.8%. He won just 4 states by 50.1- 49.4%. The margin of error was exceeded in 7 states, a 1 in 4.7 billion probability.
75% UVA 55% UVA Zogby Oct. 31 Poll Projection Projection Recorded 75% UVA State Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Dev Prob CO 47 48 50.3 49.1 49.4 50.0 47.4 52.1 2.97 3.27%FL 50 47 51.9 47.6 51.4 48.2 47.3 52.3 4.65 0.20% IA 50 44 54.2 45.4 53.1 46.5 49.5 50.1 4.73 0.17%ME 50 39 57.6 41.5 55.6 43.6 54.1 45.1 3.54 1.42% MI 52 45 53.9 45.6 53.4 46.1 51.5 48.0 2.40 6.83% MN 52 44 54.5 44.8 53.8 45.5 51.5 47.9 3.08 2.82% OH 50 47 52.3 47.8 51.7 48.4 48.9 51.1 3.30 2.03%PA 50 45 53.8 46.3 52.8 47.3 51.3 48.7 2.48 6.18%WI 51 44 54.3 45.1 53.5 46.0 49.9 49.6 4.43 0.30% Mean 50.2 44.8 53.7 45.9 52.7 46.8 50.1 49.5 3.51 2.58% Probability of average deviation (in parenthesis): Sample MoE 75% UVA (3.51%) 55% UVA (2.58%) 1000 3.16% 1 in 68 1 in 19 6000 1.29% 1 in 20 million 1 in 25 thousand 9000 1.05% 1 in 30 billion 1 in 1.5 million Comparison of Zogby Battleground state pre-election polls and unadjusted exit polls The 9-poll projection average was within 0.5% of the exit poll average. Average of 9 BATTLEGROUND STATESPoll Kerry BushZogby 50.2 44.8 (final pre-election polls)Projection 53.7 45.9 (75% undecided to Kerry) Exit (WPE) 53.2 45.8 Difference 0.5 0.1 Zogby Poll Projection Exit Poll Recorded St Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush CO 47 48 50.3 49.1 50.1 48.6 47.4 52.1 FL 50 47 51.9 47.6 50.9 48.3 47.3 52.3 IA 50 44 54.2 45.4 50.7 48.4 49.5 50.1 ME 50 39 57.6 41.5 55.5 42.7 54.1 45.1 MI 52 45 53.9 45.6 54.4 44.7 51.5 48.0 MN 52 44 54.5 44.8 55.7 43.0 51.5 47.9 OH 50 47 52.3 47.8 54.2 45.4 48.9 51.1 PA 50 45 53.8 46.3 55.3 44.0 51.3 48.7 WI 51 44 54.3 45.1 52.0 47.0 49.9 49.6 Average 50.2 44.8 53.7 45.9 53.2 45.8 50.1 49.5
State Exit Polls
Pre-election Projections vs. Exit Polls vs. Recorded Vote
The pre-election 2004 Election Model predicted that Kerry would win 337 EV based on the final state pre-election polls, assuming that he captured 75% of undecided voters. The post-election True Vote Model determined that Kerry actually won 336 electoral votes. This was based on 12:22am National Exit Poll, assuming 95% turnout of 2000 voters and a 75% Kerry share of 3.4mm uncounted votes (2004 Census). The actual recorded state vote shares consistently understated Kerry’s pre-election and 12:22am exit poll shares. But aggregate weighted pre-election state and national poll projections matched the 12:22am exit polls. If, as the naysayers claim, the exit polls were biased for Kerry, do they also suggest that the close match between pre-election and exit polls imply that the pre-election polls were biased as well?
Final NEP Recorded 2-party Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush 47.78 51.22 48.27 50.73 48.76 51.24 UVA: percentage of undecided allocated to Kerry2-party: 0.75% of 3rd party to Kerry, 0.25% to Bush Final Poll Projection 2-party Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry BushPRE-ELECTION75% UVA National 47.17 46.89 50.88 48.12 51.63 48.37State 47.88 46.89 51.05 47.95 51.80 48.20 60% UVA National 47.17 46.89 50.13 48.87 50.88 49.12State 47.88 46.89 50.42 48.58 51.17 48.83 EXIT POLLSNEP Gender 50.78 48.22 50.78 48.22 51.53 48.47NEP Voted 2k 51.41 47.59 51.41 47.59 52.16 47.84 State (Gender) 50.33 48.88 50.33 48.88 50.92 49.08State (WPE) 51.81 48.19 51.81 48.19 52.51 47.49 MODELSOptimizer 1 51.62 47.37 51.62 47.37 52.15 47.85 (1250 precincts grouped by partisanship)Optimizer 2 51.62 47.37 51.62 47.37 52.15 47.85 (Big City, Small City, Suburban, Small Town, Rural)
Optimizer 3 51.77 47.21 51.77 47.21 52.30 47.70 (States grouped by partisanship)True Vote 52.57 46.43 52.57 46.43 53.32 46.68Calculator 53.45 45.50 53.45 45.50 54.15 45.85 Optimizer: 1250 E-M precinct WPE, partisanship response ratesTrue Vote: 2000 recorded voter turnout, 0.87% mortality, 95% turnoutCalculator: 2000 Census voter turnout, 1.22% voter mortality, 95% turnout
_____________________________________________________________________
Interactive Election Simulation State pre-election projections and exit poll simulations vs. the recorded vote
The 2004 Election Simulation Model contains worksheets for 1) state pre-election and exit polls, 2) 18 national pre-election polls, 3) 12:22am National Exit Poll, 4) “How Voted in 2000” demographic sensitivity analysis, 5) state and precinct exit poll response optimizations analysis; 6) Gender vote analysis; 7) Ohio exit poll and 8) Census 2004 vote data. The key assumptions which drive the model are user-entered. Pre-election: undecided voter allocation; Exit Poll: “cluster” effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MONTE CARLO ELECTORAL VOTE SIMULATION STATE PRE-ELECTION AND EXIT POLLS Sample Simulation Input Assumptions:Undecided to Kerry: 75.0% Exit Poll Cluster Effect: 30% Exit Poll Data based on: Edison-Mitofsky WPE Kerry Electoral Vote: Mean: 338 Median: 336 Maximum: 364 Minimum: 302 Win Prob: 100% Pre Exit Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Kerry Kerry -Exceed MoE- Vote Discrepancy MoE MoE Pre Pre Exit Exit PreSim ExitSim Recorded Pre Exit Pre Exit Diff Wtd Avg 3.92 3.17 47.69 47.02 51.81 47.19 50.77 51.85 48.28 19 23 (2.5) (3.6) (1.1) EV AL 9 3.91 4.64 39 57 42.5 56.8 43.6 40.6 36.9 AL - (6.7) (3.8) 2.9 AK 3 3.88 4.14 30 57 40.3 56.3 39.3 44.1 35.6 - AK (3.7) (8.5) (4.8)AR 6 3.96 2.95 45 50 44.8 54.1 48.9 45.9 44.6 AR - (4.4) (1.4) 3.0 AZ 10 3.96 3.40 46 48 46.7 52.6 51.1 45.3 44.4 AZ - (6.7) (0.9) 5.7 CA 55 3.93 2.89 49 42 59.8 38.9 56.3 59.6 54.4 - CA (1.8) (5.1) (3.3) - - CO 9 3.96 2.54 47 48 50.1 48.6 52.6 50.4 47.1 CO CO (5.5) (3.4) 2.2 CT 7 3.93 4.25 52 42 62.2 36.1 52.1 62.4 54.3 - CT 2.2 (8.1) (10.3)DE 3 3.91 4.53 45 38 61.3 37.8 60.2 61.9 53.4 DE DE (6.9) (8.5) (1.6)DC 3 2.73 2.50 78 11 90.9 7.6 85.7 90.8 89.4 DC - 3.8 (1.4) (5.1)FL 27 3.96 2.39 50 47 50.9 48.3 51.7 51.6 47.1 FL FL (4.5) (4.5) 0.0 - - GA 15 3.95 3.22 42 52 42.5 56.9 45.0 43.3 41.4 - - (3.6) (1.9) 1.8 HI 4 3.96 5.69 45 45 56.4 42.9 49.4 56.3 54.0 HI - 4.6 (2.3) (6.9)ID 4 3.85 5.08 30 59 30.8 67.9 36.2 28.7 30.3 ID - (6.0) 1.6 7.5 IL 21 3.92 3.38 54 42 57.0 42.3 54.8 57.8 54.8 - - 0.0 (3.0) (3.0)IN 11 3.90 4.12 39 58 40.0 59.2 39.1 41.1 39.3 - - 0.1 (1.8) (1.9) - - IA 7 3.94 2.55 50 44 50.7 48.4 54.6 51.1 49.3 IA - (5.3) (1.8) 3.4 KS 6 3.87 4.74 37 60 37.5 61.2 36.2 38.6 36.6 - - 0.4 (2.0) (2.4)KY 8 3.92 3.89 39 56 39.6 59.6 42.4 38.5 39.7 - - (2.7) 1.2 3.9 LA 9 3.96 3.10 40 48 44.1 54.8 47.8 42.9 42.3 LA - (5.5) (0.6) 4.9 ME 4 3.91 2.86 50 39 55.5 42.7 55.5 53.9 53.6 - - (1.9) (0.3) 1.6 - - MD 10 3.93 3.99 54 43 60.0 38.9 53.3 63.3 56.0 - MD 2.7 (7.3) (10.0)MA 12 3.60 4.03 64 27 64.8 33.9 70.3 64.4 62.1 MA - (8.2) (2.3) 5.8 MI 17 3.95 2.57 52 45 54.4 44.7 54.6 53.3 51.2 - - (3.3) (2.1) 1.3 MN 10 3.94 2.72 52 44 55.7 43.0 48.7 55.2 51.2 - MN 2.5 (4.0) (6.6)MS 6 3.95 4.47 42 51 45.8 53.4 47.0 47.1 40.2 MS MS (6.8) (6.9) (0.1) - - MO 11 3.96 2.74 44 49 49.0 50.4 47.2 50.6 46.1 - MO (1.1) (4.5) (3.4)MT 3 3.90 4.92 36 57 37.7 60.0 39.0 35.8 38.6 - - (0.4) 2.8 3.2 NE 5 3.83 4.38 32 61 36.7 61.8 39.3 35.6 32.7 NE - (6.5) (2.8) 3.7 NV 5 3.96 2.77 49 49 52.9 45.4 45.2 53.1 48.1 - NV 2.8 (5.0) (7.9)NH 4 3.96 2.94 47 47 57.0 42.1 53.8 57.0 50.4 - NH (3.5) (6.7) (3.2) - - NJ 15 3.93 3.24 50 42 57.8 41.4 56.1 56.6 52.9 - NJ (3.2) (3.7) (0.5)NM 5 3.96 2.88 49 49 52.9 45.9 47.4 52.4 49.0 - NM 1.6 (3.3) (4.9)NY 31 3.88 3.21 57 39 64.1 34.4 60.9 64.9 58.4 - NY (2.5) (6.5) (4.0)NC 15 3.96 2.73 47 50 49.2 50.4 47.6 48.9 43.6 NC NC (4.0) (5.3) (1.4)ND 3 3.92 4.72 35 55 32.9 65.5 41.0 36.3 35.5 ND - (5.5) (0.8) 4.7 - - OH 20 3.96 2.87 50 47 54.2 45.4 52.2 54.9 48.7 - OH (3.5) (6.2) (2.8)OK 7 3.81 3.09 28 61 33.5 66.5 38.0 30.9 34.4 - OK (3.6) 3.5 7.1 OR 7 3.94 3.90 50 44 51.3 47.2 52.3 52.1 51.6 - - (0.7) (0.5) 0.2 PA 21 3.95 2.89 50 45 55.3 44.0 54.0 56.6 51.0 - PA (3.1) (5.6) (2.5)RI 4 3.84 4.29 56 36 61.8 36.3 63.4 59.0 59.6 - - (3.8) 0.6 4.4 - - SC 8 3.93 3.05 42 55 45.9 53.0 41.0 44.9 41.0 - SC (0.0) (3.9) (3.9)SD 3 3.95 3.19 42 52 36.3 62.0 43.3 34.6 38.4 SD SD (4.9) 3.8 8.7 TN 11 3.96 2.98 47 50 42.8 56.5 45.7 42.7 42.5 - - (3.2) (0.2) 3.0 TX 34 3.88 3.01 37 59 40.6 58.7 36.7 39.4 38.2 - - 1.5 (1.2) (2.7)UT 5 3.60 4.13 24 69 29.2 68.3 31.9 30.1 26.0 UT - (5.8) (4.1) 1.7 - - VT 3 3.91 4.62 53 40 66.4 31.3 55.9 71.3 59.2 - VT 3.3 (12.1) (15.4)VA 13 3.96 3.37 47 51 49.4 49.7 49.2 48.6 45.6 - - (3.7) (3.0) 0.6 WA 11 3.94 2.75 52 44 57.0 41.4 55.8 57.1 52.9 - WA (2.9) (4.3) (1.3)WV 5 3.96 3.06 45 49 40.3 59.0 45.6 41.9 43.2 - - (2.4) 1.3 3.8 WI 10 3.94 2.70 51 44 52.0 47.0 51.8 50.7 49.8 - - (2.1) (1.0) 1.1 WY 3 3.74 4.55 29 65 31.2 66.7 33.0 32.8 29.1 WY - (3.9) (3.6) 0.3
___________________________________________________________
State Exit Polls: WPE, GEO, Composite
Edison-Mitofsky provided 3 state exit poll estimates in their Jan. 2005 report.
Bush won the recorded vote share 50.73-48.27% with 286 electoral votes.
WPE (Within-Precinct-Error): difference between the average precinct exit poll margin and the recorded vote margin – after removing “outliers” which most likely lowered the average Kerry share. Kerry’s weighted average national vote share was 51.81%. His electoral vote was 324.
BEST GEO: the estimate made at close-of-poll, weighted by sample, but not by results or pre-election estimates. Kerry’s weighted average national vote share was 51.02%. His electoral vote was 301.
COMPOSITE (12:22am): the estimate after adjustment to pre-election estimates. Kerry’s weighted average national vote share was 50.28%. His electoral vote was 288.
WPE is the difference between the official recorded vote margin and exit poll margin and represents the “pristine” raw exit poll results. E-M did not provide the corresponding state exit poll vote shares, but these can be calculated by applying the WPE to the official recorded vote. Based on the WPE measure, Kerry was a 51.8-47.2% winner. The 2004 Election Model projected Kerry as the winner of the 2-party vote by 51.8 - 48.2%.
Example: Calculation of the Ohio exit poll vote shares
Ohio recorded (official) vote: B = 50.8% = Bush official state vote shareK = 48.7% = Kerry official state vote shareBM = 2.1% = Bush official marginWPE = 10.9% = Within Precinct Error Bush exit poll margin:BEM = BM – WPE = 2.1% - 10.9% = - 8.8% Calculate exit poll shares:KP = Kerry = K + 0.5* WPEBP = Bush = B - 0.5* WPE KP = 48.7 + 5.45 = 54.15% BP = 50.8 - 5.45 = 45.35% This graph displays linear regressions of WPE, GEO and Composite exit poll discrepancies. 
* WPE results differ substantially from the Recorded Vote and the Composite (12:22am) exit poll.
Estimate RECORDED WPE BEST GEO COMPOSITE Electoral Vote 251-286 324-214 301-237 288-250 State Kerry Bush Margin Kerry Bush Margin Kerry Bush Margin Kerry Bush MarginWtdAvg 48.27 50.73 -2.46 51.81 47.19 4.63 51.02 48.49 2.53 50.28 49.10 1.17 AL* 36.8 62.5 -25.6 42.5 56.8 -14.3 42.0 57.5 -15.5 40.6 58.7 -18.1AK* 35.5 61.1 -25.5 40.3 56.3 -15.9 41.2 57.4 -16.2 39.0 58.8 -19.8AZ 44.4 54.9 -10.5 46.7 52.6 -5.9 46.5 53.5 -7.0 46.8 53.2 -6.4AR 44.5 54.3 -9.8 44.8 54.1 -9.3 46.8 52.4 -5.6 47.0 52.2 -5.2CA* 54.3 44.4 9.9 59.8 38.9 20.8 56.5 43.5 13.0 56.5 43.5 13.0 CO* 47.0 51.7 -4.7 50.1 48.6 1.4 47.0 52.5 -5.5 47.7 51.4 -3.7CT* 54.3 43.9 10.4 62.2 36.1 26.1 59.3 39.6 19.7 58.1 40.5 17.6DE* 53.3 45.8 7.6 61.3 37.8 23.5 61.5 37.9 23.6 57.7 41.2 16.5DC 89.2 9.3 79.8 90.9 7.6 83.2 91.1 8.1 83.0 90.2 8.4 81.8FL* 47.1 52.1 -5.0 50.9 48.3 2.6 49.2 50.3 -1.1 49.3 50.1 -0.8 GA 41.4 58.0 -16.6 42.5 56.9 -14.4 43.5 56.5 -13.0 43.0 57.1 -14.1HI 54.0 45.3 8.7 56.4 42.9 13.4 56.5 43.4 13.1 53.6 46.4 7.2ID 30.3 68.4 -38.1 30.8 67.9 -37.1 30.9 69.1 -38.2 31.6 68.3 -36.7IL* 54.8 44.5 10.3 57.0 42.3 14.7 57.5 42.6 14.9 57.0 42.9 14.1IN 39.3 59.9 -20.7 40.0 59.2 -19.2 40.5 59.6 -19.1 41.3 58.8 -17.5 IA* 49.2 49.9 -0.7 50.7 48.4 2.3 50.0 49.0 1.0 50.0 49.0 1.0KS 36.6 62.0 -25.4 37.5 61.2 -23.7 36.6 62.8 -26.2 34.4 64.6 -30.2KY 39.7 59.6 -19.9 39.6 59.6 -20.0 40.6 58.6 -18.0 40.9 58.3 -17.4LA 42.2 56.7 -14.5 44.1 54.8 -10.7 43.2 56.3 -13.1 44.3 54.8 -10.5ME* 53.6 44.6 9.0 55.5 42.7 12.8 54.3 44.6 9.7 53.9 44.4 9.5 MD* 55.9 42.9 13.0 60.0 38.9 21.1 59.4 39.7 19.7 56.6 42.5 14.1MA* 61.9 36.8 25.2 64.8 33.9 31.0 66.3 33.6 32.7 65.7 34.2 31.5MI* 51.2 47.8 3.4 54.4 44.7 9.7 51.8 47.3 4.5 51.9 47.1 4.8MN* 51.1 47.6 3.5 55.7 43.0 12.8 56.7 42.4 14.3 53.7 44.9 8.8MS* 40.2 59.0 -18.9 45.8 53.4 -7.6 46.2 53.2 -7.0 43.4 56.0 -12.6 MO* 46.1 53.3 -7.2 49.0 50.4 -1.4 47.8 52.2 -4.4 47.8 52.1 -4.3MT 38.6 59.1 -20.5 37.7 60.0 -22.3 37.8 59.9 -22.1 37.2 60.0 -22.8NE* 32.7 65.9 -33.2 36.7 61.8 -25.1 37.5 61.7 -24.2 36.1 62.6 -26.5NV* 47.9 50.5 -2.6 52.9 45.4 7.5 49.3 47.9 1.4 48.9 48.3 0.6NH* 50.2 48.9 1.4 57.0 42.1 15.0 57.1 42.1 15.0 55.1 43.9 11.2 NJ* 52.9 46.2 6.7 57.8 41.4 16.4 58.4 40.2 18.2 55.3 42.8 12.5NM* 49.0 49.8 -0.8 52.9 45.9 7.0 51.7 47.5 4.2 50.8 48.0 2.8NY* 58.4 40.1 18.3 64.1 34.4 29.7 65.1 33.8 31.3 63.1 35.5 27.6NC* 43.6 56.0 -12.4 49.2 50.4 -1.1 48.2 51.8 -3.6 48.1 51.9 -3.8ND 35.5 62.9 -27.4 32.9 65.5 -32.6 32.3 66.7 -34.4 33.3 64.9 -31.6 OH* 48.7 50.8 -2.1 54.2 45.4 8.8 53.2 46.7 6.5 51.7 48.3 3.4OK 34.4 65.6 -31.1 33.5 66.5 -33.0 34.1 65.8 -31.7 34.6 65.4 -30.8OR 51.3 47.2 4.2 51.3 47.2 4.2 51.3 47.2 4.2 51.3 47.19 4.2PA* 50.9 48.4 2.5 55.3 44.0 11.3 56.9 43.1 13.8 54.2 45.7 8.5RI* 59.4 38.7 20.8 61.8 36.3 25.5 62.4 36.3 26.1 63.2 34.9 28.3 SC* 40.9 58.0 -17.1 45.9 53.0 -7.1 46.4 52.4 -6.0 45.1 53.8 -8.7SD 38.4 59.9 -21.5 36.3 62.0 -25.7 34.9 63.2 -28.3 36.8 61.5 -24.7TN 42.5 56.8 -14.3 42.8 56.5 -13.8 40.3 58.5 -18.2 41.3 57.6 -16.3TX* 38.2 61.1 -22.9 40.6 58.7 -18.1 36.5 63.5 -27.0 37.1 62.9 -25.8UT* 26.0 71.5 -45.5 29.2 68.3 -39.1 29.9 69.2 -39.3 29.9 68.3 -38.4 VT* 58.9 38.8 20.1 66.4 31.3 35.1 67.0 30.4 36.6 64.5 32.8 31.7VA 45.5 53.7 -8.2 49.4 49.7 -0.3 50.2 49.7 0.5 48.0 51.9 -3.9WA* 52.8 45.6 7.2 57.0 41.4 15.6 54.9 44.2 10.7 54.1 44.6 9.5WV 43.2 56.1 -12.9 40.3 59.0 -18.7 41.6 57.4 -15.8 44.9 54.2 -9.3WI* 49.7 49.3 0.4 52.0 47.0 5.1 52.5 46.8 5.7 49.6 49.2 0.4WY 29.1 68.9 -39.8 31.2 66.7 -35.5 34.5 63.6 -29.1 31.6 66.4 -34.8
_____________________________________________________________________
Monte Carlo Polling Simulation
This is a sample run from the Monte Carlo Polling Simulation model using the WPE measure.
Cluster 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% States > MoE 25 24 24 22 20 17 16 15 15 Prob: 1 in zero zero zero zero 750tr 257tr 19tr 1tr 1tr Assuming a 30% cluster effect (CE), N = 24 states exceeding the MoE for Bush Prob = 1 - BINOMDIST (N-1, 51, 0.025, TRUE) Prob = 1 – BINOMDIST (23, 51, 0.025, TRUE) = ZERO Assuming a 70% cluster effect, N=16 states. The probability is 1 in 19 trillion. Kerry Kerry Exit Poll Recorded Dev Favor Exceed EV EV WPE MoE WinProb Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Prob Bush MoE Total 335 7.1 30% CE - 51.8 47.2 48.3 50.7 - 44 24 AL 9 - 11.3 4.64% 0.1% 42.5 56.8 36.9 62.5 0.9% Bush yesAK 3 - 9.6 4.14% 0.0% 40.3 56.3 35.6 61.2 1.3% Bush yesAR 6 - 0.5 2.95% 0.0% 44.8 54.1 44.6 54.3 43.4% Bush AZ 10 - 4.6 3.40% 2.8% 46.7 52.6 44.4 54.9 9.2% Bush CA 55 55 10.9 2.89% 100% 59.8 38.9 54.4 44.5 0.0% Bush yes CO 9 - 6.1 2.54% 53.1% 50.1 48.6 47.1 51.8 1.0% Bush yesCT 7 7 15.7 4.25% 100% 62.2 36.1 54.3 43.9 0.0% Bush yesDE 3 3 15.9 4.53% 100% 61.3 37.8 53.4 45.8 0.0% Bush yesDC 3 3 3.4 2.50% 100% 90.9 7.6 89.4 9.4 12.5% Bush FL 27 27 7.6 2.39% 77.0% 50.9 48.3 47.1 52.1 0.1% Bush yes GA 15 - 2.2 3.22% 0.0% 42.5 56.9 41.4 58.0 25.4% Bush HI 4 4 4.7 5.69% 98.6% 56.4 42.9 54.0 45.3 20.5% Bush ID 4 - 1.0 5.08% 0.0% 30.8 67.9 30.3 68.4 41.8% Bush IL 21 21 4.4 3.38% 100% 57.0 42.3 54.8 44.5 10.3% Bush IN 11 - 1.5 4.12% 0.0% 40.0 59.2 39.3 59.9 36.3% Bush IA 7 - 5.0 2.55% 70.5% 50.7 48.4 49.3 50.0 13.8% Bush KS 6 - 1.7 4.74% 0.0% 37.5 61.2 36.6 62.0 35.9% Bush KY 8 - -0.1 3.89% 0.0% 39.6 59.6 39.7 59.6 48.2% Kerry LA 9 - 3.8 3.10% 0.0% 44.1 54.8 42.3 56.8 12.9% Bush ME 4 4 3.8 2.86% 100% 55.5 42.7 53.6 44.6 9.3% Bush MD 10 10 8.1 3.99% 100% 60.0 38.9 56.0 43.0 2.4% Bush yesMA 12 12 5.8 4.03% 100% 64.8 33.9 62.1 36.9 9.4% Bush MI 17 17 6.3 2.57% 100% 54.4 44.7 51.2 47.8 0.8% Bush yesMN 10 10 9.3 2.72% 100% 55.7 43.0 51.2 47.7 0.1% Bush yesMS 6 - 11.3 4.47% 3.3% 45.8 53.4 40.2 59.1 0.7% Bush yes MO 11 11 5.8 2.74% 23.7% 49.0 50.4 46.1 53.3 1.9% Bush yesMT 3 - -1.8 4.92% 0.0% 37.7 60.0 38.6 59.1 36.5% Kerry NE 5 - 8.1 4.38% 0.0% 36.7 61.8 32.7 66.0 3.8% Bush NV 5 5 10.1 2.77% 98.0% 52.9 45.4 48.1 50.7 0.0% Bush yesNH 4 4 13.6 2.94% 100% 57.0 42.1 50.4 49.0 0.0% Bush yes NJ 15 15 9.7 3.24% 100% 57.8 41.4 52.9 46.3 0.2% Bush yesNM 5 5 7.8 2.88% 97.6% 52.9 45.9 49.0 49.8 0.4% Bush yesNY 31 31 11.4 3.21% 100% 64.1 34.4 58.4 40.1 0.0% Bush yesNC 15 15 11.3 2.73% 28.3% 49.2 50.4 43.6 56.0 0.0% Bush yesND 3 - -5.2 4.72% 0.0% 32.9 65.5 35.5 62.9 14.0% Kerry OH 20 20 10.9 2.87% 99.8% 54.2 45.4 48.7 50.8 0.0% Bush yesOK 7 - -1.9 3.09% 0.0% 33.5 66.5 34.4 65.6 27.8% Kerry OR 7 7 0.0 3.90% 74.3% 51.3 47.2 51.6 47.4 44.0% Kerry PA 21 21 8.8 2.89% 100% 55.3 44.0 51.0 48.5 0.2% Bush yesRI 4 4 4.7 4.29% 100% 61.8 36.3 59.6 38.8 15.5% Bush SC 8 - 10.0 3.05% 0.4% 45.9 53.0 41.0 58.1 0.1% Bush yesSD 3 - -4.2 3.19% 0.0% 36.3 62.0 38.4 59.9 9.4% Kerry TN 11 - 0.5 2.98% 0.0% 42.8 56.5 42.5 56.8 42.8% Bush TX 34 - 4.8 3.01% 0.0% 40.6 58.7 38.2 61.1 6.1% Bush UT 5 - 6.4 4.13% 0.0% 29.2 68.3 26.0 71.6 6.6% Bush VT 3 3 15.0 4.62% 100% 66.4 31.3 59.2 39.0 0.1% Bush yesVA 13 - 7.9 3.37% 36.3% 49.4 49.7 45.6 53.8 1.3% Bush yesWA 11 11 8.4 2.75% 100% 57.0 41.4 52.9 45.7 0.2% Bush yesWV 5 - -5.8 3.06% 0.0% 40.3 59.0 43.2 56.1 3.1% Kerry WI 10 10 4.7 2.70% 92.7% 52.0 47.0 49.8 49.4 5.2% Bush WY 3 - 4.3 4.55% 0.0% 31.2 66.7 29.1 69.0 18.6% Bush
_____________________________________________________________________
State Projections vs. Composite (12:22am) Exit Polls vs. Recorded Vote Analysis Kerry’s projected 2-party national vote share (before undecided voter allocation) was 1) 50.52%, based on the Election Model (1992-2000 average state turnout weights).2) 50.37%, based on recorded 2004 state vote weights3) 51.80% assuming 75% UVA to Kerry The weighted average 2-party state vote shares (2004 recorded vote: 121.056mm): Projected : 50.37% = 60979 /121056 Exit Poll : 50.51% = 61144 /121056 Actual : 48.76% = 59028 /121056 - Based on the pre-election polls, 41 out of 51 states deviated to Bush.- Based on the 12:22am exit polls, 43 out of 51 states deviated to Bush.
If Kerry won 60% of the undecided (UVA) vote, the average deviation was 0.37% between pre-election and exit poll.
This is the relationship between UVA and the average deviation:
UVA 50 55 60 67 75 Dev 0.26 -0.05 -0.37 -0.81 -1.31 Approximately 2/3 of the deviations were distributed between -1% and +1% - One individual led both the pre-election and exit poll in 39 states.- One individual led both polls in 15 of 17 battleground states. - The pre-election vote shares differed from the exit poll vote shares by less than 1% in 15 states; less than 2% in 29 states; less than 3% in 32 states; less than 4% in 42 states.
State exit poll red-shift probabilities are close to zero, even assuming a constant conservative 3.0% MoE
The exit poll margin of error (MoE) was exceeded in 16 states – all in favor of Bush. The odds: 1 in 19 trillion.
Kerry vote shares:Pre-Elect: pre-election weighted state pollExit Poll: weighted state exit poll (12:22am)
Pre/Actual: pre-election poll as a percent of actual Exit/Actual: exit poll as a percent of actual Probability of discrepancy between Pre: pre-election poll and actual vote Exit: exit poll and actual vote Favor: pre-election and exit poll vote shift to (B)ush or (K)erry 2-pty Pre- Exit Actual Pre- Exit Actual Pre/ Exit/ -Probability- Favor Kerry Vote Elect Poll Vote Elect Poll Vote Actual Actual Pre Exit Pre ExitWtdMean 121056 50.37% 50.51% 48.76% 60979 61144 59028 103.3% 103.6% 14.1% 12.2% 41B 43BMean - 48.57% 48.84% 47.09% - - - 103.4% 103.8% Median - 50.00% 49.07% 47.48% - - - 102.7% 103.9% AK 302 34.48% 40.14% 36.77% 104 121 111 94% 109% 6.3% 1.2% K BAL 1870 40.63% 41.08% 37.10% 760 768 694 109% 111% 0.9% 0.4% B B
AR 1043 50.00% 46.60% 45.07% 522 486 470 111% 103% 0.1% 15.4% B BAZ 1998 47.37% 46.93% 44.72% 946 938 894 106% 105% 3.9% 7.1% B BCA 12255 53.85% 55.73% 55.04% 6599 6830 6745 98% 101% 21.3% 32.3% K B CO 2103 49.47% 49.07% 47.63% 1040 1032 1002 104% 103% 11.0% 16.9% B BCT 1551 55.32% 58.47% 55.27% 858 907 857 100% 106% 48.8% 1.6% B BDC 224 87.64% 91.63% 90.52% 197 205 203 97% 101% 2.7% 22.9% K BDE 372 54.22% 58.44% 53.83% 202 217 200 101% 109% 39.9% 0.1% B BFL 7548 51.55% 49.93% 47.48% 3891 3769 3584 109% 105% 0.3% 5.1% B B GA 3280 44.68% 43.11% 41.65% 1466 1414 1366 107% 104% 2.2% 16.5% B BHI 426 50.00% 53.32% 54.40% 213 227 232 92% 98% 0.2% 23.5% K KIA 1494 53.19% 50.67% 49.66% 795 757 742 107% 102% 0.9% 25.0% B BID 590 33.71% 33.33% 30.68% 199 197 181 110% 109% 2.2% 3.8% B BIL 5239 56.25% 57.13% 55.21% 2947 2993 2892 102% 103% 24.3% 10.0% B B IN 2448 40.21% 40.97% 39.58% 984 1003 969 102% 104% 33.7% 17.7% B BKS 1171 38.14% 34.60% 37.13% 447 405 435 103% 93% 25.0% 4.6% B KKY 1782 41.05% 40.76% 39.99% 732 726 713 103% 102% 24.0% 30.6% B BLA 1922 45.45% 44.50% 42.67% 874 855 820 107% 104% 3.2% 11.2% B BMA 2875 70.33% 66.46% 62.74% 2022 1911 1804 112% 106% 0.0% 0.7% B B MD 2359 55.67% 57.04% 56.57% 1313 1346 1334 98% 101% 27.5% 37.6% K BME 727 56.18% 54.83% 54.58% 408 399 397 103% 100% 14.4% 43.4% B BMI 4793 53.61% 52.55% 51.73% 2569 2519 2479 104% 102% 10.5% 29.1% B BMN 2792 54.17% 54.61% 51.76% 1512 1525 1445 105% 106% 5.4% 2.9% B BMO 2715 47.31% 47.47% 46.38% 1284 1289 1259 102% 102% 26.7% 23.3% B B MS 1130 45.16% 43.20% 40.49% 511 488 458 112% 107% 0.1% 3.6% B BMT 440 38.71% 39.28% 39.50% 170 173 174 98% 99% 70.1% 44.2% K KNC 3487 48.45% 47.31% 43.76% 1690 1650 1526 111% 108% 0.1% 0.9% B BND 308 38.89% 33.58% 36.09% 120 103 111 108% 93% 3.1% 4.7% B KNE 767 34.41% 36.54% 33.15% 264 280 254 104% 110% 20.1% 1.2% B B NH 672 50.00% 55.49% 50.69% 336 373 341 99% 109% 32.3% 0.1% K BNJ 3581 54.35% 56.13% 53.37% 1946 2010 1911 102% 105% 25.7% 3.3% B BNM 748 50.00% 51.34% 49.60% 374 384 371 101% 104% 39.5% 12.3% B BNV 816 50.00% 50.66% 48.68% 408 413 397 103% 104% 19.0% 9.4% B BNY 7277 59.38% 63.97% 59.29% 4321 4655 4314 100% 108% 47.7% 0.1% B B OH 5599 51.55% 52.06% 48.94% 2886 2915 2740 105% 106% 4.1% 1.9% B BOK 1464 31.46% 34.73% 34.43% 461 508 504 91% 101% 2.4% 42.1% K BOR 1810 53.19% 51.22% 52.11% 963 927 943 102% 98% 23.5% 27.8% B KPA 5732 52.63% 54.41% 51.26% 3017 3119 2938 103% 106% 18.0% 1.8% B BRI 429 60.87% 64.24% 60.58% 261 275 260 100% 106% 42.3% 0.7% B B SC 1600 43.30% 45.78% 41.36% 693 732 662 105% 111% 9.9% 0.2% B BSD 382 44.68% 37.42% 39.09% 171 143 149 114% 96% 0.0% 13.3% B KTN 2421 48.98% 41.15% 42.81% 1186 996 1036 114% 96% 0.0% 13.4% B KTX 7360 38.54% 36.84% 38.49% 2837 2711 2833 100% 96% 48.6% 13.5% B KUT 905 25.81% 29.93% 26.65% 234 271 241 97% 112% 28.6% 1.4% K B VA 3172 47.96% 47.96% 45.87% 1521 1521 1455 105% 105% 8.1% 8.1% B BVT 305 56.99% 65.69% 60.30% 174 201 184 95% 109% 1.4% 0.0% K BWA 2815 54.17% 55.07% 53.65% 1525 1550 1510 101% 103% 36.4% 17.2% B BWI 2968 53.68% 50.21% 50.19% 1593 1490 1490 107% 100% 1.0% 49.4% B BWV 750 48.42% 45.19% 43.52% 363 339 327 111% 104% 0.1% 13.2% B BWY 238 30.85% 32.07% 29.69% 74 76 71 104% 108% 21.9% 5.6% B B
_____________________________________________________________________
Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System - January 19, 2005
Glossary of Terms
Absentee/Early Voter Telephone Surveys
Absentee/Early Voter Telephone Surveys were conducted in 13 states that had a high proportion of absentee/early voters. The estimates from these surveys were used to adjust the exit poll estimates from Election Day to account for the absentee/early voters who can not be interviewed at the polling location on Election Day. The questionnaire responses in these surveys were also incorporated in the survey analysis in the 13 state surveys and the national survey.
Age-Race-Sex adjustment
An Age-Race-Sex adjustment is performed based upon the refusals and misses from sample voters that are observed by the interviewers at each polling location. The age, race and gender compositions in the exit poll results are adjusted to account for the differing completion rates of these demographic groups.
Best Survey Estimate
The Best Survey Estimate is the computation with the lowest SEDF (Standard Error on the Difference) using only the exit poll tallies.
Completion Rate
The Completion Rate is the percentage of sample voters who agree to fill out the questionnaire. The rate equals completed questionnaires divided by completed questionnaires plus refusals plus missed voters who were in the sample.
Composite Estimate
The Composite Estimate is a weighted average of the Prior Estimate and the Best Survey Estimate. The Composite Estimate is most often the estimate used in the survey weighting process to create the exit poll analysis data on Election Day before the actual vote is reported.
County Model
The County Model is a set of computations based upon the county data that is being reported by the Associated Press.
Critical Value (Crit)
The t-score is the ratio of the estimated difference between the two leading candidates and the standard error on the difference (SEDF). A critical value occurs when this ratio is 2.6 or more. The critical value increases when there are 40 or fewer sample precincts. This critical value is the first of several criteria for a “Call Status.” It means there is a .995 statistical probability that the leader is the winner. It only accounts for sampling error in the estimate. It does not account for other possible sources of error or statistical bias.
Cross Survey
Cross Survey is a procedure through which state surveys are combined to form estimates of survey characteristics. When state surveys are combined in this way, the respondent weights are adjusted so that each state survey is represented in its correct proportion of the total. The Cross Survey is different from the National Survey. The Cross Survey only includes questions common to the state surveys.
Decision Screens
These screens provide the details for the 14 different estimates that are computed for each Election Day race. In addition, these screens include details on estimated candidate votes with and without exit poll results, with and without absentee votes factored in, sampling errors for all estimates, estimates by stratum, and quality control information.
Integrated Model
The Integrated Model is a computation based upon a composite of the estimates from the Sample Precinct Model and the County Model.
Interviewing Rate
Each exit poll interviewer is assigned an Interviewing Rate that is used to select sample voters as they leave the polling place. The interviewing rate is defined as the number of voters that the interviewer counts between sample voters. An interviewing rate of “1” means that the interviewer will approach every voter; an interviewing rate of “10” means that the interviewer will approach every 10th voter.
Miss Rate
The Miss Rate is the percentage of voters designated to be in the sample that are missed by the interviewer because the interviewer could not physically approach the voter and ask them to fill out a questionnaire.
National Exit Poll (National Survey)
The National Exit Poll is based upon the results from a national sample of 250 polling locations. These 250 locations are a sub-sample of the 1,480 locations that are in the state samples. In addition, 500 telephone interviews of absentee/early voters in 13 states with a high proportion of absentee/early voters were included in the National Exit Poll results. There were four different versions of the national exit poll questionnaire. One–fourth of the sample at every national exit poll location was asked to complete each version of the national questionnaire.
Prior Estimate
Prior Estimates are based upon pre-election surveys conducted in each state. The Prior Estimate is used in combination with the Best Survey Estimate on Election Day to create a Composite Estimate.
Projections
A projection is based on an estimate of the vote. The first of many requirements for projecting a winner is that the leading candidate is estimated to be ahead of his or her nearest challenger by a margin that is sufficiently larger than the standard error. That margin would have to be 2.6 (at a minimum) times the standard error on the difference between the two candidates. The probability of incorrectly concluding that the leading candidate is ahead is .005.
Refusal Rate
The Refusal Rate is the percentage of sampled voters who are approached by the interviewer, but who refuse to fill out the questionnaire.
Sample Precinct Model
The Sample Precinct Model is a set of computations under different assumptions that use either precinct level exit poll results or actual vote returns. The exit poll results and actual vote returns may be used separately or in combination.
Standard Error on the Difference (SEDF)
We select only one sample of precincts per state out of the many different samples that could have been selected. Each possible sample will have a slightly different estimate of the election result. A standard error is a measure of the variation in all those possible results. While most samples have results that are close to the average for all the samples, it is theoretically possible that the one sample we selected differs from the overall average. The standard error tells us the likelihood of having a sample that differs from the overall average by given amounts. For making projections we are interested in the Standard Error on the Difference (SEDF). It is computed on the difference between the top two candidates for each estimate.
Survey Call 1, 2, 3
Exit poll interviewers call in the results of their interviews to our telephone centers three times during Election Day. Call1 is shortly before noon local time. Call 2 is in the late afternoon. Call 3 is during the last hour before the time the polls close. The exit poll is not complete until the Call 3 interviews are used in the computations.
Survey Weighting
Survey Weighting is the process by which the respondents in each survey are weighted for the exit poll analysis. This weighting process takes into account the probabilities of selection of the precinct and the sample voters within each sample precinct, the age-race-sex adjustment for non-interviews, the best estimate of the candidate vote percentages from each geographic region, and if applicable the portion of the vote that is being cast by absentee/early voters.
t-score
For the value of the “t-score” see the definition of Critical Value. The “t” refers to a distribution of probabilities for these scores for small samples.
Within Precinct Error
Within Precinct Error (WPE) is an average difference between the percentage margin for the leading candidates in the exit poll and the actual vote for all sample precincts in a state. The signed WPE gives the direction of this error; in this report a negative WPE represents a Bush overstatement in the exit poll and a positive WPE represents a Republican overstatement in the exit poll. The absolute WPE represents the total error.
_____________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this analysis is to illustrate why Kerry won by assuming the
following conservative assumptions:
1) All 105.4m Election 2000 voters turned out to vote in 2004
2) All Election 2004 votes cast were counted and equal to the 122.3m recorded.
3) All Gore 2000 voters voted for Kerry; all Bush 2000 voters voted for Bush in 2004.
4) Kerry won 64% of returning Nader/other voters; Bush
17%; Nader/others 19%.
5) Kerry won 57% of new voters (did not vote in 2000); Bush 41%; Nader/others
2%.
1) is impossible, since some 2000 voters died and others did not vote in 2004,
2) is not true, since millions of votes are uncounted in every election,
3) is not true, since a percentage of Gore and Bush voters defected,
4) is a plausible 12:22am National Exit Poll result,
5 ) is a plausible 12:22am NEP result.
Based on these assumptions, a simple calculation shows that Kerry won by 63-58m with 51.64% of the vote:
Kerry = 100% of Gore voters + 64% of Nader/other voters + 57% of New voters
63,153 = 51,003 + 2,531 + 9,619
This result approximated Kerry’s 51.81% national share based on the unadjusted
state exit polls (WPE method). It also closely matched the 2004 Election Model : The
Monte Carlo simulation projected that Kerry would capture 51.80% of the
two-party vote (assuming he won 75% of late undecided voters) and gain 337
electoral votes (based on the average of 5000 election trials).
Let’s look at the effects of changes in assumptions 4 ad 5 on the Kerry vote.
Scenario Analysis
Base Case:
Kerry captures 57% of new voters and 64% of returning Nader/other 3rd party voters.
Kerry wins by 5.1m votes, 51.64% vote share and 337 Electoral votes.
Best Case:
Kerry captures 59% of new voters and 66% of returning Nader/other 3rd party voters.
Kerry wins by 5.9m votes, 51.98% and 348 EV
Worst Case:
Kerry captures 55% of new voters and 62% of returning Nader/other 3rd party voters.
Kerry wins by 4.2m votes, 51.30% and 316 EV
Now we will determine the True Vote by using plausible assumptions for 1,2 and 3 above.
The True Vote
a) Approximately 5m Election 2000 voters died; another
5m did not vote, assuming 95% turnout.
Therefore, there were actually 27m new voters (the net increase was
17m).
The additional 10m new voters increased Kerry's margin by
1.5m.
b) The NEP determined that 8% of Gore voters and 10%
of Bush voters defected.
The net defection increased Kerry's margin by 1.0 million votes.
c) According to the U.S.
Census, there were 3.4 million uncounted votes.
The majority (70-80%) were Kerry votes, increasing his margin by 1.5 million
votes.
Adding the total increase in Kerry’s margin, the TrueVote was: Kerry 67- Bush 57- Other 1.7
Kerry’s 67m = 63 + 1.5 + 1.0 + 1.5
2000
(Votes in thousands)
Recorded Gore Bush Nader Other Margin
105,417 51,003 50,460 2,883 1,070 543
48.38% 47.87% 2.73% 1.02% 0.52%
2004
Recorded Kerry Bush Nader Other Margin
122,293 59,028 62,040 465 758 3,012
48.27% 50.73% 0.38% 0.62% 2.46%
2000
Nader/Other vote allocation
Recorded Kerry Bush Nader Other Margin
3,953 2,530 672 276 474 1,858
Exit Poll 64% 17% 7% 12% 47%
2004
New Voter allocation
Recorded Kerry Bush Nader Other Margin
16,876 9,619 6,919 118 219 2,700
Exit Poll 57% 41% 0.7% 1.3% 16%
Adjusted True Vote
Adjusted Kerry Bush Nader Other Margin
122,293 63,153 58,051 394 693 5,102
Share 51.64% 47.47% 0.32% 0.57% 4.17%
Sensitivity Analysis
Kerry % of New Voters
55% 56% 57% 58% 59%
Kerry%
Other Vote Share
62% 51.30% 51.44% 51.58% 51.71% 51.85%
63% 51.33% 51.47% 51.61% 51.75% 51.88%
64% 51.36% 51.50% 51.64% 51.78% 51.92%
65% 51.40% 51.54% 51.67% 51.81% 51.95%
66% 51.43% 51.57% 51.71% 51.84% 51.98%
Electoral Vote 62% 316 316 337 337 348 63% 316 326 337 337 348 64% 316 337 337 348 348
65% 316 337 337 348 348
66% 316 337 337 348 348
Vote Margin
62% 4,268 4,606 4,943 5,281 5,619
63% 4,347 4,685 5,023 5,360 5,698
64% 4,427 4,764 5,102 5,439 5,777
65% 4,506 4,843 5,181 5,518 5,856
66% 4,585 4,922 5,260 5,597 5,935
Base Case Scenario
2000 Recorded 2004 Recorded 2004 Adjusted
State Gore Bush Nader Other Kerry Bush Other EV Kerry Bush Nader Other
Total 48.38% 47.87% 2.73% 1.02% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00% 337 51.64% 47.47% 0.32% 0.57%
Alabama 41.6% 56.5% 1.1% 0.9% 36.8% 62.5% 0.7% 44.4% 55.0% 0.20% 0.35%
Alaska 27.7% 58.6% 10.1% 3.7% 35.5% 61.1% 3.4% 38.2% 59.2% 0.94% 1.62%
Arizona 44.7% 51.0% 3.0% 1.4% 44.4% 54.9% 0.7% 10 49.7% 49.2% 0.40% 0.71%
Arkansas 45.9% 51.3% 1.5% 1.4% 44.6% 54.3% 1.2% 48.9% 50.4% 0.26% 0.46%
California 53.5% 41.7% 3.8% 1.1% 54.3% 44.4% 1.3% 55 56.6% 42.3% 0.38% 0.67%
Colorado 42.4% 50.8% 5.3% 1.6% 47.0% 51.7% 1.3% 48.6% 49.9% 0.52% 0.91%
Connecticut 55.9% 38.4% 4.4% 1.2% 54.3% 44.0% 1.7% 7 59.3% 39.5% 0.42% 0.72%
Delaware 55.0% 41.9% 2.5% 0.6% 53.4% 45.8% 0.9% 3 57.0% 42.3% 0.28% 0.49%
D. C. 85.2% 9.0% 5.2% 0.7% 89.2% 9.3% 1.5% 3 85.3% 13.5% 0.44% 0.77%
Florida 48.8% 48.9% 1.6% 0.7% 47.1% 52.1% 0.8% 27 51.8% 47.5% 0.28% 0.50%
Georgia 43.0% 54.7% 0.5% 1.8% 41.4% 58.0% 0.7% 47.2% 52.1% 0.28% 0.50%
Hawaii 55.8% 37.5% 5.9% 0.9% 54.0% 45.3% 0.7% 4 59.7% 38.9% 0.50% 0.88%
Idaho 27.6% 67.2% 2.5% 2.7% 30.3% 68.4% 1.4% 35.2% 63.7% 0.42% 0.73%
Illinois 54.6% 42.6% 2.2% 0.6% 54.8% 44.5% 0.7% 21 56.5% 42.9% 0.25% 0.44%
Indiana 41.0% 56.7% 0.8% 1.5% 39.3% 59.9% 0.8% 44.1% 55.3% 0.22% 0.39%
Iowa 48.5% 48.2% 2.2% 1.0% 49.2% 49.9% 0.9% 7 51.4% 47.8% 0.29% 0.50%
Kansas 37.2% 58.0% 3.4% 1.4% 36.6% 62.0% 1.4% 41.9% 57.1% 0.37% 0.64%
Kentucky 41.4% 56.5% 1.5% 0.6% 39.7% 59.6% 0.8% 44.7% 54.6% 0.23% 0.40%
Louisiana 44.9% 52.6% 1.2% 1.4% 42.2% 56.7% 1.1% 47.5% 51.9% 0.23% 0.40%
Maine 49.1% 44.0% 5.7% 1.3% 53.6% 44.6% 1.9% 4 53.9% 44.7% 0.51% 0.89%
Maryland 56.6% 40.2% 2.7% 0.6% 55.9% 42.9% 1.2% 10 58.4% 40.8% 0.30% 0.53%
Massachusetts 59.8% 32.5% 6.4% 1.3% 61.9% 36.8% 1.3% 12 64.2% 34.3% 0.55% 0.95%
Michigan 51.3% 46.1% 2.0% 0.6% 51.2% 47.8% 1.0% 17 53.4% 45.9% 0.25% 0.43%
Minnesota 47.9% 45.5% 5.2% 1.4% 51.1% 47.6% 1.3% 10 52.8% 45.8% 0.49% 0.86%
Mississippi 40.7% 57.6% 0.8% 0.9% 39.8% 59.4% 0.8% 43.9% 55.6% 0.20% 0.35%
Missouri 47.1% 50.4% 1.6% 0.9% 46.1% 53.3% 0.6% 11 49.8% 49.5% 0.25% 0.44%
Montana 33.4% 58.4% 6.0% 2.3% 38.6% 59.1% 2.4% 40.2% 58.2% 0.58% 1.01%
Nebraska 33.3% 62.3% 3.5% 1.0% 32.7% 65.9% 1.4% 38.3% 60.7% 0.36% 0.62%
Nevada 46.0% 49.5% 2.5% 2.0% 47.9% 50.5% 1.7% 5 51.0% 47.8% 0.42% 0.74%
New Hampshire 46.8% 48.1% 3.9% 1.2% 50.2% 48.9% 0.9% 4 51.2% 47.7% 0.41% 0.72%
New Jersey 56.1% 40.3% 3.0% 0.6% 52.9% 46.2% 0.8% 15 58.3% 40.9% 0.30% 0.53%
New Mexico 47.9% 47.9% 3.6% 0.7% 49.1% 49.8% 1.1% 5 52.0% 47.0% 0.38% 0.67%
New York 60.2% 35.2% 3.6% 1.0% 58.4% 40.1% 1.5% 31 62.7% 36.4% 0.35% 0.61%
North Carolina 43.2% 56.0% 0.0% 0.8% 43.6% 56.0% 0.4% 45.9% 53.6% 0.16% 0.30%
North Dakota 33.1% 60.7% 3.3% 3.0% 35.5% 62.9% 1.6% 38.6% 60.1% 0.46% 0.80%
Ohio 46.5% 50.0% 2.5% 1.1% 48.7% 50.8% 0.5% 20 50.1% 49.0% 0.32% 0.57%
Oklahoma 38.4% 60.3% 0.0% 1.3% 34.4% 65.6% 0.0% 42.0% 57.5% 0.18% 0.33%
Oregon 47.0% 46.5% 5.0% 1.5% 51.4% 47.2% 1.5% 7 52.1% 46.5% 0.50% 0.87%
Pennsylvania 50.6% 46.4% 2.1% 0.9% 50.9% 48.4% 0.7% 21 53.2% 46.1% 0.28% 0.50%
Rhode Island 61.0% 31.9% 6.1% 1.0% 59.4% 38.7% 1.9% 4 65.0% 33.6% 0.51% 0.88%
South Carolina 40.9% 56.8% 1.5% 0.8% 40.9% 58.0% 1.1% 44.5% 54.9% 0.24% 0.42%
South Dakota 37.6% 60.3% 0.0% 2.1% 38.4% 59.9% 1.7% 42.3% 57.0% 0.25% 0.45%
Tennessee 47.3% 51.2% 1.0% 0.6% 42.5% 56.8% 0.7% 49.6% 49.9% 0.20% 0.35%
Texas 38.0% 59.3% 2.2% 0.6% 38.2% 61.1% 0.7% 42.1% 57.2% 0.26% 0.46%
Utah 26.3% 66.8% 4.7% 2.2% 26.0% 71.5% 2.5% 35.2% 63.4% 0.52% 0.90%
Vermont 50.6% 40.7% 6.9% 1.8% 58.9% 38.8% 2.3% 3 56.2% 42.1% 0.61% 1.06%
Virginia 44.4% 52.5% 2.2% 0.9% 45.5% 53.7% 0.8% 47.9% 51.3% 0.29% 0.50%
Washington 50.1% 44.6% 4.1% 1.2% 52.8% 45.6% 1.5% 11 54.0% 44.9% 0.41% 0.72%
West Virginia 45.6% 51.9% 1.7% 0.8% 43.2% 56.1% 0.7% 48.6% 50.7% 0.25% 0.44%
Wisconsin 47.8% 47.6% 3.6% 0.9% 49.7% 49.3% 1.0% 10 51.6% 47.4% 0.37% 0.65%
Wyoming 27.7% 67.8% 2.1% 2.4% 29.1% 68.9% 2.1% 33.3% 65.7% 0.36% 0.62%
_____________________________________________________________________
Regional Analysis
2004 State Exit Poll Discrepancies by Time Zone and RegionData Source: Edison-Mitofsky 2004 Exit Poll Summary Report
Kerry's aggregate state exit poll (unadjusted) share was 51.8% (325 electoral votes).
The Margin of Error was exceeded in 29 of 50 states for Bush.
The MoE was exceeded in only one state (WV) for Kerry.
States in which MoE was exceeded:Time Zone RegionEast 15 of 21 East 9 of 12Central 7 of 16 MidW 6 of 12Mountain 4 of 8 South 7 of 13Pacific 3 of 5 West 7 of 13
The final state and national exit poll vote shares were adjusted to match the recorded vote. The "pristine" unadjusted exit poll results, as measured by the average state WPE (Within Precinct Error), morphed to the Composite (weighted average of Pre-election and Best Survey estimates) and then to the Final which was forced to match the Recorded vote. WPE is the difference in margin from exit poll to vote tally.
Exit Poll Kerry Vote Share
State aggregate 51.8% (unadjusted, based on average WPE)
NEP Location 51.7 (WPE-adjusted state aggregate)
NEP Region 50.5 (12:22am adjusted Composite)
NEP Region 48.2 (FINAL matched to recorded vote)
State Exit Poll Weighted- Unadjusted Vote shares based on WPE REGION Vote Weight Kerry Bush OtherEast 27.18 22.2% 60.3% 39.0% 0.7%Midwest 30.94 25.3% 51.4% 47.8% 0.8%
South 39.32 32.2% 44.9% 54.4% 0.7%West 24.84 20.3% 54.2% 44.4% 1.4% Total 100% 51.8% 47.3% 0.9%Votes 122.3 122.3 63.3 57.8 1.2 National Exit Poll Unadjusted Vote Shares (based on location average WPE) LOCATION Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other MarginBig City 15.9 13% 64.95% 35.05% 0% 10.3 5.6 0.0 4.6 Small City 22.0 18% 53.25% 44.75% 2% 11.7 9.9 0.4 1.9
Suburbs 55.0 45% 51.05% 47.95% 1% 28.1 26.4 0.6 1.7 Small Town 9.8 8% 50.45% 47.55% 2% 4.9 4.7 0.2 0.3
Rural 19.6 16% 41.80% 57.20% 1% 8.2 11.2 0.2 -3.0 TOTAL 122.3 100% 51.7% 47.2% 1.1% 63.3 57.7 1.4 5.6 Regional Popular and Electoral Vote (WPE based) EV Electoral voteKEV Kerry Electoral Vote (Exit Poll)KE Kerry Exit Poll VoteKV Kerry Recorded Vote KEP Kerry Exit Poll percentKVP Kerry Recorded Vote percentWPE Within Precinct Error Diff = KE - KVWPE = 2*Diff Unadjusted Regional Vote Shares (based on regional average WPE) REGION EV Vote Weight WPE KE KV KEP KVP KEV East 122 27,177 22.2% 9.21% 16,376 15,124 60.3% 55.7% 117 Midwest 124 30,940 25.3% 5.96% 15,889 14,966 51.4% 48.4% 85
South 168 39,324 32.2% 5.66% 17,662 16,550 44.9% 42.1% 27 West 124 24,844 20.3% 8.18% 13,461 12,445 54.2% 50.1% 96 Total 538 122,284 100.0% 7.04% 63,388 59,085 51.8% 48.3% 325 NEP Regional Demographic(adjusted Composite and Final) 12:22am Composite 2pm Final
REGION Vote Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherEast 26.91 22% 58% 41% 1% 22% 56% 43% 1%Midwest 31.80 26% 50% 49% 1% 26% 48% 51% 1%
South 37.91 31% 44% 54% 2% 32% 42% 58% 0%West 25.68 21% 53% 45% 2% 20% 50% 49% 1% Total 100% 50.53% 47.95% 1.52% 100% 48.24% 51.08% 0.68%Votes 122.3 122.3 61.8 58.6 1.9 122.3 59.0 62.5 0.8 STATE KEV Vote WPE KE KV BE BV Diff MoE Diff/MoE EASTCT* 7 1,578 15.7 62.2 54.3 36.1 43.9 7.85 3.27 2.40DC 3 378 3.4 90.9 89.2 37.8 9.3 1.70 1.92 0.88DE* 3 226 15.9 61.3 53.3 37.8 45.8 7.95 3.48 2.28MA 12 2,912 5.8 64.8 61.9 33.9 36.8 2.90 3.10 0.93MD* 10 2,386 8.1 60.0 55.9 38.9 42.9 4.05 3.07 1.32 ME 4 741 3.8 55.5 53.6 42.7 44.6 1.90 2.20 0.86NH* 4 678 13.6 57.0 50.2 42.1 48.9 6.80 2.27 3.00NJ* 15 3,611 9.7 57.8 52.9 41.4 46.2 4.85 2.49 1.94NY* 31 7,391 11.4 64.1 58.4 34.4 40.1 5.70 2.47 2.31PA* 21 5,770 8.8 55.3 50.9 44.0 48.4 4.40 2.22 1.98 RI 4 437 4.7 61.8 59.4 36.3 38.7 2.35 3.30 0.71VT* 3 312 15.0 66.4 58.9 31.3 38.8 7.50 3.56 2.11WV* 756 (5.8) 40.3 43.2 59.0 56.1 -2.90 2.35 -1.23 MIDWESTIA 7 1,507 3.0 50.7 49.2 48.4 49.9 1.50 1.96 0.77IL 21 5,276 4.4 57.0 54.8 42.3 44.5 2.20 2.60 0.85IN 2,468 1.5 40.0 39.3 59.2 59.9 0.75 3.17 0.24KS 1,187 1.7 37.5 36.6 61.2 62.0 0.85 3.65 0.23MI* 17 4,839 6.3 54.4 51.2 44.7 47.8 3.15 1.98 1.59 MN* 10 2,829 9.3 55.7 51.1 43.0 47.6 4.65 2.09 2.22MO* 2,731 5.8 49.0 46.1 50.4 53.3 2.90 2.11 1.38ND 313 (5.2) 32.9 35.5 65.5 62.9 -2.60 3.63 -0.72NE* 778 8.1 36.7 32.7 61.8 65.9 4.05 3.37 1.20OH* 20 5,626 10.9 54.2 48.7 45.4 50.8 5.45 2.21 2.47 SD 388 (4.2) 36.3 38.4 62.0 59.9 -2.10 2.45 -0.86WI* 10 2,997 4.7 52.0 49.7 47.0 49.3 2.35 2.08 1.13 SOUTHAL* 1,883 11.3 42.5 36.8 56.8 62.5 5.65 3.57 1.58
AR 2,021 0.5 44.8 44.5 54.1 54.3 0.25 2.61 0.10FL* 27 7,610 7.6 50.9 47.1 48.3 52.1 3.80 1.84 2.07GA 3,301 2.2 42.5 41.4 56.9 58.0 1.10 2.48 0.44KY 1,796 (0.1) 39.6 39.7 59.6 59.6 -0.05 3.00 -0.02 LA 1,943 3.8 44.1 42.2 54.8 56.7 1.90 2.38 0.80MS* 1,139 11.3 45.8 40.2 53.4 59.0 5.65 3.44 1.64NC* 3,501 11.3 49.2 43.6 50.4 56.0 5.65 2.10 2.69OK 1,464 (1.9) 33.5 34.4 66.5 65.6 -0.95 2.38 -0.40SC* 1,618 10.0 45.9 40.9 53.0 58.0 5.00 2.34 2.13 TN 2,437 0.5 42.8 42.5 56.5 56.8 0.25 2.29 0.11TX* 7,411 4.8 40.6 38.2 58.7 61.1 2.40 2.31 1.04VA* 3,199 7.9 49.4 45.5 49.7 53.7 3.95 2.59 1.53 WESTAK* 313 9.6 40.3 35.5 56.3 61.1 4.80 3.18 1.51AZ* 1,051 4.6 46.7 44.4 52.6 54.9 2.30 2.27 1.01CA* 55 12,420 10.9 59.8 54.3 38.9 44.4 5.45 2.22 2.45CO* 9 2,130 6.1 50.1 47.0 48.6 51.7 3.05 1.95 1.56HI 4 429 4.7 56.4 54.0 42.9 45.3 2.35 4.38 0.54 ID 598 1.0 30.8 30.3 67.9 68.4 0.50 3.91 0.13MT 451 (1.8) 37.7 38.6 60.0 59.1 -0.90 3.78 -0.24NM* 5 756 7.8 52.9 49.0 45.9 49.8 3.90 2.22 1.76NV* 5 830 10.1 52.9 47.9 45.4 50.5 5.05 2.13 2.37OR 7 1,837 0.0 51.3 51.3 47.2 47.2 0.00 3.00 0.00 UT* 928 6.4 29.2 26.0 68.3 71.5 3.20 3.18 1.01WA* 11 2,859 8.4 57.0 52.8 41.4 45.6 4.20 2.12 1.98WY 243 4.3 31.2 29.1 66.7 68.9 2.15 3.50 0.61 _________________________________________________________________________________ Composite State Exit Polls (12:22am)
Eastern:All 21 states (and DC) deviated to Bush by an average of 2.80%; the odds: 1 in 4.2 million.12 deviated beyond the margin of error; Probability: 1 in 32 trillion.Ohio and Florida flipped from Kerry to Bush.
Central:11 of 16 states deviated to Bush by an average of 0.82%; the odds: 1 in 103 deviated beyond the margin of error; Probability: 1 in 146Iowa flipped from Kerry to Bush Mountain:7 of 8 states deviated to Bush by an average of 1.86%; the odds: 1 in 28None deviated beyond the margin of error.Nevada and New Mexico flipped from Kerry to Bush.
Pacific:3 of 5 states deviated to Bush by an average of 0.83%; the odds: 1 in 21 deviated beyond the margin of error; Probability: 1 in 8 Poll Poll Std Exit Final Vote Dev Prob Dev Dev/ Dev/ Dev> Bush Size MoE Dev Poll Vote Dev Prob 1 in Favor Std MoE MoE Flip 16 5 EASTERNNH 1849 2.33% 1.19% 55.50 50.68 -4.81% 0.00% 39823 Bush -4.05 2.07 yes NY 1452 2.62% 1.34% 63.97 58.79 -5.17% 0.01% 17833 Bush -3.86 1.97 yes SC 1735 2.40% 1.22% 45.79 41.31 -4.48% 0.01% 7851 Bush -3.66 1.87 yes NC 2167 2.15% 1.10% 47.31 43.72 -3.60% 0.05% 1939 Bush -3.28 1.67 yes OH 1963 2.26% 1.15% 52.06 48.75 -3.31% 0.20% 495 Bush -2.88 1.47 yes yes PA 1930 2.28% 1.16% 54.41 51.13 -3.28% 0.24% 420 Bush -2.82 1.44 yes VT 685 3.82% 1.95% 65.69 60.34 -5.35% 0.30% 330 Bush -2.74 1.40 yes FL 2846 1.87% 0.96% 49.93 47.47 -2.46% 0.50% 199 Bush -2.57 1.31 yes yesDE 770 3.60% 1.84% 58.44 53.82 -4.62% 0.60% 167 Bush -2.51 1.28 yes NJ 1520 2.56% 1.31% 56.13 53.13 -3.00% 1.10% 91 Bush -2.29 1.17 yes MA 889 3.35% 1.71% 66.46 62.70 -3.76% 1.40% 72 Bush -2.20 1.12 yes RI 809 3.52% 1.79% 64.24 60.48 -3.76% 1.82% 55 Bush -2.09 1.07 yes CT 872 3.39% 1.73% 58.47 55.24 -3.24% 3.05% 33 Bush -1.87 0.96 VA 1431 2.64% 1.35% 47.96 45.65 -2.31% 4.34% 23 Bush -1.71 0.87 WV 1722 2.41% 1.23% 45.19 43.48 -1.72% 8.13% 12 Bush -1.40 0.71 GA 1536 2.55% 1.30% 43.11 41.58 -1.53% 12.02% 8 Bush -1.17 0.60 IN 926 3.29% 1.68% 40.97 39.46 -1.51% 18.33% 5 Bush -0.90 0.46 MI 2452 2.02% 1.03% 52.55 51.73 -0.82% 21.39% 5 Bush -0.79 0.40 DC 795 3.55% 1.81% 91.63 90.63 -1.00% 29.01% 3 Bush -0.55 0.28 MD 1000 3.16% 1.61% 57.04 56.25 -0.79% 31.24% 3 Bush -0.49 0.25 KY 1034 3.11% 1.59% 40.76 39.99 -0.76% 31.57% 3 Bush -0.48 0.24 ME 1968 2.25% 1.15% 54.83 54.48 -0.36% 37.88% 3 Bush -0.31 0.16 CENTRALMN 2178 2.14% 1.09% 54.61 51.76 -2.85% 0.46% 218 Bush -2.61 1.33 yes NE 785 3.57% 1.82% 36.54 32.53 -4.01% 1.39% 72 Bush -2.20 1.12 yes AL 730 3.70% 1.89% 41.08 37.08 -4.00% 1.70% 59 Bush -2.12 1.08 yes
MS 798 3.54% 1.81% 43.20 39.91 -3.30% 3.40% 29 Bush -1.83 0.93 AR 1402 2.67% 1.36% 46.93 44.74 -2.19% 5.39% 19 Bush -1.61 0.82 IL 1392 2.68% 1.37% 57.13 54.99 -2.14% 5.90% 17 Bush -1.56 0.80 LA 1669 2.45% 1.25% 44.50 42.63 -1.87% 6.73% 15 Bush -1.50 0.76 IA 2502 2.00% 1.02% 50.67 49.54 -1.13% 13.42% 7 Bush -1.11 0.56 yesMO 2158 2.15% 1.10% 47.48 46.33 -1.15% 14.80% 7 Bush -1.05 0.53 OK 1539 2.55% 1.30% 34.73 34.44 -0.29% 41.21% 2 Bush -0.22 0.11 WI 2223 2.12% 1.08% 50.21 50.20 -0.02% 49.45% 2 Bush -0.01 0.01 TN 1774 2.37% 1.21% 41.15 42.78 1.63% 8.96% 11 Kerry 1.34 0.69 TX 1671 2.45% 1.25% 36.84 38.49 1.65% 9.28% 11 Kerry 1.32 0.68 SD 1495 2.59% 1.32% 37.42 39.09 1.67% 10.27% 10 Kerry 1.27 0.65 ND 649 3.93% 2.00% 33.58 36.09 2.51% 10.51% 10 Kerry 1.25 0.64 KS 654 3.91% 2.00% 34.60 36.97 2.37% 11.76% 9 Kerry 1.19 0.61 MOUNTAINNV 2116 2.17% 1.11% 50.66 48.67 -1.99% 3.61% 28 Bush -1.80 0.92 yesCO 2515 1.99% 1.02% 49.07 47.35 -1.72% 4.52% 22 Bush -1.69 0.86 NM 1951 2.26% 1.16% 51.34 49.42 -1.93% 4.76% 21 Bush -1.67 0.85 yesUT 798 3.54% 1.81% 29.93 27.06 -2.87% 5.61% 18 Bush -1.59 0.81 AZ 1859 2.32% 1.18% 46.60 45.03 -1.57% 9.24% 11 Bush -1.33 0.68 ID 559 4.23% 2.16% 33.33 30.71 -2.63% 11.18% 9 Bush -1.22 0.62 WY 684 3.82% 1.95% 32.07 29.70 -2.37% 11.24% 9 Bush -1.21 0.62 MT 640 3.95% 2.02% 39.28 39.51 0.22% 45.60% 2 Kerry 0.11 0.06 PACIFICAK 910 3.31% 1.69% 40.14 36.17 -3.97% 0.94% 106 Bush -2.35 1.20 yes WA 2123 2.17% 1.11% 55.07 53.60 -1.47% 9.25% 11 Bush -1.33 0.68 CA 1919 2.28% 1.16% 55.73 55.21 -0.53% 32.58% 3 Bush -0.45 0.23 OR 1064 3.07% 1.56% 51.22 51.97 0.75% 31.67% 3 Kerry 0.48 0.24 HI 499 4.48% 2.28% 53.32 54.37 1.05% 32.24% 3 Kerry 0.46 0.24 SUMMARY Poll Poll Std Exit Final Vote Dev Prob Dev Dev/ Dev/ Dev> Bush Size MoE Dev Poll Vote Dev Prob 1 in Favor Std MoE MoE FlipAverage 1443 2.85% 1.46% 48.84 47.00 -1.84% 10.34% 10 0 -1.33 0.83 16 5 Median 1495 2.59% 1.32% 49.07 47.35 -1.93% 6.73% 15 0 -1.50 0.76 DEVIATIONS BY REGION East 1471 2.78% 1.42% 55.11 52.31 -2.80% 9.24% 3153 22 -2.03 1.04 12 2Central 1476 2.80% 1.43% 43.17 42.35 -0.82% 12.16% 31 11 -0.59 0.71 3 1Mountain 1390 3.04% 1.55% 41.54 39.68 -1.86% 11.97% 15 7 -1.30 0.68 0 2Pacific 1303 3.06% 1.56% 51.10 50.26 -0.83% 21.34% 25 3 -0.64 0.52 1 0 DEVIATION PROBABILITIES BY REGION No. Over MOE Probability:1 in Bush Probability:1 in East 22 12 32 trillion 22 4.2 million Central 16 3 146 11 10Mountain 8 0 1 7 28Pacific 5 1 8 3 2
Naysayers claimed that the raw exit poll data which have not been made public indicates that there was no tendency for Bush to do better in 2004 relative to 2000 (“swing”) than he did in the 2004 exit poll (“red-shift”). They presented their analysis in a swing vs. red-shift scatter chart and concluded from the flat regression line that the exit poll discrepancies had little effect and therefore fraud was unlikely. But the analysis was not supported by the mathematics; there are an infinite number of scenarios which would invalidate the premise. And they were comparing apples to oranges; they did not adjust the 2000 recorded vote. According to the 2004 National Exit Poll, Kerry won 71% of returning Nader voters compared to 21% for Bush. A similar split would have increased Gore’s margin by 1.4mm. Assuming that 75% of approximately 3 million uncounted votes were for Gore, his margin increases by another 1.5m. When added to his recorded 540,000 vote majority, Gore’s adjusted margin becomes 3.4m. And that does not consider the effects of vote-switching. Thanks to Ohio, we know a lot more about vote-switching than we did in 2000. It’s very likely that Gore votes were switched to Bush. If 1.5 m (3%) were switched, then his final adjusted margin is 6.4 million: 3.0 switched + 1.5 uncounted + 1.4 Nader + 0.54 recorded.
They never normalized the 2-party state vote shares in calculating “swing”. Assuming zero vote-switching from Gore to Bush in 2000, actual adjusted swing was 3.9%, recorded swing 2.0%; red-shift 4.1% (WPE-adjusted exit poll). For 3% vote- switching, average adjusted state swing was 4.0%; average red-shift 1.5% (12:22am composite exit poll). Weighted average adjusted swing was 3.74%; weighted average red-shift, 1.41%. Adjusted swing exceeded red-shift in 32 states. Average adjusted swing was 2.58%; weighted average swing was 2.39%. An adjusted swing vs. redshift bar graph displays the deviations. Another scatter chart shows that adjusted swing exceeded 4% in 18 states while red-shift exceeded 4% in only 2 states. The naysayer swing vs. red-shift argument is just another ruse meant to divert, confuse and mislead.
Of the eight states which blue-shifted to Kerry, six were deep-red (exit poll discrepancies in parenthesis): TN (1.63), TX (1.65), SD (1.67), ND (2.51), KS (2.37) and MT (0.22). The other two states were competitive: OR (.75), HI (1.25) also shifted to Kerry. All discrepancies fell within the state exit poll margin of error. Is it just a coincidence that these deep-red states deviated to Kerry? Could it have been because there was little incentive to steal votes in there? And since Oregon is the only state with 100% paper ballots (mail), a small discrepancy is to be expected - and favor either Bush or Kerry with equal probability. And since Hawaii is a small state, was it also not a priority when compared to all the other vote-rich battleground /blue states?
The recorded 2000 vote was adjusted using three factors:
1) Third-party (primarily Nader) share of 2000 voters:
According to the National Exit Poll, Kerry won returning Nader 2000 voters by 71-21% over Bush. We need to revise the 2000 vote totals accordingly by allocating the Nader vote to Gore and Bush by the same proportion.
2) Uncounted votes:
According to the 2004 Election Census, there were 125.7mm total votes cast but only 122.3mm were recorded; 3.4mm (2.74%) were uncounted. In 2000, there were 104.7mm votes recorded. Assuming the 2004 uncounted vote rate in 2000, 107.7mm total votes were cast and 3.0mm were uncounted. Since the majority of uncounted ballots are found in Democratic minority districts, a fair assumption is that 75% of the lost votes were for Gore. There were 180,000 spoiled ballots (under and over votes) in Florida.
3) Switched votes:
The True Vote Model base case scenario indicates that 7.6% of Kerry’s recorded vote (6.8% of total votes cast) was switched to Bush. An exhaustive review of the ballots in Ohio's Cuyahoga County determined that 6.15% of Kerry’s votes were switched. For this analysis, the best case assumption is that 3.0% of Gore votes were switched.
The following is an analysis of the effects of uncounted and switched votes on the 2000 and 2004 elections. The results contradict the naysayer argument that no relationship exists between 2004 exit poll red-shift and vote swing from 2000 to 2004.
______________________________________________________________________________ Swing vs. Red Shift – Selected States Assumptions: Uncounted votes (percent of total votes cast)2000: 3.00% 2004: 2.74%Dem share: 75%Switched: 3.0% from Gore to Bush Nader vote allocation: Gore 71% Bush 21% Other 8% DefinitionsActual: recorded voteAdjusted True Vote: Recorded vote + Nader + uncounted + switched votes
Adjusted Swing: Bush 2004 recorded vote share – Bush 2000 adjusted vote share
Red-shift: Bush 2004 recorded vote share – Bush 2004 Exit Poll share
All vote shares are 2-party percentages
Key Result (WPE adjusted exit poll)
Red-shift exceeded swing in 21 of the 31 states in which the Bush 2004 recorded vote share exceeded his 2000 vote share.
This refutes the naysayer Swing vs. Red-shift argument that there was no tendency for red-shift to exceed swing.
Red-shift exceeds swing in 39 states.
Composite Polls (12:22am)
Swing R/S DiffNational 1.51% 1.75% 0.26%
OH -0.76 3.12 3.88
FL 2.52 2.45 -0.07
NY 3.81 4.68 0.87
PA 0.88 3.15 2.27
IA 0.49 1.01 0.52
NM 0.43 1.74 1.31
2000 2004 NATIONAL Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherActual 51004 50459 3275 59028 62040 1228Other 2285 676 0 0 0 0Uncounted 2354 785 0 2581 860 0Switch 1529 -1529 0 4488 -4488 0True 57173 50390 0 66097 58412 0 Actual 50.27% 49.73% 48.76% 51.24% True 53.15% 46.85% 53.09% 46.91% NEP Voted 2k 51.93% 48.07% State Exit Poll 50.51% 49.49% Swing Red-shift Diff Actual (state) 1.51% 1.75% 0.26%True (NEP) 4.39% 4.33% -0.06%Difference 2.88% 2.58%Actual (NEP) 3.17% ______________________________________________________________________________ OHIO Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush
Actual 2186 2351 144 2740 2859 Other 102 30 0 0 0 Uncounted 105 35 0 119 40 Switch 66 -66 0 199 -199 Adjusted 2459 2351 0 3058 2699 Actual 48.18% 51.82% 48.94% 51.06% True 51.13% 48.87% 53.12% 46.88% Exit Poll 52.06% 47.94% Swing Red-shift Diff Actual -0.76% 3.12% 3.88%True 2.19% 4.18% 1.99%Difference 2.95% 1.06% ______________________________________________________________________________ FLORIDA Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush Other
Actual 2912 2912 2912 3584 3965 56Other 82 24 0 0 0 0Uncounted 134 45 0 161 54 0Switch 87 -87 0 261 -261 0True 3215 2893 2912 4005 3757 0 Actual 50.00% 50.00% 47.48% 52.52% True 52.63% 47.37% 51.60% 48.40% Exit Poll 49.93% 50.07% Swing Red-shift Diff Actual 2.52% 2.45% -0.07%True 5.15% 4.12% -1.03%Difference 2.63% 1.67% ______________________________________________________________________________ NEW YORK Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush Other
Actual 4112 2405 278 4314 2963 112Other 197 58 0 0 0 0Uncounted 153 51 0 156 20 0Switch 123 -123 0 314 -314 0True 4586 2391 278 4784 2669 112 Actual 63.10% 36.90% 59.29% 40.71% True 65.73% 34.27% 64.19% 35.81% Exit Poll 63.97% 36.03% Swing Red-shift Diff Actual 3.81% 4.68% 0.87%True 6.44% 4.90% -1.54%Difference 2.63% 0.22% ______________________________________________________________________________ PENNSYLVANIA Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush Other
Actual 2485 2281 120 2938 2794 34Other 85 25 0 0 0 0Uncounted 110 37 0 122 41 0Switch 75 -75 0 214 -214 0True 2755 2268 120 3274 2621 34 Actual 52.14% 47.86% 51.26% 48.74% True 54.84% 45.16% 55.54% 44.46% Exit Poll 54.41% 45.59% Swing Red-shift Diff Actual 0.88% 3.15% 2.27%True 3.58% 4.28% 0.70%Difference 2.70% 1.13% ______________________________________________________________________________ IOWA Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush Other
Actual 638 634 37 742 752 11Other 26 8 0 0 0 0Uncounted 29 10 0 32 11 0Switch 19 -19 0 54 -54 0True 713 632 37 828 709 11 Actual 50.16% 49.84% 49.66% 50.34% True 52.99% 47.01% 53.88% 46.12% Exit Poll 50.67% 49.33% Swing Red-shift Diff Actual 0.49% 1.01% 0.52%True 3.33% 4.22% 0.89%Difference 2.84% 3.21% ______________________________________________________________________________ NEW MEXICO Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush Other
Actual 287 286 22 371 377 8Other 16 5 0 0 0 0Uncounted 13 4 0 16 5 0Switch 9 -9 0 27 -27 0True 324 287 22 414 355 8 Actual 50.03% 49.97% 49.60% 50.40% True 53.07% 46.93% 53.81% 46.19% Exit Poll 51.34% 48.66% Swing Red-shift Diff Actual 0.43% 1.74% 1.31%True 3.47% 4.21% 0.74%Difference 3.04% 2.47% ______________________________________________________________________________ WPE-adjusted Polls Swing R/S DiffNational 1.51% 3.58% 3.07%
OH -0.76 5.48 6.24
FL 3.49 3.83 0.34
NY 3.81 5.79 1.98
PA 0.88 4.43 3.55
IA 0.49 1.51 1.02
NM 0.43 3.94 3.51
Assumptions: 2000 2004 Uncounted 4.86% 2.74% To Dem 75% 75% Switched 0% 7.6% Nader share allocated to Gore 71.0% Bush 21.0% Other 8.0% NATIONAL Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush Other Actual 51004 50459 3275 59028 62040 1228 Other 2285 676 0 0 0 0 Unctd 4009 1336 0 2581 860 0 Switch 0 0 0 4492 -4492 0 TrueVote 57298 52471 0 66101 58408 0 Margin 4827 7693 Actual 50.27% 49.73% 48.76% 51.24%TruePct 52.20% 47.80% 53.09% 46.91% Exit Poll - - 51.93% 48.07% State EP - - 52.34% 47.66% Swing Red-shift Actual 1.51% 3.58%TrueVote 3.44% 4.33% NEP 3.17% ______________________________________________________________________________ OHIO Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush
Actual 2186 2351 144 2740 2859 Other 102 30 0 0 0 Unctd 179 60 0 119 40 Switch 0 0 0 209 -209 TrueVote 2468 2441 0 3067 2690 Margin 27 377 Actual 48.18% 51.82% 48.94% 51.06% TruePct 50.27% 49.73% 53.28% 46.72% Exit Poll 54.42% 45.58% Swing Red-shift Actual -0.76% 5.48%TrueVote 1.33% 4.34% ______________________________________________________________________________ FLORIDA Gore Bush Nader Kerry Bush Other
Actual 2912 2912 115 3584 3965 56 Other 82 24 9 0 0 0 Unctd 228 76 0 161 54 0 Switch 29 -29 0 247 -247 0 TrueVote 3250 2983 9 3991 3771 56 Margin 267 221 Actual 49.03% 49.03% 1.94% 47.48% 52.52%TruePct 52.07% 47.78% 0.15% 51.42% 48.58% Exit Poll 51.31% 48.69% Swing Red-shift Actual 3.49% 3.83% TrueVote 3.95% 4.74% ______________________________________________________________________________ NEW YORK Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush Other
Actual 4112 2405 278 4314 2963 112 Other 197 58 0 0 0 0 Unctd 260 87 0 156 20 0 Switch 0 0 0 328 -328 0 TrueVote 4570 2550 278 4799 2655 112 Margin 2020 2144 Actual 63.10% 36.90% 59.29% 40.71%TruePct 64.18% 35.82% 64.38% 35.62%Exit Poll 65.08% 34.92% Swing Red-shift Actual 3.81% 5.79% TrueVote 5.09% 4.89% ______________________________________________________________________________ PENN Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherActual 2485 2281 120 2938 2794 34Other 85 25 0 0 0 0Unctd 187 62 0 122 41 0Switch 0 0 0 224 -224 0TrueVote 2757 2369 120 3284 2611 34Margin 389 673 Actual 52.14% 47.86% 51.26% 48.74% TruePct 53.79% 46.21% 55.71% 44.29% Exit Poll - 55.69% 44.31% Swing Red-shift Actual 0.88% 4.43%TrueVote 2.53% 4.45% ______________________________________________________________________________ IOWA Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush Other
Actual 638 634 37 742 752 11Other 26 8 0 0 0 0Unctd 50 17 0 32 11 0Switch 0 0 0 56 -56 0TrueVote 714 658 37 830 706 11Margin 56 124 Actual 50.16% 49.84% 49.66% 50.34% TruePct 52.04% 47.96% 54.04% 45.96% Exit Poll - 51.18% 48.82% Swing Red-shift Actual 0.49% 1.51% TrueVote 2.37% 4.37% ______________________________________________________________________________ NEW MEXICO Gore Bush Other Kerry Bush Other
Actual 287 286 22 371 377 8Other 16 5 0 0 0 0Unctd 23 8 0 16 5 0Switch 0 0 0 28 -28 0TrueVote 325 299 22 415 354 8Margin 27 61 Actual 50.03% 49.97% 49.60% 50.40% TruePct 52.13% 47.87% 53.97% 46.03% Exit Poll - 53.54% 46.46% Swing Red-shift Actual 0.43% 3.94% TrueVote 2.53% 4.37% ______________________________________________________________________________ Swing vs. Red Shift – All States Red-shift based on Unadjusted Exit Poll (WPE method)(2-party vote shares) Bush improved his two-party share (swing) from 2000 to 2004 in 31 states.Red-shift exceeded swing in 21 of the 31 states.Red-shift exceeded swing in a total 39 states. Actual True Vote Actual True Vote Exit Poll (WPE) Gore Bush Gore Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Red-shift Swing State 50.27 49.73 52.20 47.80 49.04 50.96 53.09 46.91 52.34 47.66 3.30 1.23 AL 42.4 57.6 44.4 55.6 37.4 62.6 40.9 59.1 42.8 57.2 5.4 5.0
AK 32.1 67.9 38.9 61.1 38.1 61.9 40.6 59.4 41.7 58.3 3.7 -5.9AR 46.7 53.3 49.1 50.9 45.4 54.6 49.2 50.8 45.3 54.7 -0.1 1.3AZ 47.2 52.8 49.2 50.8 45.0 55.0 48.9 51.1 47.0 53.0 2.1 2.2CA 56.2 43.8 57.9 42.1 55.3 44.7 59.7 40.3 60.6 39.4 5.3 0.9 CO 45.5 54.5 48.6 51.4 48.0 52.0 51.9 48.1 50.7 49.3 2.8 -2.4CT 59.3 40.7 60.8 39.2 55.7 44.3 59.9 40.1 63.3 36.7 7.6 3.6DE 56.8 43.2 58.2 41.8 54.0 46.0 58.4 41.6 61.9 38.1 7.8 2.7DC 90.5 9.5 89.1 10.9 90.4 9.6 96.8 3.2 92.2 7.8 1.9 0.1FL 50.0 50.0 51.7 48.3 47.7 52.3 51.7 48.3 51.3 48.7 3.6 2.3 GA 44.0 56.0 45.7 54.3 41.8 58.2 45.6 54.4 42.8 57.2 0.9 2.2HI 59.9 40.1 61.6 38.4 54.6 45.4 59.0 41.0 56.8 43.2 2.2 5.4ID 29.1 70.9 32.0 68.0 31.3 68.7 34.2 65.8 31.2 68.8 -0.1 -2.2IL 56.2 43.8 57.6 42.4 55.4 44.6 59.8 40.2 57.4 42.6 2.1 0.8IN 42.0 58.0 43.8 56.2 39.9 60.1 43.5 56.5 40.3 59.7 0.5 2.1 IA 50.2 49.8 52.0 48.0 49.9 50.1 54.0 46.0 51.2 48.8 1.3 0.3KS 39.1 60.9 42.2 57.8 37.7 62.3 40.9 59.1 38.0 62.0 0.3 1.4KY 42.3 57.7 44.4 55.6 40.3 59.7 43.9 56.1 39.9 60.1 -0.3 2.0LA 46.1 53.9 48.0 52.0 43.0 57.0 46.7 53.3 44.6 55.4 1.6 3.1ME 52.7 47.3 55.2 44.8 55.0 45.0 59.2 40.8 56.5 43.5 1.5 -2.3 MD 58.5 41.5 59.7 40.3 56.8 43.2 61.3 38.7 60.7 39.3 3.9 1.7MA 64.8 35.2 66.0 34.0 62.9 37.1 67.7 32.3 65.7 34.3 2.8 1.9MI 52.6 47.4 54.1 45.9 52.0 48.0 56.2 43.8 54.9 45.1 2.9 0.7MN 51.3 48.7 53.9 46.1 52.0 48.0 56.2 43.8 56.5 43.5 4.4 -0.7MS 41.4 58.6 43.3 56.7 40.7 59.3 44.4 55.6 46.2 53.8 5.4 0.6 MO 48.3 51.7 50.1 49.9 46.6 53.4 50.6 49.4 49.3 50.7 2.7 1.7MT 36.3 63.7 40.9 59.1 40.4 59.6 43.4 56.6 38.6 61.4 -1.8 -4.0NE 34.8 65.2 38.3 61.7 33.7 66.3 36.8 63.2 37.3 62.7 3.5 1.1NV 48.1 51.9 50.3 49.7 49.0 51.0 53.0 47.0 53.8 46.2 4.8 -0.9NH 49.4 50.6 51.7 48.3 50.9 49.1 55.1 44.9 57.6 42.4 6.7 -1.5 NJ 58.2 41.8 59.6 40.4 53.6 46.4 57.9 42.1 58.3 41.7 4.7 4.6NM 50.0 50.0 52.1 47.9 49.9 50.1 54.0 46.0 53.5 46.5 3.6 0.1NY 63.1 36.9 64.2 35.8 59.6 40.4 64.1 35.9 65.1 34.9 5.5 3.5NC 43.5 56.5 45.1 54.9 43.9 56.1 47.9 52.1 49.4 50.6 5.5 -0.4ND 35.3 64.7 39.4 60.6 36.8 63.2 39.8 60.2 33.4 66.6 -3.3 -1.4 OH 48.2 51.8 50.3 49.7 49.1 50.9 53.3 46.7 54.4 45.6 5.3 -0.9OK 38.9 61.1 40.9 59.1 34.4 65.6 38.1 61.9 33.5 66.5 -1.0 4.5OR 50.2 49.8 51.7 48.3 52.4 47.6 56.6 43.4 52.1 47.9 -0.2 -2.1PA 52.1 47.9 53.8 46.2 51.4 48.6 55.7 44.3 55.7 44.3 4.3 0.7RI 65.7 34.3 66.8 33.2 60.8 39.2 65.5 34.5 63.0 37.0 2.1 4.8 SC 41.9 58.1 44.0 56.0 41.7 58.3 45.4 54.6 46.4 53.6 4.7 0.1SD 38.3 61.7 40.4 59.6 39.7 60.3 43.0 57.0 37.0 63.0 -2.8 -1.4TN 48.0 52.0 49.6 50.4 43.0 57.0 46.9 53.1 43.1 56.9 0.0 5.0TX 39.0 61.0 41.6 58.4 38.8 61.2 42.3 57.7 40.9 59.1 2.2 0.3UT 28.3 71.7 33.1 66.9 27.8 72.2 30.0 70.0 29.9 70.1 2.1 0.4 VT 55.6 44.4 58.0 42.0 60.6 39.4 65.2 34.8 68.0 32.0 7.4 -5.0VA 45.9 54.1 47.9 52.1 46.1 53.9 50.1 49.9 49.8 50.2 3.8 -0.2WA 53.0 47.0 55.0 45.0 54.0 46.0 58.2 41.8 57.9 42.1 3.9 -1.0WV 46.8 53.2 48.7 51.3 43.8 56.2 47.6 52.4 40.6 59.4 -3.2 3.0WI 50.1 49.9 52.3 47.7 50.4 49.6 54.6 45.4 52.6 47.4 2.1 -0.3WY 29.0 71.0 31.8 68.2 30.6 69.4 33.1 66.9 31.9 68.1 1.3 -1.6 Swing vs. Red-shift based on 12:22am Exit Poll (Composite)(2-party vote shares) Recorded True Vote Recorded True Vote Exit Poll Gore Bush Gore Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Red-shift SwingState 50.27 49.73 52.20 47.80 49.04 50.96 53.09 46.91 50.51 49.49 1.47 1.23 AL 42.4 57.6 44.4 55.6 37.4 62.6 40.9 59.1 41.1 58.9 3.7 5.0
AK 32.1 67.9 38.9 61.1 38.1 61.9 40.6 59.4 40.1 59.9 2.1 -5.9AR 46.7 53.3 49.1 50.9 45.4 54.6 49.2 50.8 46.6 53.4 1.2 1.3AZ 47.2 52.8 49.2 50.8 45.0 55.0 48.9 51.1 46.9 53.1 2.0 2.2CA 56.2 43.8 57.9 42.1 55.3 44.7 59.7 40.3 55.7 44.3 0.4 0.9 CO 45.5 54.5 48.6 51.4 48.0 52.0 51.9 48.1 49.1 50.9 1.1 -2.4CT 59.3 40.7 60.8 39.2 55.7 44.3 59.9 40.1 58.5 41.5 2.8 3.6DE 56.8 43.2 58.2 41.8 54.0 46.0 58.4 41.6 58.4 41.6 4.4 2.7DC 90.5 9.5 89.1 10.9 90.4 9.6 96.8 3.2 91.6 8.4 1.3 0.1FL 50.0 50.0 51.7 48.3 47.7 52.3 51.7 48.3 49.9 50.1 2.2 2.3 GA 44.0 56.0 45.7 54.3 41.8 58.2 45.6 54.4 43.1 56.9 1.3 2.2HI 59.9 40.1 61.6 38.4 54.6 45.4 59.0 41.0 53.3 46.7 -1.2 5.4ID 29.1 70.9 32.0 68.0 31.3 68.7 34.2 65.8 33.3 66.7 2.0 -2.2IL 56.2 43.8 57.6 42.4 55.4 44.6 59.8 40.2 57.1 42.9 1.8 0.8IN 42.0 58.0 43.8 56.2 39.9 60.1 43.5 56.5 41.0 59.0 1.1 2.1 IA 50.2 49.8 52.0 48.0 49.9 50.1 54.0 46.0 50.7 49.3 0.8 0.3KS 39.1 60.9 42.2 57.8 37.7 62.3 40.9 59.1 34.6 65.4 -3.1 1.4KY 42.3 57.7 44.4 55.6 40.3 59.7 43.9 56.1 40.8 59.2 0.5 2.0LA 46.1 53.9 48.0 52.0 43.0 57.0 46.7 53.3 44.5 55.5 1.5 3.1ME 52.7 47.3 55.2 44.8 55.0 45.0 59.2 40.8 54.8 45.2 -0.2 -2.3 MD 58.5 41.5 59.7 40.3 56.8 43.2 61.3 38.7 57.0 43.0 0.3 1.7MA 64.8 35.2 66.0 34.0 62.9 37.1 67.7 32.3 66.5 33.5 3.6 1.9MI 52.6 47.4 54.1 45.9 52.0 48.0 56.2 43.8 52.6 47.4 0.6 0.7MN 51.3 48.7 53.9 46.1 52.0 48.0 56.2 43.8 54.6 45.4 2.6 -0.7MS 41.4 58.6 43.3 56.7 40.7 59.3 44.4 55.6 43.2 56.8 2.5 0.6 MO 48.3 51.7 50.1 49.9 46.6 53.4 50.6 49.4 47.5 52.5 0.9 1.7MT 36.3 63.7 40.9 59.1 40.4 59.6 43.4 56.6 39.3 60.7 -1.1 -4.0NE 34.8 65.2 38.3 61.7 33.7 66.3 36.8 63.2 36.5 63.5 2.8 1.1NV 48.1 51.9 50.3 49.7 49.0 51.0 53.0 47.0 50.7 49.3 1.6 -0.9NH 49.4 50.6 51.7 48.3 50.9 49.1 55.1 44.9 55.5 44.5 4.6 -1.5 NJ 58.2 41.8 59.6 40.4 53.6 46.4 57.9 42.1 56.1 43.9 2.6 4.6NM 50.0 50.0 52.1 47.9 49.9 50.1 54.0 46.0 51.3 48.7 1.4 0.1NY 63.1 36.9 64.2 35.8 59.6 40.4 64.1 35.9 64.0 36.0 4.4 3.5NC 43.5 56.5 45.1 54.9 43.9 56.1 47.9 52.1 47.3 52.7 3.4 -0.4ND 35.3 64.7 39.4 60.6 36.8 63.2 39.8 60.2 33.6 66.4 -3.2 -1.4 OH 48.2 51.8 50.3 49.7 49.1 50.9 53.3 46.7 52.1 47.9 3.0 -0.9OK 38.9 61.1 40.9 59.1 34.4 65.6 38.1 61.9 34.7 65.3 0.3 4.5OR 50.2 49.8 51.7 48.3 52.4 47.6 56.6 43.4 51.2 48.8 -1.1 -2.1PA 52.1 47.9 53.8 46.2 51.4 48.6 55.7 44.3 54.4 45.6 3.0 0.7RI 65.7 34.3 66.8 33.2 60.8 39.2 65.5 34.5 64.2 35.8 3.4 4.8 SC 41.9 58.1 44.0 56.0 41.7 58.3 45.4 54.6 45.8 54.2 4.1 0.1SD 38.3 61.7 40.4 59.6 39.7 60.3 43.0 57.0 37.4 62.6 -2.3 -1.4TN 48.0 52.0 49.6 50.4 43.0 57.0 46.9 53.1 41.2 58.8 -1.9 5.0TX 39.0 61.0 41.6 58.4 38.8 61.2 42.3 57.7 36.8 63.2 -1.9 0.3UT 28.3 71.7 33.1 66.9 27.8 72.2 30.0 70.0 29.9 70.1 2.1 0.4 VT 55.6 44.4 58.0 42.0 60.6 39.4 65.2 34.8 65.7 34.3 5.1 -5.0VA 45.9 54.1 47.9 52.1 46.1 53.9 50.1 49.9 48.0 52.0 1.9 -0.2WA 53.0 47.0 55.0 45.0 54.0 46.0 58.2 41.8 55.1 44.9 1.1 -1.0WV 46.8 53.2 48.7 51.3 43.8 56.2 47.6 52.4 45.2 54.8 1.4 3.0WI 50.1 49.9 52.3 47.7 50.4 49.6 54.6 45.4 50.2 49.8 -0.2 -0.3WY 29.0 71.0 31.8 68.2 30.6 69.4 33.1 66.9 32.1 67.9 1.5 -1.6 Correlation Analysis (state vote shares)Gore vs. Bush 2000: 0.928Gore vs. Kerry 2004: 0.996Bush vs. Bush 2004: 0.995Kerry Exit vs. Kerry Actual: 0.985 Sensitivity AnalysisEffects of Democratic share of uncounted votes and switched-vote rate on Gore and Kerry vote shares. Gore Kerry Actual 50.27 48.76 Adjusted 53.15 53.09 (adj NEP) State Exit - 50.51 NEP - 51.92 Adjusted Gore 2-party vote Unctd Switched-vote rate Rate 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 65% 51.59 52.07 52.54 53.02 70% 51.66 52.14 52.61 53.08 75% 51.73 52.21 52.68 53.15 80% 51.80 52.27 52.75 53.22 Adjusted Kerry 2-party vote Unctd Switched-vote rate Rate 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.6% 65% 51.24 51.72 52.19 52.96 70% 51.31 51.79 52.26 53.02 75% 51.38 51.85 52.33 53.09 80% 51.44 51.92 52.39 53.15
Exit Poll Response Optimization
1250 Precincts by PartisanshipGiven: 1- Recorded 2-party vote (Bush 51.24- Kerry 48.76%)2- Partisanship precinct exit poll response 3- Partisanship "Within Precinct Error" (WPE) Calculate: Kerry’s true vote - aggregate and by partisanship categoryKerry 52.15-Bush 47.85%Assume Census 125.74m total votes cast 2-party Vote% Vote Kerry 48.76% 60.70m Bush 51.24% 63.78m Total 100% 124.48m Optimizer results: (2-party) Kerry Bush Vote 64.91 59.57m 2-party 52.15% 47.85% Deviation -3.39% 3.39% Vote Deviation -5.89 2.47 Dev /2-pty -6.50% 7.09% Vote share 51.62% 47.37% PROBABILITY of the 3.39% discrepancy between exit poll and vote: 1 in 67 billion PARTISAN ALPHA Kerry strongholds: 1.052 Other precincts: 1.203 WEIGHTED AVERAGE (AGGREGATE) Response: 53.59% K/B (alpha): 1.165 SHARE OF EXIT POLL REFUSERS Kerry 44.87% Bush 55.13% PARTISANSHIP CONSTRAINTS (1250 PRECINCTS) Number Strong Bush Strong Kerry Precincts 40 415 540 165 90 KERRY SHARE Min 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Max 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% RESPONSE Min 56% 55% 52% 55% 53% Max 56% 55% 52% 55% 53% ALPHA (K/B) Min 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Max 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 WPE Min -10.0% -6.1% -8.5% -5.9% 0.3% Max -10.0% -6.1% -8.5% -5.9% 0.3% ActualE-M -10.0% -6.1% -8.5% -5.9% 0.3% OPTIMIZER OUTPUT SUMMARY Poll Count Diff Poll Count Diff (mm)Kerry 52.15% 48.76% -3.39% 64.91 60.70 -4.22Bush 47.85% 51.24% 3.39% 59.57 63.79 4.22Diff 4.29% -2.48% -6.77% 5.346 -3.09 -8.43 Pship HighB Bush Even Kerry HighK TotalPrcts 40 415 540 165 90 1250Votes 3.98 41.33 53.78 16.43 8.96 124.48Pct 3.2% 33.2% 43.2% 13.2% 7.2% 100.0% RESP. 56.0% 55.0% 52.0% 55.0% 53.0% 53.59%DevAvg 2.4% 1.4% -1.6% 1.4% -0.6% 0.0% ALPHA K/B 1.50 1.17 1.19 1.08 0.10 1.17K/ 50B 75.1 58.7 59.3 54.1 49.8 58.2DevAvg 29.0% 0.8% 1.8% -7.1% -14.4% 0.0% VOTE Kerry 0.79 14.51 24.58 11.87 8.95 60.70Pct 19.9% 35.1% 45.7% 72.2% 99.8% 48.76% Bush 3.19 26.82 29.20 4.56 0.02 63.79Pct 80.1% 64.9% 54.3% 27.8% 0.2% 51.24% RESPONDERS Kerry 0.99 15.77 26.86 12.35 8.93 64.91Pct 24.9% 38.2% 50.0% 75.2% 99.7% 52.15% Bush 2.99 25.55 26.91 4.08 0.03 59.57Pct 75.1% 61.8% 50.0% 24.8% 0.3% 47.85% REFUSERS Kerry 13.5% 31.4% 41.1% 68.6% 100.0% 44.87%Bush 86.5% 68.6% 58.9% 31.4% 0.0% 55.13% VOTE DEVIATION Kerry -0.20 -1.26 -2.29 -0.48 0.01 -4.22Pct -20.1% -8.0% -8.5% -3.9% 0.2% -6.50% WPE Calc -10.0% -6.1% -8.5% -5.9% 0.3% -6.77%E-M -10.0% -6.1% -8.5% -5.9% 0.3% -6.77% Sensitivity Analysis: Probability of Kerry vote discrepancy as a function of Kerry/Bush response (alpha) K/B Kerry WPE Prob: 1 in 1.00 48.77% 0.01% 2 1.02 49.19% -0.85% 5 1.04 49.62% -1.70% 21 1.06 50.04% -2.55% 160 1.08 50.47% -3.40% 2,334 1.10 50.90% -4.25% 65,300 1.12 51.32% -5.11% 3,555,747 1.14 51.78% -6.02% 559,644,344 1.15 51.99% -6.45% 7,521,468,533 1.155 52.15% -6.77% 62,893,081,761 1.16 52.21% -6.87% 119,593,696,538 1.17 52.42% -7.29% 2,250,674,476,447
_____________________________________________________________________
NEP Location Size Note: location vote shares exactly matched the 1250 precinct partisanship optimizer! Given: 1- Recorded vote: Bush 50.73- Kerry 48.27% (2 party: Bush 51.24%- Kerry 48.76%) 2- Location exit poll response 3- Location "Within Precinct Error" (WPE) Calculate: True 2-party Vote share (aggregate and by location)Kerry 52.15-Bush 47.85%Assume Census 125.74m total votes cast WPE WPE Number of Size Weight Votes Mean Median Precincts Completion rateBig City 13% 16.35 -7.9 -5.9 105 0.52Small City 18% 22.63 -8.5 -7.7 236 0.54
Suburbs 45% 56.58 -8.1 -7.9 487 0.53Small Town 8% 10.06 -4.9 -5 126 0.57
Rural 16% 20.12 -3.6 -3.6 296 0.55 Total 125.74 -7.17 -6.68 1250 0.54 EXIT POLL (2-party) Kerry Bush Vote 64.91 59.58 Vote share 52.15% 47.85% % Deviation -3.39% 3.39% Vote Dev -5.88 2.47 Dev/2-pty -6.50% 7.08% True Vote 51.62% 47.37% %Deviation 9.06% -4.15% WEIGHTED AVERAGE (AGGREGATE) RESPONSE: 53.98% PERCENT OF EXIT POLL REFUSERS REQUIRED TO MATCH RECORDED VOTE Kerry 44.83% Bush 55.17% Rural Town Suburb City Big City Prcts 296 126 487 236 105 23.7% 10.1% 39.0% 18.9% 8.4% Votes 20.12 10.06 56.58 22.63 16.35 16% 8% 45% 18% 13% Kerry NEP share12:22am 43% 52% 50% 53% 64% Final 40% 48% 47% 49% 61% TRUE 40% 50% 49% 59% 73% RANGE CONSTRAINTS KERRY WIN% Min 35% 45% 45% 45% 60% Max 55% 55% 55% 60% 100% RESPONSE Min 55% 57% 53% 54% 52% Max 55% 57% 53% 54% 52% ALPHA (K/B) Min 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Max 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 WPE Min -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% Max -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% E-M -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% OPTIMIZER OUTPUT SUMMARY ...... Poll Count Diff Poll Count Diff (mm)Kerry 52.15% 48.76% -3.39% 64.91 60.70 -4.21Bush 47.85% 51.24% 3.39% 59.57 63.78 4.21Diff 4.29% -2.48% -6.77% 5.34 -3.09 -8.43 ..... Rural Town Suburb City Big City TotalPrcts 296 126 487 236 105 12502-pty 29.48 12.55 48.50 23.50 10.46 124.478Pct 23.7% 10.1% 39.0% 18.9% 8.4% 100.0% RESP. 55.0% 57.0% 53.0% 54.0% 52.0% 53.98%DevAvg 1.0% 3.0% -1.0% 0.0% -2.0% 0.0% ALPHA K/B 0.792 0.800 0.840 0.835 0.800 0.820K/ 50B 39.6 40.0 42.0 41.8 40.0 41.0DevAvg -3.5% -2.4% 2.4% 1.8% -2.5% 0.0% VOTE Kerry 12.69 6.10 21.82 11.75 8.34 60.695Pct 43.0% 48.6% 45.0% 50.0% 79.7% 48.76% Bush 16.79 6.45 26.67 11.75 2.12 63.782Pct 57.0% 51.4% 55.0% 50.0% 20.3% 51.24% RESPONDERS Kerry 13.22 6.41 23.79 12.75 8.75 64.909Pct 44.8% 51.1% 49.1% 54.3% 83.7% 52.15% Bush 16.26 6.14 24.71 10.75 1.71 59.568Pct 55.2% 48.9% 51.0% 45.8% 16.3% 47.85% REFUSERS Kerry 40.8% 45.4% 40.4% 45.0% 75.4% 44.83%Bush 59.2% 54.6% 59.6% 55.0% 24.6% 55.17% VOTE DEVIATION Kerry -0.53 -0.31 -1.96 -1.00 -0.41 -4.21Pct -4.0% -4.8% -8.3% -7.8% -4.7% -6.49% WPE Calc -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% -6.77%E-M -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% -6.77%Diff 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
_____________________________________________________________________
Given: Recorded vote 2-Party TotalKerry 48.76% 48.27%Bush 51.24% 50.72% 2- State exit poll average response rate 3- State exit poll average WPE Calculate: TRUE VOTE 2-Party Total Kerry 52.30% 51.77%Bush 47.70% 47.21% WPE -6.77% -7.08% PROBABILITY of 3.54% discrepancy between True Vote and recorded vote: 1 in 3.5 trillion WEIGHTED AVERAGE (AGGREGATE)Response 53.32% REFUSER VOTE SHARE REQUIRED TO MATCH RECORDED VOTEKerry 44.86% Bush 55.14% CALCULATED TRUE VOTE Deviation from Recorded State Votes Weight RESP. Kerry Pct Bush Pct Votes Pct WPETotal 121,056 100% 53.32% 63,314 52.30% 57,741 47.70% -4287 -6.77% -7.08% HIGH BUSH UT 905 0.75% 59.6% 270 29.9% 635 70.1% -29 -10.7% -6.4%WY 238 0.20% 66.0% 76 31.8% 163 68.2% -5 -6.8% -4.3%ID 590 0.49% 63.2% 184 31.2% 406 68.8% -3 -1.6% -1.0%NE 767 0.63% 66.5% 285 37.2% 482 62.8% -31 -10.9% -8.1%OK 1,464 1.21% 53.2% 490 33.5% 974 66.5% 14 2.8% 1.9% BUSH ND 308 0.25% 63.0% 103 33.5% 205 66.5% 8 7.8% 5.2%AK 302 0.25% 53.2% 126 41.6% 176 58.4% -14 -11.5% -9.6%AL 1,870 1.55% 58.3% 800 42.8% 1,071 57.2% -106 -13.2% -11.3%
KS 1,171 0.97% 64.5% 445 38.0% 726 62.0% -10 -2.2% -1.7%TX 7,360 6.08% 58.3% 3,009 40.9% 4,350 59.1% -177 -5.9% -4.8% SD 382 0.32% 42.7% 141 37.0% 241 63.0% 8 5.7% 4.2%MT 440 0.36% 63.0% 170 38.6% 270 61.4% 4 2.3% 1.8%IN 2,448 2.02% 38.6% 987 40.3% 1,461 59.7% -18 -1.9% -1.5%KY 1,782 1.47% 52.6% 712 39.9% 1,070 60.1% 1 0.1% 0.1%MS 1,130 0.93% 49.6% 522 46.1% 609 53.9% -64 -12.2% -11.3% SC 1,600 1.32% 59.4% 742 46.4% 858 53.6% -80 -10.8% -10.0%GA 3,280 2.71% 63.9% 1,402 42.7% 1,878 57.3% -36 -2.6% -2.2%LA 1,922 1.59% 47.8% 857 44.6% 1,066 55.4% -37 -4.3% -3.8%TN 2,421 2.00% 66.7% 1,043 43.1% 1,378 56.9% -6 -0.6% -0.5%WV 750 0.62% 48.7% 305 40.6% 446 59.4% 22 7.1% 5.8% NC 3,487 2.88% 52.6% 1,723 49.4% 1,764 50.6% -197 -11.4% -11.3%AZ 1,998 1.65% 57.3% 939 47.0% 1,058 53.0% -46 -4.9% -4.6%AR 1,043 0.86% 60.2% 473 45.3% 571 54.7% -3 -0.6% -0.5%VA 3,172 2.62% 56.4% 1,580 49.8% 1,592 50.2% -125 -7.9% -7.9%MO 2,715 2.24% 47.0% 1,338 49.3% 1,377 50.7% -79 -5.9% -5.8% EVEN FL 7,548 6.24% 49.0% 3,870 51.3% 3,678 48.7% -287 -7.4% -7.6%CO 2,103 1.74% 55.5% 1,066 50.7% 1,037 49.3% -64 -6.0% -6.1%NV 816 0.67% 49.1% 438 53.7% 377 46.3% -41 -9.4% -10.1%OH 5,599 4.62% 45.0% 3,045 54.4% 2,554 45.6% -305 -10.0% -10.9%NM 748 0.62% 56.9% 400 53.5% 348 46.5% -29 -7.3% -7.8% IA 1,494 1.23% 52.6% 764 51.2% 730 48.8% -22 -2.9% -3.0%WI 2,968 2.45% 55.3% 1,559 52.5% 1,408 47.5% -70 -4.5% -4.7%NH 672 0.55% 44.0% 386 57.5% 286 42.5% -46 -11.8% -13.6%PA 5,732 4.73% 46.8% 3,190 55.7% 2,542 44.3% -252 -7.9% -8.8%MI 4,793 3.96% 50.2% 2,630 54.9% 2,163 45.1% -151 -5.7% -6.3% MN 2,792 2.31% 45.3% 1,575 56.4% 1,217 43.6% -130 -8.2% -9.3%OR 1,810 1.50% 53.0% 943 52.1% 867 47.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% KERRY NJ 3,581 2.96% 59.7% 2,085 58.2% 1,496 41.8% -174 -8.3% -9.7%WA 2,815 2.33% 53.8% 1,628 57.8% 1,187 42.2% -118 -7.3% -8.4%DE 372 0.31% 57.5% 230 61.8% 142 38.2% -30 -12.9% -15.9%HI 426 0.35% 53.4% 242 56.8% 184 43.2% -10 -4.1% -4.7%ME 727 0.60% 61.3% 411 56.5% 316 43.5% -14 -3.4% -3.8% CA 12,255 10.12% 50.5% 7,413 60.5% 4,842 39.5% -668 -9.0% -10.9%IL 5,239 4.33% 51.9% 3,007 57.4% 2,231 42.6% -115 -3.8% -4.4%CT 1,551 1.28% 51.0% 979 63.1% 572 36.9% -122 -12.4% -15.7%MD 2,359 1.95% 59.4% 1,430 60.6% 929 39.4% -96 -6.7% -8.1% HIGH KERRY NY 7,277 6.01% 57.9% 4,729 65.0% 2,548 35.0% -415 -8.8% -11.4%VT 305 0.25% 53.1% 207 67.8% 98 32.2% -23 -11.1% -15.0%RI 429 0.35% 44.2% 270 62.9% 159 37.1% -10 -3.7% -4.7%MA 2,875 2.37% 56.5% 1,887 65.6% 988 34.4% -83 -4.4% -5.8%DC 224 0.19% 53.5% 207 92.2% 17 7.8% -4 -1.8% -3.4% CALCULATED TRUE VOTE Deviation from Recorded State Votes Weight RESP. Kerry Pct Bush Pct Votes Pct WPETotal 121,056 100% 53.32% 63,314 52.30% 57,741 47.70% -4287 -6.77% -7.08% HBUSH 3,965 3.3% 61.7% 1,306 32.7% 2,659 67.3% -54 -5.4% -3.58%BUSH 39,582 32.7% 55.2% 17,415 42.8% 22,167 57.2% -955 -3.6% -3.49%EVEN 37,073 30.6% 50.2% 19,868 53.7% 17,205 46.3% -1,397 -6.8% -7.35%KERRY 29,326 24.2% 55.4% 17,426 59.2% 11,900 40.8% -1,346 -7.5% -9.07%HKERRY 11,110 9.2% 53.0% 7,300 70.7% 3,810 29.3% -535 -6.0% -8.06%
State Exit Poll Deviations by Voting Method
There were 1249 precincts exit-polled nationwide.
Kerry won the state-weighted national poll by 51.8-47.2%.
The net 4.26m "red-shift" to Bush is based on the average state exit poll WPE.
Coincidentally, this exactly matched the 4.26m red-shift from the 12:22am NEP to the 2pm Final.
National Exit Poll 12:22am (13047 respondents) 2pm Final (13660 respondents)
Voted2k Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherDNV2k 17% 57% 41% 2% 17% 54% 45% 1%Gore 39% 91% 8% 1% 37% 90% 10% 0%Bush 41% 10% 90% 0% 43% 9% 91% 0%Other 3% 71% 21% 8% 3% 71% 21% 8% Share 100% 51.41% 47.62% 0.97% 100% 48.48% 51.11% 0.41%Votes 122.3 62.87 58.24 1.19 122.3 59.29 62.50 0.50
The largest vote deviations were in the following states:
California (668k): 66% Optical scan; 29% DRE
New York (415k): 99% Levers
Ohio (305k): 72% Punch cards; 16% DRE; 12% Optical scan
Florida (287k): 56% DRE; 44% Optical scan
Pennsylvania (252k): 26% DRE; 12% Optical scan; 49% Lever; 12% Punch cards
The only all-lever states are NY and CT.
Pennsylvania is 49% Lever.
Oregon votes 100% by mail-in ballots.
Recorded 2-party vote by voting method:
Total DRE Optiscan Lever Punch Paper Other121056 36715 45646 15762 15103 2842 4988100% 30.3% 37.7% 13.0% 12.5% 2.3% 4.1% Vote Deviation to Bush based on state exit poll average WPE: Dev DRE Optiscan Lever Punch Paper Other4258 1215 1564 788 514 89 88100% 28.5% 36.7% 18.5% 12.1% 2.1% 2.1% Voting method mix for 1249 exit poll precincts:Total DRE Optiscan Lever Punch Paper/Other 1249 360 573 118 158 40100% 28.8% 45.9% 9.4% 12.7% 3.2% Average WPE (Within Precinct Error) by Location-size Average WPE Precincts mean median ABSTotal 1249 -6.77 -6.54 13.76 URBAN >50K Optical 350 -7.2 -5.8 12.3DRE 272 -7.5 -7.6 14.8Lever 92 -12.7 -12.5 16.8Punch 108 -9.3 -10.0 15.2Paper 5 -6.0 -11.5 15.7 TOTAL 827 -8.2 -7.7 14.0 RURAL <50K Optical 223 -4.4 -5.0 13.2DRE 88 -6.0 -4.8 14.8Lever 26 -3.2 -5.4 14.7Punch 50 -0.8 -1.7 12.0Paper 35 -1.6 -0.6 10.5 TOTAL 422 -4.0 -4.2 13.3 Voting Method by Location-size DRE Optiscan Lever Punch Paper TotalPrecincts 360 573 118 158 40 1249Pct of Total 28.8% 45.9% 9.4% 12.7% 3.2% 100% 5 Categories:Urban>500k 43 45 11 6 0 105Urban>50k 76 114 15 30 0 235Suburbs 153 191 66 72 5 48710-50k 38 59 8 19 2 126Rural 50 164 18 31 33 296 3 Categories:Urban >50K 119 159 26 36 0 340Suburbs 153 191 66 72 5 487Rural <50K 88 223 26 50 35 422 TOTAL 360 573 118 158 40 1249 State Voting Method Mix Exit Poll Vote Discrepancies (in thousands)
Kerry (-), Bush (+)
Avg Vote Percentage Mix State WPE Dev DRE Optiscan Lever Punch Paper OtherCA -10.9% -668 29 66 0 4 0 0NY -11.4% -415 1 0 99 0 0 0OH -10.9% -305 16 12 0 72 0 0FL -7.6% -287 56 44 0 0 0 0PA -8.8% -252 26 12 49 12 1 0 NC -11.3% -197 43 43 2 9 0 4TX -4.8% -177 45 45 3 5 2 0NJ -9.7% -174 73 1 25 0 0 0MI -6.3% -151 4 60 12 20 4 0MN -9.3% -130 0 91 0 0 9 0 VA -7.9% -125 33 22 27 16 0 1CT -15.7% -122 0 0 100 0 0 0WA -8.4% -118 14 63 0 23 0 0IL -4.4% -115 0 32 0 63 0 5AL -11.3% -106 15 85 0 0 0 0
MD -8.1% -96 100 0 0 0 0 0MA -5.8% -83 0 69 6 0 21 4SC -10.0% -80 86 14 0 0 0 0MO -5.8% -79 0 12 0 65 1 22WI -4.7% -70 0 54 0 0 18 28 CO -6.1% -64 37 61 0 1 0 0MS -11.3% -64 15 68 8 9 0 0NH -13.6% -46 0 65 0 0 35 0NV -10.1% -41 100 0 0 0 0 0LA -3.8% -37 54 0 46 0 0 0 GA -2.2% -36 100 0 0 0 0 0NE -8.1% -31 0 56 0 0 4 40NM -7.8% -29 90 10 0 0 0 0UT -6.4% -29 0 0 0 9 0 91AZ -4.6% -24 0 100 0 0 0 0 VT -15.0% -23 0 51 0 0 49 0IA -3.0% -22 11 88 1 0 0 0IN -1.5% -18 79 0 1 20 0 1DE -15.9% -18 100 0 0 0 0 0AK -9.6% -14 0 90 0 0 10 0 ME -3.8% -14 0 67 0 0 33 0RI -4.7% -10 0 100 0 0 0 0HI -4.7% -10 50 50 0 0 0 0KS -1.7% -10 37 60 0 0 3 0DC -3.4% -6 50 50 0 0 0 0 TN -0.5% -6 75 10 5 11 0 0WY -4.3% -5 2 76 3 14 5 0AR -0.5% -5 5 65 9 17 4 0ID -1.0% -3 0 33 0 60 8 0OR 0.0% 0 0 18 0 0 0 82 KY 0.1% 1 81 17 2 0 0 0MT 1.8% 4 0 81 0 13 6 0ND 5.2% 8 7 90 0 0 3 0SD 4.2% 8 0 1 0 0 6 93OK 1.9% 14 0 100 0 0 0 0WV 5.8% 22 8 42 6 37 7 0 Votes -4258 -1215 -1564 -788 -514 -89 -88Mix 100% 28.5% 36.7% 18.5% 12.1% 2.1% 2.1%
National Exit Poll Timeline Summary
There was a steady Kerry trend (51-48%) on Election Day. The timeline shows how the Final National Exit Poll was matched to the Bush recorded vote the day after the election. Category weightings, except for How Voted and Party ID, were essentially unchanged in the Final NEP. But Bush vote shares were inflated in order to match the recorded vote.
1. Kerry vote shares for all demographics were fairly constant until they were changed in the Final NEP.
2. Bush/Gore Voted 2000 weights changed abruptly from 12:22am to the Final (41/39 to 43/37).
3. Party ID weights changed from sharply from 12:22am to the Final (38/35 to 37/37).
4. Kerry won by over 4 million votes (51-48%) in all timelines prior to the Final.
He lost the Final by 3.22 million.
5. Using adjusted, feasible weights, Kerry won by 7-9 million in timelines prior to the Final.
He won the Final by 3.36 million.
6. Probabilities of vote discrepancies decreased dramatically as the number of respondents increasedfrom 8349 to 13047.
7. A 20% exit poll cluster effect was assumed for calculating the margin of error.
NEP updates and number of respondents
Voted 2000 Summary NEP Sample Poll Actual Vote Prob Adjusted Vote ProbTimeline Size MoE Kerry Margin 1 in Kerry Margin 1 in3:59pm 8349 1.29% 51.01% 4.96 17k 53.01% 9.39 397bn
7:38pm 11027 1.12% 50.90% 4.66 88k 52.47% 8.17 695bn
12:22am 13047 1.03% 51.41% 4.63 81mm 52.57% 7.52 281tr2:05pm 13660 1.01% 48.48% -3.22 nc 51.17% 3.36 nc
8349 Respondents 11/02 3:59pm Vote Shares Votes (in millions)2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherDNV 18.34 15% 62% 37% 1% 11.37 6.79 0.18Gore 47.69 39% 91% 8% 1% 43.39 3.81 0.48Bush 51.35 42% 9% 90% 0% 4.62 46.22 0.00Other 4.89 4% 61% 12% 16% 2.98 0.59 0.78 Total 122.3 100% 51.01% 46.95% 1.18% 62.37 57.41 1.44 11027 Respondents 11/02 7:38pm 2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherDNV 20.79 17% 59% 39% 1% 12.26 8.11 0.21Gore 46.46 38% 91% 8% 1% 42.28 3.72 0.46Bush 50.13 41% 9% 90% 0% 4.51 45.12 0.00Other 4.89 4% 65% 13% 16% 3.18 0.64 0.78 Total 122.3 100% 50.90% 47.09% 1.19% 62.24 57.58 1.46 13047 Respondents 11/03 12:22am 2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherDNV 20.79 17% 57% 41% 2% 11.85 8.52 0.42Gore 47.69 39% 91% 8% 1% 43.39 3.81 0.48Bush 50.13 41% 10% 90% 0% 5.01 45.12 0.00Other 3.67 3% 71% 21% 8% 2.60 0.77 0.29 Total 122.3 100% 51.41% 47.62% 0.97% 62.86 58.22 1.19 13660 Respondents 11/03 2:05pm 2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherDNV 20.79 17% 54% 45% 1% 11.22 9.35 0.21Gore 45.24 37% 90% 10% 0% 40.72 4.52 0.00Bush 52.58 43% 9% 91% 0% 4.73 47.84 0.00Other 3.67 3% 71% 21% 8% 2.60 0.77 0.29 Total 122.3 100% 48.48% 51.11% 0.41% 59.28 62.49 0.50 ____________________________________________________________________ Voted 2000 Timeline - adjusted weights (2000 recorded vote, 0.87% annual mortality, 95% turnout of 2000 voters) 8349 Respondents11/02 3:59pm Vote Shares Votes (in millions)2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherDNV 26.22 21.44% 62% 37% 1% 16.26 9.70 0.26Gore 46.75 38.24% 91% 8% 0% 42.55 3.74 0.00Bush 46.25 37.83% 9% 90% 0% 4.16 41.63 0.00Other 3.04 2.49% 61% 12% 16% 1.86 0.37 0.49 Total 122.3 100% 53.01% 45.34% 0.61% 64.82 55.44 0.75 11027 Respondents11/02 7:38pm 2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherDNV 26.22 21.44% 59% 39% 1% 15.47 10.23 0.26Gore 46.75 38.24% 91% 8% 1% 42.55 3.74 0.47Bush 46.25 37.83% 9% 90% 0% 4.16 41.63 0.00Other 3.04 2.49% 65% 13% 16% 1.98 0.40 0.49 Total 122.3 100% 52.47% 45.79% 1.00% 64.16 55.99 1.22 13047 Respondents11/03 12:22am 2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherDNV 26.22 21.44% 57% 41% 2% 14.95 10.75 0.52Gore 46.75 38.24% 91% 8% 1% 42.55 3.74 0.47Bush 46.25 37.83% 10% 90% 0% 4.63 41.63 0.00Other 3.04 2.49% 71% 21% 8% 2.16 0.64 0.24 Total 122.3 100% 52.57% 46.42% 1.01% 64.28 56.76 1.24 13660 Respondents11/03 2:05pm 2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherDNV 26.22 21.44% 54% 45% 1% 14.16 11.80 0.26Gore 46.75 38.24% 90% 10% 0% 42.08 4.68 0.00Bush 46.25 37.83% 9% 91% 0% 4.16 42.09 0.00Other 3.04 2.49% 71% 21% 8% 2.16 0.64 0.24 Total 122.3 100% 51.17% 48.42% 0.41% 62.56 59.20 0.51 ____________________________________________________________________ NEP Demographic Timeline Change from 12:22am to 1:25pm Final required to match recorded vote count
NEP Update 3:59pm 7:33pm 12:22am 1:25pm Final 3:59pm 7:33pm 12:22am 1:25pm Final
Respondents 8349 11027 13047 13660 Change 8349 11027 13047 13660 Change Category Weight Kerry Vote Share GENDER Male 42 46 46 46 47 47 47 44 -3Female 58 54 54 54 53 54 54 51 -3PCT 100 100 100 100 50.48 50.78 50.78 47.78VOTE (mil) 61.72 62.08 62.08 58.42 REGION East 23 22 22 22 58 58 58 56 -2Midwest 25 26 26 26 50 50 50 48 -2
South 31 31 31 32 +1 44 45 45 42 -3West 21 21 21 20 -1 53 53 53 50 -3PCT 100 100 100 100 50.61 50.84 50.84 48.24VOTE 61.88 62.16 62.16 58.98 PARTY ID Democrat 39 38 38 37 -1 90 90 90 89 -1Republican 36 36 35 37 +2 7 7 7 6 -1Independent 25 26 27 26 -1 52 52 52 49 -3PCT 100 100 100 100 50.62 50.24 50.69 47.89VOTE 61.89 61.42 61.97 58.55 IDEOLOGY Liberal 22 22 22 21 -1 86 87 86 85 -1Moderate 45 45 45 45 58 57 57 54 -3 Conservative 33 33 33 34 +1 16 16 16 15 -1PCT 100 100 100 100 50.3 50.07 49.85 47.25VOTE 61.50 61.22 60.95 57.77 VOTED 2000 Did Not Vote 15 17 17 17 62 59 57 54 -3Gore 39 38 39 37 -2 91 91 91 90 -1Bush 42 41 41 43 +2 9 9 10 9 -1Other 4 4 3 3 61 65 71 71PCT 100 100 100 100 51.01 50.9 51.41 48.48VOTE 62.36 62.23 62.85 59.27 WHEN DECIDED Today 6 6 6 5 52 54 53 52 -1Last 3 Days 3 3 3 4 50 54 53 55 +2Last Week 2 2 2 2 48 48 48 48Last Month 10 10 10 10 61 61 60 54 -6Over 30 Days 79 79 79 79 50 50 50 46 -4PCT 100 100 100 100 51.18 51.42 51.23 47.5VOTE 62.57 62.87 62.63 58.07 EDUCATION No High School 4 4 4 4 50 52 52 50 -2High School Grad 22 22 22 22 50 51 51 47 -4Some College 30 31 31 32 +1 48 47 47 46 -1College Grad 26 26 26 26 48 49 48 46 -2Post Grad 18 17 17 16 -1 58 58 58 55 -3 PCT 100 100 100 100 50.32 50.34 50.21 47.82VOTE 61.52 61.55 61.39 58.46 RACE/GENDER White Male 33 36 36 36 40 41 41 37 -4White Female 44 41 41 41 47 47 47 44 -3Non-white Male 10 10 10 10 69 70 69 67 -2Non-white Female 13 13 13 13 77 77 77 75 -2PCT 100 100 100 100 50.79 51.04 50.94 47.81VOTE 62.10 62.40 62.28 58.45 AGE 18-29 15 17 17 17 56 56 56 54 -2 30-44 27 27 29 29 48 49 49 46 -3 45-59 31 30 30 30 52 51 51 48 -360+ 27 26 24 24 48 48 48 46 -2PCT 100 100 100 100 50.44 50.53 50.26 47.96VOTE 61.67 61.78 61.47 58.64 INCOME 0-15k 9 9 9 8 -1 68 66 66 63 -315-30 15 15 15 15 59 59 59 57 -230-50 22 22 22 22 53 52 52 50 -250-75 22 23 23 23 46 45 45 43 -2 75-100 14 13 13 14 +1 49 49 49 45 -4100-150 11 11 11 11 44 45 45 42 -3150-200 4 4 4 4 45 47 47 42 -5200+ 3 3 3 3 40 41 41 35 -6PCT 100 100 100 100 51.45 51.01 51.01 48.13VOTE 62.90 62.36 62.36 58.84 RELIGION Protestant 53 53 53 53 43 43 43 40 -3Catholic 27 27 27 27 50 50 50 47 -3 Jewish 3 3 3 3 77 77 77 74 -3Other 7 7 7 7 76 75 75 74 -1None 10 10 10 10 69 70 70 67 -3PCT 100 100 100 100 50.82 50.85 50.85 47.99VOTE 62.13 62.17 62.17 58.67 MILITARY EXPERIENCE Yes 18 18 18 18 43 43 43 41 -2No 82 82 82 82 52 53 53 50 -3PCT 100 100 100 100 50.38 51.2 51.2 48.38VOTE 61.59 62.60 62.60 59.15
Note: ADJUSTED shares were matched to the calculated True vote.FINAL shares were matched to the Recorded vote (initial 95% reported). .......PRELIMINARY............ADJUSTED (True Vote).....................FINAL......12:22am (13047).............12:22am (13047).....................1:25pm (13660)
CATEGORY Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush OtherAverage 50.83% 47.92% 1.25% 52.50% 47.50% 1.00% 47.94% 51.11% 0.96%Total Votes 62.16 58.60 1.53 66.02 59.72 1.26 58.62 62.50 1.17 Gender 50.78% 48.22% 1.00% 52.47% 46.53% 1.00% 47.78% 51.22% 1.00%Party-ID 51.07% 47.85% 1.08% 52.50% 46.50% 1.00% 47.89% 51.22% 0.89%Voted 2000 51.43% 47.60% 0.97% 52.56% 46.43% 1.01% 48.48% 51.11% 0.41%Region 50.53% 47.95% 1.52% 52.52% 46.48% 1.00% 48.24% 51.08% 0.68%Education 50.43% 48.18% 1.39% 52.49% 46.51% 1.00% 47.82% 51.24% 0.94% Race 50.98% 47.61% 1.41% 52.47% 46.53% 1.00% 47.81% 50.99% 1.20%Age 50.26% 47.69% 2.05% 52.42% 46.58% 1.00% 47.96% 51.28% 0.76%Income 51.07% 47.75% 1.18% 52.52% 46.48% 1.00% 48.13% 51.02% 0.85%Ideology 50.18% 48.60% 1.22% 52.51% 46.49% 1.00% 47.25% 51.54% 1.21%Religion 50.78% 48.01% 1.21% 52.49% 46.51% 1.00% 47.99% 50.94% 1.07% Military 51.20% 47.62% 1.18% 52.56% 46.44% 1.00% 48.38% 50.44% 1.18%Decided 51.23% 47.93% 0.84% 52.54% 46.46% 1.00% 47.50% 51.22% 1.28% 1.96*stdev 0.79% 0.59% 0.62% 0.08% 0.10% 0.06% 0.68% 0.52% 0.50% 2-pty vote 97.5% Confidence Max 51.62% 48.51% 1.88% 52.58% 47.60% 1.06% 48.62% 51.63% 1.46%Min 50.04% 47.33% 0.63% 52.42% 47.39% 0.94% 47.25% 50.59% 0.45% .......PRELIMINARY..................ADJUSTED...........................FINALGENDER Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherMale 46.0% 47% 52% 1% 46.0% 49.5% 49.5% 1.0% 46% 44% 55% 1%Fem 54.0% 54% 45% 1% 54.0% 55.0% 44.0% 1.0% 54% 51% 48% 1% Share 100% 50.78% 48.22% 1.00% 100% 52.47% 46.53% 1.00% 100% 47.78% 51.22% 1.00%Votes 122.30 62.10 58.97 1.22 125.74 65.98 58.51 1.26 122.3 58.43 62.64 1.22 Dem -1%; Rep +2%; Ind -1%
PARTY ID Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherDem 38% 91% 9% 0% 38% 91% 8% 1% 37% 89% 11% 0%Rep 35% 7% 93% 0% 35% 8% 91% 1% 37% 6% 93% 1%Ind 27% 52% 44% 4% 27% 56% 43% 1% 26% 49% 49% 2%
Share 100% 51.07% 47.85% 1.08% 100% 52.50% 46.50% 1.00% 100% 47.89% 51.22% 0.89%Votes 122.30 62.46 58.52 1.32 125.74 66.01 58.47 1.26 122.3 58.57 62.64 1.09 VOTED 2000 Weight Kerry Bush Other turnout Gore -2%+ Bush +2% New 11% 55% 43% 2% Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherDNV 6% 61% 37% 2% 21.49% 57% 41% 2% 17% 54% 45% 1%Gore 39% 91% 8% 1% 38.23% 91% 8% 1% 37% 90% 10% 0%Bush 41% 10% 90% 0% 37.83% 10% 90% 0% 43% 9% 91% 0%Other 3% 71% 21% 8% 2.45% 71% 21% 8% 3% 71% 21% 8% Share 100% 51.43% 47.60% 0.97% 100% 52.56% 46.43% 1.01% 100% 48.48% 51.11% 0.41%Votes 122.30 62.90 58.21 1.19 125.74 66.09 58.38 1.27 122.3 59.29 62.50 0.50 South +1%; West -1% REGION Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherEast 22% 58% 41% 1% 22% 59% 40% 1% 22% 56% 43% 1%Midw 26% 50% 49% 1% 26% 52% 47% 1% 26% 48% 51% 1%South 31% 44% 54% 2% 31% 46% 53% 1% 32% 42% 58% 0%West 21% 53% 45% 2% 21% 56% 43% 1% 20% 50% 49% 1% Share 100% 50.53% 47.95% 1.52% 100% 52.52% 46.48% 1.00% 100% 48.24% 51.08% 0.68%Votes 122.30 61.80 58.64 1.86 125.74 66.04 58.44 1.26 122.3 59.00 62.47 0.83 Some college+1%; Post Grad -1% EDUCATION Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherNoHS 4% 53% 46% 1% 4% 51% 48% 1% 4% 50% 49% 1%HSG 22% 50% 48% 2% 22% 53% 46% 1% 22% 47% 52% 1%Col 31% 48% 51% 1% 31% 50% 49% 1% 32% 46% 54% 0%
ColG 26% 49% 50% 1% 26% 51% 48% 1% 26% 46% 52% 2%PostG 17% 57% 41% 2% 17% 59% 40% 1% 16% 55% 44% 1% Share 100% 50.43% 48.18% 1.39% 100% 52.49% 46.51% 1.00% 100% 47.82% 51.24% 0.94%Votes 122.30 61.67 58.92 1.70 125.74 66.00 58.48 1.26 122.3 58.48 62.66 1.15 RACE AND GENDER Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherWMale 36% 40% 59% 1% 36% 43% 56% 1% 36% 37% 62% 1%WFem 41% 47% 51% 2% 41% 48% 51% 1% 41% 44% 55% 1%NwMale 10% 73% 26% 1% 10% 73% 26% 1% 10% 67% 30% 3%NwFem 13% 77% 22% 1% 13% 77% 22% 1% 13% 75% 24% 1% Share 100% 50.98% 47.61% 1.41% 100% 52.47% 46.53% 1.00% 100% 47.81% 50.99% 1.20%Votes 122.30 62.35 58.22 1.72 125.74 65.98 58.51 1.26 122.3 58.47 62.36 1.47 .......PRELIMINARY..................ADJUSTED...........................FINALAGE Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other18-29 17% 56% 42% 2% 17% 60% 39% 1% 17% 54% 45% 1%30-44 29% 48% 49% 3% 29% 50% 49% 1% 29% 46% 53% 1%45-59 30% 51% 47% 2% 30% 54% 45% 1% 30% 48% 51% 1%60+ 24% 48% 51% 1% 24% 48% 51% 1% 24% 46% 54% 0% Share 100% 50.26% 47.69% 2.05% 100% 52.42% 46.58% 1.00% 100% 47.96% 51.28% 0.76%Votes 122.30 61.47 58.32 2.51 125.74 65.91 58.57 1.26 122.3 58.65 62.71 0.93 0-15 -1%; 75-100 +1% INCOME Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other0-15K 9% 65% 34% 1% 9% 67% 32% 1% 8% 63% 36% 1%15-30 15% 60% 39% 1% 15% 61% 38% 1% 15% 57% 42% 1%30-50 22% 53% 46% 1% 22% 54% 45% 1% 22% 50% 49% 1%50-75 23% 46% 53% 1% 23% 47% 52% 1% 23% 43% 56% 1%75-100 13% 48% 51% 1% 13% 49% 50% 1% 14% 45% 55% 0%100-150 11% 43% 55% 2% 11% 48% 51% 1% 11% 42% 57% 1%150-200 4% 43% 55% 2% 4% 45% 54% 1% 4% 42% 58% 0%200+ 3% 43% 55% 2% 3% 40% 59% 1% 3% 35% 63% 2% Share 100% 51.07% 47.75% 1.18% 100% 52.52% 46.48% 1.00% 100% 48.13% 51.02% 0.85%Votes 122.30 62.46 58.40 1.44 125.74 66.04 58.44 1.26 122.3 58.86 62.39 1.04 Lib -1%; Con +1% IDEOLOGY Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherLib 22% 86% 12% 2% 22% 91% 8% 1% 21% 85% 13% 2%Mod 45% 57% 42% 1% 45% 59% 40% 1% 45% 54% 45% 1%Con 33% 17% 82% 1% 33% 18% 81% 1% 34% 15% 84% 1% Share 100% 50.18% 48.60% 1.22% 100% 52.51% 46.49% 1.00% 100% 47.25% 51.54% 1.21%Votes 122.30 61.37 59.44 1.49 125.74 66.03 58.46 1.26 122.3 57.78 63.03 1.48 RELIGION Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherProt 53% 43% 56% 1% 53% 44% 55% 1% 53% 40% 59% 1%Cath 27% 50% 49% 1% 27% 52% 47% 1% 27% 47% 52% 1%Jewish 3% 78% 22% 0% 3% 79% 20% 1% 3% 74% 25% 1%Other 7% 75% 22% 3% 7% 78% 21% 1% 7% 74% 24% 2%None 10% 69% 29% 2% 10% 73% 26% 1% 10% 67% 32% 1% Share 100% 50.78% 48.01% 1.21% 100% 52.49% 46.51% 1.00% 100% 47.99% 50.94% 1.07%Votes 122.30 62.10 58.71 1.48 125.74 66.00 58.48 1.26 122.3 58.69 62.30 1.31 Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherYes 18% 43% 55% 2% 18% 46% 53% 1% 18% 41% 57% 2%No 82% 53% 46% 1% 82% 54% 45% 1% 82% 50% 49% 1% Share 100% 51.20% 47.62% 1.18% 100% 52.56% 46.44% 1.00% 100% 48.38% 50.44% 1.18%Votes 122.30 62.62 58.24 1.44 125.74 66.09 58.39 1.26 122.3 59.17 61.69 1.44 Today -1%; Last3 +1% WHEN DECIDED Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherToday 6% 53% 40% 7% 6% 66% 33% 1% 5% 52% 45% 3%3days 3% 53% 41% 6% 3% 66% 33% 1% 4% 55% 42% 3%7days 2% 48% 50% 2% 2% 50% 49% 1% 2% 48% 51% 1%30days 10% 60% 38% 2% 10% 61% 38% 1% 10% 54% 44% 2%Over30 79% 50% 50% 0% 79% 50% 49% 1% 79% 46% 53% 1% Share 100% 51.23% 47.93% 0.84% 100% 52.54% 46.46% 1.00% 100% 47.50% 51.22% 1.28%Votes 122.30 62.65 58.62 1.03 125.74 66.06 58.42 1.26 122.3 58.09 62.64 1.57
Effect
of changes in demographic vote shares on Kerry’s national vote
The base case scenario assumes the following:
1) 12:22am NEP vote shares matched to “Voted 2000” base case
2) 0.87% annual mortality rate (3.5% over 4 years)
3) 95% voter turnout of all 2000 voters
Kerry wins the base case: 52.6-46.4%
Row and column ranges refer to Kerry vote shares
GENDER Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Male 58.34 46.4% 49.5% 49.5% 1.0% Female 67.40 53.6% 55.0% 44.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.4% 46.6% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 65.95 58.56 1.23 Male 44.0% 45.0% 46.0% 47.0% 48.0% 49.0% 50.0%Female51% 47.8% 48.2% 48.7% 49.1% 49.6% 50.1% 50.5%52% 48.3% 48.8% 49.2% 49.7% 50.1% 50.6% 51.1%53% 48.8% 49.3% 49.8% 50.2% 50.7% 51.1% 51.6%54% 49.4% 49.8% 50.3% 50.8% 51.2% 51.7% 52.1%55% 49.9% 50.4% 50.8% 51.3% 51.8% 52.2% 52.7% PARTY ID Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Dem 47.78 38.0% 91.0% 8.0% 1.0% Rep 44.01 35.0% 8.0% 91.0% 1.0% Ind 33.95 27.0% 56.0% 43.0% 1.0%
Share Total 100.0% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.01 58.47 1.26 Kerry Share of Democrats Dem ID 86.0% 87.0% 88.0% 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 35% 48.0% 48.4% 48.7% 49.1% 49.4% 49.8% 50.1%36% 48.9% 49.2% 49.6% 50.0% 50.3% 50.7% 51.0%37% 49.7% 50.1% 50.5% 50.9% 51.2% 51.6% 52.0%38% 50.6% 51.0% 51.4% 51.7% 52.1% 52.5% 52.9%39% 51.5% 51.9% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0% 53.4% 53.8%40% 52.3% 52.7% 53.1% 53.5% 53.9% 54.3% 54.7% Kerry Kerry share of Democrats share 88.0% 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0% 94.0%Ind49% 49.5% 49.9% 50.2% 50.6% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8%50% 49.7% 50.1% 50.5% 50.9% 51.3% 51.6% 52.0%51% 50.0% 50.4% 50.8% 51.2% 51.5% 51.9% 52.3%52% 50.3% 50.7% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6%53% 50.6% 50.9% 51.3% 51.7% 52.1% 52.5% 52.8%54% 50.8% 51.2% 51.6% 52.0% 52.3% 52.7% 53.1% VOTED IN 2000 Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other DNV2k 27.02 21.5% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0% Gore 48.08 38.2% 91.0% 8.0% 1.0% Bush 47.56 37.8% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0% Other 3.08 2.5% 71.0% 21.0% 8.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.6% 46.4% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.09 58.38 1.27 DNV2k 49.0% 51.0% 53.0% 54.0% 57.0% 59.0% 61.0%Gore86% 48.9% 49.4% 49.8% 50.0% 50.7% 51.1% 51.5%87% 49.3% 49.7% 50.2% 50.4% 51.0% 51.5% 51.9%88% 49.7% 50.1% 50.6% 50.8% 51.4% 51.8% 52.3%89% 50.1% 50.5% 50.9% 51.2% 51.8% 52.2% 52.7%90% 50.5% 50.9% 51.3% 51.5% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0%91% 50.8% 51.3% 51.7% 51.9% 52.6% 53.0% 53.4%92% 51.2% 51.7% 52.1% 52.3% 52.9% 53.4% 53.8% Bush 2000 voters Gore 7.0% 7.5% 8.0% 8.5% 9.0% 9.5% 10.0%200085% 49.1% 49.3% 49.5% 49.7% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3%86% 49.5% 49.7% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7%87% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8% 51.0%88% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4%89% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8%90% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2%91% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6% REGION Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other East 27.66 22.0% 59.0% 40.0% 1.0% Midwest 32.69 26.0% 52.0% 47.0% 1.0%
South 38.98 31.0% 46.0% 53.0% 1.0% West 26.41 21.0% 56.0% 43.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.04 58.44 1.26 East 56.0% 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0% 62.0%Midwest48% 50.8% 51.0% 51.3% 51.5% 51.7% 51.9% 52.1%49% 51.1% 51.3% 51.5% 51.7% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4%50% 51.3% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.7%51% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.3% 52.5% 52.7% 52.9%52% 51.9% 52.1% 52.3% 52.5% 52.7% 53.0% 53.2%53% 52.1% 52.3% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% 53.2% 53.4%54% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% 53.3% 53.5% 53.7% EDUCATION Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other No High School 5.03 4.0% 51.0% 48.0% 1.0% High School 27.66 22.0% 53.0% 46.0% 1.0% Some College 38.98 31.0% 50.0% 49.0% 1.0% College Grad 32.69 26.0% 51.0% 48.0% 1.0% Post Grad 21.38 17.0% 59.0% 40.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.00 58.48 1.26 High School Grad College 47.0% 48.0% 49.0% 50.0% 51.0% 52.0% 53.0%Grad46% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.8% 51.0% 51.2%47% 50.1% 50.4% 50.6% 50.8% 51.0% 51.2% 51.5%48% 50.4% 50.6% 50.8% 51.1% 51.3% 51.5% 51.7%49% 50.7% 50.9% 51.1% 51.3% 51.5% 51.8% 52.0%50% 50.9% 51.1% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2%51% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.3% 52.5%52% 51.4% 51.7% 51.9% 52.1% 52.3% 52.5% 52.8%53% 51.7% 51.9% 52.1% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% RACE AND GENDER Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other WMale 45.27 36.0% 43.0% 56.0% 1.0% WFem 51.55 41.0% 48.0% 51.0% 1.0% NwMale 12.57 10.0% 73.0% 26.0% 1.0% NwFem 16.35 13.0% 77.0% 22.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 65.98 58.51 1.26 Non-white Female 75.0% 76.0% 77.0% 78.0% 79.0% 80.0% 81.0%White Female44% 50.6% 50.7% 50.8% 51.0% 51.1% 51.2% 51.4%45% 51.0% 51.1% 51.2% 51.4% 51.5% 51.6% 51.8%46% 51.4% 51.5% 51.7% 51.8% 51.9% 52.0% 52.2%47% 51.8% 51.9% 52.1% 52.2% 52.3% 52.5% 52.6%48% 52.2% 52.3% 52.5% 52.6% 52.7% 52.9% 53.0%49% 52.6% 52.8% 52.9% 53.0% 53.1% 53.3% 53.4%50% 53.0% 53.2% 53.3% 53.4% 53.6% 53.7% 53.8% AGE Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other 18-29 21.38 17.0% 60.0% 39.0% 1.0% 30-44 36.46 29.0% 50.0% 49.0% 1.0% 45-59 37.72 30.0% 54.0% 45.0% 1.0% 60+ 30.18 24.0% 48.0% 51.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.4% 46.6% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 65.91 58.57 1.26 18-29 54.0% 55.0% 56.0% 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0%45-5948% 49.6% 49.8% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.6%49% 49.9% 50.1% 50.2% 50.4% 50.6% 50.8% 50.9%50% 50.2% 50.4% 50.5% 50.7% 50.9% 51.1% 51.2%51% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8% 51.0% 51.18% 51.4% 51.5%52% 50.8% 51.0% 51.1% 51.3% 51.5% 51.7% 51.8%53% 51.1% 51.3% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.1%54% 51.4% 51.6% 51.7% 51.9% 52.1% 52.3% 52.4% INCOME Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other 0-15K 11.32 9.0% 67.0% 32.0% 1.0% 15-30 18.86 15.0% 61.0% 38.0% 1.0% 30-50 27.66 22.0% 54.0% 45.0% 1.0% 50-75 28.92 23.0% 47.0% 52.0% 1.0% 75-100 16.35 13.0% 49.0% 50.0% 1.0% 100-150 13.83 11.0% 48.0% 51.0% 1.0% 150-200 5.03 4.0% 45.0% 54.0% 1.0% 200+ 3.77 3.0% 40.0% 59.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.04 58.44 1.26 30-50k 50.0% 51.0% 52.0% 53.0% 54.0% 55.0% 56.0%75-100k45% 51.1% 51.3% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4%46% 51.3% 51.5% 51.7% 51.9% 52.1% 52.4% 52.6%47% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.3% 52.5% 52.7%48% 51.5% 51.7% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8%49% 51.6% 51.9% 52.1% 52.3% 52.5% 52.7% 53.0%50% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.7% 52.9% 53.1%51% 51.9% 52.1% 52.3% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% 53.2%52% 52.0% 52.3% 52.5% 52.7% 52.9% 53.1% 53.4% IDEOLOGY Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Liberal 27.66 22.0% 91.0% 8.0% 1.0% Moderate 56.58 45.0% 59.0% 40.0% 1.0% Conservative 41.49 33.0% 18.0% 81.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.03 58.46 1.26 Liberal 85.0% 86.0% 87.0% 88.0% 89.0% 90.0% 91.0%Moderate54% 48.9% 49.2% 49.4% 49.6% 49.8% 50.0% 50.3%55% 49.4% 49.6% 49.8% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7%56% 49.8% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7% 50.9% 51.2%57% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6%58% 50.7% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.1%59% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.9% 52.1% 52.3% 52.5% RELIGION Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Protestant 66.64 53.0% 44.0% 55.0% 1.0% Catholic 33.95 27.0% 52.0% 47.0% 1.0% Jewish 3.77 3.0% 79.0% 20.0% 1.0% Other 8.80 7.0% 78.0% 21.0% 1.0% None 12.57 10.0% 73.0% 26.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.00 58.48 1.26 Catholic 47.0% 48.0% 49.0% 50.0% 51.0% 52.0% 53.0%Protestant40% 49.0% 49.3% 49.6% 49.8% 50.1% 50.4% 50.6%41% 49.6% 49.8% 50.1% 50.4% 50.6% 50.9% 51.2%42% 50.1% 50.4% 50.6% 50.9% 51.2% 51.4% 51.7%43% 50.6% 50.9% 51.2% 51.4% 51.7% 52.0% 52.2%44% 51.1% 51.4% 51.7% 52.0% 52.2% 52.5% 52.8%45% 51.7% 51.9% 52.2% 52.5% 52.8% 53.0% 53.3%46% 52.2% 52.5% 52.7% 53.0% 53.3% 53.6% 53.8%47% 52.7% 53.0% 53.3% 53.5% 53.8% 54.1% 54.4% SERVED IN MILITARY Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Yes 22.63 18.0% 46.0% 53.0% 1.0% No 103.11 82.0% 54.0% 45.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.6% 46.4% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.09 58.39 1.26 No 50.0% 51.0% 52.0% 53.0% 54.0% 55.0% 56.0%Yes41% 48.4% 49.2% 50.0% 50.8% 51.7% 52.5% 53.3%42% 48.6% 49.4% 50.2% 51.0% 51.8% 52.7% 53.5%43% 48.7% 49.6% 50.4% 51.2% 52.0% 52.8% 53.7%44% 48.9% 49.7% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0% 53.8%45% 49.1% 49.9% 50.7% 51.6% 52.4% 53.2% 54.0% WHEN DECIDED Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Today 7.54 6.0% 66.0% 33.0% 1.0% 3days 3.77 3.0% 66.0% 33.0% 1.0% 7days 2.51 2.0% 50.0% 49.0% 1.0% 30days 12.57 10.0% 61.0% 38.0% 1.0% Over30 99.33 79.0% 50.0% 49.0% 1.0% Share Total 100.0% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.06 58.42 1.26 Today 54.0% 56.0% 58.0% 61.0% 63.0% 65.0% 66.0%Over3048% 50.2% 50.4% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8% 50.9% 51.0%49% 51.0% 51.2% 51.3% 51.5% 51.6% 51.7% 51.8%50% 51.8% 51.9% 52.1% 52.2% 52.4% 52.5% 52.5%51% 52.6% 52.7% 52.9% 53.0% 53.2% 53.3% 53.3%52% 53.4% 53.5% 53.6% 53.8% 53.9% 54.1% 54.1%53% 54.2% 54.3% 54.4% 54.6% 54.7% 54.9% 54.9%54% 55.0% 55.1% 55.2% 55.4% 55.5% 55.6% 55.7%55% 55.8% 55.9% 56.0% 56.2% 56.3% 56.4% 56.5%
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The model encapsulates mathematical arguments which strongly suggest that Kerry easily won the 2004 election. The base case assumes the 12:22am NEP vote shares. The 2000 recorded vote, mortality rate and 2000 voter turnout in 2004 are used to determine mathematically feasible (and plausible) weights. The model determined that 2.6mm (3.9%) of total votes cast for Kerry were uncounted and that 4.5mm (6.8%) votes were switched to Bush. Adding the 7.1mm votes to Kerry’s 59.0mm recorded vote, he won a 66.1–58.4mm landslide with a 336-202 electoral vote margin. A powerful sensitivity analysis displays the effects of changes in input assumptions on Kerry’s national vote for hundreds of scenarios.
The Facts:
1) In 2000, 51.004 million voted for Gore, 50.459 for Bush and 3.275 for Nader and others.
2) Approximately 3.6mm of 104.7mm of 2000 voters died prior to 2004. The annual mortality rate was 0.87%.
3) The 122.3mm recorded vote consisted of returning Gore, Bush, Nader, first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2000 (DNV2k).
The Final NEP weightings were mathematically impossible. Bush 2000 voters could not have comprised 43% (52.9mm) of the 2004 recorded vote; Bush only had 50.46mm votes in 2000; approximately 48.7mm were alive in 2004. A maximum of 49.2mm Gore voters and 48.7mm Bush voters could have voted in 2004. Since the Final was forced to match the recorded vote, the recorded vote must have been impossible as well. The fact that Kerry’s vote shares declined dramatically from 12:22am to the Final is further confirmation that the Final NEP did not reflect the true vote; rather, it matched to a fraudulent, miscounted vote. Evidence of fraud abounds in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, etc.
Base Case Assumptions
1) Kerry Vote Shares
12:22am NEP: Kerry won 57% of DNV2k, 91% of Gore, 10% of Bush and 71% of Nader voters.
In the Final 2pm NEP, which was matched to the recorded vote, Kerry won 54% of DNV, 90% of Gore, 9% of Bush and 71% of Nader voters.
2) 2000 Voter Turnout
An unknown percentage of Gore, Bush and Nader voters turned out in 2004.
For the base case, we assume 95%.
3) Uncounted Votes
According to the Census, 125.7 million voted in 2004, therefore 3.4mm (2.74%) of total votes cast were uncounted. The vast majority of uncounted votes were in heavily Democratic minority districts. The base case assumption is that Kerry won 75% (2.58mm) of the uncounted votes.
Base Case True Vote
Kerry 66.10mm (52.57%)
Bush 58.38mm (46.43%)
Other 1.27mm (1.01%)
Switched Votes
The True Vote is a simple sum of three parameters, two of which are known:
True Vote = Recorded Vote + Uncounted Votes + Switched Votes
Given Kerry’s recorded and uncounted votes, we can solve for his votes which were switched to Bush:
Switched Votes = True Vote - Recorded - Uncounted
4.488 = 66.097 - 59.027 - 2.582
2000 - 2004 Recorded Vote Change
Votes Dem Share Rep Share Other Share 2000 Recorded 104.73 51.004 48.70% 50.456 48.18% 3.274 3.13% 2004 Recorded 122.30 59.027 48.27% 62.040 50.73% 1.228 1.00% 2004 Change 17.561 8.023 -0.43% 11.584 2.55% -2.046 -2.12% Unctd% Cast: 2.74% 3.445 2.584 75.0% 0.827 24.0% 0.034 1.0% ____________________________________________________________ Calculation of Feasible Weights
2000 Vote 3.5% Voters Maximum 2004 Adjusted Vote Share Died Alive Weight Turnout Weight Gore 51.004 48.70% 1.785 49.218 40.25% 95% 38.23% Bush 50.456 48.18% 1.766 48.690 39.81% 95% 37.82% Other 3.275 3.13% 0.115 3.160 2.58% 95% 2.46% DNV - - - 24.672 17.36% - 21.49% Total 104.73 100.0% 3.666 125.74 100.0% - 100.0% ____________________________________________________________ National Exit Poll (feasible weights)
12:22am (13047) 2:04pm (13660)
VOTED Base Case 2000 Turnout Weight Kerry Bush Other Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other DNV - 21.49% 57% 41% 2% 27.02 21.49% 54% 45% 1%Gore 95% 38.23% 91% 8% 1% 48.07 38.23% 90% 10% 0%Bush 95% 37.82% 10% 90% 0% 47.56 37.82% 9% 91% 0%Other 95% 2.46% 71% 21% 8% 3.09 2.46% 71% 21% 8% TRUE 100% 52.57% 46.43% 1.01% 100% 51.16% 48.43% 0.41%Vote 125.74 66.10 58.38 1.27 125.74 64.33 60.89 0.52 Kerry margin: 7.72mm 3.44mm____________________________________________________________ National Exit Poll (original weights)
12:22am (13047) 2:04pm (matched to vote)
VOTED 2000 Weight Kerry Bush Other Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other DNV 17% 57% 41% 2% 20.79 17% 54% 45% 1%Gore 39% 91% 8% 1% 47.70 37% 90% 10% 0%Bush 41% 10% 90% 0% 50.14 43% 9% 91% 0%Other 3% 71% 21% 8% 3.67 3% 71% 21% 8% Total 100% 51.41% 47.62% 0.97% 122.30 100% 48.48% 51.11% 0.41%Vote 122.30 62.87 58.24 1.19 122.30 59.29 62.50 0.50 Kerry margin: 4.63mm -3.22mm____________________________________________________________ True Vote Reconciliation: Recorded, Uncounted and Switched Votes
Recorded 2.74% +Uncounted +Switched = True Vote Kerry 59.027 75% 2.584 61.611 4.488 6.79% 66.097 52.57% Bush 62.040 24% 0.827 62.867 -4.488 -7.69% 58.375 46.43% Other 1.228 1% 0.034 1.262 0 0% 1.268 1.01% Total 122.30 100% 3.445 125.74 0 0% 125.74 100% ____________________________________________________________
The following scenarios are further evidence that Kerry won, even when base case assumptions (in parenthesis) are changed to favor Bush.
Scenario 1:
10% advantage in turnout of Bush 2000 voters over Gore voters.
Gore turnout: 90% (95%)
Bush turnout: 100% (95%)
Kerry wins by 3.62mm votes (51.0-48%).
Scenario 2:
Reduce Kerry share of DNV by 6% and Gore 2000 voter turnout by 4%.
DNV share: 51% (57%)
Gore turnout: 91% (95%)
Bush turnout: 95% (95%)
Kerry wins by 2.88mm votes (50.6%-48.4%).
Scenario 3:
Reduce Kerry share of Gore voters by 4% and Bush voters by 2%.
Assume: 95% turnout of Gore and Bush voters
Gore share: 87% (91%)
Bush share: 8% (10%)
Kerry wins by 1.97mm votes (50.3%-48.7%).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sensitivity Analysis 12:22am National Exit Poll (feasible adjusted weights): How does Gore and Bush 2000 voter turnout affect the national vote? Scenario assumptions: 100% Bush 2000 voter turnout 95% Gore voter turnout Kerry wins by 51.6 - 47.4%, a 5.32 million vote margin. Kerry Vote Share Sensitivity to Gore and Bush 2000 voter turnout Bush Gore Turnout Turnout 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 95% 52.6% 52.7% 52.8% 53.0% 53.1% 53.2% 96% 52.4% 52.5% 52.7% 52.8% 52.9% 53.1% 97% 52.2% 52.3% 52.5% 52.6% 52.7% 52.9% 98% 52.0% 52.1% 52.3% 52.4% 52.6% 52.7% 99% 51.8% 52.0% 52.1% 52.2% 52.4% 52.5% 100% 51.6% 51.8% 51.9% 52.0% 52.2% 52.3% VOTE MARGIN 95% 7.72 8.06 8.40 8.74 9.08 9.42 96% 7.24 7.58 7.92 8.26 8.60 8.93 97% 6.76 7.10 7.44 7.78 8.12 8.45 98% 6.28 6.62 6.96 7.30 7.63 7.97 99% 5.80 6.14 6.48 6.81 7.15 7.49 100% 5.32 5.66 5.99 6.33 6.67 7.01 ________________________________________________________ 12:22am National Exit Poll (feasible weights): How does Gore voter turnout and Kerry's share of DNV2k affect the national vote? Worst Case Scenario:Gore 2000 voter turnout: 85% (10% LOWER than Lindeman scenario)Bush 2000 voter turnout: 95%Kerry share of DNV2k: 52.9% (Lindeman scenario) Kerry's STILL wins by 50.2 – 48.8%, a 1.70 million vote margin. Kerry Vote Share Sensitivity to Gore 2000 voter turnout and share of DNV2k Final Nov.3 Nov.2-election day 13660 13047 11027 83491:25pm 12:22am 7:30pm 4pm Gore Kerry Share of DNV2k Turnout 50.0% 52.9% 54.0% 57.0% 59.0% 61.0% 97% 51.4% 52.0% 52.2% 52.8% 53.3% 53.7%96% 51.2% 51.8% 52.1% 52.7% 53.1% 53.5%95% 51.1% 51.7% 51.9% 52.6% 53.0% 53.4%94% 50.9% 51.5% 51.8% 52.4% 52.9% 53.3%88% 49.9% 50.6% 50.9% 51.6% 52.1% 52.6%87% 49.7% 50.5% 50.7% 51.5% 52.0% 52.5%86% 49.6% 50.3% 50.6% 51.3% 51.8% 52.3%85% 49.4% 50.2% 50.4% 51.2% 51.7% 52.2%84% 49.2% 50.0% 50.3% 51.1% 51.6% 52.1%83% 49.1% 49.8% 50.1% 50.9% 51.4% 52.0% KERRY VOTE MARGIN 97% 4.76 6.27 6.84 8.40 9.44 10.4896% 4.35 5.88 6.47 8.06 9.12 10.1895% 3.94 5.50 6.10 7.72 8.80 9.8894% 3.53 5.12 5.73 7.38 8.48 9.5888% 1.07 2.84 3.51 5.35 6.57 7.7987% 0.66 2.46 3.14 5.01 6.25 7.4986% 0.25 2.08 2.77 4.67 5.93 7.1985% -.16 1.70 2.40 4.33 5.61 6.8984% -.57 1.32 2.03 3.99 5.29 6.6083% -.98 0.94 1.67 3.65 4.97 6.30 ________________________________________________________ 12:22am National Exit Poll (feasible weights): How does Kerry’s share of returning Gore and Bush voters affect the national vote? Scenario assumptions: 2000 Voter Turnout: 95% Gore; 95% Bush Kerry won 89% of Gore voters Kerry won 9% of Bush voters Kerry wins by 51.4 - 47.6%, a 4.85 million vote margin. Kerry Vote Share Sensitivity to Kerry share of returning Gore and Bush voters Gore Voters Bush 89% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% Voters 10% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7% 9% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0% 53.3% 8% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0% 7% 50.7% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 6% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4% 51.8% 4% 49.5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4% 3% 49.2% 49.5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% VOTE MARGIN 10% 5.80 6.76 7.72 8.68 9.64 10.60 9% 4.85 5.81 6.77 7.73 8.69 9.65 8% 3.89 4.86 5.82 6.78 7.74 8.70 7% 2.94 3.90 4.87 5.83 6.79 7.75 6% 1.99 2.95 3.91 4.88 5.84 6.80 5% 1.04 2.00 2.96 3.93 4.89 5.85 4% 0.09 1.05 2.01 2.97 3.94 4.90 3% -0.86 0.10 1.06 2.02 2.98 3.95 ________________________________________________________ 12:22am National Exit Poll (original weights) What are the effects of Bush and Gore voter defections on Kerry's national vote? Scenario assumptions: Bush wins 10% of returning Gore voters Kerry wins 10% of returning Bush voters Kerry wins by 50.6 - 48.4%, a 4.61mm vote margin. Kerry Vote Share Sensitivity to Bush and Gore Defection Rates Bush Share of Gore Kerry share of Bush voters Voters 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 6% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0% 53.8% 54.7%8% 49.8% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 53.1% 53.9%10% 49.0% 49.8% 50.6% 51.5% 52.3% 53.1%12% 48.2% 49.0% 49.9% 50.7% 51.5% 52.3%14% 47.4% 48.3% 49.1% 49.9% 50.7% 51.5%16% 46.7% 47.5% 48.3% 49.1% 49.9% 50.8%18% 45.9% 46.7% 47.5% 48.3% 49.2% 50.0% VOTE MARGIN 6% 12.61 10.51 8.40 6.30 4.19 2.098% 10.62 8.56 6.51 4.45 2.40 0.3410% 8.62 6.62 4.61 2.60 0.60 -1.4112% 6.63 4.67 2.71 0.76 -1.20 -3.1614% 4.63 2.73 0.82 -1.09 -3.00 -4.9016% 2.64 0.78 -1.08 -2.94 -4.79 -6.6518% 0.65 -1.16 -2.97 -4.78 -6.59 -8.40 ____________________________________________________________ 12:22am National Exit Poll (feasible adjusted weights): How does 2000 voter turnout affect the switched vote rate? Scenario: Kerry wins 75% of 3.4mm uncounted votes 95% Bush and Gore voter turnout Result:6.8% of total votes cast for Kerry were switched to Bush. Switched Vote Rate Sensitivity to Gore and Bush 2000 voter turnout Gore Turnout Bush 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96%Turnout91% 7.1% 7.4% 7.6% 7.9% 8.1% 8.3%92% 6.8% 7.1% 7.3% 7.5% 7.8% 8.0%93% 6.5% 6.7% 7.0% 7.2% 7.4% 7.7%94% 6.1% 6.4% 6.6% 6.9% 7.1% 7.4%95% 5.8% 6.1% 6.3% 6.5% 6.8% 7.0%96% 5.5% 5.7% 6.0% 6.2% 6.5% 6.7% ________________________________________________________ 12:22am National Exit Poll (feasible adjusted weights): How does 2000 voter turnout affect the vote discrepancy probability? Probability of Kerry Vote Discrepancy Sensitivity to Gore and Bush 2000 voter turnout Bush Gore Voter Turnout Turnout 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 95% 5E-14 7E-15 9E-16 1E-16 0 0 96% 8E-13 1E-13 1E-14 2E-15 2E-16 0 97% 9E-12 2E-12 2E-13 3E-14 4E-15 4E-16 98% 1E-10 2E-11 3E-12 5E-13 7E-14 9E-15 99% 1E-09 2E-10 4E-11 6E-12 9E-13 1E-13 100% 9E-09 2E-09 4E-10 7E-11 1E-11 2E-12 ________________________________________________________ 12:22am National Exit Poll (feasible adjusted weights): How does Gore voter turnout and Kerry’s share of DNV2k affect the probability of the vote discrepancy? Assume 95% Bush 2000 voter turnout Probability of Kerry Vote Discrepancy Sensitivity to Gore 2000 voter turnout and share of DNV2k Gore Kerry Share of DNV2k Turnout 52% 53% 54% 55% 56% 57% 100% 3E-12 2E-13 1E-14 7E-16 0 0 99% 2E-11 2E-12 1E-13 6E-15 2E-16 0 98% 2E-10 1E-11 9E-13 5E-14 2E-15 1E-16 97% 1E-09 9E-11 7E-12 4E-13 2E-14 9E-16 96% 7E-09 6E-10 5E-11 3E-12 2E-13 7E-15 95% 4E-08 4E-09 3E-10 2E-11 1E-12 5E-14 94% 2E-07 2E-08 2E-09 1E-10 7E-12 4E-13 93% 9E-07 1E-07 9E-09 7E-10 5E-11 2E-12 92% 4E-06 5E-07 5E-08 4E-09 3E-10 2E-11 91% 2E-05 2E-06 2E-07 2E-08 1E-09 9E-11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush did worse among new voters in 2004 (41%) compared to 2000 (52%).
How did he win in 2004 and lose in 2000?
Final 2000 NEP:
DNV96: Election 2000 voters who did not vote in 1996.
DNV96 comprised 13% of the total 2000 recorded vote.
DNV96 (13%) = first-time voters (9%) + others (4%).
Bush won total DNV96 by 52-44%.
Gore won first-time voters by 52-43%.
Bush won others by 71-26%.
12:22am 2004 NEP:
DNV2k: Election 2004 voters who did not vote in 2000.
DNV2k comprised 17% of the total 2004 recorded vote.
DNV2k (17%) = first-time voters (11%) + others (6%).
Kerry won total DNV2k by 57-41%.
Kerry won first-time voters by 55-43%.
Kerry won others by 61-37%.
Kerry did much better with DNV2k voters in 2004 than Bush in 2000with DNV96 voters.
Bush did much better with DNV96 voters in 2000 than Bush in 2004 with DNV2k voters.
In 2000, Bush won 71% of DNV96 who were not first-time voters, but only 43% of first-timer, a 28% discrepancy.
In 2004, Kerry won 61% of DNV2k who were not first-time voters and 55% of first-timers, a 6% discrepancy.
So how did Kerry lose in 2004?
Final 2000 National Exit PollVoted in 1996 Vote Mix Gore Bush Buch Nader TotalClint 46% 82% 15% 1% 2% 100%Dole 31% 7% 91% 0% 1% 99%Perot 6% 27% 64% 1% 7% 99%Other 2% 26% 52% 1% 15% 94%DNV96 13% 44% 52% 0% 3% 99%DNV96:1stTime 9% 52% 43% 1% 4% 100%Other 4% 26% 71% 0% 3% 100% Total 98% 47.8% 46.8% 0.5% 2.3% 97.4% First-time Voter Mix Gore Bush Buch Nader TotalYes 9% 52% 43% 1% 4% 100%No 91% 48% 48% 0% 2% 98%Total 100% 48.4% 47.6% 0.1% 2.2% 98% 2004 National Exit Poll (12:22am)
Voted in 2000 Mix Kerry Bush OtherGore 39% 91% 8% 1%Bush 41% 10% 90% 0%Other 3% 71% 21% 8%DNV2k 17% 57% 41% 2% DNV2k:1stTime 11% 55% 43% 2%Other 6% 61% 37% 2% Total 100% 51.4% 47.6% 0.97%
_____________________________________________________________________
Breakeven Analysis- 2000 Voter Turnout in 2004
Kerry won 57% of 2004 voters who did not vote in 2000:For Bush to win a majority, Gore 2000 voter turnout had to be lower than 73%.For Bush to win by 3mm votes, Gore 2000 voter turnout had to be lower than 64%.
12:22am NEP (13047 respondents)
Voted in 2000 Weight Votes Kerry Bush OtherDNV 21.49% 27.02 57% 41% 2%Gore 38.23% 48.08 91% 8% 1%Bush 37.83% 47.56 10% 90% 0%Nader 2.46% 3.09 71% 21% 8% Total 100% 125.74 52.57% 46.43% 1.01%Vote 125.74 66.10 58.38 1.27 Kerry margin: 7.72 million Kerry Share of DNV2k:Timeline 3:39pm 7:33pm 12:22am 1:25pm
Respondents 8349 11027 13047 13660Kerry share (%) 62 59 57 54 Assume 95% Bush 2000 voter turnoutFor Bush to win: Maximum Gore Voter Turnout Majority Vote 60 68 73 84Recorded Vote 50 59 64 77
_____________________________________________________________________
Sensitivity Analysis
Effect of 2000 Voter Turnout and New Voters (DNV2k) on Kerry’s National Vote
Turnout Bush 95% Respondents 11027 13047 13660 Nader 95% NEP Update 7:33pm 12:22am 2:04pm
Gore Gore Kerry Share DNV2k Turnout Weight DNV2k 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% Kerry National Vote Share 95% 38.2% 21.5% 53.2% 53.0% 52.8% 52.6% 52.4% 52.1% 51.9% 51.7% 51.5% 51.3%94% 37.8% 21.9% 53.1% 52.9% 52.6% 52.4% 52.2% 51.9% 51.7% 51.5% 51.3% 51.1%93% 37.4% 22.3% 53.0% 52.7% 52.5% 52.3% 52.0% 51.7% 51.5% 51.3% 51.1% 50.8%92% 37.0% 22.7% 52.8% 52.6% 52.4% 52.2% 51.8% 51.5% 51.3% 51.1% 50.8% 50.6%91% 36.6% 23.1% 52.7% 52.5% 52.2% 52.0% 51.6% 51.3% 51.1% 50.9% 50.6% 50.4% 90% 36.2% 23.5% 52.6% 52.4% 52.1% 51.9% 51.4% 51.1% 50.9% 50.7% 50.4% 50.2%89% 35.8% 23.9% 52.5% 52.2% 52.0% 51.7% 51.2% 50.9% 50.7% 50.4% 50.2% 50.0%88% 35.4% 24.3% 52.3% 52.1% 51.9% 51.6% 51.0% 50.7% 50.5% 50.2% 50.0% 49.7%87% 35.0% 24.7% 52.2% 52.0% 51.7% 51.5% 50.8% 50.5% 50.3% 50.0% 49.8% 49.5%86% 34.6% 25.1% 52.1% 51.8% 51.6% 51.3% 50.6% 50.3% 50.1% 49.8% 49.6% 49.3% 85% 34.2% 25.5% 52.0% 51.7% 51.5% 51.2% 50.4% 50.1% 49.9% 49.6% 49.3% 49.1%84% 33.8% 25.9% 51.8% 51.6% 51.3% 51.1% 50.2% 49.9% 49.6% 49.4% 49.1% 48.9%83% 33.4% 26.3% 51.7% 51.4% 51.2% 50.9% 50.0% 49.7% 49.4% 49.2% 48.9% 48.6%82% 33.0% 26.7% 51.6% 51.3% 51.1% 50.8% 49.8% 49.5% 49.2% 49.0% 48.7% 48.4%81% 32.6% 27.1% 51.5% 51.2% 50.9% 50.6% 49.6% 49.3% 49.0% 48.8% 48.5% 48.2% Gore Gore Kerry Share of DNV2k Turnout Weight DNV2k 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% Margin (millions) 95% 38.2% 21.5% 9.34 8.80 8.26 7.72 7.18 6.64 6.10 5.56 5.02 4.4894% 37.8% 21.9% 9.03 8.48 7.93 7.38 6.68 6.13 5.58 5.03 4.48 3.9393% 37.4% 22.3% 8.71 8.15 7.59 7.03 6.18 5.62 5.06 4.50 3.94 3.3892% 37.0% 22.7% 8.40 7.83 7.26 6.69 5.68 5.11 4.54 3.97 3.39 2.8291% 36.6% 23.1% 8.09 7.50 6.92 6.34 5.18 4.60 4.02 3.43 2.85 2.27 90% 36.2% 23.5% 7.77 7.18 6.59 6.00 4.68 4.09 3.49 2.90 2.31 1.7289% 35.8% 23.9% 7.46 6.86 6.26 5.65 4.18 3.57 2.97 2.37 1.77 1.1788% 35.4% 24.3% 7.14 6.53 5.92 5.31 3.68 3.06 2.45 1.84 1.23 0.6287% 35.0% 24.7% 6.83 6.21 5.59 4.97 3.17 2.55 1.93 1.31 0.69 0.0786% 34.6% 25.1% 6.52 5.89 5.25 4.62 2.67 2.04 1.41 0.78 0.15 -0.48 85% 34.2% 25.5% 6.20 5.56 4.92 4.28 2.17 1.53 0.89 0.25 -0.39 -1.0384% 33.8% 25.9% 5.89 5.24 4.59 3.93 1.67 1.02 0.37 -0.28 -0.93 -1.5883% 33.4% 26.3% 5.58 4.91 4.25 3.59 1.17 0.51 -0.15 -0.81 -1.47 -2.1482% 33.0% 26.7% 5.26 4.59 3.92 3.25 0.67 0.00 -0.67 -1.34 -2.02 -2.6981% 32.6% 27.1% 4.95 4.27 3.58 2.90 0.17 -0.51 - 1.19 -1.87 -2.56 -3.24 Gore Gore Kerry Share of DNV2k Turnout Weight DNV2k 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% Probability of Majority Vote 95% 38.2% 21.5% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 99.6% 99.2% 98.6% 97.7% 96.2%94% 37.8% 21.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8% 99.6% 99.3% 98.7% 97.7% 96.2% 94.0%93% 37.4% 22.3% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 99.7% 99.3% 98.7% 97.8% 96.3% 94.1% 91.0%92% 37.0% 22.7% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8% 99.6% 98.8% 97.9% 96.4% 94.2% 91.1% 86.8%91% 36.6% 23.1% 99.9% 99.9% 99.7% 99.4% 98.0% 96.6% 94.4% 91.3% 87.1% 81.6% 90% 36.2% 23.5% 99.9% 99.8% 99.6% 99.1% 96.8% 94.7% 91.7% 87.5% 82.0% 75.2%89% 35.8% 23.9% 99.8% 99.7% 99.3% 98.8% 95.1% 92.2% 88.1% 82.6% 75.8% 67.8%88% 35.4% 24.3% 99.8% 99.5% 99.1% 98.2% 92.7% 88.8% 83.4% 76.7% 68.6% 59.6%87% 35.0% 24.7% 99.7% 99.3% 98.7% 97.6% 89.6% 84.4% 77.8% 69.7% 60.6% 50.9%86% 34.6% 25.1% 99.5% 99.0% 98.1% 96.7% 85.5% 79.1% 71.1% 62.0% 52.2% 42.2% 85% 34.2% 25.5% 99.3% 98.6% 97.5% 95.5% 80.5% 72.7% 63.7% 53.8% 43.6% 33.9%84% 33.8% 25.9% 99.0% 98.1% 96.6% 94.1% 74.6% 65.6% 55.7% 45.4% 35.4% 26.3%83% 33.4% 26.3% 98.7% 97.4% 95.4% 92.3% 67.8% 57.9% 47.4% 37.2% 27.7% 19.7%82% 33.0% 26.7% 98.2% 96.6% 94.0% 90.1% 60.4% 49.8% 39.3% 29.5% 21.0% 14.2%81% 32.6% 27.1% 97.5% 95.5% 92.2% 87.5% 52.6% 41.8% 31.6% 22.7% 15.4% 9.8%
_____________________________________________________________________
Historical Trend in First-time Voters
Let’s look at first-time voters in presidential elections since 1984. According to the National Exit Poll, since 1992, the Democrats won a solid majority of first-time voters. Ruy Teixeira wrote about this cumulative build-up of the Democratic base in The Emerging Democratic Majority.
How did Bush win by three million votes after losing the popular vote in 2000 and winning just 41% of new (DNV2k) voters in 2004?
|
Total |
Mix |
Votes |
Kerry |
Votes |
Bush |
Votes |
|
DNV2k |
17% |
20.791 |
57% |
11.85 |
41% |
8.52 |
|
1st-time |
11% |
13.453 |
55% |
7.40 |
43% |
5.78 |
|
Other |
6% |
7.338 |
60.7% |
4.45 |
37.3% |
2.74 |
2004F: 2:04pm Final NEP (13660 respondents)
2004P: 12:22am NEP (13047 respondents)
First-time voters
………84 88 92 96 00 2004F 2004P
Dem 38 47 46 54 52 53
55
Rep 61 51 32 34 43 46
43
_____________________________________________________________________
According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, Bush won 41% of the DNV2k category (first-time and former voters who did not vote in 2000). But Bush needed 60% (15.78mm) of DNV2k to obtain his 62.04mm recorded vote. It was quite a feat considering that his job rating was in a steady decline from 90% on Sept.11, 2001 to 48.5% on Election Day 2004. Compare the 60% required by Bush to achieve his 41% NEP share. The 19% discrepancy is 11 times the 1.72% MoE. There’s no need to compute the probability: It’s ZERO.
Given the Recorded Vote totals:1) TV04 = 122.295m in 2004 2) TV00 = 104.738m in 20003) G2k = Gore 2000 = 51.004m 4) B2k = Bush 2000 = 50.459m 5) B04 = Bush 2004 = 62.041m Assumptions:1) X = 3.5% of 2000 voters died prior to 2004 2) Y = 95% of 2000 voters living voted in 20043) NEP “How Voted in 2000” vote shares Determine: Z= Bush share of new (DNV2k) voters required to reach his recorded 62.04m. Calculation: Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004:BT = 46.26m = B2k *(1-X) * Y = 50.459 * .965 * .95 BW = Bush Weight = BT / TV04 = 37.83% Gore 2000 voter turnout in 2004:GT = 46.76m = G2k * (1-X) * Y = 51.004 * .965 * .95GW = Gore Weight = GT / TV04 = 38.23% Total number of DNV2k voters in 2004:DNV2k = 26.28m = TV04 – TV00*(1-X)*Y = 122.295 – 104.738*.965* .95 = 122.295 – 96.02 DNV2k voters required for Bush to get his recorded 62.04m: Z = 15.78 mm = Bush 2004 vote – Bush 2000 voter turnout = 62.04 - 46.26 Required Bush share of DNV2k: P = 60% = Z / T = 15.78/26.28 Sensitivity Analysis Bush DNV2k Votes Required for Various 2000 Voter Turnout and Mortality Rates 2000 Voter Turnout in 2004 (Y) Mort 100% 99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 94% 93% 92% 91%Rate (X) Required Bush DNV2k votes in millions 3.50% 13.3 13.8 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.78 16.3 16.8 17.2 17.73.00% 13.1 13.6 14.1 14.6 15.1 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.52.50% 12.8 13.3 13.8 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.8 16.3 16.8 17.32.00% 12.6 13.1 13.6 14.1 14.6 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.0 1.50% 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.8 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.8 16.3 16.81.00% 12.1 12.6 13.1 13.6 14.1 14.6 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.60.50% 11.8 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.8 14.3 14.8 15.4 15.9 16.40.00% 11.6 12.1 12.6 13.1 13.6 14.1 14.6 15.1 15.6 16.1 Required Bush DNV2k Vote Share (P) 3.50% 62.9% 62.2% 61.6% 61.1% 60.5% 60.0% 59.6% 59.2% 58.8% 58.5%3.00% 63.3% 62.6% 61.9% 61.3% 60.8% 60.3% 59.8% 59.4% 59.0% 58.6%2.50% 63.7% 62.9% 62.2% 61.6% 61.1% 60.5% 60.1% 59.6% 59.2% 58.8%2.00% 64.1% 63.3% 62.6% 61.9% 61.3% 60.8% 60.3% 59.8% 59.4% 59.0% 1.50% 64.5% 63.7% 62.9% 62.2% 61.6% 61.0% 60.5% 60.0% 59.6% 59.2%1.00% 65.0% 64.1% 63.3% 62.6% 61.9% 61.3% 60.8% 60.3% 59.8% 59.4%0.50% 65.5% 64.5% 63.7% 62.9% 62.2% 61.6% 61.0% 60.5% 60.0% 59.6%0.00% 66.0% 65.0% 64.1% 63.3% 62.5% 61.9% 61.3% 60.7% 60.2% 59.8%
_____________________________________________________________________
Election Fraud Analysis
The Bush Urban Legend
Another 2004 Election Smoking Gun has just been posted on Scoop: Election 2004:The Urban Legend. It exposes the implausible result that Bush's urban share (in Democratic strongholds) would INCREASE by 9% while his small town/rural share (in Republican strongholds) would DECLINE by 3%. The following additional analysis of the NEP Location demographic compares the preliminary 7:33pm National Exit Poll update (11027 respondents) and the 2:04pm Final NEP. As usual, the Final NEP was forced to match the vote count by inflating Bush urban vote shares to implausible levels (Table 1).
Kerry won the 7:33pm update of the Location-size category by 50.5-47.6% (Table 4). But the earlier analysis of the 12:22am “Voted 2000” demographic vote shares using feasible weights determined that he won by 52.6-46.4% (Table 7). One objective of the following analysis was to determine a likely combination of vote shares for each of the five location categories in order to match the True vote. Sensitivity analyses tables display the effects of various urban and small town/rural vote share scenarios on Kerry’s national share.
Winning margins by location-size follow (with changes from the 2000 Final NEP): Final 2000 NEP margin (Table 1):Gore urban: 7.8mBush suburban: 0.9mBush small town/rural: 6.4m 7:33pm 2004 NEP margin (Table 4)
Kerry urban: 5.9m (-1.9m)Kerry suburban: 0.0m (+0.9m)Bush small town/rural: 2.3m (-4.1m) Final 2004 NEP margin (Table 2):Kerry urban: 3.5m (-4.3m) Bush suburban: 2.8m (+1.9m)Bush small town/rural: 3.9m (-2.5m) 2004 True Vote margin (Table 5):Kerry urban: 8.2m (+0.4m)Kerry suburban: 1.7m (+2.6m)
Bush small town/rural: 2.1m (-4.3m)
2000/2004 Bush NEP vote shares
Preliminary and Final NEP vote shares by community size
Percentage vote changes from 2000
Table 1 2000 Final NEP (matched to recorded vote) Vote Share Votes (mil.) Votes Mix Gore Bush Nader Gore Bush Other MarginBig Cities 9.4 9% 71% 26% 3% 6.7 2.5 0.3 4.24Small Cities 21.0 20% 57% 40% 3% 11.9 8.4 0.6 3.56Suburbs 45.0 43% 47% 49% 4% 21.2 22.1 1.8 -0.90Small Towns 5.2 5% 38% 59% 3% 2.0 3.1 0.2 -1.10Rural Areas 24.1 23% 37% 59% 4% 8.9 14.2 1.0 -5.30 Total 104.8 100% 48.4% 47.9% 3.7% 50.7 50.2 3.8 0.50 Urban 30.4 29% 61% 36% 3% 18.6 10.8 0.9 7.81Suburbs 45.0 43% 47% 49% 4% 21.2 22.1 1.8 -0.90SmTwn/Rural 29.3 28% 37% 59% 4% 10.9 17.3 1.1 -6.40 Total 104.8 100% 48.4% 47.9% 3.7% 50.7 50.2 3.8 0.50 ____________________________________________________________________ Table 2 2004 Final NEP (matched to recorded vote) 11/03 at 2:04pm
Vote Share Votes (mil.) Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other MarginBig Cities 15.9 13% 61% 39% 0% 9.7 6.2 0.0 3.5Small Cities 22.0 18% 49% 49% 2% 10.8 10.8 0.4 0.0Suburbs 55.0 45% 47% 52% 1% 25.9 28.6 0.6 -2.8Small Towns 9.8 8% 48% 50% 2% 4.7 4.9 0.2 -0.2Rural Areas 19.6 16% 40% 59% 1% 7.8 11.5 0.2 -3.7 Total 122.3 100% 48.1% 50.7% 1.1% 58.9 62.0 1.4 -3.2 Urban 37.9 31% 54% 45% 1.2% 20.5 17.0 0.4 3.5Suburbs 55.0 45% 47% 52% 1.0% 25.9 28.6 0.6 -2.8SmTwn/Rural 29.4 24% 43% 56% 1.3% 12.5 16.4 0.4 -3.9 Total 122.3 100% 48.1% 50.7% 1.1% 58.9 62.0 1.4 -3.2 ____________________________________________________________________ Table 3 Changes in NEP from 2000 Final to 2004 Final Vote Share Votes (mil.) Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other MarginBig Cities 6.5 4% -10% 13% -3% 3.0 3.7 -0.3 -0.7Small Cities 1.1 -2% -8% 9% -1% -1.2 2.4 -0.2 -3.6Suburbs 10.0 2% 0% 3% -3% 4.7 6.6 -1.3 -1.9Small Towns 4.5 3% 10% -9% -1% 2.7 1.8 0.0 0.9Rural Areas -4.5 -7% 3% 0% -3% -1.1 -2.7 -0.8 1.6 Change 17.6 0% -5% 16% -11% 8.2 11.8 -2.5 -3.7 Urban 7.5 2% -7% 9% -2% 1.8 6.2 -0.5 -4.3Suburb 10.0 2% 0% 3% -3% 4.7 6.6 -1.3 -1.9SmTwn/Rural 0.0 -4% 5% -3% -2% 1.6 -0.9 -0.7 2.5 Change 17.6 0% -2% 9% -7% 8.2 11.8 -2.5 -3.7 ____________________________________________________________________ Table 4 2004 NEP (11027 respondents) 11/02 at 7:33pm
Vote Share Votes (mil.) Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other MarginBig Cities 15.9 13% 64% 35% 1% 10.2 5.6 0.2 4.6Small Cities 22.0 18% 52% 46% 2% 11.4 10.1 0.4 1.3Suburbs 55.0 45% 49% 49% 2% 27.0 27.0 1.1 0.0Small Towns 9.8 8% 51% 47% 2% 5.0 4.6 0.2 0.4Rural Areas 19.6 16% 42% 56% 2% 8.2 11.0 0.4 -2.7 Total 122.3 100% 50.5% 47.6% 1.9% 61.8 58.2 2.3 3.6 Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other MarginUrban 37.9 31% 57% 41% 2% 21.6 15.7 0.6 5.9Suburb 55.0 45% 49% 49% 2% 27.0 27.0 1.1 0.0SmTwn/Rural 29.4 24% 45% 53% 2% 13.2 15.6 0.6 -2.3 Total 122.3 100% 50.5% 47.6% 1.9% 61.8 58.2 2.3 3.6 Sensitivity Analysis Kerry Urban Share Sm Town 54% 55% 56% 57% 58% 59% 60% Rural Kerry National Share 41% 48.6% 48.9% 49.3% 49.6% 49.9% 50.2% 50.5% 42% 48.9% 49.2% 49.5% 49.8% 50.1% 50.4% 50.7% 43% 49.1% 49.4% 49.7% 50.0% 50.4% 50.7% 51.0% 44% 49.4% 49.7% 50.0% 50.3% 50.6% 50.9% 51.2% 45% 49.6% 49.9% 50.2% 50.5% 50.8% 51.1% 51.5% 46% 49.8% 50.1% 50.5% 50.8% 51.1% 51.4% 51.7% ____________________________________________________________________ Table 5 2004 NEP (adjusted) Size of Community
Vote shares adjusted to match True Vote (Table 7)125.74m total votes cast (Census) Vote Share Votes (mil.) Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other MarginBig Cities 16.35 13% 67% 32% 1% 10.95 5.23 0.16 5.72Small Cities 22.63 18% 55% 44% 1% 12.45 9.96 0.23 2.49Suburbs 56.58 45% 51% 48% 1% 28.86 27.16 0.57 1.70Towns 10.06 8% 52% 47% 1% 5.23 4.73 0.10 0.50Rural 20.12 16% 43% 56% 1% 8.65 11.27 0.20 -2.62 Total 125.74 100% 52.6% 46.4% 1% 66.14 58.34 1.26 7.80 Urban 38.98 31% 60% 39% 1% 23.40 15.19 0.39 8.21Suburbs 56.58 45% 51% 48% 1% 28.86 27.16 0.57 1.70SmTwn/Rural 30.18 24% 46% 53% 1% 13.88 16.00 0.30 -2.11 Total 125.74 100% 52.6% 46.4% 1.0% 66.14 58.34 1.26 7.80 Sensitivity Analysis Kerry share of Urban Small Town 56% 58% 60% 62% 64%
Rural Kerry National Share 48% 51.8% 52.5% 53.1% 53.7% 54.3% 47% 51.6% 52.2% 52.8% 53.5% 54.1% 46% 51.4% 52.0% 52.6% 53.2% 53.8% 45% 51.1% 51.7% 52.4% 53.0% 53.6% 44% 50.9% 51.5% 52.1% 52.7% 53.4% ____________________________________________________________________ Table 6 Vote Share Summary 2000 Final 2004 Prelim 2004 Final 2004 True Gore Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Urban 61% 36% 57% 41% 54% 45% 60% 39% Suburb 47% 49% 49% 49% 47% 52% 51% 48% Rural 37% 59% 45% 53% 43% 56% 46% 53% Total 48.4% 47.9% 50.5% 47.6% 48.1% 50.7% 52.6% 46.4% ____________________________________________________________________ Table 7 12:22am NEP True Vote Voted 2000
Assumptions: 125.74m votes cast (2004 Census)Election 2000 voters:95% Turnout in 20040.87% annual mortality Vote Share Votes (mil.) Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other DNV 27.02 21.5% 57% 41% 2% 15.40 11.08 0.54 Gore 48.08 38.2% 91% 8% 1% 43.75 3.85 0.48 Bush 47.56 37.8% 10% 90% 0% 4.76 42.80 0.00 Other 3.08 2.5% 71% 21% 8% 2.19 0.65 0.25 Total 125.74 100% 52.6% 46.4% 1.01% 66.10 58.38 1.27 ____________________________________________________________________ WPE-Adjusted Location-size Vote Shares This is a table of Exit Poll WPE (Within Precinct Error) by Size of Location. It was provided by pollsters Edison-Mitofsky in their Jan. 2005 report. The largest discrepancies (WPE) were in Urban and Suburban locations.Note the match between the 7:33pm NEP update and the WPE-adjusted Final.
The Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote (see the “Bush Urban Legend”) Location WPESize Weight Mean Median Abs 1250 precincts Big City 13% 7.9 5.9 12.1 105 Small City 18% 8.5 7.7 14.3 236
Suburbs 45% 8.1 7.9 14.3 487 Small Town 8% 4.9 5.0 12.8 126
Rural Areas 16% 3.6 3.6 13.4 296 TOTAL 7.17 6.68 13.75 ______________________________________________________________ Location-size NEP timeline 7:33pm (11019 respondents)
Location Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other MarginBig City 15.9 13% 64% 35% 1% 10.2 5.6 0.2 4.6 Small City 23.2 19% 52% 46% 2% 12.1 10.7 0.5 1.4
Suburbs 53.8 44% 49% 49% 2% 26.4 26.4 1.1 0.0 Small Town 9.8 8% 51% 47% 2% 5.0 4.6 0.2 0.4
Rural 19.6 16% 42% 56% 2% 8.2 11.0 0.4 -2.7 TOTAL 122.3 100% 50.6% 47.6% 1.9% 61.8 58.2 2.3 3.7 2PM Final (13660 respondents)(Forced to match the recorded vote) Size Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other Margin Big City 15.9 13% 61% 39% 0% 9.7 6.2 0.0 3.5 Small City 22.0 18% 49% 49% 2% 10.8 10.8 0.4 0.0
Suburbs 55.0 45% 47% 52% 1% 25.9 28.6 0.6 -2.8 Small Town 9.8 8% 48% 50% 2% 4.7 4.9 0.2 -0.2
Rural 19.6 16% 40% 59% 1% 7.8 11.5 0.2 -3.7 TOTAL 122.3 100% 48.2% 50.7% 1.1% 58.9 62.0 1.4 -3.2 Final WPE-adjusted Location Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other MarginBig City 15.9 13% 64.95% 35.05% 0% 10.3 5.6 0.0 4.6 Small City 22.0 18% 53.25% 44.75% 2% 11.7 9.9 0.4 1.9
Suburbs 55.0 45% 51.05% 47.95% 1% 28.1 26.4 0.6 1.7 Small Town 9.8 8% 50.45% 47.55% 2% 4.9 4.7 0.2 0.3
Rural 19.6 16% 41.80% 57.20% 1% 8.2 11.2 0.2 -3.0 TOTAL 122.3 100% 51.7% 47.2% 1.1% 63.3 57.7 1.4 5.6 ______________________________________________________________
Location-size adjustments Big Cities: WPE = 7.9%Kerry = 61%Bush = 39%Kerry adjusted: 64.95% = 61+.5* WPE = 61+ 3.95Bush adjusted: 35.05% = 39-.5* WPE = 39- 3.95 Small Cities: WPE = 8.5%Kerry = 49%Bush = 49%Kerry adjusted: 53.25% = 49+.5* WPE = 49+ 4.25Bush adjusted: 44.75% = 39-.5* WPE = 49- 4.25 Suburbs: WPE = 8.1%Kerry = 47%Bush = 52%Kerry adjusted: 51.05% = 47+.5* WPE = 47+ 4.05Bush adjusted: 47.95% = 52-.5* WPE = 52- 4.05 Small Towns: WPE = 4.9%Kerry = 48%Bush = 50%Kerry adjusted: 50.45 = 48+.5* WPE = 48+ 2.45Bush adjusted: 47.55 = 50-.5* WPE = 50- 2.45 Rural: WPE = 3.6%Kerry = 40%Bush = 59%Kerry adjusted: 41.8 = 40+.5* WPE = 40+ 1.8Bush adjusted: 57.2 = 59-.5* WPE = 59- 1.8 _____________________________________________________________________
Exit Poll Location-size Response Optimizer 2-party TRUE VOTE: Kerry 52.15-Bush 47.85%Total TRUE VOTE: Kerry 51.62-Bush 47.37% THE LOCATION OPTIMIZER MATCHED AND CONFIRMED THE THREE MODELS:(2-party vote shares) 1- 1250 PRECINCT RESPONSE OPTIMIZER (5 partisanship groupings) Kerry 52.15- Bush 47.85% EXACT MATCH! 2- 7:33pm NEP: LOCATION-SIZE
Kerry 51.53- Bush 48.47% MATCH WITHIN 0.62%! 3- FINAL NEP: LOCATION-SIZE (WPE-adjusted VOTE SHARES) Kerry 52.22- Bush 48.78% MATCH WITHIN 0.07%! Given: 1- Recorded vote: Bush 50.73- Kerry 48.27% (2-party: Bush 51.24%- Kerry 48.76%)2- Location response rates3- Location "Within Precinct Error" (WPE) Calculate: Vote share (aggregate and location)Assume Census 125.74m total votes cast WPE Location-Size Weight Votes Mean Median Precinct ResponseBig City 13% 16.35 7.9 5.9 105 0.52Small City 18% 22.63 8.5 7.7 236 0.54
Suburbs 45% 56.58 8.1 7.9 487 0.53Small Town 8% 10.06 4.9 5.0 126 0.57
Rural 16% 20.12 3.6 3.6 296 0.55 TOTAL 125.74 7.2 6.7 1250 0.54 TRUE VOTE Kerry Bush 2-party 52.15% 47.85% Total 51.62% 47.37% Vote 64.91 59.57 %Deviation -3.39% 3.39% 2-party -6.50% 7.08% Vote Deviation -5.88 2.47 %Deviation 9.06% -4.15% PROBABILITY of 3.39% discrepancy: 1 in 65 TRILLION WEIGHTED AVERAGE (AGGREGATE) Response rate: 53.98% PERCENT OF REFUSERS REQUIRED TO MATCH OFFICIAL VOTEKerry 44.83% Bush 55.17% Rural SmTown Suburb SmCity BigCity Prcts 296 126 487 236 105 23.7% 10.1% 39.0% 18.9% 8.4% Votes 20.1 10.1 56.6 22.6 16.4 16% 8% 45% 18% 13% Kerry NEP share733pm 42% 51% 49% 52% 64% Final 40% 48% 47% 49% 61% TRUE 40% 50% 49% 59% 73% .......RANGE CONSTRAINTS KERRY WIN% Min 35% 45% 45% 45% 60% Max 55% 55% 55% 60% 100% RESPONSE Min 55% 57% 53% 54% 52% Max 55% 57% 53% 54% 52% ALPHA (K/B) Min 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Max 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 WPE Min -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% Max -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% E-M -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% OPTIMIZER SUMMARY ........True Count Diff True Count Diff (mm)Kerry 52.15% 48.76% -3.39% 64.91 60.69 -4.21Bush 47.85% 51.24% 3.39% 59.57 63.78 4.21Diff 4.29% -2.48% -6.77% 5.34 -3.09 -8.43 ..... Rural SmTown Suburb SmCit BigCit TotalPrcts 296 126 487 236 105 12502-pty 29.48 12.55 48.50 23.50 10.46 124.5Pct 23.7% 10.1% 39.0% 18.9% 8.4% 100% RESP 55.0% 57.0% 53.0% 54.0% 52.0% 53.98% ALPHA K/B 0.792 0.800 0.840 0.835 0.800 0.820K/50B 39.6 40.0 42.0 41.8 40.0 41.0 VOTE Kerry 12.69 6.10 21.82 11.75 8.34 60.70Pct 43.0% 48.6% 45.0% 50.0% 79.7% 48.76% Bush 16.79 6.45 26.67 11.75 2.12 63.78Pct 57.0% 51.4% 55.0% 50.0% 20.3% 51.24% RESPONDERS Kerry 13.22 6.41 23.79 12.75 8.75 64.91Pct 44.8% 51.1% 49.1% 54.3% 83.7% 52.15% Bush 16.26 6.14 24.71 10.75 1.71 59.57Pct 55.2% 48.9% 51.0% 45.8% 16.3% 47.85% REFUSERS (Required to match recorded vote) Kerry 40.8% 45.4% 40.4% 45.0% 75.4% 44.83%Bush 59.2% 54.6% 59.6% 55.0% 24.6% 55.17% VOTE DEVIATION Kerry -0.53 -0.31 -1.96 -1.00 -0.41 -4.21Pct -4.0% -4.8% -8.3% -7.8% -4.7% -6.49% WPE Calc -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% -6.77%E-M -3.6% -4.9% -8.1% -8.5% -7.9% -6.77%
_____________________________________________________________________
The Bush 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day is a key indicator of fraud, based on the following correlation analysis of pre-election national polls and the mysterious divergence of National Exit Poll approval weights from the average.
Monthly Averages: Approval and Pre-election polls
There was a near-perfect 0.87 statistical correlation between Bush’s average monthly approval rating and his average national pre-election poll.
Poll Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept OctMeanKerry 40.78 47.80 47.58 46.31 46.86 46.64 47.47 47.40 44.33 47.17Bush 51.56 46.10 44.83 45.62 44.71 45.71 45.20 45.40 48.28 46.89
Approval 54.4 49.5 48.8 48.6 45.2 47.0 47.8 48.0 49.1 48.5 Poll/Appr 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.97
2004 Bush ratingsDate Nwk Fox CNN Pew Harris CBS ABC Time NBC AP Zogby Mean Jan-04 50 58 60 56 na 50 58 54 54 56 49 54.5 Feb-04 48 48 51 48 51 50 50 54 na 47 na 49.7 Mar-04 48 48 49 46 na 51 50 na 50 48 na 48.8 Apr-04 49 50 52 48 48 46 51 49 na 48 47 48.8 May-04 42 48 47 44 na 41 47 46 47 48 42 45.2 Jun-04 na 48 49 48 50 42 47 na 45 48 46 47.0 Jul-04 48 47 47 46 na 45 50 50 48 50 49 48.0 Aug-04 45 51 51 46 48 46 50 51 47 49 44 48.0 Sep-04 48 50 52 46 45 48 50 53 47 54 47 49.1 Oct-04 46 49 46 44 na 49 53 53 49 47 49 48.5
National Exit Poll Approval Weightings
This analysis shows that the final exit polls were manipulated to match a fraudulent vote count through the use of inflated Bush approval weightings. "Voted 2000" weights have already been proven to be mathematically impossible. The "Urban Legend" myth has been exposed by the totally implausible growth of Bush urban and suburban vote shares from 2000.
Bush's average approval rating was 48.5% on Election Day (based on 11 national polls). But Edison-Mitofsky used 53% as Bush approval in the Final National Exit Poll and 53% in the Florida poll. In the 7:33pm NEP update, Bush approval was 51%. Bush vote shares were inflated in the Final – just like they were in the “Voted 2000” and “Location-size” demographics.
Adjusting Bush approval to his actual 48.5% national average resulted in the following:
In the Florida Exit Poll, Kerry's share increased from 49.4% to 53.3%.
In the National Exit Poll, posted at 7:33pm on Nov.2, Kerry's share increased from 51.2% to 53.2%.
In the Final National Exit Poll, posted at 1:25pm on Nov.3, Kerry's share increased from 48.5% to 52.3%.
Note: Value in parenthesis refers to the number of respondents to the Bush approval question.
Florida Exit Poll
(2,409 respondents)
Bush approval: 53% Approval Weight KERRY BUSH OtherStrong 35.0 4 96 0Approve 18.0 17 82 1Disapprove 12.0 84 13 3Strong 35.0 98 1 1 Total 100.0 48.8 50.3 0.9 Approve 53.0 9 91 0Disapprove 47.0 95 4 1 Total 100.0 49.4 50.1 0.5 Bush approval: 48.5% Approval Weight KERRY BUSH OtherStrong 30.5 4 96 0Approve 18.0 17 82 1Disapprove 14.0 84 13 3Strong 37.5 98 1 1 Total 100.0 52.8 46.2 1.0 Approve 48.5 9 91 0Disapprove 51.5 95 4 1 Total 100.0 53.3 46.2 0.5
National Exit Poll (7:33pm)
(5666 respondents) Bush approval: 51% Approval Weight KERRY BUSH OtherStrong 32 7 93 0Approve 19 17 80 3Disapprove 12 81 16 3Strong 37 97 2 1Total 100% 51.1% 47.6% 1.3 Approve 51 11 88 1 Disapprove 49 93 5 2 Total 100% 51.2% 47.3% 1.5% Bush approval: 48.5% Approval Weight KERRY BUSH Other Strong 30.5% 7% 93% 0 Approve 18 17 80 3 Disapprove 14 81 16 3 Strong 37.5 97 2 1 Total 100% 52.9% 45.8% 1.3% Approve 48.5 11 88 1 Disapprove 51.5 93 5 2 Total 100% 53.2% 45.3% 1.5% Final National Exit Poll
(6961 respondents) Bush approval: 53% Approval Weight KERRY BUSH Other Strong 33% 5% 94% 1% Approve 20 15 83 2 Disapprove 12 80 18 2 Strong 35 97 2 1 Total 100% 48.2% 50.5% 1.3% Approve 53 9 90 1 Disapprove 47 93 6 1 Total 100% 48.5% 50.5% 1% Bush approval: 48.5% Approval Weight KERRY BUSH Other Strong 30.5% 5% 94% 1% Approve 18 15 83 2 Disapprove 14 80 18 2 Strong 37.5 97 2 1 Total 100% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3% Approve 48.5 9 90 1 Disapprove 51.5 93 6 1 Total 100% 52.3% 46.7% 1%
_______________________________________________________________
One month prior to the 2004 election, state and national pre-election polls indicated that the race was a virtual tie. But according to the Final National Exit Poll "When Decided" category, Bush won the vote of those who decided one month prior to the election by 53-46% and was a 51.2-47.5% overall winner. On the other hand, the 12:22am NEP showed a virtual 50-50 tie among those who decided a month before - and Kerry led by 51.2-47.9%. No surprise there. After all, just like all other demographic categories, the weights and vote shares were adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote.
According to the Final NEP, Kerry won the 9% who decided within 3 days of the election by 53-44% (or 55-45% of the two-party vote). The 12:22am update had it at 53-40% (57-43% two-party). Pollsters Zogby and Harris estimated that Kerry won 75% of the late undecided vote. Therefore his True Vote was probably better than the 51.2% indicated by the 12:22am NEP “When Decided” cross-tabs.
In fact, the True Vote (Kerry 52.5-Bush 46.5%) was previously calculated. It was based on the "Voted 2000" category using adjusted, feasible weights applied to 12:22am NEP vote shares (the Final NEP Bush/Gore 43/37% "Voted 2000" weights were mathematically impossible). The adjusted Bush/Gore weights were the ratio of a) 95% turnout of Bush and Gore 2000 voters (assuming 3.5% mortality) to b) the 2004 total votes cast. Therefore, the 12:22am NEP "When Decided" Kerry vote shares were increased (see the True Vote cross-tab).
Science works by assuming that the explanation that best fits the data is correct - and is tested against new data, which either strengthens those assumptions or causes them to be rejected in favor of a better explanation. The Final Exit Poll “When Decided” weights and vote shares do not agree with historical polling statistics and the conclusions of two well-respected pollsters with a combined 70 years experience. Therefore, we must conclude that the 12:22am NEP is close to the True Vote. The Final NEP is once again exposed for forcing a match to a fraudulent recorded vote through the use of bogus weights and vote shares.
This is what Zogby said a few days before the election:
“The key reason why I still think that Kerry will win… That traditionally, the undecideds break for the challenger against the incumbent on the basis of the fact, simply, that the voters already know the incumbent, and it's a referendum on the incumbent. And if the incumbent is polling, generally, under 50 percent and leading by less than 10, historically, incumbents have lost 7 out of 10 times. In this instance you have a tie, a President who is not going over 48, undecideds who tell us by small percentages that the President deserves to be reelected. And in essence, it gives all the appearances that the undecideds -- the most important people in the world today -- have made up their minds about President Bush. The only question left is: Can they vote for John Kerry? If it's a good turnout, look for a Kerry victory. If it's a lower turnout, it means that the President has succeeded in raising questions about John Kerry's fitness”.
Note: Final Zogby Election Day polling had Kerry winning by 50-47%, with 311 electoral votes, indicating that 75% of undecided voters broke for Kerry. It was not a good turnout; it was a great turnout. Officially, 122 million voted in 2004, compared to 105m in 2000, a net increase of 17m. But a closer analysis indicates that there must have been close to 30 million new voters. Here’s why: Approximately five million 2000 voters died prior to 2004. Assuming 95% turnout, another five million did not vote, so only 95m former 2000 voters returned to the polls in 2004. In addition, approximately three million ballots in 2004 were uncounted (a total of 125m were cast). Preliminary National Exit Polls indicated that Kerry won 57-62% of new voters, or 6 million more than Bush.
This is what Harris Interactive said about undecided voters on Election Day:
“The final Harris Polls show Senator John Kerry making modest gains at the very end of the campaign in an election that is still too close to call using telephone methods of polling. At the same time, the final Harris Internet-based poll suggests that Kerry will win the White House today in a narrow victory. Harris Interactive’s final online survey of 5,508 likely voters shows a three-point lead for Senator Kerry. The final Harris Interactive telephone survey of 1,509 likely voters shows a one-point lead for President Bush. Both surveys are based on interviews conducted between October 29, 2004 and November 1, 2004. The telephone survey is consistent with most of the other telephone polls, which show the race virtually tied.
If this trend is real, then Kerry may actually do better than these numbers suggest. In the past, presidential challengers tend to do better against an incumbent President among the undecided voters during the last three days of the election, and that appears to be the case here. The reason: undecided voters are more often voters who dislike the President but do not know the challenger well enough to make a decision. When they decide, they frequently split 2:1 to 4:1 for the challenger.”
This is what Frank Newport, Editor in Chief of the Gallup Poll said on Election Day:
Is the presidential race still too close to call?
Yes. No matter how you look at the data, the two major-party candidates are neck and neck. Gallup's final Oct. 29-31 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that if all registered voters actually turn out (which is not likely to happen, of course), John Kerry wins over George W. Bush by two points. Among likely voters, including our estimate of what the remaining undecided voters will do on Election Day, the race is dead even at 49% for each candidate.
Analyzing the data in other ways, such as modifying likely voter assumptions and changing turnout estimates, doesn't make a substantial difference in the election predictions. The support for both candidates is basically in the upper-40% range, and the final popular vote may well depend on which side is best able to mobilize its voters to go to the polls.
How does Gallup decide how to "allocate" undecided voters?
The allocation procedure is a Gallup tradition, and represents Gallup scientists' best estimate of what the final popular vote will be on Election Day.
Here's how it works. The unallocated numbers in the pool of likely voters (that is, the percentages of likely voters supporting Bush and Kerry, not including undecided voters) are 49% for Bush and 47% for Kerry. We assume, based on an analysis of previous presidential and other elections, that there is a high probability that the challenger (in an incumbent race) will receive a higher percentage of the popular vote than he did in the last pre-election poll, while there is a high probability that the incumbent will maintain his share of the vote without any increase. This has been dubbed the "challenger rule." There are various explanations for why this may occur, including the theory that any voter who maintains that he or she is undecided about voting for a well-known incumbent this late in the game is probably leaning toward voting for the challenger.
This persistent historical pattern is the basis for Gallup's decision to allocate the 3% undecided vote to Kerry and Nader/other, making the final estimate 49% Bush, 49% Kerry, and 2% Nader/other.
Certainly I believe that Florida is the place to start. With 27 electoral votes, Florida is the biggest prize of all the states that are still considered to be in play. Our final poll in Florida gives Kerry the edge, although not outside the margin of error.
How might the president's job approval rating influence the outcome of the election?
A president's job approval rating is an important indicator of re-election probabilities. But like so much else in this election, this measure isn't giving us a great deal of direction right now. Bush's job approval has slipped to 48% among national adults and is thus below the symbolically important 50% point. If we take that 50% line seriously, then Bush is in a less-than-auspicious position. No president since Harry Truman has won re-election with a job approval rating below 50%.
But the last two presidents who lost (George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter) had job approval ratings much worse than George W. Bush's 48%. He is clearly not as bad off as they were. On the other hand, the winners all had job approval ratings well above 50%. Bush is in a gray zone when it comes to his job approval rating.
What is the impact of turnout among younger voters?
We've heard a lot about the impact of younger voters this year. The data indeed show that Kerry does better among younger voters -- that is, those under age 30. Among all national adults in that age group, Kerry wins by a 59% to 34% margin.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
National Exit Poll
When Decided
Composite NEP (12:22am)
Decided Weight Kerry Bush Other
Today 6% 53% 40% 7%
3 days 3% 53% 41% 6%
7 days 2% 48% 50% 2%
30 days 10% 60% 38% 2%
Over 30 79% 50% 50% 0%
Total 100% 51.2% 47.9% 0.8%
Votes 122.3 62.6 58.6 1.0
Final NEP
Decided Weight Kerry Bush Other
Today 5% 52% 45% 3%
3 days 4% 55% 42% 3%
7 days 2% 48% 51% 1%
30 days 0% 54% 44% 2%
Over 30 79% 46% 53% 1%
Total 100% 47.5% 51.2% 1.3%
Votes 122.3 58.1 62.6 1.6
True Vote
Decided Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other
Today 7.54 6% 66% 33% 1%
3 days 3.77 3% 66% 33% 1%
7 days 2.51 2% 50% 49% 1%
30 days 12.57 10% 61% 38% 1%
Over 30 99.33 79% 50% 49% 1%
Total Share 100% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0%
Votes (census) 125.7 66.1 58.4 1.3
Sensitivity Analysis
Voted for Kerry
Over ----------------Decided Today------------------
30days 52.0% 53.0% 54.0% 55.0% 56.0% 57.0% 58.0%
Kerry national vote share
46% 48.5% 48.6% 48.7% 48.7% 48.8% 48.8% 48.9%
47% 49.3% 49.4% 49.5% 49.5% 49.6% 49.6% 49.7%
48% 50.1% 50.2% 50.2% 50.3% 50.4% 50.4% 50.5%
49% 50.9% 51.0% 51.0% 51.1% 51.2% 51.2% 51.3%
50% 51.7% 51.8% 51.8% 51.9% 51.9% 52.0% 52.1%
51% 52.5% 52.6% 52.6% 52.7% 52.7% 52.8% 52.9%
52% 53.3% 53.3% 53.4% 53.5% 53.5% 53.6% 53.6%
53% 54.1% 54.1% 54.2% 54.3% 54.3% 54.4% 54.4%
_______________________________________________________________
National Exit Poll
Voted 2000
Composite NEP (12:22am)
Weight Kerry Bush Other
New 11% 55% 43% 2%
Other 6% 61% 37% 2%
-------------------------
DNV 17% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 39% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 41% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3% 64% 17% 19%
Share 100% 51.2% 47.5% 1.3%
Votes 122.3 62.6 58.1 1.6
Final NEP
Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNV 17% 54% 45% 1%
Gore 37% 90% 10% 0%
Bush 43% 9% 91% 0%
Other 3% 71% 21% 8%
Share 100% 48.5% 51.1% 0.4%
Votes 122.3 59.3 62.5 0.5
True Vote
(95% turnout)
New Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNV 27.02 21.49% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 48.08 38.23% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 47.56 37.83% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3.08 2.45% 64% 17% 19%
Share Total 100% 52.4% 46.3% 1.3%
Votes 125.7 65.9 58.3 1.6
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Party ID: Further Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide
Among the many myths surrounding the 2004 election was Karl Rove’s vaunted effort in mobilizing the Christian fundamentalist vote. The media once again succumbed to the BushCo propaganda and happily promoted the fiction to explain the Bush “mandate”. But it’s an established fact that the Democratic GOTV effort overwhelmed the GOP. There were approximately 26 million new voters and Kerry won 57-61% of them. About three million ballots (75% of them for Kerry) were never counted. And probably one million disenfranchised Democrats. What the GOP calls “voter fraud” is just another scam in their arsenal of election fraud.
The 12:22am National Exit Poll update had a Party ID mix of 38% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 27% Independents. The corresponding Kerry vote shares were 91%, 7% and 52%. In the Final NEP (which was forced to match the recorded vote) the mix was changed to 37/37/26 with Kerry vote shares of 89%, 6% and 49% respectively. The adjustments turned Kerry's 51-48% win into a 51-48% loss.
But the changes to the weights and vote shares left footprints which exposed the fraud. A Pew study shows that the Democrats have held a steady 4-5 point Party ID advantage in the four presidential elections since 1992. And the 1992-2004 Final National Exit polls indicate that the Democratic candidate won first-time voters by an average 14% margin. It’s only logical to conclude that a solid majority of first-timers were Democrats.
So why should we believe the 3% red-shift to the Republicans from the 12:22am NEP to the Final?
Science works by assuming that the explanation that best fits the data is correct. But new data must always be tested to either strengthen the case or cause it to be rejected in favor of a better explanation. The Final Exit Poll does not pass the plausibility test. Since it was forced to match the recorded vote, we must reject the fictional narrative of a Bush victory. To believe that Bush won the election despite the following facts, one must suspend reality and believe the Rovian faith-based mathematics.
1) The first-time voter trend has been heavily Democratic since 1992 (14% average margin)
2) Gore won the popular vote by more than his 540,000 official margin (5% of total votes cast were uncounted)
3) There were over 15m first-time voters and Kerry won them by 55-43%
4) Kerry’s share of Democratic voters was 3% greater than
Gore’s share
5) Kerry’s share of Independent voters was 3% greater than Gore’s share
6) Final Exit Poll weights and vote shares were forced to match the official vote.
7) The Democrats have held a steady 4-5% lead in Party ID in every election since 1992.
Journalist Ron Suskind relates a chilling conversation he had in 2002 with a senior aide to George W. Bush, who taunted Suskind for being a person from “what we call the reality-based community.”
The Bush aide said this “reality-based community” consists of people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” Suskind nodded in agreement and muttered something favorable about the principles of the Enlightenment, only to be cut off by the aide.
“That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” the Bush aide told the journalist. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to study what we do.”
Final National Exit Poll
|
Party ID Historical Trend
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1972 |
1976 |
1980 |
1984 |
1988 |
1992 |
1996 |
2000 |
2004 |
Chg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republicans |
Dem |
6 |
9 |
9 |
7 |
8 |
10 |
13 |
8 |
6 |
(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
Rep |
93 |
90 |
86 |
92 |
91 |
73 |
80 |
91 |
93 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ind |
-- |
-- |
4 |
-- |
-- |
17 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Independents |
Dem |
33 |
43 |
30 |
36 |
43 |
38 |
43 |
45 |
49 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rep |
65 |
54 |
55 |
63 |
55 |
32 |
35 |
47 |
48 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ind |
-- |
-- |
12 |
-- |
-- |
30 |
17 |
8 |
3 |
(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democrats |
Dem |
33 |
77 |
67 |
74 |
82 |
77 |
84 |
86 |
89 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rep |
64 |
22 |
26 |
25 |
17 |
10 |
10 |
11 |
11 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ind |
-- |
-- |
6 |
-- |
-- |
13 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
(3) |
|
|
|
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
First-time Voters
………
84 88 92 96 00 2004P
2004F
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
2004 |
Mix |
Total |
Kerry |
Votes |
Bush |
Votes |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
1st-time |
11% |
13.453 |
55% |
7.40 |
43% |
5.78 |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Other |
6% |
7.338 |
61% |
4.45 |
37% |
2.74 |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
DNV2k |
17% |
20.791 |
57% |
11.85 |
41% |
8.52 |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2004 National Exit Poll
Party-ID Timeline
Updated 3:59pm 7:33pm 12:22am Final 3:59pm 7:33pm 12:22am Final
Sampled 8349 11027 13047 13660 Change 8349 11027 13047 13660 Change Category Weight Kerry Vote Share Dem 39 38 38 37 -1 90 90 90 89 -1Rep 36 36 35 37 +2 7 7 7 6 -1Ind 25 26 27 26 -1 52 52 52 49 -3
Share 100 100 100 100 50.62 50.24 50.69 47.89Votes 61.89 61.42 61.97 58.55 Vote Share Calculation 12:22am Final Weight Kerry Bush Other Weight Kerry Bush OtherDem 38% 91% 9% 0% 37% 89% 11% 0%Rep 35% 7% 93% 0% 37% 6% 93% 1%Ind 27% 52% 44% 4% 26% 49% 49% 2%
Share 100% 51.07% 47.85% 1.08% 100% 47.89% 51.22% 0.89%Votes 122.30 62.46 58.52 1.32 122.3 58.57 62.64 1.09
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
True Vote Estimate (adjusted shares) Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other Dem 47.78 38.0% 91.0% 8.0% 1.0% Rep 44.01 35.0% 8.0% 91.0% 1.0% Ind 33.95 27.0% 56.0% 43.0% 1.0%
Share Total 100.0% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0% Votes 125.74 125.74 66.01 58.47 1.26 Sensitivity Analysis(True Vote adjusted shares) Kerry share of Democrats Dem ID 86.0% 87.0% 88.0% 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% Kerry Vote Share35% 48.0% 48.4% 48.7% 49.1% 49.4% 49.8% 50.1%36% 48.9% 49.2% 49.6% 50.0% 50.3% 50.7% 51.0%37% 49.7% 50.1% 50.5% 50.9% 51.2% 51.6% 52.0%38% 50.6% 51.0% 51.4% 51.7% 52.1% 52.5% 52.9%39% 51.5% 51.9% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0% 53.4% 53.8%40% 52.3% 52.7% 53.1% 53.5% 53.9% 54.3% 54.7% Kerry Kerry share of Democrats share 88.0% 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0% 94.0%of Ind Kerry Vote Share
49% 49.5% 49.9% 50.2% 50.6% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8%50% 49.7% 50.1% 50.5% 50.9% 51.3% 51.6% 52.0%51% 50.0% 50.4% 50.8% 51.2% 51.5% 51.9% 52.3%52% 50.3% 50.7% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6%53% 50.6% 50.9% 51.3% 51.7% 52.1% 52.5% 52.8%54% 50.8% 51.2% 51.6% 52.0% 52.3% 52.7% 53.1%
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ohio Exit Poll Timeline
The weights changed from 38D/37R to 35D/40R, a 7.9% shift.
With the original weights, Bush needed 17% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. He had 8%.
12:22am (1963) Final (2020)
Mix Votes Kerry Bush Mix Kerry Bush Dem 38% 2.14 91% 8% 35% 90% 9%Rep 37% 2.08 6% 94% 40% 6% 94%Ind 25% 1.41 60% 39% 25% 59% 40%
Total 51.80% 47.57% 48.65% 50.75% 2.919 2.681 2.741 2.860
Florida General Exit Poll
(2743 respondents) Mix KERRY BUSH Other Dem 38 86 13 1 Rep 39 7 92 1 Ind 23 60 38 2
Total 100 49.21 49.56 1.23 True Vote (registration mix)Dem 41.4 86 13 1 Rep 37.8 7 92 1 Ind 20.8 60 38 2
Total 100 50.73 48.06 1.21
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
According to the Final National Exit Poll:
In 2000, Gore won 55.7% of women voters, but only 44.2% of men. Gore won the recorded vote by 51.0-50.46m.
In 2004, Kerry won 51.5% of women and 44.4% of men. Bush won the recorded vote by 62.0-59.0m.
How come Bush sharply increased his share of Democratic women voters while his share of Republican males declined? One would normally expect to see a positive correlation in the Demographic Trend between the two groups. There was a net 2% defection of Bush 2000 voters to Kerry and returning Nader voters preferred Kerry by better than 3-1. These factors produce a Kerry 64-57m margin - assuming 122.3m recorded votes. But approximately 3.4m ballots were uncounted and about 75% were for Kerry. Therefore his true margin was close to 9 million votes (66.6-57.9m).
To believe that Bush won by 62-59m, one must believe that his “mandate” was provided by women who in 2000 either a) did not vote, b) voted for Gore, or c) voted for Nader. But according to the NEP, Kerry won New voters by 57-41%, Gore voters by 91-8% and Nader voters by 64-17%. So why should you believe it?
The 12:22am National Exit Poll gender split matched to the census and weighted state exit polls. Kerry was leading in all of them.
Three voter surveys matched the gender split to within 0.5%. Yet the final recorded vote deviated from the exit polls by 2.5%.
GENDER SPLIT
Poll Sample Female Male Census 60000 53.51% 46.49% National 13047 54.00% 46.00% State 72714 53.76% 46.24%
STATE EXIT POLLS 12:22am Composite (72,714 respondents) Gender Weight Votes Kerry Bush Nader Female 53.76% 65.68 52.36% 47.04% 0.61% Male 46.24% 56.49 47.97% 51.02% 1.01% Vote share - 50.33% 48.88% 0.79% Votes 122.17 61.49 59.72 0.97 NATIONAL EXIT POLL Nov. 3, 12:22am, 13047 respondents Weight Votes Kerry Bush Other Female 54.00% 65.97 54.00% 45.00% 1.00% Male 46.00% 56.20 47.00% 52.00% 1.00% Vote share - 50.78% 48.22% 1.00% Votes 122.17 62.04 58.91 1.22 NATIONAL EXIT POLL TIMELINE Sample Weight .......Kerry........ Update Size Female Male Female Male Total 3:39pm 8349 58% 42% 53% 47% 50.48
7:33pm 11027 54% 46% 54% 47% 50.78
12:22am 13047 54% 46% 54% 47% 50.78 1:25pm 13660 54% 46% 51% 44% 47.78
STATE GENDER VOTE Total Gender split Vote split -------------------- Kerry ---------------------- Vote Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total Pct 122.17 53.76% 46.24% 65.683 56.488 52.36% 47.97% 34.391 27.098 61.489 50.33% AL 1.883 54.92% 45.08% 1.034 0.849 46.0% 35.0% 0.476 0.297 0.773 41.04%
AK 0.312 52.48% 47.52% 0.164 0.148 45.0% 32.5% 0.074 0.048 0.122 39.06% AZ 2.013 53.47% 46.53% 1.076 0.936 50.0% 43.5% 0.538 0.407 0.945 46.98% AR 1.056 57.00% 43.00% 0.602 0.454 50.5% 41.0% 0.304 0.186 0.490 46.42% CA 12.392 53.44% 46.56% 6.622 5.770 58.5% 52.5% 3.874 3.029 6.903 55.71% CO 2.128 53.94% 46.06% 1.148 0.980 50.5% 47.0% 0.580 0.461 1.040 48.89% CT 1.579 53.47% 46.53% 0.844 0.735 59.5% 55.5% 0.502 0.408 0.910 57.64% DE 0.227 56.44% 43.56% 0.128 0.099 62.5% 51.5% 0.080 0.051 0.131 57.71% DC 0.375 57.43% 42.57% 0.215 0.160 91.5% 87.5% 0.197 0.140 0.337 89.80% FL 7.604 54.00% 46.00% 4.106 3.498 52.0% 47.0% 2.135 1.644 3.779 49.70% GA 3.299 56.44% 43.56% 1.862 1.437 46.0% 39.5% 0.856 0.568 1.424 43.17% HI 0.429 54.00% 46.00% 0.232 0.197 57.0% 49.0% 0.132 0.097 0.229 53.32% ID 0.598 55.90% 44.10% 0.334 0.264 36.5% 30.0% 0.122 0.079 0.201 33.63%IL 5.275 54.46% 45.54% 2.873 2.402 58.5% 55.5% 1.681 1.333 3.014 57.13%IN 2.468 52.48% 47.52% 1.295 1.173 42.5% 39.5% 0.550 0.463 1.014 41.07% IA 1.505 54.46% 45.54% 0.820 0.685 52.0% 47.5% 0.426 0.326 0.752 49.95% KS 1.188 55.45% 44.55% 0.659 0.529 35.0% 33.5% 0.231 0.177 0.408 34.33%KY 1.796 54.46% 45.54% 0.978 0.818 42.5% 38.5% 0.416 0.315 0.731 40.68%LA 1.939 55.45% 44.55% 1.075 0.864 47.5% 40.5% 0.511 0.350 0.860 44.38%ME 0.741 53.47% 46.53% 0.396 0.345 58.0% 49.5% 0.230 0.171 0.400 54.04% MD 2.384 54.46% 45.54% 1.298 1.086 58.5% 54.5% 0.760 0.592 1.351 56.68% MA 2.905 53.44% 46.56% 1.553 1.353 69.5% 62.5% 1.079 0.845 1.925 66.24% MI 4.838 51.00% 49.00% 2.467 2.371 54.0% 50.0% 1.332 1.185 2.518 52.04% MN 2.823 52.48% 47.52% 1.481 1.341 54.5% 53.5% 0.807 0.718 1.525 54.02%MS 1.138 53.00% 47.00% 0.603 0.535 43.0% 43.0% 0.259 0.230 0.489 43.00% MO 2.731 53.47% 46.53% 1.460 1.271 47.5% 47.5% 0.694 0.604 1.297 47.50%MT 0.450 50.02% 49.98% 0.225 0.225 37.5% 39.0% 0.084 0.088 0.172 38.25%NE 0.777 52.00% 48.00% 0.404 0.373 36.0% 36.0% 0.145 0.134 0.280 36.00%NV 0.826 52.48% 47.52% 0.433 0.392 53.5% 45.5% 0.232 0.179 0.410 49.70%NH 0.676 49.51% 50.49% 0.335 0.341 57.5% 52.5% 0.193 0.179 0.372 54.98% NJ 3.610 53.37% 46.63% 1.927 1.683 56.0% 51.0% 1.079 0.858 1.937 53.67%NM 0.756 54.46% 45.54% 0.412 0.344 51.5% 49.5% 0.212 0.170 0.383 50.59%NY 7.389 53.00% 47.00% 3.916 3.473 67.0% 60.0% 2.624 2.084 4.707 63.71%NC 3.501 53.00% 47.00% 1.855 1.645 51.0% 45.0% 0.946 0.740 1.687 48.18%ND 0.313 51.49% 48.51% 0.161 0.152 36.5% 29.5% 0.059 0.045 0.104 33.10% OH 5.625 53.00% 47.00% 2.981 2.644 53.0% 51.0% 1.580 1.348 2.929 52.06%OK 1.464 52.48% 47.52% 0.768 0.696 36.0% 33.5% 0.277 0.233 0.510 34.81%OR 1.828 56.35% 43.65% 1.030 0.798 57.5% 43.5% 0.592 0.347 0.939 51.39%PA 5.766 53.00% 47.00% 3.056 2.710 56.5% 52.0% 1.727 1.409 3.136 54.39%RI 0.436 53.47% 46.53% 0.233 0.203 65.0% 60.5% 0.152 0.123 0.274 62.91% SC 1.616 57.43% 42.57% 0.928 0.688 49.0% 40.5% 0.455 0.279 0.733 45.38%SD 0.388 49.51% 50.49% 0.192 0.196 38.0% 35.5% 0.073 0.070 0.143 36.74%TN 2.437 52.48% 47.52% 1.279 1.158 42.0% 39.5% 0.537 0.457 0.995 40.81%TX 7.410 54.92% 45.08% 4.070 3.341 34.5% 40.0% 1.404 1.336 2.740 36.98%UT 0.927 54.92% 45.08% 0.509 0.418 30.0% 29.0% 0.153 0.121 0.274 29.55% VT 0.311 55.00% 45.00% 0.171 0.140 65.5% 62.0% 0.112 0.087 0.199 63.93%VA 3.193 53.00% 47.00% 1.692 1.501 52.0% 44.0% 0.880 0.660 1.540 48.24%WA 2.857 57.86% 42.14% 1.653 1.204 58.0% 50.0% 0.959 0.602 1.561 54.63%WV 0.756 53.47% 46.53% 0.404 0.352 45.0% 44.5% 0.182 0.157 0.338 44.77%WI 2.993 53.47% 46.53% 1.600 1.393 53.0% 45.5% 0.848 0.634 1.482 49.51%WY 0.243 50.02% 49.98% 0.122 0.121 34.5% 29.0% 0.042 0.035 0.077 31.75%
Analysis of National Exit Poll Demographic Changes in Gender(2000 to 2004)
Consider these changes in Bush’s 2-party vote shares:
- Gender: females increased by 4.2%; males decreased by 0.2%
- Whites: females increased by 5.0%; males decreased by 0.9%
- Non-whites: females increased by 4.0%; males increased by 0.76%
- Independents: females increased by 1.8%; males decreased by 5.6%
Why would females defect to Kerry and males defect to Bush? Females voted 54-45% for Kerry. Why would heavily Democratic non-white females defect to Bush? Why would independent males defect to Kerry at triple the rate independent females defected to Bush? Independents split 52-44 for Kerry. Kerry won Nader 2000 voters by better than 3-1.
NEP 2-party 2000 2004 Chg 2000 2004 ChgGENDERMale Dem 42 44 2 44.21 44.44 0.23 Rep 53 55 2 55.79 55.56 Ind 5 1 (4)
Female Dem 54 51 (3) 55.67 51.52 (4.15) Rep 43 48 5 44.33 48.48 Ind 3 1 (2)
Dem 48.48 47.78 (0.70) 50.46 48.26 (2.20) Rep 47.60 51.22 3.62 49.54 51.74 Ind 3.92 1 (2.92)
NEP 2-party 2000 2004 Chg 2000 2004 Chg RACE/GENDER White Male Dem 36 38 2 37.50 38.38 0.88 Rep 60 61 1 62.50 61.62 Ind 4 1 (3)
White Female Dem 48 44 (4) 49.48 44.44 (5.04) Rep 49 55 6 50.52 55.56 Ind 3 1 (2)
Non-white Male Dem 85 86 1 87.63 86.87 (0.76) Rep 12 13 1 12.37 13.13 Ind 3 1 (2)
Non-white Female Dem 94 90 (4) 94.00 90.00 (4.0) Rep 6 10 4 6.00 10.00 Ind 0 0
NEP 2-party 2000 2004 Chg 2000 2004 Chg AGE/GENDER Men 18-29 Dem 41 51 10 44.57 52.04 7.47 Rep 51 47 (4) 55.43 47.96 Ind 8 2 (6)
Fem 18-29 Dem 53 56 3 55.79 56.57 0.78 Rep 42 43 1 44.21 43.43 Ind 5 1
Men 30-44 Dem 42 42 0 43.75 42.86 (0.89) Rep 54 56 2 56.25 57.14 Ind 4 2 (2)
Fem 30-44 Dem 53 49 (4) 54.08 49.49 (4.59) Rep 45 50 5 45.92 50.51 Ind 2 1 (1)
Men 45-59 Dem 41 45 4 42.71 45.45 2.74 Rep 55 54 (1) 57.29 54.55 Ind 4 1 (3)
Fem 45-59 Dem 53 50 (3) 54.64 50.51 (4.13) Rep 44 49 5 45.36 49.49 Ind 3 1 (2)
Men 60+ Dem 44 39 (5) 45.36 39.39 (5.97) Rep 53 60 7 54.64 60.61 Ind 3 1 (2)
Fem 60+ Dem 56 51 (5) 57.14 51.00 (6.14) Rep 42 49 7 42.86 49.00 NEP 2-party 2000 2004 Chg 2000 2004 Chg POLITICS/GENDER Repub Men Dem 7 6 (1) 7.07 6.06 (1.01) Rep 92 93 1 92.93 93.94 Ind 1 1 0
Repub Women Dem 9 7 (2) 9.09 7.00 (2.09) Rep 90 93 3 90.91 93.00 Ind 1 0 (1)
Indep Men Dem 39 47 8 43.33 48.96 5.63 Rep 51 49 (2) 56.67 51.04 Ind 10 4 (6)
Indep Women Dem 51 52 1 54.84 53.06 (1.78) Rep 42 46 4 45.16 46.94 Ind 7 2 (5)
Dem Men Dem 85 88 3 87.63 88.89 1.26 Rep 12 11 (1) 12.37 11.11 Ind 3 1 (2)
Dem Women Dem 87 89 2 88.78 89.90 1.12 Rep 11 10 (1) 11.22 10.10 Ind 2 1 (1)
NEP 2-party 2000 2004 Chg 2000 2004 Chg EDUCATION/GENDER Men-no college Dem 46 44 (2) 46.94 44.44 (2.50) Rep 52 55 3 53.06 55.56 Ind 2 1 (1)
Women-no college Dem 53 50 (3) 54.64 50.51 (4.13) Rep 44 49 5 45.36 49.49 Ind 3 1 (2)
Men-some college Dem 40 42 2 41.67 42.42 0.75 Rep 56 57 1 58.33 57.58 Ind 4 1 (3)
Women-some college Dem 50 49 (1) 51.02 49.00 (2.02) Rep 48 51 3 48.98 51.00 Ind 2 0 (2)
Men-college grad Dem 39 44 5 40.63 44.90 4.37 Rep 57 54 (3) 59.38 55.10 Ind 4 2 (2)
Women-college grad Dem 57 54 (3) 58.76 54.55 (4.21) Rep 40 45 5 41.24 45.45 Ind 3 1 (2)
_____________________________________________________________________
Did Kerry Win More Than 360 Electoral Votes?
In 2004 Bush officially won by 286-251 electoral votes. But who really believes it? This analysis shows that Kerry may very well have won over 360 Electoral votes. The sensitivity analysis tables display Kerry's popular and electoral vote over a range of assumptions.
Key Results
Popular vote:
Kerry Bush
67.3m 57.5m
53.5% 45.7%
Electoral vote: Kerry 367, Bush 171
Kerry won the following 11 states which were recorded for Bush:AZ, AR, CO, FL, IA, MO, NV, NM, OH, TN, WV
Base Case Assumptions
1- 110.8m Census 2000 votes cast (105.4m recorded)2- 125.7m Census 2004 votes cast (122.3m recorded)3- Uncounted votes: Gore 70%; Bush 25%4- 2000 voter mortality prior to 2004: 5% Gore; 4.8% Bush5- 2000 voter turnout in 2004: 95% for Gore, Bush, Nader6- Kerry won 71% of Nader 2000 voters (12:22am NEP)
7- Kerry won 57% of DNV2k (did not vote in 2000)8- Kerry won 10% of Bush 2000 voters; Bush won 8% of Gore voters9- Mortality and uncounted vote rates constant in all states State Recorded Vote Adjustments(in thousands of votes) 2000 Recorded Vote Uncounted 4 year Mortality Turnout in 2004 48.7% 48.2% 3.1% 70% 25% 5.0% 4.8% 95% 95% Gore Bush Nader Gore Bush Gore Bush Gore BushState 51,004 50,459 3,275 3,745 1,338 2,737 2,486 49,411 46,845 AL 692 941 25 59 21 38 48 678 868
AK 79 167 33 10 4 4 9 80 154AZ 685 781 56 54 19 37 40 667 722AR 422 472 23 33 12 23 24 410 437CA 5,861 4,567 459 389 139 313 235 5,641 4,247 CO 738 883 101 62 22 40 45 722 817CT 816 561 68 52 18 43 29 783 523DE 180 137 9 12 4 10 7 173 127DC 171 18 11 7 3 9 1 161 19FL 2,912 2,912 115 212 76 156 149 2,820 2,697 GA 1,116 1,419 11 91 33 60 73 1,089 1,310HI 205 137 23 13 5 11 7 197 128ID 138 336 8 17 6 8 17 140 309IL 2,589 2,019 120 169 60 138 104 2,489 1,877IN 901 1,245 17 77 28 49 64 883 1,149 IA 638 634 37 47 17 34 33 618 587KS 399 622 43 38 14 22 32 394 574KY 638 872 27 55 20 35 45 625 805LA 792 927 36 63 22 43 47 771 857ME 319 286 41 23 8 17 15 309 266 MD 1,144 813 58 72 26 61 42 1,097 757MA 1,616 878 185 96 34 86 46 1,545 823MI 2,170 1,953 84 150 54 116 100 2,094 1,811MN 1,168 1,109 159 87 31 63 57 1,133 1,029MS 404 572 10 35 13 22 29 396 528 MO 1,111 1,189 49 84 30 60 61 1,078 1,100MT 137 240 30 15 5 8 12 137 221NE 231 433 28 25 9 13 22 231 399NV 279 301 20 21 8 15 15 271 279NH 266 273 25 20 7 14 14 258 253 NJ 1,788 1,284 101 113 41 95 66 1,716 1,195NM 287 286 22 21 8 15 15 278 265NY 4,112 2,405 278 243 87 218 125 3,930 2,249NC 1,257 1,631 9 104 37 68 83 1,228 1,505ND 95 174 17 10 4 5 9 95 160 OH 2,186 2,351 144 167 60 118 121 2,124 2,176OK 474 744 9 44 16 26 38 467 686OR 720 713 17 52 19 39 37 697 660PA 2,485 2,281 120 175 62 133 117 2,400 2,115RI 249 130 27 15 5 13 7 238 122 SC 566 786 24 49 18 31 40 555 725SD 118 190 3 11 4 6 10 117 175TN 981 1,061 24 74 26 53 54 952 981TX 2,433 3,799 150 228 82 133 194 2,402 3,502UT 203 515 45 27 10 12 26 208 474 VT 149 119 23 10 4 8 6 144 111VA 1,217 1,437 65 97 35 66 74 1,186 1,328WA 1,247 1,108 108 88 31 67 57 1,205 1,028WV 295 336 14 23 8 16 17 287 311WI 1,242 1,237 105 92 33 67 63 1,204 1,146WY 60 147 3 8 3 3 7 61 135 Nader Allocation Defection New Voters Adjusted True Vote Electoral 71% 21% 8% 10% 57% 41% Vote Kerry Bush Gore Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush KerryState 2,301 681 3,953 4,684 14,883 10,705 67,327 57,499 53.54% 45.73% 367 AL 18 5 54 87 157 197 885 1,038 45.7% 53.6%
AK 23 7 6 15 20 33 133 185 41.5% 57.7% AZ 40 12 53 72 321 297 1,047 1,012 50.4% 48.7% 10AR 16 5 33 44 107 98 544 529 50.4% 49.0% 6CA 326 96 451 425 1,628 712 7,568 5,082 59.4% 39.9% 55 CO 72 21 58 82 276 261 1,093 1,075 50.0% 49.2% 9CT 48 14 63 52 187 57 1,008 604 62.1% 37.2% 7DE 6 2 14 13 52 22 230 153 59.7% 39.6% 3DC 8 2 6 1 245 10 408 36 91.5% 8.2% 3FL 82 24 226 270 1,201 931 4,146 3,608 53.1% 46.2% 27 GA 8 2 87 131 440 515 1,581 1,784 46.6% 52.6% HI 16 5 16 13 73 19 283 155 64.2% 35.1% 4ID 6 2 11 31 45 109 210 400 34.2% 65.1% IL 85 25 199 188 626 287 3,189 2,200 58.8% 40.6% 21IN 12 4 71 115 206 268 1,145 1,376 45.1% 54.3% IA 26 8 49 59 170 128 824 713 53.2% 46.1% 7KS 31 9 32 57 85 120 536 677 43.9% 55.5% KY 19 6 50 80 168 211 843 991 45.7% 53.7% LA 26 8 62 86 160 160 981 1,000 49.2% 50.2% ME 29 9 25 27 92 52 431 324 56.7% 42.6% 4 MD 41 12 88 76 388 138 1,514 919 61.8% 37.5% 10MA 131 39 124 82 396 31 2,031 935 68.0% 31.3% 12MI 60 18 168 181 585 372 2,753 2,188 55.4% 44.0% 17MN 113 33 91 103 350 221 1,608 1,271 55.4% 43.8% 9MS 7 2 32 53 98 131 523 640 44.7% 54.7% MO 35 10 86 110 303 262 1,440 1,349 51.3% 48.1% 11MT 21 6 11 22 30 44 199 261 43.0% 56.3% NE 20 6 18 40 50 88 322 471 40.3% 59.0% NV 14 4 22 28 147 126 439 402 51.7% 47.4% 5NH 18 5 21 25 88 67 369 321 53.1% 46.2% 4 NJ 72 21 137 120 500 181 2,270 1,416 61.2% 38.2% 15NM 16 5 22 27 119 88 417 354 53.6% 45.5% 5NY 197 58 314 225 959 153 4,997 2,550 65.8% 33.6% 31NC 6 2 98 151 377 456 1,663 1,911 46.2% 53.1% ND 12 4 8 16 18 30 134 185 41.6% 57.7% OH 102 30 170 218 705 603 2,979 2,761 51.5% 47.7% 20OK 6 2 37 69 131 202 636 858 42.3% 57.0% OR 12 4 56 66 277 215 996 869 53.0% 46.2% 7PA 85 25 192 211 762 498 3,267 2,619 55.1% 44.2% 21RI 19 6 19 12 58 3 308 137 68.7% 30.7% 4 SC 17 5 44 73 152 195 752 897 45.3% 54.0% SD 2 1 9 18 39 62 166 230 41.7% 57.6% TN 17 5 76 98 280 253 1,271 1,217 50.8% 48.6% 11TX 107 32 192 350 616 908 3,282 4,283 43.1% 56.2% UT 32 9 17 47 68 154 338 606 35.5% 63.7% VT 16 5 12 11 29 12 189 128 59.2% 40.1% 3VA 46 14 95 133 342 344 1,612 1,648 49.1% 50.2% WA 77 23 96 103 368 215 1,656 1,260 56.4% 42.9% 11WV 10 3 23 31 82 79 387 384 49.9% 49.5% 5WI 75 22 96 115 351 257 1,648 1,407 53.6% 45.7% 10WY 2 1 5 14 14 35 86 162 34.4% 64.9% Sensitivity Analysis IGiven: Kerry won 57% of New Voters Worst case scenario:Gore won 65% of the uncounted votes in 2000Kerry won 50% of Nader votersResult: Kerry wins 52.8% of the popular vote and 337 electoral votes Best case scenario:Gore won 80% of uncounted votes in 2000Kerry won 80% of Nader votersResult: Kerry wins 54.1% of the popular vote and 389 electoral votes Gore Uncounted Kerry % of Nader voters Share 50% 60% 71% 80% Kerry Vote Share80% 53.3% 53.6% 53.9% 54.1%75% 53.2% 53.4% 53.7% 53.9%70% 53.0% 53.3% 53.5% 53.8%65% 52.8% 53.1% 53.4% 53.6% Kerry Electoral Vote 80% 358 367 367 38975% 353 358 367 36770% 343 353 367 36765% 337 353 362 367 Sensitivity Analysis IIGiven: Kerry won 71% of Nader Voters Worst case scenario:Gore won 65% of uncounted votesKerry won 52% of new voters (DNV2k)Result: Kerry wins 52.3% of the popular vote and 326 electoral votes Best case scenario:Gore won 80% of uncounted votesKerry won 61% of new voters Result: Kerry wins 54.7% of the popular vote and 389 electoral votes Gore Uncounted Kerry % of New Voters Share 52% 54% 57% 59% 61% Kerry Vote Share80% 52.8% 53.2% 53.9% 54.3% 54.7%75% 52.7% 53.1% 53.7% 54.1% 54.5%70% 52.5% 52.9% 53.5% 54.0% 54.4%65% 52.3% 52.8% 53.4% 53.8% 54.2% Kerry Electoral Vote 80% 343 367 367 389 38975% 343 353 367 389 38970% 337 353 367 367 38965% 326 337 362 367 367 Sensitivity Analysis III Worst case scenario:Gore voter defection: 10%Bush voter defection: 8%Result: Kerry wins 52.0% of the popular vote and 290 electoral votes Best case scenario:Gore voter defection: 6%Bush voter defection: 12%Result: Kerry wins 55.1% of the popular vote and 389 electoral votes Bush Gore DefectionDefection 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% Kerry Vote Share12% 53.5% 53.9% 54.3% 54.7% 55.1%11% 53.1% 53.5% 53.9% 54.3% 54.7%10% 52.8% 53.1% 53.5% 53.9% 54.3%9% 52.4% 52.8% 53.2% 53.6% 54.0%8% 52.0% 52.4% 52.8% 53.2% 53.6% Kerry Electoral Vote12% 367 389 389 389 38911% 353 367 389 389 38910% 326 353 367 389 3899% 315 326 353 367 3678% 290 315 326 353 367 ___________________________________________________________________________________
Uncounted and Switched Votes
According to the U.S. Census, 125.7 million votes were cast in 2004. The recorded vote was 122.3m. The published Census survey margin of error is 0.30%. Therefore, there is a 95% probability that 125.3-126.1m votes were cast. According to data provided by investigative reporter Greg Palast, 3.006m of 125.3m votes cast were never counted, comprised of 1.389m spoiled, 1.091m provisional and .0.526m absentee ballots. The 0.40 million discrepancy between the Census and Palast represents a 0.31% deviation.
Given the Kerry true vote of 66.1 million (based on the 12:22am NEP with feasible weights) and his recorded vote (59.0mm) we can calculate the number of votes which were switched from Kerry to Bush. If we assume that Kerry won 75% (2.6 of 3.4mm) of the uncounted votes based on the Census total of 125.7mm, then 4.5mm (6.8%) of the Kerry vote must have been switched. Furthermore, if we assume that 6.8% of the votes were switched uniformly in each state and allocate the uncounted votes to each state based on population and racial mix, the True Vote Model indicates that Kerry won 336 electoral votes (Sensitivity Analysis I). This result matched the pre-election Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation base case forecast that Kerry would win 337 electoral votes (the average of 5000 election trials). The assumption was that Kerry would win 75% of the undecided vote.
12:22am National Exit Poll
Voted in 2000 Weight Votes Kerry Bush Other DNV 21.49% 27.02 57% 41% 2% Gore 38.23% 48.08 91% 8% 1% Bush 37.83% 47.56 10% 90% 0% Nader 2.46% 3.09 71% 21% 8% Total 100% 52.57% 46.43% 1.00%Votes 125.74 66.10 58.38 1.26 Given:125.74m votes cast (2004 Census)122.295m votes recorded3.445m votes uncounted Assume:2.584m (75%) uncounted votes for Kerry95% turnout of Gore and Bush 2000 voters Calculate:The number of votes cast for Kerry switched to Bush. Solution:True Vote (T) = Recorded (R) + Uncounted (U) + Switched (S) S = T - R - U = 66.097 - 59.027 - 2.582 = 4.488m Switched vote rate:SVR = S / T = 4.488 / 66.097 = 6.79% True Vote Reconciliation
Recorded Share Uncounted Switched True Vote Kerry 59.027 75% 2.584 61.611 4.488 6.79% 66.097 52.57% Bush 62.040 24% 0.827 62.867 -4.488 -7.69% 58.375 46.43% Other 1.228 1% 0.034 1.262 0.000 0.00% 1.262 1.01% Total 122.30 100% 3.445 125.74 0.000 0.00% 125.74 100.0% VOTE DISCREPANCY ASSUMPTIONS(Votes in thousands) UNCOUNTED VOTE SHARE Kerry 75%: 2,582 Bush 24%: 826 Other 1%: 34 Total 100%: 3,443 (2.74% of Census 125.7mm) SWITCHED VOTES4,488 (6.79%) of Kerry Votes were switched to Bush KERRY VOTE RECONCILIATIONTRUE 66,097 100.0% Unctd -2,582 3.91%
Net 63,515 96.09%Switch -4,488 6.79%
Recorded 59,027 89.30% EFFECT ON POPULAR AND ELECTORAL VOTE True Vote Electoral Vote Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Actual 59027 62040 252 286 Change 7070 -3662 97 -97 TRUE 66097 58378 336 202 VOTE 52.57% 46.43% _________________________________________________________________ BASE CASE SUMMARY Switched votes: 6.8% Share RECORDED UNCOUNTED SWITCHED TRUE VOTEKerry 75% 59027 48.27% 2582 61609 49.0% 2.11% 4488 66097 52.57%Bush 24% 62040 50.73% 826 62866 50.0% 0.68% -4488 58378 46.43%Other 1% 1228 1.00% 34 1262 1.0% 0.03% 0 1262 1.00%Total 2.74% 122295 100% 3442 125737 100% 2.81% 0 125737 100%
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS I:Various effects of incremental switched vote rates (SVR)(Kerry 75% share of uncounted votes) Vote Share Vote Count Kerry Electoral Vote Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Margin Kerry Bush States whichRecorded 48.27% 50.73% 59027 62040 -3013 252 286 flipped to Bush SVR 6.8% 52.57% 46.43% 66097 58383 7714 336 202 CO FL IA MO NV NM OH 6.5% 52.42% 46.58% 65906 58570 7336 325 213 CO FL IA NV NM OH 6.0% 52.15% 46.84% 65575 58901 6675 325 213 CO FL IA NV NM OH 5.0% 51.63% 47.37% 64914 59562 5353 325 213 CO FL IA NV NM OH 4.0% 51.10% 47.90% 64253 60223 4031 325 213 CO FL IA NV NM OH 3.0% 50.58% 48.42% 63592 60883 2709 289 249 IA NV NM 2.0% 50.05% 48.95% 62931 61544 1387 289 249 IA NV NM 1.0% 49.52% 49.47% 62270 62205 65 264 274 IA NM 0.0% 49.00% 50.00% 61609 62866 -1257 264 274 IA NM SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS II:Effect of incremental uncounted and switched votes on Kerry electoral vote Kerry Electoral Vote Uncounted Vote Share 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%SVR6.8% 325 325 325 325 325 336 3366.5% 325 325 325 325 325 325 3366.0% 325 325 325 325 325 325 3255.0% 298 298 325 325 325 325 325 4.0% 289 289 289 289 289 325 3253.0% 289 289 289 289 289 289 2892.0% 264 284 284 284 289 289 2891.0% 264 264 264 264 264 264 2840.0% 252 252 252 252 259 264 264 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS III:Effect of incremental uncounted and switched votes on Kerry vote share Kerry Vote Share Uncounted Vote Share 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%SVR6.8% 51.89% 52.03% 52.16% 52.30% 52.44% 52.57% 52.71%6.5% 51.73% 51.87% 52.00% 52.14% 52.28% 52.42% 52.55%6.0% 51.47% 51.60% 51.74% 51.88% 52.02% 52.15% 52.29%5.0% 50.94% 51.08% 51.22% 51.35% 51.49% 51.63% 51.76% 4.0% 50.42% 50.55% 50.69% 50.83% 50.96% 51.10% 51.24%3.0% 49.89% 50.03% 50.16% 50.30% 50.44% 50.58% 50.71%2.0% 49.36% 49.50% 49.64% 49.78% 49.91% 50.05% 50.19%1.0% 48.84% 48.98% 49.11% 49.25% 49.39% 49.52% 49.66%0.0% 48.31% 48.45% 48.59% 48.72% 48.86% 49.00% 49.14% SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IV:Effect of incremental uncounted and switched votes on Kerry margin Kerry Margin (in thousands) Uncounted Vote Share 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%SVR6.8% 6011 6355 6699 7044 7388 7732 80776.5% 5614 5958 6303 6647 6991 7336 76806.0% 4953 5297 5642 5986 6330 6675 70195.0% 3631 3975 4320 4664 5008 5353 5697 4.0% 2309 2654 2998 3342 3686 4031 43753.0% 987 1332 1676 2020 2365 2709 30532.0% -335 10 354 698 1043 1387 17311.0% -1657 -1312 -968 -624 -279 65 4090.0% -2979 -2634 -2290 -1946 -1601 -1257 -913 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS V:PROBABILITY OF KERRY VOTE DISCREPANCYMoE: 1.0% Probability of Vote Discrepancy Uncounted Vote Share 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%SVR6.8% 6E-13 9E-14 1E-14 1E-15 1E-16 0 06.5% 6E-12 8E-13 1E-13 2E-14 2E-15 2E-16 06.0% 2E-10 3E-11 5E-12 7E-13 1E-13 1E-14 2E-155.0% 8E-08 2E-08 4E-09 7E-10 1E-10 2E-11 4E-12 4.0% 1E-05 4E-06 1E-06 3E-07 6E-08 1E-08 3E-093.0% 7E-04 3E-04 1E-04 3E-05 1E-05 3E-06 8E-072.0% 2E-02 8E-03 4E-03 2E-03 6E-04 2E-04 8E-051.0% 1E-01 8E-02 5E-02 3E-02 1E-02 7E-03 3E-030.0% 5E-01 4E-01 3E-01 2E-01 1E-01 8E-02 4E-02
Analysis of Uncounted and Switched Votes by State(in thousands) Recorded Vote Uncounted Switched TRUE Vote Total Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Margin EVote 122295 59027 62040 48.27% 50.73% 2582 826 4488 66097 58378 52.57% 46.43% Change Flip AL 1877 694 1176 37.0% 62.7% 42 14 47 784 1142 40.5% 59.1% 6.4%
AK 307 111 191 36.2% 62.2% 7 2 8 125 186 39.7% 58.7% 6.3% AZ 1998 894 1104 44.7% 55.3% 31 10 61 986 1053 48.3% 51.6% 7.0% AR 1049 470 573 44.8% 54.6% 19 6 32 521 547 48.5% 50.9% 7.2% CA 12255 6745 5510 55.0% 45.0% 246 79 458 7449 5131 59.2% 40.8% 8.6% CO 2116 1002 1101 47.4% 52.0% 31 10 68 1101 1043 51.0% 48.3% 7.3% 9CT 1564 857 694 54.8% 44.4% 26 8 58 941 644 58.9% 40.3% 8.4% DC 226 203 21 89.8% 9.3% 10 3 14 227 10 94.8% 4.3% 14.4% DE 373 200 172 53.6% 46.1% 8 2 14 221 161 57.7% 42.0% 8.5% FL 7582 3584 3965 47.3% 52.3% 140 45 243 3967 3766 51.1% 48.5% 7.5% 27 GA 3280 1366 1914 41.6% 58.4% 81 26 93 1540 1847 45.4% 54.5% 7.1% HI 426 232 194 54.5% 45.5% 18 6 16 265 184 59.0% 40.9% 9.7% ID 590 181 409 30.7% 69.3% 7 2 12 201 399 33.5% 66.5% 4.9% IL 5238 2892 2346 55.2% 44.8% 99 32 196 3187 2181 59.4% 40.6% 8.6% IN 2448 969 1479 39.6% 60.4% 37 12 66 1072 1425 42.9% 57.1% 6.3% IA 1500 742 752 49.5% 50.1% 19 6 50 811 708 53.2% 46.4% 7.4% 7KS 1180 435 736 36.9% 62.4% 18 6 30 482 712 40.1% 59.2% 5.9% KY 1791 713 1069 39.8% 59.7% 26 8 48 788 1029 43.1% 56.4% 6.3% LA 1929 820 1102 42.5% 57.1% 49 16 56 925 1062 46.4% 53.2% 7.3% ME 735 397 330 54.0% 44.9% 9 3 27 433 306 57.9% 41.0% 8.0% MD 2370 1334 1024 56.3% 43.2% 60 19 91 1484 952 60.6% 38.9% 9.1% MA 2875 1804 1071 62.7% 37.3% 46 15 122 1972 963 67.2% 32.8% 9.4% MI 4816 2479 2313 51.5% 48.0% 89 28 168 2736 2173 55.4% 44.0% 8.0% MN 2811 1445 1347 51.4% 47.9% 41 13 98 1584 1262 55.3% 44.0% 7.8% MS 1146 458 685 40.0% 59.8% 31 10 31 520 664 43.8% 55.9% 7.0% MO 2715 1259 1456 46.4% 53.6% 45 15 85 1390 1385 50.1% 49.9% 7.3% 11MT 446 174 266 39.0% 59.6% 6 2 12 192 256 42.3% 56.4% 6.1% NE 773 254 513 32.9% 66.4% 11 3 17 282 499 35.8% 63.4% 5.3% NV 821 397 419 48.4% 51.0% 14 5 27 438 397 52.2% 47.2% 7.6% 5NH 675 340 331 50.4% 49.0% 8 3 23 371 311 54.1% 45.3% 7.5% NJ 3600 1911 1670 53.1% 46.4% 72 23 130 2113 1563 57.2% 42.3% 8.4% NM 751 370 377 49.3% 50.2% 13 4 25 408 356 53.1% 46.4% 7.7% 5NY 7377 4314 2963 58.5% 40.2% 158 50 293 4764 2720 62.8% 35.9% 9.1% NC 3487 1526 1961 43.8% 56.2% 74 24 104 1704 1881 47.5% 52.5% 7.2% ND 312 111 197 35.6% 63.1% 4 1 8 123 191 38.7% 60.1% 5.7% OH 5601 2741 2860 48.9% 51.1% 94 30 186 3021 2704 52.8% 47.2% 7.6% 20OK 1464 504 960 34.4% 65.6% 28 9 34 566 935 37.7% 62.3% 5.8% OR 1810 943 867 52.1% 47.9% 26 8 64 1033 811 56.0% 44.0% 7.9% PA 5732 2938 2794 51.3% 48.7% 93 30 199 3231 2624 55.2% 44.8% 7.9% RI 434 260 169 59.9% 38.9% 7 2 18 284 153 64.2% 34.7% 9.0% SC 1606 662 938 41.2% 58.4% 38 12 45 745 905 45.0% 54.6% 7.0% SD 386 149 233 38.6% 60.4% 6 2 10 165 225 41.9% 57.1% 6.1% TN 2429 1036 1384 42.7% 57.0% 45 14 70 1151 1328 46.3% 53.4% 6.9% TX 7360 2833 4527 38.5% 61.5% 129 41 192 3155 4376 41.9% 58.1% 6.3% UT 916 241 664 26.3% 72.5% 12 4 16 269 651 28.9% 69.9% 4.4% VT 309 184 121 59.5% 39.2% 4 1 12 200 110 63.8% 34.9% 8.7% VA 3172 1455 1717 45.9% 54.1% 68 22 99 1622 1640 49.7% 50.3% 7.5% WA 2838 1510 1305 53.2% 46.0% 47 15 103 1660 1218 57.2% 42.0% 8.2% WV 755 327 424 43.3% 56.2% 9 3 22 359 405 46.7% 52.7% 6.6% WI 2984 1490 1478 49.9% 49.5% 44 14 101 1635 1391 53.7% 45.7% 7.6% WY 242 71 168 29.3% 69.4% 3 1 5 79 164 32.0% 66.7% 4.8%
Reconciling the Final 5 Million Votes
Further confirmation of a Kerry Landslide
The 12% difference in margin between the initial 117 million recorded votes (Bush 51-Kerry 48%) and the final (late) 5.0m (Kerry 53-Bush 44%) caused a 0.5m decline in the official Bush margin (3.5 to 3.0m). Was this due to the fact that the election was already decided at the 117m mark and vote-rigging was no longer necessary? Late votes (absentees, etc.) were irrelevant as soon as Bush was declared the winner. Many still recall that the day after the election the media reported that Bush won by 3.5m votes, and remain unaware of the 5.0m late votes. Edison-Mitofsky matched the Final Exit Poll to the initial 117m recorded votes.
Kerry's 52.98% share (2.65 of the 5.01m late votes) of the 122.29m recorded total is 64.79m. Adding his 75% share of uncounted votes (2.58 of 3.45m) brings his final total to 67.37m (53.5%). This is quite close to the Election Calculator model which determined that Kerry won by 53.2-45.4%. The model accounted for total votes cast in 2000 (recorded plus uncounted) less mortality and assumed a 95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004. The 12:22am NEP vote shares were used to calculate the national vote.
There was a 0.72 correlation between the late state vote shares and the exit polls. For states which had more than 40k late votes, the correlation statistic was a much stronger 0.93, as one would expect.
This is further evidence that the "pristine" exit polls were close to the true vote:
1) the high correlation between state exit polls and late vote shares
2) the small discrepancies between the exit polls and the late vote shares
3) the consistent pattern of a higher Kerry share of late votes compared to initial recorded votes
How does one explain the discrepancies between the initial and late recorded state vote shares? Kerry’s late vote share exceeded his initial share in 38 states (15 of 19 battleground states). Corresponding vote discrepancies were significant in the East but near zero in the Far West, strongly suggesting election fraud in early-reporting, vote-rich battleground states. A false impression was created that Bush was winning the popular vote while the state and national exit polls indicated Kerry was winning big. In the Far Western states there was virtually no difference between the 15.6m initial and 3.3m late recorded vote shares; Kerry was a steady 53% winner. But the Far West average exit poll WPE was 6.4%, indicating a 56% Kerry share. Was vote-padding still in effect?
Not a single media pundit has ever noted the following:
1) Final state exit polls and a mathematically impossible National Exit poll were adjusted to match the recorded vote.
2) Unadjusted “pristine” state exit polls were close to the True vote.
3) Final 5 million recorded votes were close to the True vote.
Final Recorded Vote:Bush 62,040,610 50.73%Kerry 59,028,439 48.27%Other 1,224,499 1.00%Total 122,293,548 100% Initial 117.28m votes: Bush 59,834,866 51.02%Kerry 56,373,514 48.07%Other 1,073,874 0.91%Total 117,282,254 100% Late 5.01m votes:Bush 2,205,744 44.02%Kerry 2,654,925 52.98%Other 150,625 3.00%Total 5,011,294 100% Other:Nader 406,940 0.35%Badnarik 384,174 0.33%Peroutka 132,054 0.11%Cobb 107,400 0.09%Peltier 21,616 0.02%Brown 10,283 0.01%Harris 6,962 0.01%Calero 4,445 0.00% Kerry Vote Share Summary Recorded Kerry VotesFinal 48.27% 122.29mInitial 48.07% 117.28mLate 52.98% 5.01m State Exit Polls based on weighted average WPE Method Kerry Avg WPE Wtd Avg DescriptionVNS 51.81% 5.95% 7.09% VNS: 4 outliers removed from average DSS 52.15% 6.73% 7.77% Decision Summary Screen: 4 outliers removedIMS 51.91% 6.29% 7.37% Input Mgt Screen: no outliers removed National Exit Poll Timeline (Gender demographic)3:59pm 50.48% 8349 respondents
7:33pm 50.78% 11027
12:22am 50.78% 13047Final 47.78% 13660 (matched to initial 117m recorded votes) Model 53.23% (Election Calculator-see below) ______________________________________________________________________________ The Final 5.6 Million Recorded Votes http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htm Kerry 2-party Unweighted Average Vote Share States grouped by Total Late Votes Late Exit Late Diff100k+ 55.1% 54.8% 0.3%30-100k 47.0% 49.5% -2.6%10-30k 50.2% 54.6% -4.4%0-10k 48.3% 51.4% -3.2% All 50.0% 52.5% -2.5% Kerry 2-party Regional Weighted Average Vote Share * indicates under 2000 late votes Final Initial Late Change WPE ExitWtd 48.8% 48.5% 54.3% 5.8% 5.8% 51.6%Unwtd 48.4% 48.4% 52.0% 3.7% 6.0% 51.5% Weighted East 56.5% 56.2% 62.4% 6.2% 9.7% 61.3%Midw 48.1% 48.1% 56.1% 8.1% 3.4% 49.8%South 42.7% 42.6% 46.6% 4.0% 5.8% 45.6%West 41.7% 41.7% 41.9% 0.2% 4.8% 44.1%FarW 53.2% 53.3% 53.0% -0.2% 6.4% 56.4% Final Initial Late Change WPE Exit East CT 55.3% 55.3% 56.3% 1.0% 15.7% 63.3%DC* 90.5% 90.5% 90.5% 0.0% 3.4% 92.2%DE* 53.8% 53.8% 67.3% 13.4% 15.9% 61.9%MA 62.7% 62.7% 71.5% 8.8% 5.8% 65.7%MD 56.6% 56.2% 60.3% 4.1% 8.1% 60.7% ME* 54.6% 54.5% 87.3% 33.0% 3.8% 56.5%NH* 50.7% 50.7% 55.8% 5.2% 13.6% 57.6%NJ 53.4% 53.1% 57.6% 4.5% 9.7% 58.3%NY 59.3% 58.8% 65.8% 7.0% 11.4% 65.1%PA 51.3% 51.1% 58.6% 7.5% 8.8% 55.7%RI 60.6% 60.5% 62.6% 2.1% 4.7% 63.0%VT* 60.3% 60.3% 48.7% -11.6% 15.0% 68.0% Final Initial Late Change WPE Exit Midwest
IA 49.7% 49.5% 62.1% 12.6% 3.0% 51.2%IL 55.2% 55.1% 70.3% 15.2% 4.4% 57.4%IN 39.6% 39.5% 62.0% 22.6% 1.5% 40.3%KS 37.1% 37.0% 42.7% 5.8% 1.7% 38.0%OH 48.9% 48.7% 56.2% 7.4% 10.9% 54.4% MI 51.7% 51.7% 58.4% 6.7% 6.3% 54.9%MN 51.8% 51.8% 47.9% -3.9% 9.3% 56.5%MO 46.4% 46.3% 63.8% 17.5% 5.8% 49.3%ND* 36.1% 36.1% 37.4% 1.3% -5.2% 33.4%NE 33.2% 33.0% 43.6% 10.6% 8.1% 37.3% OK* 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 0.0% -1.9% 33.5%SD 39.1% 39.1% 32.8% -6.3% -4.2% 37.0%WI 50.2% 50.2% 36.3% -13.9% 4.7% 52.6% Final Initial Late Change WPE Exit South AL* 37.1% 37.1% 67.6% 30.6% 11.3% 42.8%
AR 45.1% 45.0% 48.2% 3.2% 0.5% 45.3%FL 47.5% 47.5% 50.5% 3.0% 7.6% 51.3%GA 41.6% 41.6% 46.2% 4.6% 2.2% 42.8%LA 42.7% 42.6% 79.5% 36.9% 3.8% 44.6% KY* 40.0% 40.0% 30.2% -9.8% -0.1% 39.9%MS 40.1% 40.0% 44.2% 4.3% 11.3% 46.2%NC 43.8% 43.7% 45.4% 1.6% 11.3% 49.4%SC 41.4% 41.3% 45.1% 3.8% 10.0% 46.4%TN* 42.8% 42.8% 56.0% 13.2% 0.5% 43.1% VA 45.9% 45.8% 48.8% 3.0% 7.9% 49.8%WV 43.5% 43.6% 40.5% -3.0% -5.8% 40.6%TX 38.5% 38.5% 45.3% 6.8% 4.8% 40.9% Final Initial Late Change WPE Exit West CO 47.6% 47.3% 53.6% 6.3% 6.1% 50.7%ID* 30.7% 30.7% 15.4% -15.3% 1.0% 31.2%MT* 39.5% 39.5% 37.0% -2.5% -1.8% 38.6%NM 49.6% 49.4% 61.4% 11.9% 7.8% 53.5%NV 48.7% 48.7% 50.4% 1.8% 10.1% 53.8% UT 26.7% 27.1% 21.4% -5.7% 6.4% 29.9%WY* 29.7% 29.7% 23.8% -5.9% 4.3% 31.9% Final Initial Late Change WPE Exit Far West
AK 36.8% 36.2% 39.0% 2.8% 9.6% 41.7%AZ 44.7% 44.7% 44.7% -0.1% 4.6% 47.0%CA 55.0% 55.2% 54.4% -0.8% 10.9% 60.6%HI* 54.4% 54.4% 82.6% 28.3% 4.7% 56.8%OR 52.1% 52.0% 54.6% 2.6% 0.0% 52.1%WA 53.6% 53.5% 57.7% 4.2% 8.4% 57.9% State Recorded Votes (in thousands) Final Initial Late TOTAL KERRY BUSH OTHER TOTAL KERRY BUSH NADER TOTAL KERRY BUSH Other 122294 59028 62041 1224 116654 56404 59834 414 5640 2624 2207 810 East 26421 14744 11361 316 25262 14112 10980 170 1159 632 381 146Midwest 32404 15470 16670 264 31960 15320 16552 87 444 150 117 177
South 37662 15943 21436 284 37142 15790 21261 90 521 153 175 194West 5936 2437 3404 96 5699 2360 3298 41 238 76 106 56Far West 19870 10435 9171 264 16592 8822 7743 26 3278 1613 1428 238
East CT 1579 857 694 27 1544 846 685 13 35 11 9 15DC* 228 203 21 3 226 203 21 1 2 0 0 2DE* 375 200 172 3 374 200 172 2 2 0 0 1MA 2912 1804 1071 37 2861 1794 1067 0 51 10 4 37MD 2387 1334 1025 27 2186 1224 952 11 200 111 73 17 ME* 741 397 330 14 734 395 330 8 7 1 0 5NH* 678 341 331 6 675 340 331 4 2 0 0 2NJ 3612 1911 1670 30 3405 1799 1587 19 206 112 83 12NY 7391 4314 2963 114 6892 3993 2796 104 499 321 167 11PA 5770 2938 2794 38 5643 2886 2757 0 127 52 37 38RI 437 260 169 8 413 247 162 4 24 12 7 4VT* 312 184 121 7 309 184 121 4 4 0 0 3 Final Initial Late TOTAL KERRY BUSH OTHER TOTAL KERRY BUSH NADER TOTAL KERRY BUSH Other 122294 59028 62041 1224 116654 56404 59834 414 5640 2624 2207 810Midwest
IA 1507 742 752 13 1486 733 747 6 21 9 5 7IL 5274 2892 2346 37 5208 2871 2337 0 67 21 9 37IN 2468 969 1479 20 2435 961 1474 0 33 8 5 20KS 1188 435 736 16 1147 421 718 9 40 14 19 7OH 5628 2741 2860 27 5456 2660 2796 0 172 82 64 27 MI 4839 2479 2314 46 4810 2475 2311 24 29 4 3 22MN 2828 1445 1347 37 2807 1444 1345 19 21 1 2 18MO 2731 1259 1456 16 2707 1254 1453 0 25 5 3 16ND* 313 111 197 5 310 111 196 4 2 0 1 1NE 778 254 513 11 762 249 507 6 17 5 6 5 OK* 1464 504 960 0 1464 504 960 0 0 0 0 0SD 388 149 233 6 386 149 233 4 2 0 0 2WI 2997 1490 1478 29 2982 1489 1477 16 15 1 1 13 Final Initial Late TOTAL KERRY BUSH OTHER TOTAL KERRY BUSH NADER TOTAL KERRY BUSH Other 122294 59028 62041 1224 116654 56404 59834 414 5640 2624 2207 810South AL* 1883 694 1176 13 1876 693 1176 7 8 1 0 6
AR 1055 470 573 12 1037 464 567 6 18 6 6 6FL 7610 3584 3965 62 7563 3575 3956 33 47 9 9 29GA 3302 1366 1914 21 3235 1345 1890 0 67 21 24 21LA 1943 820 1102 21 1928 819 1102 7 15 1 0 14 KY* 1796 713 1069 14 1790 712 1069 9 6 0 1 5MS 1152 458 685 9 1118 445 669 3 35 13 16 6NC 3501 1526 1961 14 3395 1484 1911 0 106 42 50 14SC 1618 662 938 18 1580 650 924 5 38 11 14 13TN* 2437 1036 1384 16 2437 1036 1384 16 0 0 0 0 VA 3198 1455 1717 27 3095 1417 1678 0 103 37 39 27WV 756 327 424 6 744 322 418 4 12 4 6 2TX 7411 2833 4527 51 7344 2826 4518 0 67 7 8 51 Final Initial Late TOTAL KERRY BUSH OTHER TOTAL KERRY BUSH NADER TOTAL KERRY BUSH Other 122294 59028 62041 1224 116654 56404 59834 414 5640 2624 2207 810West CO 2130 1002 1101 27 2018 950 1056 12 112 52 45 15ID* 598 181 409 8 589 181 408 0 9 0 1 8MT* 450 174 266 11 445 173 265 6 5 0 1 5NM 756 371 377 8 742 365 373 4 14 6 4 4NV 830 397 419 14 813 393 415 5 16 4 4 9 UT 928 241 664 23 851 227 613 11 77 14 51 12WY* 243 71 168 5 240 71 167 3 3 0 1 2 Far West
AK 313 111 191 11 242 86 152 4 71 25 39 7AZ 2013 894 1104 15 1644 735 908 0 369 158 196 15CA 12420 6745 5510 165 9831 5427 4403 0 2589 1318 1106 165HI* 429 232 194 3 425 231 194 0 4 0 0 3OR 1837 943 867 27 1714 891 823 0 123 52 44 27WA 2859 1510 1305 44 2736 1452 1262 22 123 58 43 22 Calculated True Vote Late Share Recorded +Unctd = True Vote Kerry 2.65 53.0% 64.79 2.58 67.37 53.58%Bush 2.21 44.0% 53.80 0.79 54.59 43.41%Other 0.15 3.0% 3.71 0.07 3.78 3.01% Total 5.01 100% 122.30 3.45 125.74 100% Election Calculator Assumptions:Uncounted Votes Cast Census Uncounted2004 2.74% 125.74 3.452000 4.86% 110.80 5.38 Uncounted Vote share2004 2000 Kerry 75% Gore 75%Bush 23% Bush 20%Other 2% Nader 5% 2000 Annual Voter Mortality Total 1.22% Gore share 50.4% 2000 Voter Turnout in 2004 Gore 95% Bush 95% Other 95% 2000 Recorded Voted Rec Unctd Cast Deaths Alive Gore 51.00 4.04 55.04 2.71 52.33 Bush 50.46 1.08 51.53 2.47 49.07 Other 3.96 0.27 4.23 0.21 4.02 Total 105.42 5.38 110.80 5.38 105.42 2004 Calculated Turnout Voted Weight Kerry Bush OtherDNV - 25.59 20.4% 57% 41% 2%Gore 95% 49.71 39.5% 91% 8% 1%Bush 95% 46.61 37.1% 10% 90% 0%Other 95% 3.82 3.0% 64% 17% 19% 100.15 125.74 100% 53.23% 45.39% 1.38% 66.93 57.07 1.74
True Vote Analysis: Models, Counties, Machines
County Vote Database (2000-2004)
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/CountyVoteDatabase.htm
Note: County vote data are not the final recorded totals. Gore (13.2%) and Kerry (7.4%) margins were much higher in the missing, late votes. Why? 2000 Total GORE BUSH NADER GORE BUSH NADERRecorded 104.30 51.0 50.46 2.83 48.9% 48.4% 2.7%Database 101.73 49.55 49.34 2.85 48.7% 48.5% 2.8%Difference 2.57 1.46 1.12 -.15 56.9% 43.7% -0.6%Pct Total 2.46% 2.86% 2.22% -0.53% 0.20% -0.12% -0.08% 2004 Total KERRY BUSH OTHER KERRY BUSH OTHERRecorded 122.29 59.03 62.04 1.22 48.27% 50.73% 1.00%Database 116.64 56.40 59.83 .407 48.35% 51.30% 0.35%Difference 5.65 2.63 2.21 .813 46.50% 39.10% 14.40%Pct Total 4.62% 4.45% 3.56% 66.64% -0.09% -0.56% 0.65%
_____________________________________________________________________
Counties with over 200,000 votes where Bush's net percentage margin increased the most from 2000
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
State County GORE BUSH KERRY BUSH Net Vote Net PctCA Fresno 43.7% 53.4% 41.7% 58.3% 15,759 6.9%
CA Riverside 45.6% 51.8% 41.6% 58.4% 49,470 10.4%
CA San Bernard 48.0% 49.3% 43.7% 56.3% 45,122 11.3%FL Brevard 44.9% 53.1% 41.7% 57.9% 24,818 7.9%FL Broward 67.7% 31.1% 64.6% 34.8% 577 6.8% FL Palm Beach 63.8% 36.2% 60.6% 39.2% 977 6.2%FL Polk 44.9% 53.9% 40.9% 58.7% 22,454 8.8%FL Volusia 53.3% 45.1% 50.6% 49.0% 11,172 6.5%HI Honolulu 55.0% 39.9% 51.4% 48.6% 29,968 12.3%
MD An Arundl 45.2% 52.1% 43.2% 56.3% 15,760 6.2% MI Genesee 63.0% 35.1% 60.2% 39.4% 8,703 7.1%
NJ Bergen 55.5% 41.9% 51.7% 47.8% 32,297 9.7%
NJ Camden 64.7% 31.8% 62.5% 37.0% 8,129 7.4%
NJ Middlesex 60.1% 36.5% 56.3% 43.1% 22,636 10.4%NJ Monmouth 50.6% 46.0% 44.6% 54.7% 41,656 14.7% NJ Ocean 47.6% 48.9% 38.9% 60.4% 48,420 20.2%NY Bronx 86.0% 11.9% 82.7% 16.7% -3,055 8.0%
NY Brooklyn 79.9% 16.1% 74.3% 24.8% 43,936 14.4%
NY Nassau 57.6% 38.7% 52.3% 46.7% 71,250 13.3%
NY Queens 74.2% 22.5% 71.2% 28.0% 23,052 8.5% NY Suffolk 53.2% 41.8% 49.1% 48.8% 59,633 11.2%
TN Davidson 58.9% 41.0% 54.9% 44.7% 11,625 7.6%
_____________________________________________________________________
Largest Recorded Bush County Vote Gains
Minimum 30,000 increase from 2000 to 2004 Vote share = Bush share of county vote in 2004Increase Votes = Bush increase in recorded votes from 2000Pct Change = Bush percentage increase in votes from 2000Net Gain = Bush percent change from Bush 2000 – Kerry percent change from Gore 2000 Vote Increase Pct Net Voting ST County Precincts Share Votes Change Gain Incidents MethodAZ Maricopa 1004 57.2% 145,697 27.0% 8.6% 32 Optical CA Los Angeles 4963 36.4% 142,610 14.9% 10.6% 36 Optical
CA Riverside 1093 58.4% 49,812 18.9% 18.7% 2 DRE
CA San Diego 3568 52.7% 46,329 10.5% 3.7% 9 Optical
FL Brevard 177 57.9% 37,653 24.6% 13.0% 4 Optical FL Broward 618 34.8% 66,376 27.2% 12.7% 56 DREFL Miami-Dade 614 46.8% 69,080 19.3% 0.2% 54 DREFL Duval 268 57.9% 67,153 30.6% -1.2% 12 Optical FL Hillsboro 320 53.2% 63,846 26.1% 5.6% 21 DRE
FL Lee 150 60.1% 38,273 26.5% 4.5% 0 Optical FL Orange 232 49.7% 57,873 30.1% 2.7% 16 Optical
FL Palm Beach 531 39.2% 58,943 27.8% 10.1% 88 DREFL Pasco 132 54.5% 34,616 33.5% 15.6% 0 DRE
FL Pinellas 345 49.8% 40,804 18.1% 7.1% 6 DREFL Polk 163 58.7% 33,237 26.9% 14.4% 5 Optical FL Seminole 133 58.2% 32,449 30.0% 6.9% 4 Optical GA Cobb 152 62.5% 32,712 18.9% 2.5% 2 DREGA Gwinnett 133 66.3% 38,257 23.9% -0.6% 2 DREHI Honolulu 214 48.6% 42,859 29.7% 21.3% 2 Optical
IL Cook 5016 29.4% 50,230 8.5% -0.4% 84 Punch IL Will 352 52.8% 33,592 26.0% 4.4% 4 OtherMI Macomb 406 50.4% 37,063 18.4% 6.6% 1 Lever
MI Oakland 608 49.5% 42,285 13.4% 1.3% 10 Punch
MI Wayne 1511 30.0% 37,960 14.8% -0.9% 59 DRE
NV Clark Co 677 47.3% 82,500 32.6% 2.7% 24 DRE NJ Bergen 554 47.8% 34,462 19.3% 18.2% 4 DRE
NJ Monmouth 428 54.7% 42,999 26.6% 25.6% 0 LeverNJ Ocean 292 60.4% 41,758 29.0% 36.2% 0 DRENY Brooklyn 1888 24.8% 67,235 42.9% 38.0% 63 Lever
NY Nassau 1070 46.7% 64,523 23.1% 25.3% 2 Lever
NY Queens 1470 28.0% 41,325 26.4% 21.8% 23 LeverNY Suffolk 1006 48.8% 77,671 25.7% 19.8% 0 Lever
NY Westchester 948 40.7% 38,923 25.4% 7.3% 6 Lever
NC Wake 169 51.5% 30,069 17.4% -6.7% 1 Optical OH Cuyahoga 1506 33.2% 30,935 14.3% -6.8% 75 Punch OH Franklin 760 45.9% 41,170 17.6% -11.3% 82 DRE
OK Oklahoma 273 64.2% 35,629 20.4% 4.3% 0 Optical
PA Allegheny 1309 42.5% 33,311 12.4% 2.6% 31 LeverPA Bucks 298 48.6% 31,835 20.7% 2.5% 3 LeverPA Montgomery 405 44.2% 30,938 18.0% -2.3% 5 DRE
TX Bexar 626 55.3% 44,226 17.0% 5.0% 6 DRETX Collin 127 71.7% 44,854 25.9% -11.3% 0 DRETX Denton 126 70.4% 38,403 27.3% -4.8% 0 Paper
TX Harris 935 55.1% 54,874 9.5% -2.6% 37 DRETX Tarrant 535 62.8% 62,451 17.9% 1.7% 2 Optical UT Salt Lake 688 60.5% 38,415 18.4% 0.1% 0
WA King 2707 34.1% 44,058 15.2% -7.2% 0 Optical WA Pierce 635 48.5% 39,987 27.5% 8.9% 0 Optical
_____________________________________________________________________
Counties where Bush’s recorded vote increased by at least:1) 20,000 over his 2000 vote;2) 16% over his 2000 vote; 3) 2% greater than Kerry's percentage increase over Gore’s recorded vote. Recorded vote (000) Chg from 2000 %Change NetST County Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Bush Incidents ST Total 9244 9062 46.7% 52.8% 1161 2226 15.4% 26.7% 11.3% 607 AZ Maricopa 404 540 42.8% 57.2% 74 146 18.4% 27.0% 8.6% 32 Optical AZ Pima 154 138 52.7% 47.3% 16 23 10.6% 16.3% 5.7% 8 Optical CA Placer 50 85 36.9% 63.1% 11 22 21.8% 25.8% 4.0% 0 Optical CA Riverside 188 263 41.6% 58.4% 0 50 0.2% 18.9% 18.7% 2 DRE
FL Brevard 110 153 41.7% 57.9% 13 38 11.7% 24.6% 13.0% 4 Optical FL Broward 452 244 64.6% 34.8% 66 66 14.5% 27.2% 12.7% 56 DREFL Clay 19 62 23.3% 76.4% 4 20 22.6% 32.6% 10.0% 0 Optical FL Escambia 48 93 33.9% 65.7% 7 20 15.1% 21.8% 6.7% 1 Optical
FL Hillsboro 213 245 46.4% 53.2% 44 64 20.5% 26.1% 5.6% 21 DRE
FL Lake 48 74 39.1% 60.3% 12 24 24.2% 32.8% 8.6% 3 DRE
FL Lee 94 144 39.3% 60.1% 21 38 22.0% 26.5% 4.5% 0 Optical FL Manatee 61 81 42.8% 56.8% 12 23 19.7% 28.7% 9.0% 0 Optical FL Marion 57 81 41.1% 58.4% 13 26 22.0% 32.1% 10.2% 2 Optical
FL Orange 193 192 50.0% 49.7% 53 58 27.4% 30.1% 2.7% 16 Optical
FL Palm Beach 328 212 60.6% 39.2% 58 59 17.7% 27.8% 10.1% 88 DRE FL Pasco 85 103 44.7% 54.5% 15 35 17.9% 33.5% 15.6% 0 DRE
FL Pinellas 225 226 49.7% 49.8% 25 41 11.0% 18.1% 7.1% 6 DREFL Polk 86 124 40.9% 58.7% 11 33 12.5% 26.9% 14.4% 5 Optical FL Sarasota 88 105 45.5% 53.9% 16 22 17.6% 20.6% 3.0% 2 DRE
FL Seminole 77 108 41.4% 58.2% 18 32 23.1% 30.0% 6.9% 4 Optical FL Volusia 115 112 50.6% 49.0% 18 29 15.6% 26.2% 10.5% 8 Optical GA Cobb 104 173 37.5% 62.5% 17 33 16.4% 18.9% 2.5% 2 DREHI Honolulu 152 144 51.4% 48.6% 13 43 8.5% 29.7% 21.3% 2 Optical
IL Will 115 129 47.2% 52.8% 25 34 21.6% 26.0% 4.4% 4 MD An Arundl 95 124 43.2% 56.3% 9 25 9.6% 20.1% 10.5% 0 DRE MD Baltimore 170 155 52.0% 47.5% 16 28 9.1% 18.1% 9.0% 0 DRE
MI Macomb 196 201 49.0% 50.4% 23 37 11.8% 18.4% 6.6% 1 Lever
MN Anoka 80 92 46.4% 53.1% 12 23 15.2% 24.6% 9.4% 2 Optical
MO Jackson 181 130 58.3% 41.7% 21 25 11.5% 19.6% 8.1% 0 Punch
MO St. Charles 67 96 80.8% 19.2% 13 24 19.5% 24.7% 5.2% 0 Optical
NE Douglas 81 118 40.3% 59.0% 17 30 21.1% 25.0% 3.9% 0
NV Clark Co 280 253 52.2% 47.3% 83 83 29.9% 32.6% 2.7% 24 DRENJ Bergen 193 178 51.7% 47.8% 2 34 1.1% 19.3% 18.2% 4 DRE
NJ Burlington 104 90 53.3% 46.2% 9 22 8.6% 24.2% 15.7% 1 DRE
NJ Middlesex 156 119 56.3% 43.1% 5 28 3.4% 23.4% 20.0% 2 DRE NJ Monmouth 132 162 44.6% 54.7% 1 43 1.0% 26.6% 25.6% 0 LeverNJ Ocean 93 144 38.9% 60.4% -7 42 -7.2% 29.0% 36.2% 0 DRENM San Miguel 21 22 48.3% 51.2% 15 20 69.2% 90.1% 21.0% 1 DRENY Brooklyn 468 157 74.3% 24.8% 23 67 5.0% 42.9% 38.0% 63 Lever
NY Erie 231 171 56.2% 41.6% 13 28 5.7% 16.2% 10.5% 2 Lever
NY Monroe 166 159 50.4% 48.1% 14 26 8.3% 16.6% 8.2% 0 Lever
NY Nassau 312 279 52.3% 46.7% -7 65 -2.2% 23.1% 25.3% 2 Lever
NY Queens 398 157 71.2% 28.0% 18 41 4.6% 26.4% 21.8% 23 LeverNY Staten Island 63 84 42.3% 56.9% -6 24 -9.9% 28.8% 38.7% 0
NY Suffolk 303 302 49.1% 48.8% 18 78 5.9% 25.7% 19.8% 0 Lever
NY Westchester 218 153 57.9% 40.7% 40 39 18.1% 25.4% 7.3% 6 Lever
OH Butler 54 107 33.7% 66.3% 10 23 17.6% 21.6% 4.0% 0 Punch
OK Oklahoma 97 175 35.8% 64.2% 16 36 16.1% 20.4% 4.3% 0 Optical OK Tulsa 90 163 35.6% 64.4% 9 29 9.5% 17.9% 8.4% 3 Optical
PA Bucks 162 153 51.4% 48.6% 30 32 18.2% 20.7% 2.5% 3 Lever PA Philadelphia 525 126 80.7% 19.3% 83 26 15.8% 21.1% 5.3% 196 DRE
PA York 64 115 35.7% 64.3% 12 27 18.3% 23.7% 5.4% 0 Lever
TN Davidson 132 108 54.9% 44.7% 12 24 9.4% 22.3% 13.0% 1 DRETN Knox 66 111 37.2% 62.4% 5 24 7.8% 21.8% 14.0% 0 DRETX Bexar 210 260 44.7% 55.3% 25 44 12.0% 17.0% 5.0% 6 DRE TX Montgomery 29 104 21.5% 78.5% 5 24 18.5% 22.8% 4.3% 0 Optical
UT Davis 20 84 19.3% 79.8% 2 20 7.7% 23.9% 16.2% 0
VA Bedford City 9 22 29.2% 70.8% 8 21 88.1% 94.2% 6.1% 0 Lever
VA Virginia Beach 71 104 40.5% 59.5% 8 20 11.9% 19.3% 7.5% 0 Lever
WA Pierce 152 146 50.7% 48.5% 28 40 18.5% 27.5% 8.9% 0 Optical WA Spokane 84 107 43.5% 55.6% 15 26 17.8% 24.0% 6.2% 1 Optical
_____________________________________________________________________
106 Counties with 100,000+ votes in 2004 and at least a 2% increase in Bush margin from 2000 2000 2004 Chg from 2000 Bush ST County Total GORE BUSH Total KERRY BUSH KERRY BUSH IncreaseTotal 25122 28342 1087 2712 in Margin AL Jefferson 271.8 47.8% 51.0% 291.6 45.3% 54.3% 2.3 20.0 5.9% Optical
AL Madison 112.0 43.0% 55.5% 130.4 40.4% 59.2% 4.5 15.1 6.3% Optical
AL Mobile 138.4 42.4% 56.5% 156.3 40.8% 58.9% 5.1 13.8 4.0% Optical
AZ Maricopa 742.4 44.4% 53.1% 943.7 42.8% 57.2% 74.4 145.7 5.7% OpticalAZ Pima 265.2 52.0% 43.7% 292.7 52.7% 47.3% 16.4 22.6 2.9% Optical CA Fresno 190.9 43.7% 53.4% 206.2 41.7% 58.3% 2.6 18.4 6.9% Optical
CA Kern 163.1 36.6% 61.5% 175.7 32.5% 67.5% -2.5 18.3 10.0% OpticalCA Los Angeles 2,488 64.2% 32.6% 2625 63.6% 36.4% 72.0 142.6 4.3% Optical
CA Orange 827.5 40.9% 56.3% 756.0 39.7% 60.3% -37.6 -10.7 5.0% DRE
CA Placer 105.4 36.7% 59.5% 134.1 36.9% 63.1% 10.8 21.8 3.4% Optical CA Riverside 411.5 45.6% 51.8% 451.0 41.6% 58.4% 0.3 49.8 10.4% DRE
CA Sacramento 389.8 49.9% 45.9% 347.3 50.6% 49.4% -18.9 -7.5 2.8% Optical
CA San Bernard 419.9 48.0% 49.3% 401.7 43.7% 56.3% -26.2 18.9 11.3% DRECA San Diego 789.2 46.6% 49.8% 834.0 47.3% 52.7% 27.1 46.3 2.1% Optical
CA San Joaquin 151.5 48.0% 49.5% 162.2 46.2% 53.8% 2.1 12.4 6.2% Optical
CA Stanislaus 105.4 45.3% 52.1% 120.6 41.2% 58.8% 1.9 16.0 10.8% OpticalCA Ventura 227.9 48.3% 48.0% 212.4 48.7% 51.3% -6.6 -0.5 2.9% Punch
CO Adams 105.8 51.1% 44.9% 128.3 50.7% 48.7% 11.0 15.0 4.2% Optical
FL Alachua 84.7 55.9% 40.3% 110.5 56.4% 43.1% 15.0 13.5 2.3% OpticalFL Brevard 217.0 44.9% 53.1% 264.2 41.7% 57.9% 12.8 37.7 7.9% Optical FL Broward 571.0 67.7% 31.1% 699.9 64.6% 34.8% 65.8 66.4 6.8% DREFL Escambia 115.7 35.4% 63.1% 142.2 33.9% 65.7% 7.3 20.4 4.0% Optical
FL Hillsboro 357.8 47.4% 50.5% 460.0 46.4% 53.2% 43.9 63.8 3.7% DRE
FL Lake 88.0 41.5% 56.8% 123.3 39.1% 60.3% 11.6 24.4 6.0% DRE
FL Lee 183.3 40.5% 57.9% 240.2 39.3% 60.1% 20.8 38.3 3.1% Optical FL Manatee 109.6 44.9% 52.9% 143.2 42.8% 56.8% 12.1 23.3 6.0% OpticalFL Marion 101.6 44.0% 54.3% 139.2 41.1% 58.4% 12.6 26.1 6.9% Optical
FL Palm Beach 422.7 63.8% 36.2% 541.2 60.6% 39.2% 58.0 58.9 6.2% DREFL Pasco 141.5 49.1% 48.5% 189.4 44.7% 54.5% 15.2 34.6 10.4% DRE
FL Pinellas 395.5 50.7% 46.7% 453.4 49.7% 49.8% 24.7 40.8 4.1% DRE FL Polk 167.6 44.9% 53.9% 210.3 40.9% 58.7% 10.8 33.2 8.8% OpticalFL Seminole 136.8 43.3% 55.3% 185.6 41.4% 58.2% 17.8 32.4 4.7% OpticalFL Volusia 182.6 53.3% 45.1% 227.8 50.6% 49.0% 18.0 29.2 6.5% OpticalHI Honolulu 253.9 55.0% 39.9% 296.6 51.4% 48.6% 12.9 42.9 12.3% Optical
IL Madison 110.3 53.6% 44.3% 122.5 51.6% 48.4% 4.2 10.4 6.0% Punch
IL St. Clair 99.4 56.0% 42.4% 112.5 55.4% 44.6% 6.7 8.0 2.7% OpticalIL Will 189.7 47.7% 50.3% 244.5 47.2% 52.8% 25.0 33.6 2.9% IN Lake 172.5 63.2% 36.8% 176.7 61.2% 38.8% -0.9 5.1 4.0% DRE
IN St Joseph 94.5 50.2% 49.8% 107.9 48.8% 51.2% 5.2 8.2 2.8% DRE
KS Sedgwick 161.0 38.9% 58.2% 168.1 36.5% 62.7% -1.1 11.7 6.8% DRE LA Caddo 95.1 50.0% 49.2% 106.2 48.7% 51.1% 4.2 7.5 3.2% DRELA E Baton Rouge 167.7 45.6% 53.1% 182.9 45.0% 54.7% 5.8 10.8 2.1% DRELA Jefferson 177.7 39.6% 59.1% 190.6 37.7% 61.8% 1.5 12.7 4.5% Lever
LA St Tammany 83.1 27.3% 71.2% 100.2 24.6% 75.0% 1.9 15.9 6.5% DRE
MD An Arundl 190.5 45.2% 52.1% 220.4 43.2% 56.3% 9.1 24.9 6.2% DRE MD Baltimore 290.1 53.3% 43.9% 327.4 52.0% 47.5% 15.5 28.1 4.9% DRE
MD Harford 86.7 39.4% 58.1% 104.8 35.2% 64.3% 2.8 17.0 10.4% DREMI Genesee 190.1 63.0% 35.1% 213.2 60.2% 39.4% 8.5 17.3 7.1% Optical
MI Macomb 342.9 50.3% 47.9% 399.0 49.0% 50.4% 23.1 37.1 3.8% Lever
MI Saginaw 93.4 54.4% 44.1% 102.5 53.5% 46.0% 4.1 6.0 2.8% Paper
MN Anoka 143.9 47.3% 48.1% 173.1 46.4% 53.1% 12.2 22.6 5.9% Optical
MO Greene 102.0 40.3% 58.0% 124.5 37.5% 62.5% 5.5 18.7 7.4% PunchMO Jackson 269.3 59.5% 38.7% 310.6 58.3% 41.7% 20.8 25.5 4.2% Punch
NE Douglas 158.8 40.1% 55.8% 200.4 40.3% 59.0% 17.1 29.6 3.0%
NE Lancaster 99.8 42.0% 52.3% 120.5 42.6% 56.6% 9.5 16.0 3.6% NJ Bergen 343.6 55.5% 41.9% 373.0 51.7% 47.8% 2.2 34.5 9.7% DRE
NJ Burlington 168.1 56.6% 40.6% 195.0 53.3% 46.2% 8.9 21.8 8.8% DRE
NJ Camden 185.5 64.7% 31.8% 207.7 62.5% 37.0% 9.9 18.0 7.4% Lever
NJ Essex 250.6 71.6% 26.2% 273.9 70.1% 29.5% 12.6 15.2 4.8% Lever
NJ Gloucester 105.7 57.3% 39.7% 127.0 52.4% 47.1% 5.9 17.8 12.3% DRE
NJ Hudson 160.4 70.6% 26.7% 170.0 66.8% 32.7% 0.4 12.7 9.7% DRE
NJ Mercer 126.4 62.1% 34.6% 139.9 61.2% 38.2% 7.2 9.8 4.5% DRENJ Middlesex 251.0 60.1% 36.5% 277.3 56.3% 43.1% 5.3 27.9 10.4% DRENJ Monmouth 258.0 50.6% 46.0% 295.5 44.6% 54.7% 1.3 43.0 14.7% LeverNJ Morris 204.9 42.8% 54.1% 218.4 41.4% 58.0% 2.7 15.9 5.4% DRE NJ Ocean 208.5 47.6% 48.9% 238.0 38.9% 60.4% -6.7 41.8 20.2% DRENJ Passaic 147.2 58.3% 39.3% 166.3 55.3% 44.2% 6.1 15.8 8.0% DRE
NJ Union 176.8 60.7% 36.7% 191.1 58.9% 40.6% 5.3 12.8 5.7% DRENY Albany 130.4 59.7% 34.0% 135.6 60.2% 37.8% 3.8 6.9 3.3% Lever
NY Bronx 279.0 86.0% 11.9% 317.6 82.7% 16.7% 22.8 19.7 8.0% Lever
NY Brooklyn 556.9 79.9% 16.1% 630.3 74.3% 24.8% 23.3 67.2 14.4% Lever
NY Dutchess 105.0 46.7% 47.1% 114.0 46.5% 51.9% 4.0 9.7 4.9% LeverNY Erie 383.5 56.8% 37.4% 411.0 56.2% 41.6% 13.3 27.7 4.8% Lever
NY Monroe 300.4 50.8% 44.1% 330.4 50.4% 48.1% 13.9 26.3 4.4% Lever
NY Nassau 554.0 57.6% 38.7% 597.1 52.3% 46.7% -6.7 64.5 13.3% Lever
NY Onondaga 189.6 53.8% 40.9% 198.7 54.1% 44.1% 5.4 10.1 3.0% LeverNY Orange 117.7 45.8% 49.6% 135.1 43.6% 55.0% 5.1 16.0 7.6% Lever
NY Queens 511.7 74.2% 22.5% 559.4 71.2% 28.0% 18.3 41.3 8.5% LeverNY Rockland 116.8 55.9% 40.2% 121.8 48.7% 49.8% -6.0 13.7 16.8% Lever
NY Staten Island 133.1 51.8% 45.2% 148.4 42.3% 56.9% -6.2 24.3 21.3% NY Suffolk 536.3 53.2% 41.8% 618.3 49.1% 48.8% 18.0 77.7 11.2% Lever
NY Westchester 306.2 58.4% 37.4% 377.3 57.9% 40.7% 39.5 38.9 3.8% Lever
OH Butler 130.9 34.1% 63.9% 160.9 33.7% 66.3% 9.5 23.1 2.9% Punch
OK Oklahoma 220.7 37.0% 63.0% 272.0 35.8% 64.2% 15.7 35.6 2.4% Optical
OK Tulsa 215.8 37.8% 62.2% 253.6 35.6% 64.4% 8.5 29.3 4.5% Optical
OR Marion 111.6 44.3% 51.5% 114.1 45.1% 54.9% 2.0 5.2 2.7%
PA Lackawanna 93.7 60.8% 37.0% 103.9 57.1% 42.9% 2.4 9.9 9.5% Lever
PA Luzerne 117.3 52.7% 44.4% 133.4 51.5% 48.5% 6.8 12.7 5.4% LeverPA North Hampton 102.5 51.3% 45.8% 124.6 50.5% 49.5% 10.3 14.7 4.5% Lever
PA Westmoreland 154.1 46.4% 52.0% 175.8 43.8% 56.2% 5.5 18.7 6.8% Lever PA York 142.8 36.4% 61.2% 178.2 35.7% 64.3% 11.6 27.2 3.8% Lever
TN Davidson 203.7 58.9% 41.0% 241.0 54.9% 44.7% 12.4 24.1 7.6% DRETN Hamilton 118.6 43.6% 56.2% 136.3 42.0% 57.6% 5.6 11.9 3.0% Optical
TN Knox 147.7 41.2% 58.6% 177.3 37.2% 62.4% 5.1 24.1 7.8% DRETX Bexar 410.4 45.1% 52.5% 470.1 44.7% 55.3% 25.2 44.2 3.1% DRE TX El Paso 144.2 58.1% 39.9% 167.9 56.5% 43.5% 11.1 15.5 5.2% Optical
TX Galveston 92.6 43.2% 54.4% 105.2 41.7% 58.3% 3.9 10.9 5.3% Optical
TX Hidalgo 96.7 60.7% 38.4% 114.5 55.1% 44.9% 4.4 14.3 12.2% LeverTX Montgomery 105.7 22.0% 76.2% 132.9 21.5% 78.5% 5.3 23.8 2.8% Optical
TX Nueces 96.8 46.8% 51.5% 103.7 42.8% 57.2% -0.9 9.5 9.7% Optical UT Davis 87.6 21.5% 73.3% 105.8 19.3% 79.8% 1.6 20.2 8.7%
UT Utah 119.8 13.7% 81.7% 108.2 11.0% 87.9% -4.5 -2.9 8.8%
VA Virginia Beach 148.3 42.0% 56.4% 174.4 40.5% 59.5% 8.4 20.1 4.5% Lever
WA Pierce 237.2 52.3% 44.5% 300.1 50.7% 48.5% 28.2 40.0 5.5% OpticalWA Spokane 156.6 44.2% 52.2% 193.4 43.5% 55.6% 15.0 25.8 4.1% Optical
WI Brown 106.7 46.0% 50.9% 122.7 44.7% 54.7% 5.8 12.9 5.1% ___________________________________________________________________________________
Florida
Consider Florida’s implausible vote count by machine type and party registration. In 2000, Bush “won” by 547 official recorded votes. Given Gore’s 70% share of 180,000 uncounted under/over votes, he would have won by at least 60,000 votes had they been counted. In 2004, Bush “won” by 52-47%, a 368,000 vote margin. But the Democrats had a 41- 37% registration advantage in Touch Screen (TS) counties and a 42-39% edge in Optical Scan (OS) counties. Kerry won TS counties (3.86mm votes) by 51-47% and Bush won the OS counties (3.43mm votes) by a whopping 57-42%. Kerry’s low vote shares in the three most heavily populated Democratic TS counties (Palm Beach, Broward, Dade) are highly suspect. Florida voter registration by party is virtually the same in TS and OS counties. TS county vote share matched the 12:22am NEP to within 0.43% for Bush and 0.31% for Kerry. OS county share deviated by 9.0% for Bush (307,000 votes) while the Kerry discrepancy was -8.1% (278,000).
Based on the 71-21% NEP share, Kerry won 70,000 of approximately 90,000 returning Nader voters. He had a built-in 100,000 vote advantage on Election Day- assuming no fraud. The final Zogby pre-election poll had Kerry winning by 50-47%. Assuming a 1.0% margin of error, the probability was 1 in 12 trillion that Kerry's TS vote share would exceed his state-wide Florida share by 4.2%. The probability is calculated in Excel using the Normal Distribution function: Normdist (.513, 0.4706, 0.01/1.96, false).
Dan Rather's expose on voting machines in Florida 2000 showed that poor-quality paper for punch card machines was a major cause of election fraud in heavily Democratic precincts. Prior to this, faulty paper was never considered as a way to hack mechanical voting machines.
Pre-election Florida polls trended to Kerry. After allocating 70% of the undecided vote to Kerry, he led the final 10-poll average by 51.1-48.8%. The Florida Exit Poll indicated that the election was a virtual tie, but closer inspection of corresponding data shows that Kerry was the clear winner. The reason: there was a significant Bush bias in FL exit poll weightings (Party-ID, “When Decided”, Bush approval, Urban vote share) when compared to published county voter registration data, late pre-election polling trends, Bush approval ratings and the National Exit Poll Location-size demographic.
1) Party-ID: FL exit poll weights were 38 Dem/ 39% Rep; actual voter registration was Dem 41.4/ Rep 37.8%.
2) When Decided: the FL exit poll said Bush won voters who decided a month before election day by 52-48%; but pre-election polls showed a tie.
3) Bush Approval: the FL exit poll indicated 53% Bush approval; but the actual 11-poll average was 48.5%.
4) Bush Urban share: FL exit poll indicated an Urban vote split of Kerry 46/ Bush 53%; the 7:33pm NEP, Kerry 57/ Bush 41%
Of course, all demographic category weights and/or vote shares must have been forced to match the recorded vote count.
Florida Pre-Election Polls
The Projection Trend assumes that 70% of undecided voters were for Kerry. The race was tied one month before the election.
The final 10 poll average had Kerry in the lead by 51.1 - 48.8%
Projection Moving Average Date Pollster Kerry Bush Nader Kerry Bush Nader Kerry Bush23-May Zogby 49 48 1 50.4 48.6 1.0 31-May Rasmussen 39 51 1 45.3 53.7 1.0 06-Jun Zogby 50 48 1 50.7 48.3 1.0 14-Jun Survey USA 43 50 1 47.2 51.8 1.0
17-Jun Rasmussen 48 44 1 52.9 46.1 1.0 20-Jun Zogby 46 50 1 48.1 50.9 1.0 22-Jun Rasmussen 48 42 1 54.3 44.7 1.0 23-Jun ARG 47 46 1 51.2 47.8 1.0 27-Jun Quinnipiac 43 43 5 49.3 45.7 5.0 30-Jun Rasmussen 48 43 0 54.3 45.7 0.0 50.4 48.3 11-Jul Survey USA 47 44 0 53.3 46.7 0.0 50.7 48.1
15-Jul ARG 47 44 3 51.2 45.8 3.0 51.3 47.421-Jul LA Times 44 45 2 50.3 47.7 2.0 51.2 47.322-Jul Gallup 46 50 1 48.1 50.9 1.0 51.3 47.2
23-Jul Zogby 48 49 1 49.4 49.6 1.0 51.0 47.6 30-Jul Zogby 50 47 2 50.7 47.3 2.0 51.2 47.205-Aug ARG 50 43 2 53.5 44.5 2.0 51.1 47.210-Aug Quinnipiac 47 41 4 52.6 43.4 4.0 51.3 46.721-Aug Zogby 50 49 0 50.7 49.3 0.0 51.4 47.122-Aug Gallup 46 48 2 48.8 49.2 2.0 51.2 47.3
24-Aug Rasmussen 47 49 2 48.4 49.6 2.0 50.9 47.525-Aug Research2k 46 46 2 50.2 47.8 2.0 50.6 47.711-Sep Rasmussen 47 48 1 49.8 49.2 1.0 50.3 47.914-Sep Survey USA 45 51 0 47.8 52.2 0.0 50.0 48.4
16-Sep Rasmussen 47 48 0 50.5 49.5 0.0 50.0 48.5 17-Sep Zogby 48 48 1 50.1 48.9 1.0 50.2 48.420-Sep ARG 46 45 2 50.9 47.1 2.0 50.3 48.222-Sep Gallup 45 47 2 49.2 48.8 2.0 50.2 48.3
26-Sep Rasmussen 49 48 0 51.1 48.9 0.0 50.0 48.727-Sep Gallup 44 49 2 47.5 50.5 2.0 49.6 49.3
29-Sep Rasmussen 47 50 0 49.1 50.9 0.0 49.5 49.403-Oct Survey USA 46 51 0 48.1 51.9 0.0 49.4 49.6
04-Oct Rasmussen 46 52 0 47.4 52.6 0.0 49.3 49.905-Oct Mason-Dixon 44 48 0 49.6 50.4 0.0 49.3 50.105-Oct ARG 47 45 2 51.2 46.8 2.0 49.4 49.9 05-Oct Zogby 50 49 1 50.0 49.0 1.0 49.6 49.605-Oct Rasmussen 45 52 0 47.1 52.9 0.0 49.3 49.910-Oct Rasmussen 45 49 0 49.2 50.8 0.0 49.2 50.110-Oct Wash Post 47 47 1 50.5 48.5 1.0 49.2 50.214-Oct Rasmussen 46 48 0 50.2 49.8 0.0 49.3 50.3 16-Oct Mason-Dixon 45 48 0 49.9 50.1 0.0 49.2 50.417-Oct Survey USA 50 49 0 50.7 49.3 0.0 49.4 50.3
18-Oct Zogby 49 50 0 49.7 50.3 0.0 49.5 50.218-Oct Rasmussen 47 47 0 51.2 48.8 0.0 49.7 49.921-Oct Research 2000 48 47 2 50.1 47.9 2.0 50.0 49.6 23-Oct Rasmussen 48 48 0 50.8 49.2 0.0 50.1 49.524-Oct Survey USA 50 48 0 51.4 48.6 0.0 50.1 49.6
25-Oct ARG 49 46 0 52.5 47.5 0.0 50.3 49.526-Oct Quinnipiac 44 44 1 51.7 47.3 1.0 50.7 49.026-Oct Rasmussen 48 48 0 50.8 49.2 0.0 50.8 48.9 27-Oct Zogby 46 48 0 50.2 49.8 0.0 50.8 49.027-Oct NY Times 48 47 2 50.1 47.9 2.0 50.8 48.828-Oct Rasmussen 46 49 0 49.5 50.5 0.0 50.7 48.929-Oct Mason-Dixon 45 49 0 49.2 50.8 0.0 50.6 49.029-Oct Zogby 47 45 0 52.6 47.4 0.0 50.8 48.7 29-Oct Rasmussen 47 48 0 50.5 49.5 0.0 50.8 48.830-Oct Gallup 49 45 0 53.2 46.8 0.0 51.0 48.7
30-Oct Zogby 49 47 0 51.8 48.2 0.0 51.1 48.630-Oct Rasmussen 47 49 0 49.8 50.2 0.0 51.0 48.831-Oct Opinion Dyn 49 44 1 53.2 45.8 1.0 51.1 48.6 31-Oct Survey USA 48 49 0 50.1 49.9 0.0 50.9 48.8
31-Oct Zogby 48 47 0 51.5 48.5 0.0 51.0 48.831-Oct Rasmussen 47 50 0 49.1 50.9 0.0 50.9 48.901-Nov ARG 50 48 0 51.4 48.6 0.0 51.0 48.901-Nov Zogby 48 48 0 50.8 49.2 0.0 51.1 48.8 _________________________________________________________________ Florida General Exit Poll (before match to vote count)(respondents in parenthesis)
Party-ID (2743) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Rep2000 Dem 38 86 13 1 0 Rep 39 7 92 1 1 Ind 23 60 38 2 -8
Total 100 49.21 49.56 1.23 Party-ID (adjusted to actual registration weights)Dem 41.4 86 13 1 0 Rep 37.8 7 92 1 1 Ind 20.8 60 38 2 -8
Total 100 50.73 48.06 1.21 Bush Approval: 53% (2409) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Strong 35 4 96 0 Approve 18 17 82 1Disapp 12 84 13 3Strong 35 98 1 1Total 100 48.84 50.27 0.89 Approve 53 9 91 0Disap 47 95 4 1Total 100 49.42 50.11 0.47 Bush Approval: adjusted to 48.5% national averageStrong 33 4 96 0 Approve 15.5 17 82 1Disapp 14.5 84 13 3Strong 37 98 1 1Total 100 52.40 46.65 0.96 Approve 48.5 9 91 0Disapp 51.5 95 4 1Total 100 53.29 46.20 0.52 When Decided (2162) Pct KERRY BUSH Other 3days 3 70 27 3 7 8 53 44 3 30 12 61 38 1 30+ 77 46 54 0 Total 100 49.08 50.47 0.45 When Decided: adjusted 30+ vote shares to 50/503 days 3 70 27 3 7 8 53 44 3 30 12 61 38 1 30+ 77 50 50 Total 100 52.16 47.39 0.45 ________________________________________________________________________ Gender (2826) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Rep2000 Male 46 47 52 1 -2 Female 54 52 48 0 3 Total 100 49.7 49.84 0.46 Gender/race (2775) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Wmale 33 42 57 1 Wfemale 38 46 53 1 NWmale 13 59 40 1 NWfem 16 64 36 0 Total 100 49.25 49.91 0.84 Race (2791) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Rep2000 White 70 44 55 1 -2 Black 12 87 12 1 5 Hisp 15 46 54 0 5 Asian 1 - - - - Other 2 34 66 - - Total 100 48.82 49.36 0.82 Age Pct KERRY BUSH Other Rep2000 18-29 17 60 39 1 -1 30-44 27 48 51 1 1 45-59 28 44 55 1 6 60+ 28 49 50 1 -1 Total 100 49.2 49.8 1 Age 18-64 81 49 50 1 2 65+ 19 51 49 0 -3 Total 100 49.38 49.81 0.81 Income (2524) Pct KERRY BUSH Other <15k 9 61 38 1 15-30 15 61 37 2 30-50 22 53 46 1 50-75 21 47 52 1 75-100 14 40 60 0 100-150 10 46 54 0 150-200 4 41 58 0 200+ 5 43 56 1 Total 100 50.16 48.93 0.91 Income 0-50 46 57 42 1 50+ 54 44 55 1 Total 100 49.98 49.02 1 Income 50-100 81 52 48 0 100+ 19 44 56 0 Total 100 50.48 49.52 0 Education (2552) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Rep2000 NoHS 3 55 43 2 -4HS 20 53 47 0 5Col 34 50 49 1 0
ColGr 27 46 54 0 -3 Postg 16 48 51 1 -1 Total 100 49.35 50.09 0.56 College Grad No 57 52 48 0 Yes 43 46 53 1 Total 100 49.42 50.15 0.43 Ideology (2703) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Rep2000 Lib 20 82 16 2 -1 Mod 47 59 41 0 -5 Cons 33 14 85 1 8 Total 100 48.75 50.52 0.73 First vote (2342) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Yes 13 58 41 1 No 87 48 51 1 Total 100 49.3 49.7 1 Religion (2482) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Rep2000 Prot 51 42 57 1 2 Cath 27 45 55 0 3 Jewish 6 81 19 0 0 Other 6 71 28 1 -12 None 10 68 30 2 4 Total 100 49.49 49.74 0.77 Financial situation (2354) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Rep2000 Better 34 16 84 0 48 Worse 28 87 12 1 -50 Same 38 51 48 1 -16Total 100 49.18 50.16 0.66 Population-5 categories (2843)
Pct KERRY BUSH Other Rep2000 Urban 7 35 65 0 50-500k 19 50 49 1 Suburbs 61 53 47 0 10-50k 9 45 54 1 Rural 4 34 66 0 Total 100 49.69 50.03 0.28 Population-3 categories (2343) Urban 26 46 53 1 4 Suburb 61 52 48 0 1 Rural 13 42 57 1 1 Total 100 49.14 50.47 0.39 Region (2846) Pct KERRY BUSH Other Miami 26 62 37 1
South 14 49 50 1 Tampa 16 50 49 1
Central 22 43 56 1 North 22 41 59 0 Total 100 49.46 49.76 0.78
Four Florida True Vote models
1) Election Calculator: Final NEP “Voted 2000” vote shares; weights adjusted to FL 2000 recorded vote
less 4.88% voter mortality; 95% turnout. Kerry won by 51.7-47.8%, a 300,000 vote margin.
2) Voting method/ NEP “Party ID” vote shares with party registration weights.
Kerry won by 50.7-47.7%, a 221,000 vote margin.
3) True Vote: NEP “Voted in 2000” vote shares; weights adjusted to FL 2000 recorded vote
less 3.5% mortality and 95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004.
Kerry won by 52.6-46.7%, a 448,000 vote margin.
4) Uncounted (3%) and switched vote(7%) assumptions applied to the 2004 recorded vote.
Kerry won by 51.3-48.2%, a 241,000 vote margin.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ Model I: Election Calculator Kerry wins by 51.7-47.8% (300,000 vote margin) Assumptions:Uncounted votes: 2000: 5% 2004: 3% 75% to Gore and Kerry Annual Voter Mortality 1.22%; Gore 52%Final 2004 NEP vote shares Nader 2000 voters:64% to Kerry 17% to Bush 2000 Recorded Voted Rec Unctd Cast Deaths Alive Gore 2.91 0.23 3.14 0.16 2.98 Bush 2.91 0.07 2.98 0.14 2.84 Nader 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.12 Total 5.94 0.31 6.25 0.31 5.94 2004 Calculated Turnout Voted Weight Kerry Bush OtherDNV - 2.17 27.8% 54% 45% 1%Gore 95% 2.83 36.3% 90% 10% 0%Bush 95% 2.70 34.5% 9% 91% 0%Nader 95% 0.11 1.4% 64% 19% 17% Total 5.64 7.81 100% 51.67% 47.81% 0.52% 7.81 4.04 3.74 0.04 Sensitivity Analysis Kerry share Of Gore Kerry Share of New voters (DNV in 2000) Voters 50.0% 52.0% 54.0% 56.0% 58.0% Kerry Vote Share 94.0% 52.0% 52.6% 53.1% 53.7% 54.2%92.0% 51.3% 51.8% 52.4% 52.9% 53.5%90.0% 50.6% 51.1% 51.7% 52.2% 52.8%88.0% 49.8% 50.4% 50.9% 51.5% 52.1%86.0% 49.1% 49.7% 50.2% 50.8% 51.3% Kerry Margin 94.0% 0.35 0.44 0.53 0.61 0.70 92.0% 0.24 0.33 0.41 0.50 0.59 90.0% 0.13 0.21 0.30 0.39 0.47 88.0% 0.01 0.10 0.19 0.27 0.36 86.0% (0.10) (0.01) 0.07 0.16 0.25 Gore share of Unctd Gore Voter Turnout Votes 91.0% 93.0% 95.0% 97.0% 99.0% Kerry Vote Share 85.0% 51.4% 51.7% 52.0% 52.2% 52.5%80.0% 51.3% 51.5% 51.8% 52.1% 52.4%75.0% 51.1% 51.4% 51.7% 51.9% 52.2%70.0% 51.0% 51.2% 51.5% 51.8% 52.1%65.0% 50.8% 51.1% 51.4% 51.6% 51.9% Kerry Margin 85.0% 0.26 0.30 0.35 0.39 0.44 80.0% 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.37 0.41 75.0% 0.21 0.26 0.30 0.34 0.39 70.0% 0.19 0.23 0.28 0.32 0.36 65.0% 0.17 0.21 0.25 0.30 0.34 ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Model II: Party Registration and Machine Type
Result: Kerry wins by 50.7-47.7%221,000 vote margin: 141,000 in Touch screen (DRE) and 80,000 in Optiscan (OS) counties Assumptions:12:22am National Exit PollParty ID vote shares Party Registration weights Party Registration Share Recorded Vote Share Votes (millions)County Total Dem Rep Diff Total Kerry Bush Kerry BushTS 5.576 40.89% 36.77% 4.12% 3.864 51.30% 47.77% 1.982 1.846OS 4.725 41.92% 38.98% 2.94% 3.420 42.27% 57.03% 1.446 1.950Total 10.301 41.37% 37.79% 3.58% 7.284 47.06% 52.12% 3.428 3.796 Touch screen (DRE) counties Optical Scan counties Party-Id Mix Bush Kerry Nader Mix Bush Kerry NaderDem 40.89% 9% 90% 1% 41.92% 9% 90% 1%Rep 36.77% 92% 7% 1% 38.98% 92% 7% 1%Ind 22.33% 44% 52% 4% 19.10% 44% 52% 4%
Pct 100% 47.3% 51.0% 1.7% 100% 48.0% 50.4% 1.6%Vote 3.864 1.829 1.970 0.065 3.420 1.643 1.723 0.054 Recorded VotePct 100% 47.8% 51.3% 0.9% 100% 57.0% 42.3% 0.7%Vote 3.864 1.846 1.982 0.036 3.420 1.950 1.446 2.40% ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Model III: True Vote 12:22am NEP- Adjusted weights
Kerry wins by 52.6-46.7% (448,000 vote margin) Recorded Votes (in thousands) 2000 2004 Gore 2912 49.0% Kerry 3584 47.3%Bush 2912 49.0% Bush 3965 52.3%Other 115 1.9% Other 33 0.4%Total 5939 7582 Net Increase 1643 Assumptions:2000 voter Mortality: 3.5% 2000 voter Turnout: 95% Weight Votes Kerry Bush OtherDNV 28.2% 2137 57% 41% 2%Gore 35.2% 2670 91% 9% 0%Bush 35.2% 2670 10% 90% 0%Other 1.4% 105 71% 21% 8% Calculated Share 100% 52.6% 46.7% 0.7% Votes 7582 3989 3541 51 Recorded Share 100% 47.3% 52.3% 0.4% Votes 7582 3584 3965 33 Sensitivity Analysis Kerry% Kerry share of DNV Gore 54% 57% 59% 61% 62% 89% 51.1% 51.9% 52.5% 53.0% 53.3%90% 51.4% 52.3% 52.8% 53.4% 53.7%91% 51.8% 52.6% 53.2% 53.7% 54.0%92% 52.1% 53.0% 53.5% 54.1% 54.4%93% 52.5% 53.3% 53.9% 54.4% 54.7% ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Model IV: Uncounted and Switched vote adjustments Kerry wins by 51.3-48.2% (241,000 vote margin) Assumptions:3% of votes cast were uncounted 176k for Kerry (75%) 56k for Bush (24%)7% of Kerry votes (251k) were switched to Bush Total Kerry Bush Other Actual 7582 3584 3965 33 Unctd 234 176 56 2 Total 7816 3760 4021 35 Switch 7.0% 251 -251 0 True 7816 4011 3770 35 Share 100% 51.3% 48.2% 0.5%
Florida County Vote Analysis by Machine Type
2000 2004 Net Change County Precincts Gore Bush Nader Kerry Bush Nader Bush MarginTOTAL 5,884 2,910 2,910 88 3,575 3,956 29 381 49.25% 49.26% 1.49% 47.3% 52.3% 0.4% 5.0% DRE 3,078 1,658 1,376 44 1,604 1,459 14 101 53.9% 44.7% 1.44% 52.1% 47.4% 0.5% 4.5% Optiscan 2,806 1,253 1,535 44 1,575 2,137 16 280 44.3% 54.2% 1.54% 42.2% 57.3% 0.45% 5.1% Net Bush ChangeDRE Vote Margin
Broward 618 67.7% 31.1% 1.2% 64.6% 34.8% 0.5% 0.58 6.8%Charlotte 63 44.6% 53.2% 2.2% 43.2% 56.1% 0.7% 4.39 4.2%
Collier 96 32.6% 65.9% 1.5% 34.2% 65.3% 0.5% 9.26 -2.1%Hillsboro 320 47.4% 50.5% 2.1% 46.4% 53.2% 0.4% 19.99 3.7%
IndnRiv 41 40.1% 58.0% 1.9% 39.2% 60.3% 0.5% 4.07 3.2% Lafayette 5 31.8% 67.2% 1.0% 25.5% 74.2% 0.3% 0.73 13.3%
Lake 86 41.5% 56.8% 1.7% 39.1% 60.3% 0.5% 12.73 6.0%
Miami-Dade 614 52.7% 46.4% 0.9% 53.0% 46.8% 0.3% -8.22 0.1%Martin 40 43.1% 55.0% 1.8% 42.0% 57.5% 0.6% 3.80 3.6%Nassau 21 29.4% 69.5% 1.1% 26.3% 73.1% 0.6% 5.79 6.6%
PalmBeach 531 63.8% 36.2% 0.0% 60.6% 39.2% 0.3% 0.98 6.2%Pasco 132 49.1% 48.5% 2.4% 44.7% 54.5% 0.8% 19.45 10.4%
Pinellas 345 50.7% 46.7% 2.5% 49.7% 49.8% 0.5% 16.07 4.1%Sarasota 142 45.5% 51.9% 2.5% 45.5% 53.9% 0.6% 6.00 2.0%
Sumter 24 43.7% 54.9% 1.4% 36.6% 62.6% 0.8% 5.72 14.7%
OPTISCAN Alachua 53 55.9% 40.3% 3.8% 56.4% 43.1% 0.5% -1.49 2.3%Baker 8 29.7% 69.6% 0.7% 21.9% 77.8% 0.2% 2.34 16.0%Bay 47 32.3% 66.3% 1.4% 28.2% 71.4% 0.5% 12.54 9.3%Bradford 21 35.9% 63.2% 1.0% 30.0% 69.8% 0.3% 1.97 12.5%
Brevard 177 44.9% 53.1% 2.1% 41.7% 57.9% 0.5% 24.82 7.9% Calhoun 13 42.5% 56.7% 0.8% 35.7% 63.7% 0.6% 0.95 13.9%Citrus 35 45.0% 52.5% 2.4% 42.3% 57.1% 0.7% 5.98 7.3%Clay 51 25.7% 73.3% 1.0% 23.3% 76.4% 0.3% 15.87 5.4%Columbia 31 38.6% 60.0% 1.4% 32.3% 67.3% 0.4% 4.81 13.6%
DeSoto 15 42.9% 55.0% 2.0% 41.3% 58.2% 0.5% 0.67 4.8% Dixie 11 39.7% 58.7% 1.6% 30.5% 69.0% 0.5% 1.60 19.6%
Duval 268 41.1% 57.9% 1.0% 41.8% 57.9% 0.3% 16.90 -0.7%Escambia 108 35.4% 63.1% 1.5% 33.9% 65.7% 0.4% 13.05 4.0%
Flagler 27 51.6% 46.8% 1.6% 48.4% 51.1% 0.5% 2.34 7.5%Franklin 8 44.6% 53.5% 1.9% 40.6% 58.8% 0.6% 0.66 9.2%
Gadsden 16 66.5% 32.6% 0.9% 69.9% 29.9% 0.3% -3.41 -6.1%
Gilchrist 10 36.0% 62.2% 1.8% 28.9% 70.7% 0.5% 1.53 15.6%Glades 13 43.2% 55.1% 1.7% 41.1% 58.5% 0.4% 0.33 5.4%Gulf 14 39.7% 58.8% 1.4% 33.2% 66.3% 0.6% 1.24 14.0%Hamilton 8 44.1% 55.0% 0.9% 44.6% 55.1% 0.3% 0.11 -0.4%
Hardee 12 37.9% 60.9% 1.2% 29.7% 69.8% 0.5% 1.47 17.0%Hendry 22 40.0% 58.7% 1.3% 40.7% 59.1% 0.2% 0.29 -0.2%Hernando 51 50.4% 47.3% 2.3% 46.3% 53.1% 0.6% 7.32 9.8%Highlands 28 40.6% 57.9% 1.6% 37.1% 62.5% 0.5% 4.49 8.1%
Holmes 16 29.9% 68.8% 1.3% 21.9% 77.6% 0.5% 1.77 16.8% Jackson 27 42.5% 56.6% 0.9% 38.3% 61.4% 0.4% 2.29 9.1%
Jefferson 13 54.4% 44.3% 1.4% 55.4% 44.2% 0.4% -0.27 -1.1%
Lee 150 40.1% 57.9% 2.0% 39.3% 60.1% 0.6% 17.47 3.1%Leon 95 60.0% 38.1% 1.9% 61.7% 38.0% 0.4% -9.87 1.9%Levy 21 43.0% 54.7% 2.3% 36.6% 62.8% 0.6% 2.88 14.5% Liberty 8 43.2% 56.0% 0.8% 35.5% 64.0% 0.5% 0.56 15.7%
Madison 11 49.4% 49.8% 0.9% 48.9% 50.6% 0.5% 0.12 1.4%
Manatee 135 44.9% 52.9% 2.3% 42.8% 56.8% 0.5% 11.27 6.0%Marion 96 44.0% 54.3% 1.8% 41.1% 58.4% 0.5% 13.54 6.9%Monroe 33 49.0% 47.7% 3.2% 49.9% 49.4% 0.7% 0.24 0.8%
Okaloosa 48 24.2% 74.4% 1.4% 21.7% 77.9% 0.4% 15.15 6.1%Okeechobee 18 46.9% 51.7% 1.3% 42.3% 57.4% 0.3% 1.37 10.3%Orange 232 51.0% 49.0% 0.0% 50.0% 49.7% 0.3% 4.88 1.9%Osceola 66 51.1% 47.6% 1.3% 47.1% 52.6% 0.3% 6.46 9.0%Polk 163 44.9% 53.9% 1.2% 40.9% 58.7% 0.4% 22.45 8.8% Putnam 50 46.7% 51.9% 1.5% 40.2% 59.3% 0.4% 4.55 13.9%St. Johns 57 32.4% 65.6% 2.0% 30.7% 68.8% 0.5% 12.75 4.9%
St. Lucie 78 53.5% 44.7% 1.8% 51.9% 47.7% 0.4% 2.61 4.6%Santa Rosa 36 25.7% 72.8% 1.5% 21.9% 77.7% 0.4% 13.88 8.7%
Seminole 133 43.3% 55.3% 1.4% 41.4% 58.2% 0.3% 14.69 4.7% Suwannee 16 33.2% 65.3% 1.5% 28.7% 70.8% 0.5% 2.70 10.0%
Taylor 14 39.2% 60.0% 0.9% 35.6% 63.9% 0.5% 1.01 7.4%
Union 11 37.3% 61.8% 0.9% 26.8% 72.8% 0.3% 1.22 21.5%Volusia 172 53.3% 45.1% 1.6% 50.6% 49.0% 0.4% 11.17 6.5%Wakulla 12 45.2% 53.1% 1.8% 41.8% 57.8% 0.4% 1.21 8.1% Walton 33 31.2% 67.3% 1.5% 26.0% 73.5% 0.5% 4.80 11.3%Washington 15 35.5% 63.3% 1.2% 28.2% 71.3% 0.5% 2.26 15.3%
Florida County Votes
(in thousands) DRE Bush Net Margin Change from 2000 County Precincts Total KERRY BUSH Vote Pct Incidents Broward 618 699.9 452.4 243.7 0.6 6.8% 56Charlotte 63 79.2 34.2 44.4 4.4 4.2% 0
Collier 96 127.8 43.7 83.5 9.3 -2.1% 0Miami-Dade 614 766.7 406.1 358.6 -8.2 0.1% 54Hillsboro 320 460.0 213.4 244.6 20.0 3.7% 21
Indian River 41 61.1 23.9 36.9 4.1 3.2% 0
Lafayette 5 3.3 0.8 2.5 0.7 13.3% 0
Lake 86 123.3 48.2 74.4 12.7 6.0% 3
Martin 40 72.0 30.2 41.4 3.8 3.6% 1Nassau 21 32.5 8.5 23.7 5.8 6.6% 0
Palm Beach 531 541.2 327.7 211.9 1.0 6.2% 88
Pasco 132 189.4 84.7 103.2 19.4 10.4% 0
Pinellas 345 453.4 225.4 225.6 16.1 4.1% 6Sarasota 142 194.3 88.4 104.6 6.0 2.0% 2
Sumter 24 31.6 11.6 19.8 5.7 14.7% 0
OPTISCAN Alachua 53 110.5 62.3 47.6 -1.5 2.3% 0Baker 8 9.9 2.2 7.7 2.3 16.0% 0Bay 47 74.8 21.1 53.4 12.5 9.3% 0Bradford 21 10.8 3.2 7.6 2.0 12.5% 0
Brevard 177 264.2 110.2 152.8 24.8 7.9% 4 Calhoun 13 5.9 2.1 3.8 0.9 13.9% 0Citrus 35 69.2 29.3 39.5 6.0 7.3% 0Clay 51 81.0 18.9 61.9 15.9 5.4% 0Columbia 31 24.9 8.0 16.8 4.8 13.6% 0
DeSoto 15 9.5 3.9 5.5 0.7 4.8% 0 Dixie 11 6.4 2.0 4.4 1.6 19.6% 0
Duval 268 378.6 158.1 219.3 16.9 -0.7% 12Escambia 108 142.2 48.2 93.4 13.1 4.0% 1
Flagler 27 38.4 18.6 19.6 2.3 7.5% 0Franklin 8 5.9 2.4 3.5 0.7 9.2% 0
Gadsden 16 20.9 14.6 6.3 -3.4 -6.1% 1
Gilchrist 10 7.0 2.0 4.9 1.5 15.6% 0Glades 13 4.2 1.7 2.4 0.3 5.4% 0Gulf 14 7.2 2.4 4.8 1.2 14.0% 0Hamilton 8 5.1 2.3 2.8 0.1 -0.4% 0
Hardee 12 7.2 2.1 5.0 1.5 17.0% 0Hendry 22 9.7 4.0 5.8 0.3 -0.2% 0Hernando 51 78.9 36.5 41.8 7.3 9.8% 0Highlands 28 41.4 15.3 25.9 4.5 8.1% 0
Holmes 16 8.3 1.8 6.4 1.8 16.8% 0 Jackson 27 19.7 7.6 12.1 2.3 9.1% 0
Jefferson 13 7.5 4.1 3.3 -0.3 -1.1% 0
Lee 150 240.2 94.4 144.4 17.5 3.1% 0Leon 95 135.9 83.8 51.6 -9.9 -1.9% 26Levy 21 16.6 6.1 10.4 2.9 14.5% 0 Liberty 8 3.0 1.1 1.9 0.6 15.7% 0
Madison 11 8.3 4.0 4.2 0.1 1.4% 0
Manatee 135 143.2 61.2 81.3 11.3 6.0% 0Marion 96 139.2 57.3 81.3 13.5 6.9% 2Monroe 33 39.4 19.6 19.5 0.2 0.8% 0
Okaloosa 48 89.4 19.4 69.7 15.2 6.1% 0Okeechobee 18 12.2 5.2 7.0 1.4 10.3% 0Orange 232 386.7 193.2 192.4 4.9 1.9% 16Osceola 66 82.0 38.6 43.1 6.5 9.0% 1Polk 163 210.3 86.0 123.5 22.5 8.8% 5 Putnam 50 30.9 12.4 18.3 4.6 13.9% 1St. Johns 57 86.0 26.4 59.2 12.7 4.9% 0
St. Lucie 78 99.8 51.8 47.6 2.6 4.6% 0Santa Rosa 36 66.9 14.6 52.0 13.9 8.7% 0
Seminole 133 185.6 76.9 108.1 14.7 4.7% 4 Suwannee 16 12.3 4.1 8.0 0.2 10.0% 0
Taylor 14 6.8 2.6 4.1 0.1 7.4% 0
Union 11 3.8 1.4 2.3 0.0 21.5% 0Volusia 172 182.6 97.3 82.4 2.9 6.5% 8Wakulla 12 8.5 3.8 4.5 0.1 8.1% 0Walton 33 18.1 5.6 12.2 0.3 11.3% 0Washington 15 7.9 2.8 5.0 0.1 15.3% 0
Ohio
On December 14, 2007, Bob Fitrakis &
Harvey Wasserman reported that the Ohio
Secretary of State confirmed that the 2004 election could have been stolen
: “Ohio's
Secretary of State announced this morning that a $1.9 million official study
shows that "critical security failures" are embedded throughout the
voting systems in the state that decided the 2004 election. Those failures, she
says, "could impact the integrity of elections in the Buckeye State." They have
rendered Ohio's
vote counts "vulnerable" to manipulation and theft by "fairly
simple techniques." Indeed, she says, "the tools needed to
compromise an accurate vote count could be as simple as tampering with the
paper audit trail connector or using a magnet and a personal digital
assistant." In other words, Ohio's top election official has finally confirmed that the
2004 election could have been easily stolen.
…….
The final official tally for Bush---less than 119,000 votes out of 5.4 million
cast---varied by 6.7% from exit poll results, which showed a Kerry victory.
Exit polls in 2004 were designed to have a margin of error of about 1%.
In various polling stations in Democrat-rich inner city precincts in Youngstown
and Columbus, voters who pushed touch screens for Kerry saw
Bush's name light up. A wide range of discrepancies on both electronic and
paper balloting systems leaned almost uniformly toward the Bush camp. Voting
procedures regularly broke down in inner city and campus areas known to be
heavily Democratic.
In direct violation of standing federal election law, 56 of 88 Ohio
counties have since destroyed all or part of their 2004 election data.
The materials were additionally protected by a federal court injunction in the
King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal civil rights lawsuit (in which we are attorney
and plaintiff). To date, no state or federal prosecutions have resulted from
this wholesale destruction of presidential election records, including 1.6
million ballots, cast and uncast, needed for definitive auditing procedures.
However, two Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) election officials have been convicted
of felony manipulation of an official recount. The Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the
state's largest newspaper, recently editorialized that there is "no
evidence" the 2004 election was stolen, but omitted mention of the
destruction of the electoral records by more than half the counties in the
state. The Plain-Dealer and other mainstream media have consistently ignored
findings by the Free Press and others indicating widespread manipulation and
theft of the kind Brunner has now confirmed was eminently do-able within the Ohio
system.
Brunner says "the results underscore the need for a fundamental change in
the structure of Ohio's election system to ensure ballot and voting system
security while still making voting convenient and accessible to all Ohio
voters." Among other things, she advocates replacing touch-screen machines
with optical-scan units that include a paper balloting system.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Composite 12:22am Preliminary vs. Final Ohio Exit Poll
Kerry won the unadjusted (WPE) Ohio Exit Poll by 54.4-45.6% and the 12:22am adjusted Composite (1963 respondents) by 52.1-47.9%.
Bush won the 2:06pm Final Ohio Exit Poll (2020 respondents) by 50.9-49.1%. Vote shares and weights were adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote. The Final National Exit poll was also forced to match the recorded National vote. It’s Standard Operating Procedure.
If the 12:22am Ohio exit poll weightings had been used in the Final, it would have been necessary to inflate the Bush vote shares to implausible levels to match the recorded vote. So the weights were adjusted in favor of Bush to minimize vote share inflation:
First-time Voters
Of the 14% who were first-time voters, 55% were for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 47% of those who voted previously?
Bush Approval
On Election Day, Bush had an average 48.5% national approval rating (11-polls). In the 12:22am Ohio Exit Poll, the Bush approval weighting was 51% (Kerry won by 50.1-49.9%). In the Final Ohio Exit Poll, the weighting was increased to 53% in order to force a match to the recorded vote (Bush won by 51.6-47.0%). Using the actual 48.5% Bush approval, Kerry won by 52.3-47.7%, a 270,000 vote margin.
Size of Community
According to the 12:22am Ohio Exit Poll, Kerry won in the Big Cities by 50-49% - but Bush won Big Cities in the Final Exit Poll by 53-43%. Are we supposed to believe that Bush outpolled Kerry by 10% in large, traditionally Democratic urban locations such as Cleveland and Cincinnati?
When Decided
Of the 21% who decided in the month prior to the election, 62% voted for Kerry, compared to just 45% of the 79% who decided earlier. Not plausible. Did Bush lead by 10% in the pre-October polls?
Party ID
The weights changed from 38D/35R to 35D/40R, a 7.9% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 17% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. He had 8%.
Ideology
Liberal/Conservative weights changed from 21/32 to 19/34, a 9.5% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 23% of Liberals to match the recorded vote. He had 13%.
Voted for Senate
Democratic/Republican weights changed from 43/57 to 36/64, a 16.3% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 14% of those who voted for the Democratic candidate. He had 7%.
Election Models: calculating the True Vote
1) Election Calculator: Kerry won by 54.1-45.9% (1.22% annual voter mortality; 5% uncounted in 2000)
2) True Vote: Kerry won by 51.5-48.5% (0.87% annual mortality; 2.74% uncounted in 2004)
3) Switched Vote: Kerry won by 53.3-46.7% (3% of total votes cast were uncounted; 6.8% switched )
Election Calculator
2000 Recorded 2004 Calculated Voted Actual Unctd Cast Deaths Alive Turnout Voted Weight Kerry Bush DNV 1.33 23.0% 60% 40% Gore 2.19 0.18 2.37 0.12 2.25 95% 2.13 37.0% 93% 7% Bush 2.35 0.05 2.40 0.11 2.29 95% 2.18 37.7% 11% 89% Nader 0.14 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.14 95% 0.14 2.4% 75% 25% Total 4.68 0.25 4.93 0.24 4.68 4.45 5.77 100% 54.1% 45.9% 5.77 3.12 2.65 Sensitivity Analysis I Effects of Gore share of uncounted votes and Gore voter turnout in 2004 Bush 2000 Turnout: 95.0% Gore% Gore Voter TurnoutUnctd 91.0% 93.0% 95.0% 97.0% 99.0% Kerry Ohio Vote Share 85.0% 53.9% 54.1% 54.4% 54.7% 54.9%80.0% 53.7% 54.0% 54.2% 54.5% 54.8%75.0% 53.6% 53.8% 54.1% 54.3% 54.6%70.0% 53.4% 53.7% 53.9% 54.2% 54.4%65.0% 53.2% 53.5% 53.8% 54.0% 54.3% Kerry Margin 85.0% 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 80.0% 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 75.0% 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 70.0% 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 65.0% 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Sensitivity Analysis II Effects of Kerry’s share of Gore and New voters Kerry share of Bush 2000 voters: 11.0% Kerry% Kerry % of New voters (DNV in 2000) Gore 56.0% 58.0% 60.0% 62.0% 64.0% Kerry Ohio Vote Share 97.0% 54.6% 55.1% 55.6% 56.0% 56.5%95.0% 53.9% 54.4% 54.8% 55.3% 55.7%93.0% 53.2% 53.6% 54.1% 54.5% 55.0%91.0% 52.4% 52.9% 53.3% 53.8% 54.3%89.0% 51.7% 52.1% 52.6% 53.1% 53.5% Kerry Margin 97.0% 0.54 0.59 0.64 0.69 0.75 95.0% 0.45 0.50 0.56 0.61 0.66 93.0% 0.37 0.42 0.47 0.52 0.58 91.0% 0.28 0.33 0.39 0.44 0.49 89.0% 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.41 True Vote Model 2000 Recorded 2004 Calculated Voted Actual Deaths Alive Turnout Voted Weight Kerry Bush DNV 1.31 23.4% 57% 43% Gore 2.19 0.08 2.11 95% 2.00 35.7% 91% 9% Bush 2.35 0.08 2.27 95% 2.16 38.6% 10% 90% Nader 0.14 0.01 0.14 95% 0.13 2.4% 77% 23% Total 4.68 0.16 4.52 4.29 5.60 100% 51.5% 48.5% 5.60 2.88 2.72 Uncounted and Switched Votes Kerry BushActual 2740 2859Uncounted 119 40Switched 208 -208 (6.8% of True Vote) True 3067 2690Vote 53.3% 46.7%
Ohio 2004 Exit Poll 12:22am Composite1963 respondents MoE: 2.21% --Probability-- CATEGORY Kerry Kerry Vote Dev Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Margin Win 1 inGENDER 52.06% 47.94% 2.934 2.701 0.232 96.6% 187RACE/GENDER 51.76% 48.24% 2.917 2.718 0.198 94.1% 90RACE 51.58% 48.42% 2.907 2.728 0.178 91.9% 60AGE 51.39% 48.31% 2.896 2.722 0.174 89.1% 77INCOME 52.40% 47.13% 2.953 2.656 0.297 98.3% 1862 EDUCATION 50.94% 48.77% 2.870 2.748 0.122 79.8% 29PARTY ID 51.80% 47.57% 2.919 2.681 0.238 94.5% 504IDEOLOGY 51.10% 48.90% 2.879 2.756 0.124 83.5% 23VOTED BEFORE? 50.70% 49.30% 2.857 2.778 0.079 73.3% 11RELIGION 50.96% 48.78% 2.872 2.749 0.123 80.3% 28 WHEN DECIDED 50.96% 48.94% 2.872 2.758 0.114 80.3% 21SIZE 1 51.17% 48.45% 2.883 2.730 0.153 85.0% 56SIZE 2 51.33% 48.67% 2.892 2.743 0.150 88.1% 35REGION 51.57% 48.09% 2.906 2.710 0.196 91.8% 129U.S.SENATE 51.96% 48.04% 2.928 2.707 0.221 95.9% 146 AVERAGE 51.36% 48.46% 2.894 2.731 0.163 88.6% 54 ACTUAL 48.71% 50.82% 2.740 2.859 -0.119 12.6% 2 Ohio Ohio Final NEP
12:22am (1963) 2:06pm (2020) 12:22am (13047)
GENDER Mix Votes Kerry Bush Mix Kerry Bush Mix Votes Kerry Bush OtherMale 47% 2.65 51% 49% 47% 48% 52% 46% 56.20 47% 52% 1%Female 53% 2.99 53% 47% 53% 50% 50% 54% 65.97 54% 45% 1% Total 52.06% 47.94% 49.06% 50.94% 50.78% 48.22% 1.00% 5.635 2.934 2.701 2.765 2.870 122.17 62.04 58.91 1.22 RACE/GENDER WM 40% 2.25 47% 53% 40% 43% 56% 36% 43.89 41% 58% 1%WF 45% 2.54 47% 53% 46% 45% 55% 41% 49.99 47% 52% 1%NWM 7% 0.39 75% 25% 7% 73% 27% 10% 12.19 69% 28% 1%NWF 8% 0.45 82% 18% 8% 82% 18% 13% 15.85 77% 22% 1% Total 51.76% 48.24% 49.57% 51.03% 50.94% 47.86% 1.00% 2.917 2.718 2.793 2.876 121.93 62.23 58.47 1.22 VOTED BEFORE? VOTED in 2000 No 14% 0.79 55% 45% 15% 54% 46% No 17% 20.77 57% 41% 2%Yes 86% 4.85 50% 50% 85% 47% 52% Gore 39% 47.65 91% 8% 1% Total 50.70% 49.30% 48.05% 51.10% Bush 41% 50.09 10% 90% 0% 2.857 2.778 2.708 2.879 Nader 3% 3.67 71% 21% 8% 51.41% 47.62% 0.97% 122.17 62.80 58.17 1.18 AGE 18-29 21% 1.18 60% 40% 21% 56% 42% 17% 20.56 56% 42% 1%30-44 30% 1.69 50% 49% 30% 47% 52% 29% 35.08 48% 49% 2%45-59 29% 1.63 51% 49% 29% 48% 52% 30% 36.28 51% 47% 1%60- 20% 1.13 45% 55% 20% 43% 57% 24% 29.03 48% 51% 0% Total 51.39% 48.31% 48.38% 50.90% 50.26% 47.69% 1.05% 2.896 2.722 2.726 2.868 120.95 61.40 58.26 1.28 INCOME 0-15 7% 0.39 73% 27% 7% 71% 29% 9% 10.96 65% 34% 1%15-30 16% 0.90 66% 34% 16% 63% 37% 15% 18.27 60% 38% 1%30-50 25% 1.41 53% 46% 25% 50% 49% 22% 26.80 53% 46% 1%50-75 22% 1.24 44% 55% 22% 41% 58% 23% 28.02 46% 53% 1%75-100 15% 0.85 50% 50% 15% 45% 55% 13% 15.84 48% 51% 0%100-150 9% 0.51 44% 56% 9% 42% 58% 11% 13.40 45% 53% 2%150-200 4% 0.23 39% 61% 4% 37% 63% 4% 4.87 47% 53% 0%200- 2% 0.11 39% 61% 2% 39% 61% 3% 3.65 41% 58% 1% Total 52.40% 47.13% 49.36% 50.17% 51.39% 47.39% 0.94% 2.953 2.656 2.781 2.827 121.83 62.78 57.89 1.14EDUCATION NoHS 4% 0.23 60% 40% 4% 58% 42% 4% 4.89 53% 46% 1%HSGrad 29% 1.63 53% 46% 30% 51% 49% 22% 26.88 50% 48% 2%College 28% 1.58 50% 50% 29% 48% 52% 31% 37.87 48% 51% 1%ColGrad 25% 1.41 47% 53% 25% 45% 55% 26% 31.76 49% 50% 1%Postg 14% 0.79 53% 47% 13% 49% 51% 17% 20.77 57% 41% 2% Total 50.94% 48.77% 49.16% 51.84% 50.43% 48.18% 1.39% 2.870 2.748 2.770 2.921 122.17 61.61 58.86 1.69 PARTY ID Dem 38% 2.14 91% 8% 35% 90% 9% 38% 46.17 90% 9% 1%Rep 37% 2.08 6% 94% 40% 6% 94% 35% 42.53 7% 92% 1%Ind 25% 1.41 60% 39% 25% 59% 40% 27% 32.81 52% 44% 2%
Total 51.80% 47.57% 48.65% 50.75% 50.69% 47.50% 1.27% 2.919 2.681 2.741 2.860 121.51 61.92 58.03 1.55 IDEOLOGY Lib 21% 1.18 87% 13% 19% 85% 14% 22% 26.61 86% 12% 1%Mod 47% 2.65 61% 39% 47% 59% 41% 45% 54.43 57% 41% 1%Con 32% 1.80 13% 87% 34% 13% 87% 33% 39.91 16% 82% 1% Total 51.10% 48.90% 48.30% 51.51% 49.85% 48.15% 1.00% 2.879 2.756 2.722 2.903 120.95 60.90 58.82 1.22 RELIGION Prot 56% 3.16 46% 54% 57% 44% 56% 53% 64.71 43% 56% 1%Cath 26% 1.47 46% 53% 26% 44% 55% 27% 32.96 50% 49% 1%Jewish 1% 0.06 76% 24% 1% 76% 24% 3% 3.66 78% 22% 0%Other 6% 0.34 76% 24% 6% 72% 26% 7% 8.55 75% 21% 3%None 11% 0.62 72% 28% 10% 69% 29% 10% 12.21 69% 29% 2% Total 50.96% 48.78% 48.50% 50.92% 50.78% 47.94% 1.21% 2.872 2.749 2.733 2.869 122.09 62.03 58.56 1.47 WHEN DECIDED Today 5% 0.28 60% 40% 5% 61% 39% 6% 7.31 53% 40% 5%3Days 4% 0.23 64% 36% 4% 64% 36% 3% 3.65 53% 41% 4%Week 2% 0.11 64% 36% 3% 64% 36% 2% 2.44 48% 51% 1%Month 10% 0.56 62% 37% 11% 61% 36% 10% 12.18 60% 38% 1%Before 79% 4.45 48% 52% 78% 45% 55% 79% 96.24 50% 50% 0% Total 50.96% 48.94% 48.73% 50.27% 51.23% 47.95% 0.54% 2.872 2.758 2.746 2.872 121.83 62.58 58.58 0.66REGION Cuyahoga 13% 0.73 65% 35% 12% 65% 35% East 22% 26.74 58% 41% 1%NE 27% 1.52 55% 45% 27% 50% 50% Central 26% 31.60 50% 49% 1%Central 23% 1.30 47% 52% 20% 40% 58% South 31% 37.68 44% 54% 1%NW 11% 0.62 50% 49% 15% 52% 47% West 21% 25.52 53% 45% 1%SW 26% 1.47 46% 54% 26% 45% 55% Total 51.57% 48.09% 48.80% 50.65% 50.53% 47.95% 1.00% 2.906 2.710 2.750 2.854 121.54 61.73 58.58 1.22 BUSH JOB Approval MILITARY Approve 51% 2.87 7% 93% 53% 7% 93% Yes 18% 21.95 43% 55% 1%Disap 49% 2.76 95% 5% 46% 94% 5% No 82% 100.00 53% 46% 1%
Total 50.12% 49.88% 46.95% 51.59% 51.20% 47.62% 1.00% 2.824 2.811 2.646 2.907 121.95 62.55 58.17 1.22 SIZE OF COMMUNITY BigCity 7% 0.39 50% 49% 6% 43% 53% SmCity 19% 1.07 62% 38% 19% 62% 38% Suburbs 49% 2.76 51% 49% 49% 49% 51% SmTowns 6% 0.34 55% 43% 6% 49% 49% Rural 19% 1.07 40% 59% 19% 36% 63% Total 51.17% 48.45% 48.15% 50.30% 2.883 2.730 2.713 2.834 SIZE OF COMMUNITY Urban 26% 1.47 59% 41% 25% 58% 41% Suburb 49% 2.76 51% 49% 49% 49% 51% Rural 25% 1.41 44% 56% 25% 40% 60% Total 51.33% 48.67% 48.51% 50.24% 2.892 2.743 2.734 2.831 RACE White 86% 4.85 47% 53% 86% 44% 56% Black 9% 0.51 84% 16% 10% 84% 16% Latino 3% 0.17 72% 28% 3% 65% 35% Asian 1% 0.06 72% 28% 1% 72% 28% Other 1% 0.06 72% 28% 1% * * Total 51.58% 48.42% 48.91% 51.09% 2.907 2.728 2.756 2.879 VOTE FOR U.S. SENATE Dem 43% 2.42 93% 7% 36% 94% 6% Rep 57% 3.21 21% 79% 64% 23% 77% Total 51.96% 48.04% 48.56% 51.44% 2.928 2.707 2.736 2.899
2000-2004 Ohio Recorded Votes and Margins by County The county databases do not include the total number of recorded votes (129,000 in 2000 and 145,000 in 2004) Late absentee votes had not yet been counted. Gore won 53.1% of the late 129,000 recorded votes (2.77% of the total) compared to 46.5% of the initial recorded votes.Kerry won 56.2% of the late 145,000 recorded votes (2.59% of the total) compared to 48.7% of the initial recorded votes.The discrepancies between the initial and late Democratic vote shares are further evidence of a stolen election. 2000 Bush2k Bush04 2004 VoteChg PctChg GORE BUSH NADER Margin Margin KERRY BUSH Margin Margin Machine IncidentsTotal Recorded 47.0% 50.5% 2.5% 165.0 118.6 48.9% 51.1% -46.4 -1.43% County Data 46.8% 50.7% 2.5% 176.4 136.5 48.7% 51.3% -39.9 -1.40%
Late Votes 53.1% 44.3% 2.6% -11.4 -17.9 56.2% 43.8% -6.5 -3.47% DRE 49.1% 48.2% 2.6% -6.3 -45.3 52.6% 47.4% -38.9 -4.4% 116OPTISCAN 43.8% 53.9% 2.3% 56.2 69.9 44.7% 55.3% 13.7 0.5% 31PUNCH 46.8% 50.7% 2.6% 126.6 111.9 48.6% 51.4% -14.8 -1.0% 101 DRE Auglaize 28.2% 69.9% 1.9% 7.9 10.7 25.8% 74.2% 2.8 6.7% 0Franklin 49.1% 48.3% 2.6% -3.1 -41.4 54.1% 45.9% -38.3 -7.3% 82
Knox 34.0% 63.8% 2.2% 6.1 7.1 36.6% 63.4% 1.0 -2.9% 1Lake 45.9% 51.0% 3.1% 5.1 3.1 48.7% 51.3% -1.9 -2.5% 0
Mahoning 61.2% 35.8% 2.9% -28.3 -33.5 62.9% 37.1% -5.2 -0.5% 33 Pickaway 37.5% 61.0% 1.6% 4.1 5.5 37.7% 62.3% 1.4 1.1% 0Ross 45.3% 53.1% 1.6% 2.0 3.2 44.7% 55.3% 1.3 2.8% 0 OPTISCAN Allen 32.2% 66.1% 1.7% 14.3 15.8 33.3% 66.7% 1.5 -0.6% 0Ashland 32.2% 65.1% 2.7% 6.6 7.5 34.5% 65.5% 0.9 -1.9% 0
Clermont 30.1% 68.0% 1.9% 25.7 36.4 29.1% 70.9% 10.7 3.9% 0Coshocton 39.6% 58.3% 2.1% 2.6 2.4 42.6% 57.4% -0.2 -3.8% 0Erie 51.0% 46.5% 2.5% -1.5 -2.6 53.4% 46.6% -1.1 -2.3% 0
Geauga 36.4% 60.3% 3.3% 9.9 10.4 39.5% 60.5% 0.5 -2.9% 0Hancock 28.9% 69.2% 1.9% 11.9 14.4 29.0% 71.0% 2.5 1.8% 0Hardin 37.9% 60.1% 2.1% 2.4 3.5 36.6% 63.4% 1.1 4.6% 0Lucas 58.1% 39.5% 2.3% -33.8 -43.5 60.1% 39.9% -9.7 -1.7% 31Miami 36.7% 61.2% 2.1% 10.2 16.0 34.0% 66.0% 5.8 7.4% 0
Ottawa 47.8% 50.0% 2.2% 0.4 0.9 48.0% 52.0% 0.5 1.7% 0
Sandusky 43.7% 54.0% 2.3% 2.5 3.9 43.8% 56.2% 1.4 2.1% 0
Washington 39.5% 58.4% 2.2% 4.9 4.9 41.6% 58.4% 0.0 -2.1% 0
2000 2000 2004 2004 Change Net GORE BUSH NADER Margin Margin KERRY BUSH Margin Margin IncPUNCH CARDS Adams 35.3% 63.1% 1.6% 2.8 3.3 35.9% 64.1% 0.5 0.4% 0
Ashtabula 50.9% 46.2% 2.9% -1.8 -2.9 53.3% 46.7% -1.1 -1.9% 0
Athens 53.6% 40.1% 6.3% -3.0 -7.5 63.7% 36.3% -4.5 -13.8% 0
Belmont 54.5% 43.0% 2.5% -3.3 -2.0 53.0% 47.0% 1.4 5.5% 0
Brown 36.7% 61.6% 1.7% 4.0 5.4 36.1% 63.9% 1.4 2.8% 0 Butler 34.1% 63.9% 2.0% 39.0 52.6 33.7% 66.3% 13.5 2.9% 0
Carroll 41.4% 56.3% 2.3% 1.8 1.3 45.1% 54.9% -0.4 -5.1% 0Champaign 38.3% 59.4% 2.2% 3.2 4.7 37.1% 62.9% 1.5 4.6% 0Clark 49.0% 48.7% 2.4% -0.2 1.6 48.8% 51.2% 1.8 2.7% 1
Clinton 32.0% 65.8% 2.2% 4.9 7.4 29.3% 70.7% 2.4 7.4% 0
Columbn 47.4% 49.9% 2.8% 1.1 2.3 47.6% 52.4% 1.3 2.3% 0Crawford 35.5% 61.7% 2.8% 4.9 6.0 35.8% 64.2% 1.2 2.2% 0Cuyahoga 63.0% 34.0% 3.0% -156.8 -217.6 66.8% 33.2% -60.8 -4.6% 75Darke 33.6% 64.4% 1.9% 6.9 10.2 30.0% 70.0% 3.3 9.1% 0Defiance 38.5% 59.3% 2.3% 3.3 4.3 37.8% 62.2% 1.1 3.7% 0
Delaware 31.2% 66.7% 2.2% 19.0 25.7 33.6% 66.4% 6.7 -2.8% 0
Fairfield 35.5% 62.4% 2.1% 14.2 17.7 36.6% 63.4% 3.5 -0.2% 0
Fayette 36.5% 61.7% 1.8% 2.3 3.0 37.0% 63.0% 0.7 0.8% 0Fulton 36.3% 61.7% 2.0% 4.7 5.3 37.6% 62.4% 0.7 -0.6% 0
Gallia 38.6% 59.7% 1.7% 2.6 3.1 38.4% 61.6% 0.5 2.1% 0
Greene 38.5% 59.1% 2.4% 12.8 17.5 38.5% 61.5% 4.7 2.4% 0Guernsey 43.6% 53.7% 2.7% 1.5 2.0 43.7% 56.3% 0.6 2.4% 0
Hamilton 42.6% 54.9% 2.5% 44.1 24.7 47.0% 53.0% -19.4 -6.2% 18
Harrison 48.1% 49.1% 2.7% 0.1 0.5 47.0% 53.0% 0.4 5.1% 0
Henry 33.1% 65.0% 1.9% 4.1 4.7 34.0% 66.0% 0.6 0.1% 0 Highland 34.8% 63.6% 1.6% 4.3 5.9 33.6% 66.4% 1.5 4.0% 0
Hocking 42.8% 54.5% 2.8% 1.2 0.8 47.1% 52.9% -0.4 -5.8% 0Holmes 23.0% 75.0% 1.9% 4.6 5.7 24.0% 76.0% 1.1 0.0% 0Huron 38.8% 58.5% 2.7% 4.1 4.2 41.6% 58.4% 0.1 -2.9% 0Jackson 41.7% 56.5% 1.8% 1.8 2.9 39.7% 60.3% 1.1 5.8% 0
Jefferson 52.3% 45.0% 2.7% -2.4 -1.8 52.5% 47.5% 0.6 2.2% 0
Lawrence 46.6% 51.7% 1.7% 1.2 3.3 43.9% 56.1% 2.1 7.1% 0
Licking 37.5% 60.1% 2.4% 13.7 18.7 37.9% 62.1% 5.0 1.6% 0Logan 32.6% 65.0% 2.5% 5.8 7.4 32.1% 67.9% 1.6 3.5% 0
Lorain 53.7% 43.4% 2.9% -11.2 -16.8 56.2% 43.8% -5.6 -1.9% 0
Madison 36.4% 61.5% 2.1% 3.5 4.9 35.7% 64.3% 1.3 3.5% 0
Marion 42.1% 55.5% 2.4% 3.2 5.2 40.7% 59.3% 2.0 5.1% 0
Medina 40.4% 56.6% 3.0% 10.5 11.8 42.9% 57.1% 1.2 -2.1% 0
Meigs 38.0% 59.6% 2.4% 2.0 1.8 41.3% 58.7% -0.2 -4.2% 0Mercer 28.9% 68.9% 2.2% 7.1 10.1 24.7% 75.3% 3.0 10.6% 0 Monroe 52.4% 45.5% 2.2% -0.5 -0.8 55.3% 44.7% -0.3 -3.7% 0
Montgomery 49.8% 48.2% 2.0% -3.7 -3.5 50.6% 49.4% 0.1 0.3% 0
Morgan 38.4% 58.6% 3.0% 1.2 0.9 43.2% 56.8% -0.3 -6.6% 0Morrow 35.8% 61.8% 2.4% 3.3 4.7 35.4% 64.6% 1.4 3.1% 0Muskingum 41.6% 55.6% 2.7% 4.4 5.9 42.3% 57.7% 1.4 1.4% 0 Noble 39.0% 58.3% 2.6% 1.1 1.2 40.8% 59.2% 0.1 -0.9% 0Paulding 38.3% 59.0% 2.7% 1.8 2.5 36.8% 63.2% 0.7 5.6% 0Perry 46.5% 50.8% 2.6% 0.5 0.6 48.1% 51.9% 0.0 -0.5% 0Pike 47.1% 51.2% 1.7% 0.4 0.5 47.9% 52.1% 0.1 0.2% 0Portage 50.6% 45.6% 3.8% -3.0 -4.9 53.2% 46.8% -1.8 -1.5% 1 Preble 35.6% 62.2% 2.2% 4.7 6.3 34.7% 65.3% 1.6 4.1% 0Putnam 23.7% 74.8% 1.5% 8.7 9.8 23.4% 76.6% 1.2 2.0% 0Richland 39.4% 58.0% 2.5% 9.5 12.2 39.9% 60.1% 2.7 1.6% 0
Scioto 45.7% 52.4% 1.9% 2.0 1.5 47.8% 52.2% -0.5 -2.4% 0
Seneca 39.6% 57.7% 2.8% 4.3 4.9 40.8% 59.2% 0.6 0.3% 0 Shelby 33.9% 64.1% 2.0% 5.8 9.5 28.6% 71.4% 3.7 12.7% 0
Stark 47.7% 49.7% 2.6% 3.0 -2.4 50.7% 49.3% -5.5 -3.3% 1Summit 53.7% 43.6% 2.7% -22.1 -36.7 56.8% 43.2% -14.6 -3.5% 5Trumbull 60.6% 36.5% 2.9% -22.4 -25.1 61.9% 38.1% -2.7 0.3% 0
Tuscarawas 43.6% 53.5% 2.9% 3.6 4.9 44.1% 55.9% 1.3 1.8% 0 Union 29.8% 68.1% 2.0% 6.3 9.0 29.6% 70.4% 2.7 2.6% 0Van Wert 32.1% 66.2% 1.7% 4.4 6.5 27.7% 72.3% 2.1 10.5% 0Vinton 41.9% 55.8% 2.3% 0.7 0.6 45.0% 55.0% -0.1 -3.9% 0Warren 28.0% 70.5% 1.6% 28.5 41.1 27.6% 72.4% 12.6 2.2% 0
Wayne 35.3% 61.9% 2.8% 10.9 12.0 38.2% 61.8% 1.1 -3.0% 0
Williams 34.8% 63.0% 2.2% 4.3 5.4 34.9% 65.1% 1.1 2.1% 0Wood 43.9% 53.2% 2.9% 4.7 4.4 46.4% 53.6% -0.4 -2.2% 0Wyandot 34.9% 63.1% 2.0% 2.7 3.4 33.8% 66.2% 0.7 4.2% 0
Why would BushCo steal votes in NY? Kerry won the recorded vote by a whopping 18%. The simple answer: to pad his popular vote “mandate”. This analysis shows that Kerry did much better in NY than the recorded vote indicates.
Naysayers cherry-picked the final NY pre-election poll in an attempt to promote the myth that the pre-election polls was correct and the exits poll was way off. In essence, they are claiming that the final pre-election poll matched a fraud-free recorded vote. But they can’t provide evidence that ALL the votes were counted accurately in ALL the precincts. Historical evidence indicates that Lever machines are vulnerable to rigging. They fail to consider absentee and provisional ballots. Dan Rather's voting machine expose was a clear example of how mechanical voting machines can be rigged. In Florida 2000, poor-quality paper used in punch card machines was a major cause of election fraud in heavily Democratic precincts. The report illustrated a method used to hack mechanical voting machines (punch card or lever). There are fundamental flaws in their argument.
1- They ignored the theoretical margin of error. It’s well-known that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polls. There was a 5.1% discrepancy between Kerry's NY pre-election (59%) and exit poll (64.1%). Since the MoE is 4% for a typical 600-sample pre-election state poll, there was a 95% probability that Kerry's True vote was in the 55-63% range. The NY exit poll 3.2% MoE (30% cluster effect) implies there was a 95% chance that Kerry's True vote was in the 60.9-67.3% range. Therefore, a Kerry vote share in the 60.9-63.0% range would fall within the MoE of both the NY pre-election and exit poll. On the other hand, the weighted average of 51 state pre-election polls (adjusted for undecided voters) matched the National Exit Poll to within 1%. Once again, it’s the Law of Large Numbers taking effect.
2- They failed to consider the NY 2000 vote: Gore 60.5 - Bush 35.4 - Nader 4.1. Their argument implies that the 2004 recorded vote was fraud-free and that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush - clearly an impossible scenario. In fact, according to the 12:22am NEP, Kerry won Nader voters by 71-21% and 10% of Bush voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. Adjusting the NEP weights based on the NY 2000 recorded vote and assuming 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry won by 63.6-35.1%.
3- They failed to consider that Kerry’s vote share was 10% higher in NY than nationally. The Election Calculator, which accounts for voter mortality, turnout and uncounted votes, determined that Kerry won by 62.5-36.4%, well within the 3.2% MoE. The assumptions were as follows: Kerry won 75% of the uncounted votes (2% of total cast); Kerry won 93% of Gore voters, 10% of Bush voters and 60% of new (DNV2k) voters. A sensitivity analysis shows that if Kerry won 91-95% of returning Gore voters and 56-64% of DNV2k, his NY vote share ranged from 59.8 to 65.2%.
4- They implied there was zero fraud in claiming that the recorded vote was the true vote. An analysis of the effects of uncounted and switched votes indicates that Kerry won by 63-36%. If 2% of total votes cast were uncounted (75% to Kerry), then 7% of Kerry votes were switched to Bush. The uncounted vote assumption is lower than the 2.74% national average (NY uses lever voting machines).
2004
Kerry Bush Nader
4.31m 2.96m .10m 58.5% 40.2% 1.3% 2000 Gore Bush Nader4.11m 2.41m .24m 60.5% 35.4% 4.1% Let’s first keep it simple by allocating defecting Nader 2000 voters to Kerry and Bush. According to the NEP, of the 2.8% Nader voters who defected, 2.1% voted for Kerry; 0.7% for Bush.
Assuming an equal defection of Gore and Bush voters:Kerry = 60.5 + 2.1 = 62.6%Bush = 35.4 + 0.7 = 36.1% But according to the NEP, 8% of Gore voters and 10% of Bush voters defected. (net 2% to Kerry)Kerry = 62.6% +1 = 63.6%Bush = 36.1% -1 = 35.1% Finally, assume that 3% of the total NY votes cast were uncounted.(2.25% to Kerry and 0.75% to Bush, net 1.50% to Kerry) It’s a near-perfect match to the NY Exit poll:Kerry = 63.6+.75 = 64.35% Bush = 35.1- .75 = 34.35%
Note:
1. Kerry won three NY exit poll measures by an average of 64.1%. His recorded share was 58.5%.
2. Mechanical voting machine precincts had the highest national Within Precinct Error (10.6%). New York votes 99% by Lever.
3. According to the National Exit Poll, Kerry won 57% of new voters; 91% of Gore; 64% of Nader; 10% of Bush.
4. Kerry’s NY vote share was 10% higher than his national share. Therefore, his NY shares must have exceeded the corresponding national shares.
5. Kerry won 66% of the final 500k recorded votes and just 58% of the initial 6.8m; Gore won 74% of the final 500k and 60% of the initial 6.3m.
6. Kerry won approximately 75% of the uncounted votes (included in the exit poll but not the official count).
7. Kerry had his highest NY shares in the four counties which also had the highest rates of voting incidents.
8. Bush gained a total of 573k votes in NY (25.8%) from 2000; Kerry gained just 246k (6.6%); Nader lost 196k.
9. Kerry won returning Nader voters by a 47% margin over Bush; he won new voters by 16%. Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry at a 2% higher rate than Gore voters to Bush. If we conservatively assume that Kerry’s share of New and former NY Gore voters was just 1% higher than his National share, then Bush needed 100% of former Bush voters to match the official count! The net defection rate would have had to flip from Kerry (+2%) to Bush (+7%). So how did Bush improve his NY vote share by over 5%? Do you believe in magic?
10. This is the essence of the Urban Legend: Bush made big gains in heavily Democratic urban/suburban strongholds yet did not do well in small towns and rural areas, his own strongholds. Seven strongly Democratic NYC area counties comprised 50% of the total New York State recorded vote; Kerry had 66% in the seven counties, but Bush gained 311k (41.3%) over his 2000 vote; Kerry improved by just 129k (5.4%) over the Gore vote; Nader lost 89k. In the other counties, Bush had 48% and gained 262k votes (7.6%) while Kerry gained 118k (3.4%).
This graph illustrates the Bush Urban Legend: the implausible change in votes from 2000 to 2004 for the largest 15 NY counties.
11. Since Kerry won 64% (57k) and Bush 17% (15k) of returning Nader voters, Kerry would have a 72/27% margin in the seven counties assuming an equal defection of Bush and Gore voters. But according to the National Exit Poll, 10% of Bush voters defected and 8% of Gore voters defected. Assuming a net 2% defection to Kerry, he would have had a 73/26% margin in the seven counties. So how could the Bush vote share increase by 6.4% (26.5 to 32.9%) and the Kerry share decline by 3.6% (69.6 to 66.0%)? That’s a 10% increase in Bush margin!
________________________________________________________________________
NY Pre-election and Exit Polls
New York Kerry Bush Nader
Recorded vote 58.5% 40.2% 1.3%
Final pre-election poll 57 39 1
Projection 59 40 1
Edison-Mitofsky Exit Poll Measures
WPE (11.4) 64.1% 34.4% 1.5%
Best Estimate 65.1 33.8 1.1
Composite 63.1 35.5 1.4
Average Voting Machine WPE for all Exit Poll Precincts
Mechanical (Lever) voting machine precincts had the highest mean Within Precinct Error (-10.6%).
Paper ballot precincts had the smallest mean WPE (-2.2%)
New York votes 99% by Lever.
|
Polling |
Place |
WPE mean |
WPE median |
|
Number precincts |
|
Paper |
Ballot |
-2.2 |
-0.9 |
|
40 |
|
Mechanical |
Voting |
-10.6 |
-10.3 |
|
118 |
|
Touch |
Screen |
-7.1 |
-7 |
|
360 |
|
Punch |
Cards |
-6.6 |
-7.3 |
|
158 |
|
Optical |
Scan |
-6.1 |
-5.5 |
|
573 |
NY 2004 Election Calculator Assumptions:95% turnout 1.22% annual voter mortalityNo uncounted votes Plausible Scenarios Scenario 1: (12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares)
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush OtherDNV 1.236 16.7% 57% 41% 2%Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 91% 8% 1%Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 10% 90% 0%Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 64% 17% 19% Total 6.140 7.376 100% 60.54% 37.98% 1.48% 7.376 4.465 2.801 0.109 Scenario 2: (Kerry vote shares increased for NY) Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush OtherDNV 1.236 16.7% 61% 37% 2%Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 94% 5% 1%Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 12% 88% 0%Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 68% 13% 19% Total 6.140 7.376 100% 63.45% 35.07% 1.48% 7.376 4.680 2.587 0.109 Implausible Scenarios (vote shares adjusted to match to recorded vote) Scenario 1: Bush wins 100% of Nader 2000 voters Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush OtherDNV 1.236 16.7% 57% 41% 2%Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 91% 8% 1%Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 10% 90% 0%Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 0% 100% 0% Total 6.140 7.376 100% 58.37% 40.79% 0.84% 7.376 4.305 3.009 0.062 Scenario 2: Bush wins 100% of Bush 2000 voters Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush OtherDNV 1.236 16.7% 57% 41% 2%Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 91% 8% 1%Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 0% 100% 0%Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 64% 17% 19% Total 6.140 7.376 100% 57.60% 40.92% 1.48% 7.376 4.248 3.018 0.109 Scenario 3: Bush wins 54% of New 2004 voters (DNV) Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush OtherDNV 1.24 16.7% 44% 54% 2%Gore 95% 3.72 50.4% 91% 8% 1%Bush 95% 2.17 29.4% 10% 90% 0%Nader 95% 0.25 3.4% 64% 17% 19% Total 6.140 7.376 100% 58.36% 40.15% 1.48% 7.376 4.305 2.962 0.109
Sensitivity Analysis I Assumptions:Bush 2000 voter turnout: 95%2% uncounted votes1.22% annual voter mortality Gore share of Unctd Gore Voter Turnout Votes 91.0% 93.0% 95.0% 97.0% 99.0% Kerry National Vote 95.0% 62.1% 62.4% 62.8% 63.2% 63.5%85.0% 61.9% 62.3% 62.7% 63.0% 63.4%75.0% 61.8% 62.1% 62.5% 62.9% 63.2%65.0% 61.6% 62.0% 62.4% 62.7% 63.1%55.0% 61.5% 61.9% 62.2% 62.6% 62.9% Kerry Margin (millions) 95.0% 1.90 1.96 2.01 2.06 2.12 85.0% 1.88 1.93 1.99 2.04 2.10 75.0% 1.86 1.91 1.97 2.02 2.07 65.0% 1.84 1.89 1.94 2.00 2.05 55.0% 1.82 1.87 1.92 1.98 2.03 Sensitivity Analysis II Kerry share of Bush 2000 voters: 10%2% uncounted votes1.22% annual voter mortality Kerry Share of Gore New voters (DNV in 2000) Voters 56.0% 58.0% 60.0% 62.0% 64.0% Kerry National Vote 97.0% 63.9% 64.2% 64.5% 64.9% 65.2%95.0% 62.9% 63.2% 63.5% 63.9% 64.2%93.0% 61.8% 62.2% 62.5% 62.8% 63.2%91.0% 60.8% 61.2% 61.5% 61.8% 62.2%89.0% 59.8% 60.1% 60.5% 60.8% 61.2% Kerry Margin (millions) 97.0% 2.17 2.22 2.27 2.32 2.37 95.0% 2.02 2.07 2.12 2.17 2.22 93.0% 1.87 1.92 1.97 2.02 2.07 91.0% 1.71 1.76 1.81 1.86 1.92 89.0% 1.56 1.61 1.66 1.71 1.76
________________________________________________________________________
New York County Vote Changes
(93.4% of final recorded total)
Vote Change Kerry BushTotal NYS 246k 6.6% 573k 25.8%Top 7 Counties 129k 5.4% 311k 41.3% Final Recorded Vote Total Dem Nader Bush Dem Nader Bush 2004 7,377 4,314 99 2,963 58.48% 1.35% 40.17% 2000 6,762 4,112 244 2,405 60.82% 3.61% 35.57% Change 614 201 -144 557 4.9% -59.1% 23.2% Preliminary Recorded vote 2004 6,892 3,993 103 2,795 57.94% 1.50% 40.56% 2000 6,269 3,746 300 2,222 59.76% 4.79% 35.45% Change 622 246 -197 573 6.6% -65.5% 25.8% Change from Preliminary to Final 2004 485 320 -3 167 66.1% -0.75% 34.6% 2000 493 366 -56 183 74.2% -11.4% 37.1%
Seven NYC Area Counties 2000 2004 Vote Change Percent Change County Precincts Total GORE BUSH NADER Total KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSHTotal 7779 3093 69.6% 26.5% 4.1% 3442 66.0% 32.9% 1.1% 129 311 -89 5.4% 41.3% Brooklyn 1888 557 80% 16% 4% 630 74% 25% 0.8% 23.3 67.2 -17.1 5% 75%
Suffolk 1006 536 53% 42% 5% 618 49% 49% 2.1% 18.0 77.7 -13.7 6% 35%
Nassau 1070 554 58% 39% 4% 597 52% 47% 1.0% -6.7 64.5 -14.7 -2% 30%
Manhattan 1100 522 79% 15% 6% 572 82% 17% 1.4% 59.1 16.4 -25.1 14% 21%
Queens 1470 512 74% 23% 3% 559 71% 28% 0.8% 18.3 41.3 -11.9 5% 36%Bronx 912 279 86% 12% 2% 318 83% 17% 0.6% 22.8 19.7 -3.9 10% 59%
Staten Island 333 133 52% 45% 3% 148 42% 57% 0.8% -6.2 24.3 -2.9 -9% 40%
Total New York Counties
2000 2004 Vote Change Percent Change County Precincts Total GORE BUSH NADER Total KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSHTotal 15553 6270 59.8% 35.4% 4.8% 6892 57.9% 40.6% 1.5% 247 573 -197 6.6% 25.8% Brooklyn 1888 557 80% 16% 4% 630 74% 25% 0.8% 23.3 67.2 -17.1 5% 75%
Suffolk 1006 536 53% 42% 5% 618 49% 49% 2.1% 18.0 77.7 -13.7 6% 35%
Nassau 1070 554 58% 39% 4% 597 52% 47% 1.0% -6.7 64.5 -14.7 -2% 30%
Manhattan 1100 522 79% 15% 6% 572 82% 17% 1.4% 59.1 16.4 -25.1 14% 21%
Queens 1470 512 74% 23% 3% 559 71% 28% 0.8% 18.3 41.3 -11.9 5% 36% Erie 1007 384 57% 37% 6% 411 56% 42% 2.2% 13.3 27.7 -13.5 6% 19%
Westchester 948 306 58% 37% 4% 377 58% 41% 1.5% 39.5 38.9 -7.3 22% 34%
Monroe 792 300 51% 44% 5% 330 50% 48% 1.6% 13.9 26.3 -10.2 9% 20%
Bronx 912 279 86% 12% 2% 318 83% 17% 0.6% 22.8 19.7 -3.9 10% 59%
Onondaga 485 190 54% 41% 5% 199 54% 44% 1.8% 5.4 10.1 -6.5 5% 13% Staten Island 333 133 52% 45% 3% 148 42% 57% 0.8% -6.2 24.3 -2.9 -9% 40%
Albany 327 130 60% 34% 6% 136 60% 38% 1.9% 3.8 6.9 -5.6 5% 16%
Orange 284 118 46% 50% 5% 135 44% 55% 1.3% 5.1 16.0 -3.7 9% 27%Rockland 250 117 56% 40% 4% 122 49% 50% 1.5% -6.0 13.7 -2.7 -9% 29%
Dutchess 239 105 47% 47% 6% 114 47% 52% 1.6% 4.0 9.7 -4.7 8% 20% Saratoga 168 89 45% 50% 5% 100 45% 53% 1.8% 4.7 8.3 -2.3 12% 19%
Niagara 180 87 52% 43% 5% 90 49% 49% 1.9% -1.2 5.9 -2.7 -3% 16%
Oneida 209 87 45% 49% 5% 89 42% 55% 2.3% -1.7 6.5 -2.6 -4% 15%
Broome 193 81 52% 43% 6% 84 50% 48% 2.0% 0.0 5.7 -3.0 0% 16%Ulster 161 72 48% 44% 8% 84 54% 43% 2.3% 10.6 4.8 -4.1 30% 15%
Rensselaer 136 64 51% 43% 6% 67 49% 48% 2.2% 0.5 4.8 -2.4 2% 17%
Schenectady 131 63 53% 42% 5% 65 52% 47% 1.8% 0.0 4.0 -2.1 0% 15%
Chataqua 135 55 46% 49% 5% 57 45% 53% 1.9% 0.0 3.0 -1.4 0% 11%Oswego 107 45 47% 48% 5% 49 47% 51% 2.0% 1.8 2.9 -1.3 9% 13%
Ontario 88 42 44% 51% 5% 47 42% 56% 1.6% 1.1 4.5 -1.4 6% 21%
Putnam 72 40 44% 51% 5% 44 41% 58% 1.1% 0.6 4.7 -1.7 3% 23%Steuben 82 38 36% 59% 4% 39 34% 64% 1.7% -0.3 2.9 -1.0 -2% 13%Wayne 67 36 39% 56% 4% 39 38% 60% 1.7% 0.4 2.9 -1.0 3% 14%
Tompkins 67 37 54% 34% 12% 38 64% 34% 2.4% 4.8 0.6 -3.6 25% 5%StLawrence 99 37 54% 41% 5% 38 55% 44% 1.9% 0.8 1.3 -1.1 4% 9% Chemung 82 35 46% 50% 4% 38 43% 54% 2.4% 0.5 3.3 -0.6 3% 19%Jefferson 83 27 42% 47% 10% 35 43% 55% 2.1% 3.7 6.3 -2.1 32% 49%
Cayuga 61 30 49% 45% 6% 32 50% 48% 2.2% 1.6 2.3 -1.0 11% 17%Catargus 74 32 40% 55% 5% 32 39% 59% 1.8% -0.3 1.5 -1.0 -3% 8%Clinton 64 29 50% 44% 6% 31 52% 46% 2.1% 1.9 1.6 -1.0 13% 12%
Livingston 57 26 39% 56% 6% 29 38% 60% 2.1% 1.4 3.4 -0.8 14% 24%
Sullivan 63 25 50% 45% 5% 28 49% 50% 1.9% 1.0 2.5 -0.8 8% 22%Madison 51 26 42% 52% 5% 28 43% 55% 1.8% 0.9 1.7 -0.8 8% 12%
Warren 57 26 43% 52% 5% 28 43% 55% 2.0% 0.7 1.9 -0.8 7% 14%
Herkimer 61 25 44% 51% 5% 26 41% 57% 2.0% -0.5 1.9 -0.7 -4% 15% Columbia 54 26 47% 46% 7% 26 54% 43% 2.1% 1.7 -0.8 -1.4 14% -7%
Genesee 53 26 40% 55% 5% 26 37% 61% 1.6% -0.8 1.4 -1.0 -8% 10%
Otsego 58 23 45% 48% 7% 25 47% 51% 2.0% 0.8 1.3 -1.0 8% 11%Washington 51 22 41% 53% 6% 23 42% 56% 2.4% 0.8 1.4 -0.7 9% 12%
Greene 52 19 40% 54% 6% 23 39% 59% 2.0% 1.3 3.2 -0.7 17% 31% Tioga 46 21 41% 54% 5% 22 40% 58% 1.7% 0.4 1.4 -0.6 4% 13%Cortland 42 20 47% 47% 6% 21 47% 51% 1.9% 0.7 1.5 -0.7 7% 16%
Fulton 49 21 43% 53% 4% 21 41% 57% 1.9% -0.4 0.6 -0.5 -4% 6%
Delaware 59 19 42% 53% 5% 20 40% 58% 2.4% 0.2 1.6 -0.5 3% 16%
Montgomery 49 20 49% 47% 4% 20 44% 54% 1.9% -0.9 1.4 -0.4 -9% 15%
Chenang 39 19 45% 50% 5% 20 43% 55% 2.0% -0.1 1.3 -0.6 -1% 14%Allegany 41 17 35% 61% 5% 18 34% 64% 1.7% 0.0 1.0 -0.5 0% 10%Essex 39 16 44% 49% 7% 17 46% 52% 2.2% 0.6 0.9 -0.7 8% 11%
Wyoming 39 17 35% 60% 5% 17 34% 65% 1.4% -0.1 0.9 -0.5 -2% 9%
Franklin 49 16 50% 45% 5% 17 51% 47% 1.9% 0.6 0.7 -0.5 7% 9%
Orleans 40 15 38% 58% 4% 16 35% 63% 1.6% -0.1 1.2 -0.4 -2% 13%
Seneca 27 13 48% 47% 5% 14 45% 52% 2.1% 0.1 1.3 -0.4 2% 21%Schoharie 29 13 39% 55% 5% 13 39% 59% 2.1% 0.2 0.9 -0.4 4% 14%Lewis 30 10 40% 56% 4% 11 40% 58% 1.9% 0.3 0.6 -0.2 8% 10%Yates 20 9 39% 55% 5% 10 39% 60% 1.6% 0.2 0.7 -0.3 5% 15% Schuyler 17 8 40% 54% 6% 8 40% 58% 1.9% 0.2 0.7 -0.3 8% 18%Hamilton 11 3 29% 64% 7% 3 32% 66% 1.6% 0.1 0.1 -0.2 15% 6%
________________________________________________________________________ NY 2000-2004 County Vote Analysis
The data includes the first 6.3m of 6.8m recorded 2000 votes (Gore won 74% of the final 500,000) and the first 6.8m of 7.3m recorded 2004 votes (Kerry won 66% of the final 500,000).
Final Recorded Vote Total Dem Nader Bush Dem Nader Bush 2004 7,377 4,314 99 2,963 58.48% 1.35% 40.17% 2000 6,762 4,112 244 2,405 60.82% 3.61% 35.57% Change 614 201 -144 557 4.9% -59.1% 23.2% Preliminary Recorded vote 2004 6,892 3,993 103 2,795 57.94% 1.50% 40.56% 2000 6,269 3,746 300 2,222 59.76% 4.79% 35.45% Change 622 246 -1967 573 6.6% -65.5% 25.8% Change from Preliminary to Final 2004 485 320 -3 167 66.1% -0.75% 34.6% 2000 493 366 -56 183 74.2% -11.4% 37.1% Analysis of Changes in Margin 2000 Gore 2004 Kerry Increase in Bush County Gore Bush Nader Margin Kerry Bush Nader Margin Margin Vote Albany 59.7% 34.0% 6.3% 25.7% 60.2% 37.8% 1.9% 22.4% 3.3% 6922
Allegany 34.7% 60.5% 4.8% -25.8% 33.8% 64.5% 1.7% -30.6% 4.8% 1031Bronx 86.0% 11.9% 2.1% 74.1% 82.7% 16.7% 0.6% 66.0% 8.0% 19734
Brooklyn 79.9% 16.1% 4.0% 63.9% 74.3% 24.8% 0.8% 49.5% 14.4% 67235
Broome 51.8% 42.5% 5.7% 9.3% 50.1% 47.9% 2.0% 2.2% 7.0% 5684 Catargus 40.4% 54.6% 5.1% -14.2% 39.2% 59.0% 1.8% -19.8% 5.6% 1453Cayuga 49.3% 44.9% 5.8% 4.4% 49.9% 47.9% 2.2% 2.0% 2.4% 2266Chataqua 46.3% 49.1% 4.5% -2.8% 45.1% 53.1% 1.9% -8.0% 5.3% 3038Chemung 46.1% 49.8% 4.2% -3.7% 43.4% 54.3% 2.4% -10.9% 7.2% 3327Chenang 44.8% 49.7% 5.5% -4.8% 43.0% 55.0% 2.0% -12.0% 7.1% 1343 Clinton 50.4% 43.9% 5.7% 6.4% 52.4% 45.5% 2.1% 6.9% -0.4% 1565
Columbia 46.9% 45.8% 7.3% 1.1% 54.4% 43.5% 2.1% 10.9% -9.8% -829
Cortland 47.1% 47.1% 5.9% 0.0% 47.1% 51.0% 1.9% -3.8% 3.8% 1498
Delaware 41.5% 53.2% 5.2% -11.7% 39.8% 57.7% 2.4% -17.9% 6.2% 1628
Dutchess 46.7% 47.1% 6.2% -0.4% 46.5% 51.9% 1.6% -5.3% 4.9% 9666 Erie 56.8% 37.4% 5.9% 19.4% 56.2% 41.6% 2.2% 14.6% 4.8% 27705
Essex 44.2% 49.0% 6.8% -4.8% 45.7% 52.2% 2.2% -6.5% 1.7% 912
Franklin 50.1% 44.6% 5.3% 5.5% 51.4% 46.7% 1.9% 4.7% 0.8% 678
Fulton 42.7% 53.1% 4.2% -10.5% 41.3% 56.8% 1.9% -15.6% 5.1% 644
Genesee 39.8% 54.9% 5.2% -15.1% 37.2% 61.2% 1.6% -23.9% 8.9% 1393
Greene 40.0% 53.8% 6.2% -13.7% 39.2% 58.8% 2.0% -19.7% 5.9% 3237Hamilton 28.8% 64.3% 6.9% -35.5% 32.2% 66.2% 1.6% -34.0% -1.5% 131
Herkimer 44.1% 51.1% 4.8% -7.1% 41.0% 57.0% 2.0% -16.0% 9.0% 1910Jefferson 42.3% 47.4% 10.3% -5.1% 43.2% 54.7% 2.1% -11.5% 6.4% 6343
Lewis 39.7% 56.0% 4.3% -16.4% 40.3% 57.9% 1.9% -17.6% 1.3% 575 Livingston 38.6% 55.9% 5.5% -17.3% 38.1% 59.8% 2.1% -21.7% 4.3% 3363
Madison 42.5% 52.3% 5.2% -9.8% 43.0% 55.2% 1.8% -12.2% 2.4% 1686
Manhattan 78.5% 15.1% 6.3% 63.4% 81.9% 16.7% 1.4% 65.3% -1.9% 16421
Monroe 50.8% 44.1% 5.1% 6.6% 50.4% 48.1% 1.6% 2.3% 4.4% 26322
Montgomery 49.3% 46.9% 3.8% 2.5% 44.5% 53.6% 1.9% -9.1% 11.6% 1388
Nassau 57.6% 38.7% 3.7% 18.9% 52.3% 46.7% 1.0% 5.6% 13.3% 64523
Niagara 51.7% 43.3% 5.0% 8.4% 49.2% 48.9% 1.9% 0.3% 8.1% 5919
Oneida 45.4% 49.3% 5.3% -3.9% 42.3% 55.4% 2.3% -13.1% 9.2% 6538
Onondaga 53.8% 40.9% 5.3% 12.9% 54.1% 44.1% 1.8% 9.9% 3.0% 10102Ontario 43.6% 51.4% 5.0% -7.9% 42.0% 56.4% 1.6% -14.4% 6.6% 4541
Orange 45.8% 49.6% 4.6% -3.8% 43.6% 55.0% 1.3% -11.4% 7.6% 16027Orleans 37.8% 58.0% 4.2% -20.2% 35.5% 63.0% 1.6% -27.5% 7.3% 1150
Oswego 47.0% 48.1% 4.9% -1.0% 47.4% 50.6% 2.0% -3.1% 2.1% 2869
Otsego 45.4% 48.1% 6.5% -2.7% 46.8% 51.2% 2.0% -4.4% 1.7% 1252Putnam 43.5% 51.0% 5.5% -7.4% 41.3% 57.5% 1.1% -16.2% 8.8% 4697 Queens 74.2% 22.5% 3.2% 51.7% 71.2% 28.0% 0.8% 43.2% 8.5% 41325Rensselaer 50.9% 43.2% 6.0% 7.7% 49.4% 48.4% 2.2% 1.0% 6.7% 4817
Rockland 55.9% 40.2% 3.9% 15.7% 48.7% 49.8% 1.5% -1.1% 16.8% 13655
St Lawrence 53.9% 41.2% 4.9% 12.7% 54.6% 43.5% 1.9% 11.0% 1.6% 1319Saratoga 45.4% 50.0% 4.7% -4.6% 45.2% 53.0% 1.8% -7.8% 3.2% 8344
Schenectady 53.2% 41.7% 5.2% 11.5% 51.5% 46.7% 1.8% 4.9% 6.6% 4008
Schoharie 39.3% 55.5% 5.2% -16.1% 38.6% 59.4% 2.1% -20.8% 4.7% 941Schuyler 40.4% 53.8% 5.9% -13.4% 40.0% 58.1% 1.9% -18.1% 4.7% 721Seneca 47.9% 46.7% 5.4% 1.3% 45.5% 52.5% 2.1% -7.0% 8.2% 1277Staten Island 51.8% 45.2% 3.1% 6.6% 42.3% 56.9% 0.8% -14.7% 21.3% 24335
Steuben 36.3% 59.4% 4.3% -23.2% 33.9% 64.4% 1.7% -30.5% 7.3% 2906Suffolk 53.2% 41.8% 5.0% 11.4% 49.1% 48.8% 2.1% 0.3% 11.2% 77671
Sullivan 49.8% 45.0% 5.2% 4.7% 48.5% 49.5% 1.9% -1.0% 5.8% 2513Tioga 40.8% 54.5% 4.7% -13.6% 40.3% 58.0% 1.7% -17.7% 4.1% 1447Tompkins 54.0% 33.7% 12.3% 20.3% 63.9% 33.7% 2.4% 30.2% -10.0% 627 Ulster 48.2% 43.5% 8.3% 4.6% 54.3% 43.4% 2.3% 10.9% -6.3% 4831
Warren 43.2% 51.7% 5.1% -8.6% 42.9% 55.1% 2.0% -12.2% 3.7% 1913
Washington 41.1% 53.1% 5.7% -12.0% 42.1% 55.6% 2.4% -13.5% 1.5% 1351
Wayne 39.2% 56.4% 4.4% -17.2% 38.0% 60.4% 1.7% -22.4% 5.2% 2857
Westchester 58.4% 37.4% 4.2% 21.0% 57.9% 40.7% 1.5% 17.2% 3.8% 38923
Wyoming 35.0% 60.4% 4.6% -25.4% 33.7% 64.9% 1.4% -31.2% 5.8% 919
Yates 39.5% 55.4% 5.1% -15.9% 38.8% 59.6% 1.6% -20.8% 4.9% 735
California Secretary of State Bowen decertified Touch Screens (DRE) and mandated a complete audit for counties with Optical Scanners. This analysis shows that the largest vote discrepancies were in DRE counties.
Bush's recorded CA vote share increased by 2.9% over 2000 while the Kerry share increased by 0.9% over Gore. Assuming no voter defection, this implies that Bush won 76% of returning Nader voters. But this is clearly impossible since the National Exit Poll reported that 71% of Nader voters switched to Kerry, 21% to Bush and 8% to Other.
Election Calculator 2004 Recorded Kerry Bush Other 6.75 5.51 0.14 54.4% 44.5% 1.1% Exit Poll (WPE) 59.9% 38.9% 1.2% Uncounted 3.0% 75% 23% 2%0.29 0.09 0.01 Switched 6.1% -9.9% 23.5%0.46 -0.50 0.04 2000 Recorded 2004 Calculated Voted Rec Unctd Cast Deaths Alive Turnout Voted Weight Kerry Bush OtherDNV DNV 2.43 19.0% 60% 38% 2%Gore 5.86 0.42 6.28 0.31 5.97 95% 5.68 44.4% 93% 6% 1%Bush 4.57 0.11 4.68 0.23 4.45 95% 4.23 33.1% 11% 89% 0%Nader 0.46 0.03 0.49 0.02 0.46 95% 0.44 3.4% 66% 15% 19% Total 10.89 0.57 11.46 0.56 10.89 10.34 12.78 100% 58.7% 39.9% 1.5% 12.78 7.49 5.09 0.19 Sensitivity Analysis 1: Kerry share of Gore and New voters Kerry Vote Share Kerry share of New voters (DNV in 2000) Gore 56.0% 58.0% 60.0% 62.0% 64.0% 97.0% 59.7% 60.0% 60.4% 60.8% 61.2%95.0% 58.8% 59.2% 59.5% 59.9% 60.3%93.0% 57.9% 58.3% 58.6% 59.0% 59.4%91.0% 57.0% 57.4% 57.8% 58.1% 58.5%89.0% 56.1% 56.5% 56.9% 57.3% 57.6% Kerry Margin 97.0% 2.66 2.76 2.85 2.95 3.05 95.0% 2.43 2.53 2.63 2.72 2.82 93.0% 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.59 91.0% 1.98 2.07 2.17 2.27 2.37 89.0% 1.75 1.85 1.94 2.04 2.14 Sensitivity Analysis 2: Gore Turnout, Uncounted Kerry Vote Share Gore share of Gore Voter Turnout Unctd 93.0% 94.0% 95.0% 96.0% 97.0% 85.0% 58.7% 58.8% 59.0% 59.1% 59.3%80.0% 58.5% 58.7% 58.8% 59.0% 59.1%75.0% 58.3% 58.5% 58.6% 58.8% 59.0%70.0% 58.2% 58.3% 58.5% 58.6% 58.8%65.0% 58.0% 58.2% 58.3% 58.5% 58.6% Kerry Margin 85.0% 2.41 2.45 2.49 2.53 2.57 80.0% 2.36 2.40 2.44 2.48 2.52 75.0% 2.32 2.36 2.40 2.44 2.48 70.0% 2.27 2.31 2.35 2.39 2.43 65.0% 2.23 2.27 2.31 2.35 2.39 * indicates fraud likelyCalifornia 2000 2004 County GORE BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH Knet Kadj DiffTOTAL 54.3% 41.9% 3.8% 55.2% 44.8% -2.0% 57.2% 2.0% AVERAGE DRE 50.9% 45.8% 3.4% 50.7% 49.3% -3.8% 53.4% 2.8%Optical scan 56.2% 39.7% 4.0% 57.5% 42.5% -1.5% 59.4% 1.9%Punch card 46.6% 49.3% 4.1% 47.8% 52.2% -1.6% 49.7% 1.9% DRE Alameda 70.2% 24.1% 5.7% 75.2% 24.8% 4.3% 74.6% -0.6%
Merced* 45.7% 52.0% 2.3% 42.8% 57.2% -8.1% 47.4% 4.7%
Napa 55.2% 40.0% 4.8% 60.4% 39.6% 5.6% 58.9% -1.5%
Orange* 40.9% 56.3% 2.8% 39.7% 60.3% -5.0% 43.0% 3.3%Plumas 33.7% 61.9% 4.4% 37.0% 63.0% 2.2% 37.1% 0.1% Riverside* 45.6% 51.8% 2.6% 41.6% 58.4% -10.4% 47.6% 5.9%San Bernard* 48.0% 49.3% 2.6% 43.7% 56.3% -11.3% 50.1% 6.4%Santa Clara 61.8% 34.7% 3.5% 64.9% 35.1% 2.6% 64.5% -0.4%
Shasta 30.9% 65.9% 3.2% 31.6% 68.4% -1.8% 33.4% 1.7%Tehama 31.9% 64.6% 3.4% 32.7% 67.3% -1.9% 34.6% 1.9% OPTICAL SCANNERS Amador 38.8% 57.4% 3.8% 37.2% 62.8% -7.0% 41.7% 4.5%Butte 38.3% 54.7% 6.9% 45.1% 54.9% 6.6% 43.7% -1.4%
Colusa 31.8% 65.5% 2.8% 32.1% 67.9% -2.2% 33.9% 1.8%Contra Costa 59.6% 37.0% 3.4% 62.9% 37.1% 3.2% 62.3% -0.7%Fresno* 43.7% 53.4% 3.0% 41.7% 58.3% -6.9% 45.9% 4.3%
Humboldt 45.7% 40.9% 13.3% 59.8% 40.2% 14.8% 56.0% -3.8%Kern* 36.6% 61.5% 1.9% 32.5% 67.5% -10.0% 38.0% 5.5%Kings* 40.0% 58.0% 2.0% 34.3% 65.7% -13.5% 41.6% 7.3%Lake 52.0% 41.9% 6.1% 54.2% 45.8% -1.7% 56.7% 2.5%
Lassen 28.8% 67.9% 3.2% 28.0% 72.0% -4.9% 31.3% 3.3% Los Angeles* 64.2% 32.6% 3.1% 63.6% 36.4% -4.3% 66.6% 3.0%
Madera 35.3% 61.4% 3.3% 35.1% 64.9% -3.7% 37.9% 2.7%
Marin 64.8% 28.5% 6.7% 73.9% 26.1% 11.5% 69.9% -3.9%Mariposa 35.6% 59.6% 4.7% 38.4% 61.6% 0.8% 39.3% 0.9%Mendocino 49.2% 36.1% 14.7% 65.1% 34.9% 17.1% 60.5% -4.6% Modoc 23.5% 73.5% 3.0% 26.0% 74.0% 2.0% 25.8% -0.2%Mono 41.4% 53.3% 5.3% 50.0% 50.0% 11.9% 45.5% -4.5%Monterey 58.3% 37.4% 4.3% 60.7% 39.3% 0.4% 61.6% 1.0%
Nevada 37.7% 55.3% 7.0% 45.2% 54.8% 8.1% 43.1% -2.2%
Placer 36.7% 59.5% 3.8% 36.9% 63.1% -3.4% 39.6% 2.7% Sacramento 49.9% 45.9% 4.1% 50.6% 49.4% -2.8% 53.1% 2.5%
San Diego* 46.6% 49.8% 3.6% 47.3% 52.7% -2.1% 49.4% 2.0%
San Francisco 76.1% 15.8% 8.2% 84.4% 15.6% 8.4% 82.4% -2.0%
San Joaquin* 48.0% 49.5% 2.5% 46.2% 53.8% -6.2% 49.9% 3.8%
San Luis Obispo 41.4% 52.6% 6.0% 46.7% 53.3% 4.6% 46.0% -0.7%
San Mateo 65.0% 31.0% 4.0% 70.3% 29.7% 6.6% 68.1% -2.2%
Santa Barbara 47.6% 46.8% 5.6% 55.6% 44.4% 10.3% 51.9% -3.7%
Santa Cruz 62.5% 27.3% 10.2% 74.6% 25.4% 13.9% 70.4% -4.2%
Siskiyou 32.6% 62.9% 4.5% 38.6% 61.4% 7.6% 36.0% -2.6%Solano 57.7% 39.4% 3.0% 58.4% 41.6% -1.6% 60.0% 1.6% Sonoma 60.1% 32.6% 7.3% 68.3% 31.7% 9.2% 65.7% -2.6%
Stanislaus* 45.3% 52.1% 2.6% 41.2% 58.8% -10.8% 47.3% 6.1%Sutter 32.0% 65.7% 2.2% 32.3% 67.7% -1.7% 33.7% 1.5%Trinity 34.1% 58.9% 7.0% 44.1% 55.9% 13.0% 39.4% -4.6%Tulare* 37.2% 60.7% 2.1% 33.1% 66.9% -10.3% 38.8% 5.7%
Tuolumne 39.7% 56.3% 3.9% 39.1% 60.9% -5.3% 42.8% 3.7%
PUNCH CARDS Alpine 45.6% 49.9% 4.5% 54.5% 45.5% 13.4% 49.1% -5.5%Calaveras 38.5% 56.9% 4.6% 38.3% 61.7% -4.9% 42.0% 3.7%Del Norte 38.5% 55.6% 5.9% 42.2% 57.8% 1.4% 43.1% 0.9%El Dorado 37.0% 58.8% 4.1% 38.4% 61.6% -1.5% 40.2% 1.9%
Glenn 29.2% 67.7% 3.1% 32.2% 67.8% 2.9% 31.6% -0.6% Imperial 55.0% 42.9% 2.1% 54.5% 45.5% -3.1% 56.6% 2.1%Inyo 34.3% 61.4% 4.3% 39.9% 60.1% 6.7% 37.7% -2.2%San Benito 54.6% 42.3% 3.1% 54.1% 45.9% -4.1% 57.0% 2.9%
Sierra 30.1% 65.2% 4.8% 31.1% 68.9% -2.6% 33.7% 2.6%Ventura 48.3% 48.0% 3.7% 48.7% 51.3% -2.9% 51.1% 2.4%
Yolo 55.4% 37.9% 6.7% 60.8% 39.2% 4.2% 60.5% -0.3%Yuba* 35.1% 61.8% 3.1% 31.9% 68.1% -9.5% 37.5% 5.6%
Oregon
Oregon is known as the bellwether state. Historically, it has closely matched the national vote. Oregon votes exclusively by mail-in ballots, so if there is any state where the recorded vote matched the true vote, it was Oregon. Given the above, does Oregon offer any clues to explain the last five elections? It sure does: the average Democratic recorded share was 2.6% higher in Oregon than it was nationally.
The discrepancies between Oregon's
2-party recorded vote share and the national vote are highly circumstantial
evidence and confirm the other overwhelming evidence of BushCo fraud. Oregon is
100% paper; we can assume the vote counts are accurate. In fact, exit pollsters
Edison-Mitofsky in their Jan. 2005 report showed that Within Precinct Error was
much lower in paper ballot precincts than in others.
Of course they can steal paper ballots. But paper is still a much better choice
than DREs, central tabulators, optical scanners, punch cards and levers. More
confirmation: Kerry won 51.6% of the recorded vote. He had 51.3% in the exit
poll. The exit poll was right on the money.
Average Democratic 2-party vote (1988-2004): Oregon 53.2%; National 50.6%
Consider these facts:
Oregon's 2-party vote exactly matched the national vote in 1996 and 2000.
In 1988, Bush I did 6.3% better nationally than he did in Oregon.
Dukakis won OR with 52.38% of the 2-party vote.
In 1992, Bush I did 3.2% better nationally than he did in Oregon.
Clinton won OR with 56.6%.
In 1996, Dole did a miniscule 0.03% better nationally than he did in Oregon.
Clinton won OR with 54.66%.
In 2000, Bush II did a miniscule 0.03% better nationally than he did in Oregon.
Gore won OR with 50.27%. However, if we adjust the Gore share by assuming he would have won 75% of the Nader vote, then his vote shares become 51.5% in Oregon and 51.0% nationally.
In 2004, Bush did 3.4% better nationally than he did in Oregon.
Kerry won OR with 52.1%. It's a virtual exact match to the unadjusted state and national exit polls.
According to Exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky, the weighted average WPE-adjusted state poll was Kerry 51.8- Bush 47.2. Converting to the equivalent 2-party share, Kerry won by 52.3-47.7% nationally, a mere 0.2% deviation from OR.
In 2000, Gore won OR by 6k votes (47.1%); Nader had 77k (5.1%)
In 2004, Kerry won by 76k (52.1%); Nader was not on the ballot.
Kerry won 59.3% of the 376k net increase in Kerry and Bush voters.
1988-2004 Oregon vs. National vote shares: 2-party share Oregon Share National Oregon National Diff
1988 (000) Dukakis 616k 51.5% 45.6% 52.38% 46.10% 6.28%Bush 560 46.8 53.4 47.62 53.90 1992 Clinton 621 42.6 43.3 56.63 53.46 3.17
Bush 476 32.6 37.7 43.37 46.54 Perot 354 24.3 19.0 1996Clinton 650 47.2 49.9 54.69 54.66 0.03
Dole 538 39.1 41.4 45.31 45.34 Perot 121 8.8% 8.6 2000Gore 720 47.1 48.70 50.24 50.27 -0.03Bush 713 46.6 48.18 49.76 49.73 Nader 77 5.1 3.13 2004 Kerry 943 51.6 48.27 52.11 48.76 3.35Bush 867 47.4 50.73 47.89 51.24 Dem Average 53.21% 50.65% 2.56%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1988-2004 Election Calculator Model The Submerging Democratic Majority
The Democrats actually won all FIVE elections by an average 8.9 MILLION vote margin. That’s the True Emerging Democratic Majority. Don't believe it? Run the numbers yourself.
This analysis is based on the 1988-2004 Election Calculator model. The model first estimates the number of returning voters by adjusting prior election recorded vote totals for uncounted votes and mortality. An estimated turnout percentage is applied to this value. As preliminary NEP vote shares were not available for 1988-2000, Final National Exit Poll shares (which were matched to the recorded vote) were assumed for the base case. In 2004, however, preliminary 12:22am "pristine" vote shares were available, so these were used instead.
The model used Census-reported total votes cast as the base case assumption. The pool of potential returning voters was assumed to include all who cast votes, rather than just those whose votes were recorded. Uncounted vote rates based on the Census are much higher than the assumed 3.0% rate in prior models. Another assumption change is the mortality rate. Annual voter mortality, estimated as 1.22-1.30%, is more accurate than prior models which assumed the total US 0.87% mortality rate.
The new base case assumptions had the effect of increasing Democratic vote shares compared to prior models. For example, the Election Calculator indicates that Kerry won by 53.5- 45.5%, a 10 million vote margin. The prior True Vote Model had Kerry winning by 52.6-46.4%.
Following are the key results based on AVERAGE CALCULATED 1988-2004 Vote shares:
- The Dem share was 3.8% HIGHER than the RECORDED share.
- The GOP share was 3.3% LOWER than the RECORDED share.
- The Dem share was 1.3% HIGHER than the PRELIMINARY Exit Poll.
- The GOP share was 0.2% HIGHER than the PRELIMINARY Exit Poll.
Voter turnout of prior election Dem, GOP and Other voters is calculated as:
Turnout = prior election (recorded vote + uncounted votes - voter deaths)* voter turnout percentage
The True vote for the Dem, GOP and Other candidate is calculated as:
True Vote = shares of returning (Dem + GOP + Other + New voters)
Summary Statistics Calculated TRUE Vote Exit Poll Recorded Calculated Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep Margin Average 50.9% 42.9% 49.7% 42.7% 47.1% 46.2% 9.07 2004 53.5% 45.5% 51.8% 47.2% 48.3% 50.7% 10.002000 51.1% 46.0% 48.5% 46.2% 48.4% 47.9% 5.661996 52.0% 39.3% 52.2% 37.5% 49.9% 41.4% 13.361992 47.9% 35.0% 46.0% 33.1% 43.3% 37.7% 14.711988 50.2% 48.7% 49.8% 49.3% 45.6% 53.4% 1.61 1988-2004 Average Total Dem Rep Other Margin Dem Rep Other MarginCalculated 111.5 56.87 47.80 6.86 9.07 50.9% 42.9% 6.2% 8.1%Recorded 102.9 48.47 47.66 6.74 0.81 47.1% 46.2% 6.7% 0.9%Exit poll 102.9 51.09 44.03 7.93 7.06 49.5% 42.9% 7.9% 7.0%Discrepancies Calc - Rec 8.7 8.40 0.14 0.12 8.26 3.8% -3.3% -0.5% 7.2%Calc - Exit 5.77 3.77 -1.07 2.01 1.3% 0.2% -1.7% 1.1%Exit - Rec 2.62 -3.63 1.19 6.25 2.5% -3.5% 1.2% 6.1% 2004 Vote Kerry Bush Other Margin Kerry Bush Other MarginCalculated 125.74 67.2 57.2 1.3 10.0 53.5% 45.5% 1.0% 8.0%Recorded 122.30 59.0 62.0 1.2 -3.0 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% -2.5%Exit poll 122.30 63.4 57.7 1.2 5.7 51.8% 47.2% 1.0% 4.6%Discrepancies Calc - Rec 3.44 8.2 -4.8 0.1 13.0 5.2% -5.2% 0.0% 10.4%Calc - Exit 3.9 -0.5 0.1 4.4 1.7% -1.7% 0.0% 3.4%Exit - Rec 4.3 -4.3 0.0 8.6 3.5% -3.5% 0.0% 7.0% 2000 Vote Gore Bush Other Margin Gore Bush Other MarginCalculated 110.80 56.6 50.9 3.3 5.7 51.1% 46.0% 3.0% 5.1%Recorded 105.42 51.0 50.5 4.0 0.5 48.4% 47.9% 3.8% 0.5%Exit poll 105.42 51.1 48.7 5.6 2.4 48.5% 46.2% 5.3% 2.3%Discrepancies Calc - Rec 5.38 5.6 0.5 -0.7 5.1 2.7% -1.9% -0.8% 4.6%Calc - Exit 5.5 2.2 -2.3 3.2 2.6% -0.2% -2.3% 2.8%Exit - Rec 0.1 -1.8 1.6 1.9 0.1% -1.7% 1.5% 1.8% 1996Vote Clinton Dole Perot Margin Clinton Dole Perot Margin
Calculated 105.00 54.6 41.2 9.2 13.4 52.0% 39.3% 8.7% 12.7%Recorded 91.28 45.6 37.8 7.9 7.8 49.9% 41.4% 8.6% 8.5%Exit poll 91.28 47.6 34.2 10.3 13.4 52.2% 37.5% 11.3% 14.7%Discrepancies Calc - Rec 13.72 9.0 3.4 1.3 5.6 2.05% -2.16% 0.11% 4.21%Calc - Exit 6.9 7.0 -1.1 -0.1 -0.21% 1.77% -2.57% -1.98%Exit - Rec 2.1 -3.6 2.4 5.6 2.25% -3.93% 2.68% 6.19% 1992 Vote Clinton Bush Perot Margin Clinton Bush Perot Margin
Calculated 113.90 54.6 39.9 19.4 14.7 47.9% 35.0% 17.0% 12.9%Recorded 103.75 44.9 39.1 19.7 5.8 43.3% 37.7% 19.0% 5.6%Exit poll 103.75 47.7 34.3 21.7 13.4 46.0% 33.1% 20.9% 12.9%Discrepancies Calc - Rec 10.15 9.7 0.8 -0.3 8.9 4.6% -2.7% -2.0% 7.3%Calc - Exit 6.9 5.5 -2.3 1.3 1.9% 1.9% -3.9% 0.0%Exit - Rec 2.8 -4.8 1.9 7.6 2.7% -4.6% 1.9% 7.3% 1988 Vote Dukakis Bush Other Margin Dukakis Bush Other MarginCalculated 102.20 51.3 49.7 1.1 1.6 50.2% 48.7% 1.1% 1.6%Recorded 91.60 41.8 48.9 0.9 -7.1 45.6% 53.4% 1.0% -7.7%Exit poll 91.60 45.6 45.2 0.8 0.5 49.8% 49.3% 0.9% 0.5%Discrepancies Calc - Rec 10.60 9.5 0.8 0.2 8.7 4.6% -4.7% 0.1% 9.3%Calc - Exit 5.7 4.6 0.3 1.2 0.4% -0.6% 0.2% 1.1%Exit - Rec 3.8 -3.7 -0.1 7.5 4.2% -4.1% -0.1% 8.2% TRUE VOTE CALCULATION(Census total votes cast) 2004 Voted2k Weight Kerry Bush Other Kerry Bush Other DNV 24.6 19.5% 14.00 10.07 0.49 57.0% 41.0% 2.0% Gore 50.2 39.9% 45.70 4.02 0.50 91.0% 8.0% 1.0% Bush 47.0 37.4% 4.23 42.78 0.00 9.0% 91.0% 0.0% Nader 3.9 3.1% 2.76 0.87 0.32 70.0% 22.0% 8.0% Total 125.7 100.0% 66.69 57.74 1.31 53.0% 45.9% 1.0% 2000 Voted96 Weight Gore Bush Other Gore Bush Other DNV 15.0 13.5% 7.80 6.45 0.75 52.0% 43.0% 5.0% Clinton 51.1 46.2% 41.94 7.67 1.53 82.0% 15.0% 3.0%
Dole 36.8 33.3% 2.95 33.53 0.37 8.0% 91.0% 1.0% Perot 7.8 7.0% 3.90 3.28 0.62 50.0% 42.0% 8.0% Total 110.8 100.0% 56.59 50.93 3.28 51.1% 46.0% 3.0% 1996 Voted92 Weight Clinton Dole Perot Clinton Dole Perot
DNV 5.5 5.2% 2.97 1.87 0.66 54.0% 34.0% 12.0%Clinton 45.7 43.5% 38.83 4.11 2.74 85.0% 9.0% 6.0%
Dole 35.7 34.0% 4.64 28.91 2.14 13.0% 81.0% 6.0%Perot 18.1 17.3% 8.16 6.35 3.63 45.0% 35.0% 20.0% Total 105.0 100.0% 54.59 41.24 9.17 52.0% 39.3% 8.7% 1992 Voted88 Weight Clinton Bush Perot Clinton Bush Perot
DNV 20.8 18.3% 9.57 6.66 4.58 46.0% 32.0% 22.0%Dukakis 45.3 39.7% 37.56 2.26 5.43 83.0% 5.0% 12.0%Bush 47.0 41.3% 7.05 30.56 9.40 15.0% 65.0% 20.0%Other 0.8 0.7% 0.41 0.41 0.00 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% Total 113.9 100.0% 54.60 39.89 19.41 47.9% 35.0% 17.0% 1988 Voted84 Weight Dukakis Bush Other Dukakis Bush OtherDNV 11.4 11.1% 5.36 5.81 0.23 47.0% 51.0% 2.0%Mondale 39.4 38.5% 36.21 2.76 0.39 92.0% 7.0% 1.0%Reagan 51.4 50.3% 9.78 41.16 0.51 19.0% 80.0% 1.0% Total 102.2 100.0% 51.34 49.72 1.14 50.2% 48.7% 1.1% _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Historical Models II-III
The Democrats lose the majority of uncounted votes in every election. This analysis determines the effect of uncounted and switched votes on presidential elections since 1948 – as well as the 2006 midterms. Landslide elections are not included: Eisenhower (1952-56); Johnson (1964); Nixon (1972) and Reagan (1984).
In Model II, the True vote was calculated based as the sum of recorded, uncounted and switched votes. A 3% uncounted vote rate was assumed. The 1988-2006 “pristine” National Exit polls closely matched the True vote. Final Exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote. In each election, the pristine exit poll overstated the recorded Democratic vote, since uncounted votes are heavily Democratic. Vote-switching appears to have been a major component of the exit poll discrepancy in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004. Sensitivity analysis tables display the effects of changes in the Democratic share of uncounted votes and the switched vote rate on the national vote.
In Model III, National Exit Poll weightings were adjusted for prior election voter mortality, turnout and uncounted votes. The weights were used as multipliers of the Final NEP vote shares. Preliminary NEP component vote shares are not available (except for 2004), but the national vote shares are known. The assumed mortality rate was assumed to be 3% over the four-year period between elections (the annual mortality rate was 0.87% in 2000). Turnout was assumed to be 87-95% of prior election voters still living. Uncounted votes were assumed to be 3% of total votes cast with a 70-75% Democratic share. The calculation of Total Votes Cast is based on the following equation: Votes Cast = (Votes cast in prior election – Mortality)* Turnout + New voters (DNV in prior election)
In 2006, the Democrats led the Republicans by 55-43.5% at the 7pm timeline of the National Exit Poll. But the lead was cut in half to 52-46% in the 2pm Final which was matched to the recorded vote count. Assuming 6% of Democratic votes were switched to the Republicans, the Democrats won the adjusted vote by 56.7–41.1%, a 1.7% discrepancy from the exit poll.
In 2004, Kerry led Bush by 51.4–47.9% in the 12:22am NEP. But the 2pm Final NEP was matched to the recorded vote (Bush 51-Kerry 48). The True Vote (Kerry 66.1- Bush 58.4mm) was calculated by replacing the impossible “Voted 2000” weights with feasible weights, using the 12:22am NEP vote shares as the most-likely base case scenario. According to the 2004 Election Census, 3.4 of the 125.74mm votes cast went uncounted. Assuming that 2.6mm (75%) were Kerry votes, then 4.5 of the 66.1mm votes cast (6.8%) for Kerry must have been switched. The switched votes were calculated by the equation: True Vote = Recorded +Uncounted + Switched = 66.1mm = 59.0 + 2.6 + 4.5
In 2000, Gore led Bush by 48.5-46.2% in the final “pristine” exit poll. Assuming zero vote-switching, Gore won the adjusted vote by 49.5 - 47.5%, a 1.0% discrepancy from the exit poll.
In 1996, Clinton led Dole and Perot by 52.2- 37.5- 10.3% in the exit poll. Assuming zero vote-switching, Clinton won the adjusted vote by 50.7- 40.9- 8.4%, a 1.5% exit poll discrepancy.
In 1992, Clinton led Bush I and Perot by 46.0-33.2-20.8% in the exit poll. Assuming that 4% of Clinton’s votes were switched to Bush, Clinton won the adjusted vote by 45.8- 35.4- 18.8%, a 0.2% exit poll discrepancy.
The 1988 Bush I-Dukakis election is especially suspicious. Dukakis led by 50.3-49.7% in the exit poll. As usual, weights and/or vote shares were adjusted in the Final NEP to force a match to the recorded vote. Assuming that 6% of Dukakis’ votes were switched to Bush, Dukakis tied Bush in the adjusted vote 49.5- 49.5%, a 0.8% exit poll discrepancy.
In 1968 Nixon won by just 500,000 votes, but uncounted votes may have cost Humphrey the election. Assuming zero vote-switching, Humphrey won by 600,000 votes.
For Carter in 1976, JFK in 1960 and Truman in 1948, the switched vote rate was assumed to be zero. Margins were about 1.5% higher than the recorded votes indicate.
Historical Model II (1948-2006)Assumption: 3% uncounted votes
For the 1988-2004 elections, there was a .06% average deviation between the calculated Democratic vote share (after adjusting the recorded vote for estimated uncounted and switched votes) and the “pristine” National Exit Poll – before the Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote.
Recorded vote Calculated vote Assumptions National Exit PollYear Dem Rep Other Dem Rep Other Unctd Switched Dem Rep Diff2006 52.7% 45.1% 2.2% 56.7% 41.1% 2.2% 3.0% 6.0% 55.0% 43.5% 1.7% 2004 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% 52.6% 46.4% 1.0% 2.7% 6.8% 51.4% 47.9% 1.2%2000 48.7% 48.2% 3.1% 49.5% 47.5% 3.1% 3.0% 0.0% 48.5% 46.2% 1.0%1996 50.0% 41.4% 8.6% 50.7% 40.8% 8.5% 3.0% 0.0% 52.2% 37.5% -1.5%1992 43.3% 37.7% 19.0% 45.8% 35.4% 18.8% 3.0% 4.0% 46.0% 33.2% -0.2%1988 45.6% 53.4% 1.0% 49.5% 49.5% 1.0% 3.0% 6.0% 50.3% 49.7% -0.8% 1980 41.7% 51.6% 6.7% 42.5% 50.6% 6.8% 3.0% 0.0% 1976 51.1% 48.9% 0.0% 51.8% 48.2% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 1968 42.9% 43.6% 13.6% 43.7% 42.9% 13.5% 3.0% 0.0% 1960 50.1% 49.9% 0.0% 50.8% 49.2% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 1948 49.9% 45.3% 4.8% 50.6% 44.6% 4.8% 3.0% 0.0% Avg 47.14% 47.08% 5.78% 48.75% 45.51% 5.75% 2006 Uncounted 3.00% 2.37 Switched 6.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 78.95 75% 24% 1% Dem Rep Other Total Dem Rep OtherRecorded 40.32 34.57 1.69 76.58 52.65% 45.14% 2.21% Uncounted 1.78 0.57 0.02 2.37 2.25% 0.72% 0.03%Pre-Switch 42.10 35.14 1.71 78.95 53.3% 44.5% 2.2%Switched 2.69 -2.69 0.00 0.00 3.4% -3.4% 0.0%Calculated 44.78 32.45 1.71 78.95 56.7% 41.1% 2.2%Exit Poll 43.42 34.34 1.19 78.95 55.0% 43.5% 1.5%Diff 1.36 -1.89 0.52 0.00 1.7% -2.4% 0.7% Unctd Switched 56.72% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 52.7% 53.2% 53.7% 54.3% 54.8% 55.4% 56.0% 56.6%1% 52.9% 53.4% 54.0% 54.5% 55.1% 55.7% 56.2% 56.9%2% 53.1% 53.6% 54.2% 54.7% 55.3% 55.9% 56.5% 57.1%3% 53.3% 53.9% 54.4% 55.0% 55.5% 56.1% 56.7% 57.3%4% 53.5% 54.1% 54.6% 55.2% 55.8% 56.4% 57.0% 57.6%5% 53.8% 54.3% 54.9% 55.4% 56.0% 56.6% 57.2% 57.8% 2004 Uncounted 2.74% 3.45 Switched 6.79% Uncounted share Total Cast 125.74 75% 24% 1% Kerry Bush Other Total Kerry Bush OtherRecorded 59.03 62.04 1.23 122.30 48.27% 50.73% 1.00% Uncounted 2.58 0.83 0.03 3.45 2.06% 0.66% 0.03%Pre-Switch 61.61 62.87 1.26 125.74 49.0% 50.0% 1.0%Switched 4.49 -4.49 0.00 0.00 3.3% -3.3% 0.0%Calculated 66.10 58.38 1.26 125.74 52.6% 46.4% 1.0% Exit Poll 64.64 59.84 1.26 125.74 51.4% 47.6% 1.0%Diff 1.46 -1.46 0.00 0.00 1.16% -1.16% 0.00% Unctd Switched 52.57% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 6.8% 0% 48.3% 48.8% 49.3% 49.8% 50.3% 50.8% 51.3% 51.8%1% 48.5% 49.0% 49.5% 50.0% 50.6% 51.1% 51.6% 52.1%2% 48.8% 49.3% 49.8% 50.3% 50.8% 51.4% 51.9% 52.4%3% 49.1% 49.6% 50.1% 50.6% 51.1% 51.7% 52.2% 52.6%4% 49.3% 49.8% 50.3% 50.9% 51.4% 51.9% 52.5% 52.9%5% 49.6% 50.1% 50.6% 51.1% 51.7% 52.2% 52.8% 53.2% 2000 Uncounted 3.00% 3.24 Switched 0.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 107.98 75% 24% 1% Gore Bush Other Total Gore Bush OtherRecorded 51.00 50.46 3.28 104.74 48.70% 48.18% 3.13% Uncounted 2.43 0.78 0.03 3.24 2.25% 0.72% 0.03%Pre-Switch 53.43 51.24 3.31 107.98 49.5% 47.5% 3.1%Switched 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Calculated 53.43 51.24 3.31 107.98 49.5% 47.5% 3.1% Exit Poll 52.37 49.89 5.72 107.98 48.5% 46.2% 5.3%Diff 1.06 1.35 -2.42 0.00 0.99% 1.25% -2.24% Unctd Switched 49.49% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 48.7% 49.2% 49.7% 50.2% 50.7% 51.3% 51.8% 52.4%1% 49.0% 49.5% 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.5% 52.1% 52.6%2% 49.2% 49.7% 50.2% 50.7% 51.3% 51.8% 52.4% 52.9%3% 49.5% 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.5% 52.1% 52.6% 53.2%4% 49.7% 50.3% 50.8% 51.3% 51.8% 52.4% 52.9% 53.5%5% 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.6% 52.1% 52.6% 53.2% 53.8% 1996 Uncounted 3.00% 2.82 Switched 0.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 94.10 75% 20% 5% Clinton Dole Perot Total Clinton Dole Perot
Recorded 45.59 37.82 7.87 91.27 49.95% 41.43% 8.62% Uncounted 2.12 0.56 0.14 2.82 2.25% 0.60% 0.15%Pre-Switch 47.71 38.38 8.01 94.10 50.7% 40.8% 8.5%Switched 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Calculated 47.71 38.38 8.01 94.10 50.7% 40.8% 8.5% Exit Poll 49.12 35.29 9.69 94.10 52.2% 37.5% 10.3%Diff -1.41 3.09 -1.68 0.00 -1.50% 3.29% -1.79% Unctd Switched 50.70% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.5% 52.0% 52.6% 53.1% 53.7%1% 50.2% 50.7% 51.2% 51.8% 52.3% 52.8% 53.4% 54.0%2% 50.5% 51.0% 51.5% 52.0% 52.6% 53.1% 53.7% 54.2%3% 50.7% 51.2% 51.7% 52.3% 52.8% 53.4% 53.9% 54.5%4% 51.0% 51.5% 52.0% 52.5% 53.1% 53.6% 54.2% 54.8%5% 51.2% 51.7% 52.2% 52.8% 53.3% 53.9% 54.5% 55.1% 1992 Uncounted 3.00% 3.21 Switched 4.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 106.96 66% 22% 12% Clinton Bush Perot Total Clinton Bush Perot
Recorded 44.91 39.10 19.74 103.75 43.28% 37.69% 19.03% Uncounted 2.12 0.71 0.39 3.21 1.98% 0.66% 0.36%Pre-Switch 47.03 39.81 20.13 106.96 44.0% 37.2% 18.8%Switched 1.96 -1.96 0.00 0.00 1.8% -1.8% 0.0%Calculated 48.99 37.85 20.13 106.96 45.8% 35.4% 18.8% Exit Poll 49.20 35.40 22.35 106.96 46.0% 33.1% 20.9%Diff -0.22 2.44 -2.23 0.00 -0.20% 2.29% -2.08% Unctd Switched 45.80% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 43.3% 43.7% 44.2% 44.6% 45.1% 45.6% 46.0% 46.5%1% 43.5% 44.0% 44.4% 44.9% 45.3% 45.8% 46.3% 46.8%2% 43.7% 44.2% 44.6% 45.1% 45.6% 46.0% 46.5% 47.0%3% 44.0% 44.4% 44.9% 45.3% 45.8% 46.3% 46.8% 47.3%4% 44.2% 44.6% 45.1% 45.6% 46.0% 46.5% 47.0% 47.5%5% 44.4% 44.9% 45.3% 45.8% 46.3% 46.8% 47.3% 47.8% 1988 Uncounted 3.00% 93.53 Switched 6.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 94.42 75% 24% 1% Dukakis Bush Other Total Dukakis Bush OtherRecorded 41.81 48.89 0.90 91.59 45.65% 53.37% 0.98% Uncounted 2.12 0.68 0.03 2.83 2.25% 0.72% 0.03%Pre-Switch 43.93 49.57 0.92 94.42 46.5% 52.5% 1.0%Switched 2.80 -2.80 0.00 0.00 2.8% -2.8% 0.0%Calculated 46.74 46.76 0.92 94.42 49.5% 49.5% 1.0% Exit Poll 47.45 46.98 0.92 94.42 50.3% 49.8% 0.0%Diff -0.71 -0.21 0.00 0.00 -0.75% -0.23% 0.98% Unctd Switched 49.50% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 45.6% 46.1% 46.6% 47.1% 47.5% 48.1% 48.6% 49.1%1% 45.9% 46.4% 46.9% 47.4% 47.9% 48.4% 48.9% 49.4%2% 46.2% 46.7% 47.2% 47.7% 48.2% 48.7% 49.2% 49.7%3% 46.5% 47.0% 47.5% 48.0% 48.5% 49.0% 49.5% 50.0%4% 46.8% 47.3% 47.8% 48.3% 48.8% 49.3% 49.8% 50.3%5% 47.1% 47.6% 48.1% 48.6% 49.1% 49.6% 50.1% 50.7% 1980 Uncounted 3.00% 2.63 Switched 0.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 87.74 70% 20% 10% Carter Reagan Anderson Total Carter Reagan Anderson
Recorded 35.48 43.90 5.72 85.11 41.69% 51.59% 6.72% Uncounted 1.84 0.53 0.26 2.63 2.10% 0.60% 0.30%Pre-Switch 37.33 44.43 5.98 87.74 42.5% 50.6% 6.8%Switched 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Calculated 37.33 44.43 5.98 87.74 42.5% 50.6% 6.8% Unctd Switched 42.54% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 41.7% 42.1% 42.5% 43.0% 43.4% 43.9% 44.4% 44.8%1% 42.0% 42.4% 42.8% 43.3% 43.7% 44.2% 44.7% 45.1%2% 42.3% 42.7% 43.1% 43.6% 44.0% 44.5% 45.0% 45.4%3% 42.5% 43.0% 43.4% 43.9% 44.3% 44.8% 45.3% 45.7%4% 42.8% 43.3% 43.7% 44.2% 44.6% 45.1% 45.6% 46.0%5% 43.1% 43.5% 44.0% 44.4% 44.9% 45.4% 45.9% 46.4% 1976 Uncounted 3.00% 2.47 Switched 0.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 82.45 75% 25% Carter Ford Total Carter Ford Recorded 40.83 39.15 79.98 51.05% 48.95% Uncounted 1.86 0.62 2.47 2.25% 0.75% Pre-Switch 42.69 39.77 82.45 51.8% 48.2% Switched 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% Calculated 42.69 39.77 82.45 51.8% 48.2% Unctd Switched 51.77% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 51.1% 51.6% 52.1% 52.6% 53.2% 53.7% 54.3% 54.9%1% 51.3% 51.8% 52.3% 52.9% 53.4% 54.0% 54.6% 55.2%2% 51.5% 52.1% 52.6% 53.1% 53.7% 54.2% 54.8% 55.4%3% 51.8% 52.3% 52.8% 53.4% 53.9% 54.5% 55.1% 55.7%4% 52.0% 52.5% 53.1% 53.6% 54.2% 54.7% 55.3% 55.9%5% 52.2% 52.8% 53.3% 53.9% 54.4% 55.0% 55.6% 56.2% 1968 Uncounted 3.00% 2.26 Switched 0.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 75.22 70% 20% 10% Humphrey Nixon Wallace Total Humphrey Nixon WallaceRecorded 31.28 31.79 9.91 72.97 42.86% 43.56% 13.58% Uncounted 1.58 0.45 0.23 2.26 2.10% 0.60% 0.30%Pre-Switch 32.85 32.24 10.13 75.22 43.68% 42.85% 13.47%Switched 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Calculated 32.85 32.24 10.13 75.22 43.68% 42.85% 13.47% Unctd Switched 43.68% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 42.9% 43.3% 43.7% 44.2% 44.6% 45.1% 45.6% 46.1%1% 43.1% 43.6% 44.0% 44.5% 44.9% 45.4% 45.9% 46.4%2% 43.4% 43.8% 44.3% 44.7% 45.2% 45.7% 46.2% 46.7%3% 43.7% 44.1% 44.6% 45.0% 45.5% 46.0% 46.5% 47.0%4% 43.9% 44.4% 44.8% 45.3% 45.8% 46.3% 46.8% 47.3%5% 44.2% 44.7% 45.1% 45.6% 46.1% 46.5% 47.0% 47.5% 1960 Uncounted 3.00% 2.11 Switched 0.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 70.45 75% 25% Kennedy Nixon Total Kennedy Nixon Recorded 34.23 34.11 68.34 50.09% 49.91% Uncounted 1.59 0.53 2.11 2.25% 0.75% Pre-Switch 35.81 34.64 70.45 50.8% 49.2% Switched 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% Calculated 35.81 34.64 70.45 50.8% 49.2% Unctd Switched 50.83% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 50.1% 50.6% 51.1% 51.6% 52.2% 52.7% 53.3% 53.9%1% 50.3% 50.8% 51.4% 51.9% 52.4% 53.0% 53.5% 54.1%2% 50.6% 51.1% 51.6% 52.1% 52.7% 53.2% 53.8% 54.4%3% 50.8% 51.3% 51.9% 52.4% 53.0% 53.5% 54.1% 54.7%4% 51.1% 51.6% 52.1% 52.7% 53.2% 53.8% 54.3% 54.9%5% 51.3% 51.9% 52.4% 52.9% 53.5% 54.0% 54.6% 55.2% 1948 Uncounted 3.00% 1.50 Switched 0.00% Uncounted share Total Cast 50.00 75% 20% 5% Truman Dewey Other Total Truman Dewey OtherRecorded 24.18 21.99 2.33 48.50 49.86% 45.35% 4.80% Uncounted 1.12 0.30 0.07 1.50 2.25% 0.60% 0.15%Pre-Switch 25.30 22.29 2.40 50.00 50.6% 44.6% 4.8%Switched 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Calculated 25.30 22.29 2.40 50.00 50.6% 44.6% 4.8% Unctd Switched 50.61% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0% 49.9% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0% 53.9% 54.8% 55.7%1% 50.1% 50.9% 51.7% 52.5% 53.3% 54.2% 55.1% 56.0%2% 50.4% 51.1% 51.9% 52.7% 53.6% 54.5% 55.4% 56.3%3% 50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 53.0% 53.9% 54.7% 55.6% 56.6%4% 50.9% 51.6% 52.4% 53.3% 54.1% 55.0% 55.9% 56.9%5% 51.1% 51.9% 52.7% 53.5% 54.4% 55.3% 56.2% 57.2% _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Historical Model III
National Exit Poll Adjusted weights
Assumptions:
3% Uncounted votes, 3% four-year total Mortality, 87-95% prior election voter Turnout
Assumptions:
National Exit Poll weights adjusted for prior election mortality, voter turnout and uncounted votes;
Final NEP vote shares (matched to recorded vote count).
Except for: 2004 NEP vote shares at 12:22am timeline;
Mortality: 3% over four-year period between elections (U.S. annual mortality rate was 0.87% in 2000);
Turnout: 87-95% of those who voted in the prior election;
Uncounted votes: 3% of total votes cast;
Democratic share of uncounted votes: 70-75%;
Switched votes: not assumed for this analysis
Total Votes Cast = (Votes cast in prior election – Mortality)* Turnout + New voters (DNV in prior election)
Key Results:
View the barchart.
Average calculated Democratic margin:
0.25% lower than the NEP average
5.50% higher than the Recorded average
Average Democratic 2-party share:
0.20% lower than the NEP average
3.15% higher than the Recorded average
NEP: National Exit Poll shares prior to Final NEP
Calc: calculated vote shares
Margin deviations:
Diff1: NEP - Recorded
Diff2: Calc- Recorded
Diff3: Calc - NEP
Calculated NEP Recorded Deviations Dem Rep Other Dem Rep Other Dem Rep Other Diff1 Diff2 Diff32004P 53.0% 46.0% 1.0% 50.8% 48.2% 1.0% 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% 5.0% 9.4% 4.4% 2004F 51.6% 48.0% 0.4% 50.8% 48.2% 1.0% 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% 5.0% 6.0% -1.8%2000 49.7% 47.3% 3.1% 48.5% 46.2% 5.3% 48.7% 48.2% 3.1% 1.8% 1.9% 0.1%1996 50.9% 40.7% 8.4% 52.2% 37.5% 10.3% 49.9% 41.4% 8.6% 6.2% 1.7% -4.5%1992 49.4% 33.4% 17.1% 46.0% 33.1% 20.9% 43.3% 37.7% 19.0% 7.3% 10.4% 3.1%1988 49.4% 49.6% 1.0% 49.8% 49.3% 1.0% 45.6% 53.4% 1.0% 8.2% 7.5% -0.7% Avg 50.20% 43.80% 6.14% 49.45% 42.85% 7.70% 47.14% 46.31% 6.55% 5.70% 5.50% -0.25% Democratic 2-party vote share: Calculated, NEP, Recorded DiffN: Calc - NEPDiffR: Calc – Recorded Calc NEP Recorded DiffN DiffR 2004P 53.51% 51.29% 48.76% 2.22% 4.76% 2004F 51.80% 51.29% 48.76% 0.49% 3.03%2000 51.24% 51.21% 50.27% 0.03% 0.98% 1996 55.55% 58.19% 54.66% -2.65% 0.89% 1992 59.65% 58.15% 53.46% 1.49% 6.19% 1988 49.90% 50.25% 46.10% -0.35% 3.80% Avg 53.63% 53.82% 50.47% -0.20% 3.15% _______________________________________________________________________________ 2004- 12:22am NEP Vote shares Unctd Kerry Bush Other 2.74% 75% 24% 1% 2.95 3.0% Max. 95% 12:22am NEP vote shares
2000 Rec. Cast Mort. Turn. Turn. Mix Kerry Bush OtherDNV - - - - 26.51 21.1% 57% 41% 2%Gore 51.00 53.21 1.60 51.62 49.04 39.0% 91% 8% 1%Bush 50.46 51.17 1.54 49.63 47.15 37.5% 10% 90% 0%Nader 3.28 3.31 0.10 3.21 3.05 2.4% 71% 21% 8% Total 104.74 107.69 3.23 104.46 125.75 Calc 53.0% 46.0% 1.0% Votes 66.61 57.87 1.26 NEP 50.78% 48.22% 1.0% Kerry share of DNV Recorded 48.27% 50.73% 1.0%Gore 55.0% 56.0% 57.0% 58.0% Votes 59.03 62.40 1.23 89.0% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 90.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 91.0% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% 53.2% 92.0% 52.9% 53.2% 53.4% 53.6% 93.0% 53.3% 53.5% 53.8% 54.0% _______________________________________________________________________________ 2004- 2pm Final NEP Vote Shares Unctd Kerry Bush Other 122.3 2.74% 75% 24% 1% 2.95 3.0% Max. 95% 2pm Final NEP vote shares
2000 Rec. Cast Mort. Turn. Turn. Mix Kerry Bush OtherDNV - - - - 26.51 21.1% 54% 45% 1%Gore 51.00 53.21 1.60 51.62 49.04 39.0% 90% 10% 0%Bush 50.46 51.17 1.54 49.63 47.15 37.5% 9% 91% 0%Nader 3.28 3.31 0.10 3.21 3.05 2.4% 71% 21% 8% Total 104.74 107.69 3.23 104.46 125.75 Calc 51.58% 48.02% 0.40% Votes 64.86 60.38 0.51 NEP 50.78% 48.22% 1.00% Recorded 48.27% 50.73% 1.01% Votes 59.03 62.04 1.23Kerry Share of DNVGore 54.0% 55.0% 56.0% 57.0% 89.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 90.0% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 91.0% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.6% 92.0% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% 53.0% 93.0% 52.7% 53.0% 53.2% 53.4%_______________________________________________________________________________ 2000 Unctd Gore Bush Nader 3.0% 75% 20% 5% 2.82 3.0% Max. 95% Final NEP vote shares 1996 Rec. Cast Mort. Turn. Turn. Mix Gore Bush NaderDNV - - - - 21.27 19.7% 52% 43% 5%Clinton 45.59 47.71 1.43 46.28 43.96 40.7% 82% 15% 3%
Dole 37.82 38.38 1.15 37.23 35.37 32.8% 8% 91% 1%Perot 7.87 8.01 0.24 7.77 7.38 6.8% 50% 42% 8% Total 91.27 94.10 2.82 91.27 107.98 Calc 49.7% 47.3% 3.1% Votes 53.63 51.02 3.33 NEP 48.5% 46.2% 5.3%Gore share of DNV Recorded 48.7% 48.2% 3.1%Clinton 50.0% 51.0% 52.0% 53.0% Votes 51.00 50.46 3.28
80.0% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9% 49.0% 81.0% 48.9% 49.1% 49.3% 49.5% 82.0% 49.3% 49.5% 49.7% 49.9% 83.0% 49.7% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 84.0% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7% _______________________________________________________________________________ 1996 Unctd Clinton Dole Perot
3.0% 70% 20% 10% 3.21 3.0% Max. 87% Final NEP vote shares 1992 Rec. Cast Mort. Turn. Turn. Mix Clinton Dole Perot
DNV - - - - 3.83 4.1% 54% 34% 12%Clinton 44.91 47.16 1.41 45.74 39.80 42.3% 85% 9% 6%
Bush 39.10 39.74 1.19 38.55 33.54 35.6% 13% 82% 5%Perot 19.74 20.06 0.60 19.46 16.93 18.0% 45% 35% 20% Total 103.75 106.96 3.21 103.75 94.10 Calc 50.9% 40.7% 8.4% Votes 47.87 38.31 7.91 NEP 52.2% 37.5% 10.3%Clinton share of DNV Recorded 49.9% 41.4% 8.6%
Clinton 52.0% 53.0% 54.0% 55.0% Votes 45.59 37.82 7.87
83.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.1% 84.0% 50.4% 50.4% 50.5% 50.5% 85.0% 50.8% 50.8% 50.9% 50.9% 86.0% 51.2% 51.3% 51.3% 51.3% 87.0% 51.6% 51.7% 51.7% 51.8% _______________________________________________________________________________ 1992 Unctd Clinton Bush Perot
3.0% 75% 15% 10% 2.83 3.0% Max. 95% Final NEP vote shares 1988 Rec. Cast Mort. Turn. Turn. Mix Clinton Bush Perot
DNV - - - - 19.94 18.6% 46% 32% 22%Dukakis 41.81 43.93 1.32 42.62 40.49 37.9% 83% 5% 12%Bush 48.89 49.31 1.48 47.84 45.44 42.5% 21% 59% 20%Other 0.90 1.18 0.04 1.15 1.09 1.0% 50% 50% 0% Total 91.60 94.43 2.83 91.60 106.96 Calc 49.4% 33.4% 17.1% Votes 52.86 35.76 18.33 NEP 46.0% 33.1% 20.9%Clinton share of DNV Recorded 43.3% 37.7% 19.0%
Dukakis 44.0% 45.0% 46.0% 47.0% Votes 44.91 39.10 19.74 81.0% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9% 82.0% 48.7% 48.9% 49.0% 49.2% 83.0% 49.1% 49.2% 49.4% 49.6% 84.0% 49.4% 49.6% 49.8% 50.0% 85.0% 49.8% 50.0% 50.2% 50.4% _______________________________________________________________________________ 1988 Unctd Dukakis Bush Other 3.0% 75% 25% 0% 2.85 3.0% Max. 95% Final NEP vote shares 1984 Rec. Cast Mort. Turn. Turn. Mix Dukakis Bush OtherDNV - - - - 6.99 7.4% 47% 51% 2%Mondale 37.58 39.71 1.19 38.52 36.60 38.8% 92% 7% 1%Reagan 54.46 55.17 1.66 53.52 50.84 53.8% 19% 80% 1% Total 92.04 94.89 2.85 92.04 94.43 Calc 49.4% 49.6% 1.1% Votes 46.62 46.80 1.01 NEP 49.8% 49.3% 1.0%Dukakis share of DNV Recorded 45.6% 53.4% 1.0%Mondale 45.0% 46.0% 47.0% 48.0% Votes 41.81 48.89 0.90 90.0% 48.4% 48.5% 48.6% 48.7% 91.0% 48.8% 48.9% 49.0% 49.1% 92.0% 49.2% 49.3% 49.4% 49.4% 93.0% 49.6% 49.7% 49.8% 49.8% 94.0% 50.0% 50.1% 50.1% 50.2% _______________________________________________________________________________ 1980 Unctd Carter Reagan Andersen 3.0% 75% 20% 5% 2.47 3.0% Max. 95% Final NEP vote shares 1976 Rec. Cast Mort. Turn. Turn. Mix Carter Reagan AndersenDNV - - - - 11.55 13.2% 46% 45% 9%Carter 40.83 42.96 1.29 41.68 39.59 45.1% 80% 13% 7%Ford 39.15 39.72 1.19 38.53 36.60 41.7% 6% 88% 6% Total 79.98 82.45 2.48 80.20 87.74 Calc 44.7% 48.5% 6.8% Votes 39.18 42.55 6.01 Carter share of DNV Recorded 41.7% 51.6% 6.7%Carter 44.0% 45.0% 46.0% 47.0% Votes 35.48 43.90 5.72 78.0% 43.5% 43.6% 43.8% 43.9% 79.0% 43.9% 44.1% 44.2% 44.3% 80.0% 44.4% 44.5% 44.7% 44.8% 81.0% 44.8% 45.0% 45.1% 45.2% 82.0% 45.3% 45.4% 45.6% 45.7% _______________________________________________________________________________ 1976 Unctd Carter Ford 79.98 3.0% 75% 25% 2.36 3.0% Max. 95% Final NEP Shares 1972 Rec. Cast Mort. Turn. Turn. Mix Carter FordDNV - - - - 10.47 12.7% 55% 45%McGov 29.17 30.94 0.93 30.01 28.51 34.6% 96% 4%Nixon 47.17 47.17 1.42 45.75 43.47 52.7% 22% 78% Total 76.34 78.70 2.34 75.77 82.45 Calc 51.78% 48.22% Votes 42.70 39.76 Carter share of McGovern DNV Recorded 51.05% 48.95% 55.0% 56.0% 57.0% 58.0% Votes 40.83 39.1592.0% 50.4% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8% 93.0% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0% 51.1% 94.0% 51.1% 51.2% 51.3% 51.5% 95.0% 51.4% 51.6% 51.7% 51.8% 96.0% 51.8% 51.9% 52.0% 52.2%
The 2006 Midterms
This is the final of three pre-election articles I wrote with Michael Collins (autorank) and Alistair Thompson of SCOOP. The purpose was to quantify the risk of fraud in the 2006 Mid-terms. The analysis forecast that the Democrats would gain control of the House and Senate. It also indicated the House seats and Senate races where fraud was most likely to occur. And extensively documented voting “anomalies” confirmed that perhaps millions of votes were either uncounted or switched.
The election fraud model projected that the Democrats would win at least 240 House seats, but lose 10-15 to fraud. It correctly forecast that they would gain control of the Senate by winning six GOP-held seats, although they barely won Virginia and Montana. The Democratic Tsunami overcame the fraud in the House and Senate.
There is no longer any doubt that the poll/vote discrepancies were caused by uncounted and switched votes. Evidence of fraud was once again found in the Final National Exit Poll which matched to the recorded vote count with the use of fallacious weightings. The 2006 Final “How Voted in 2004” weights were manipulated just like they were in the 2004 Final “How Voted in 2000”.
In 2006, the weights were transformed from 47 Bush/ 45 Kerry at 7pm to 49 Bush/ 43 Kerry at 1pm the next day! This replicated the 41 Bush/39 Gore to impossible 43 Bush/ 37 Gore weight changes in 2004. The net effect of the change was to cut the Democratic margin in half -from 55-43% to 52-46%! Applying realistic weights to the 7pm NEP (using the 12:22am 2004 NEP) the Democratic margin becomes 56.7-42.1%, exactly matching the 120- Generic poll trend projection! Was it a coincidence or confirmation? You decide.
This is the best evidence that once again the Final Exit Poll was forced to match a fraudulent miscount. Simple logic dictates that if just one demographic requires impossible or implausible weights and/or vote shares in order to match the vote count, then all other demographics must be bogus as well.
Matching to the vote is nothing new; exit pollsters have been doing it long before Bush arrived on the scene and stolen elections became the norm. In the pre-BushCo world, matching the Final NEP to an essentially fraud-free recorded vote made sense - until BushCo came along and stole the 2000 election, along with repeat performances in 2002 and 2004. The 2006 Democratic Tsunami overwhelmed the fraud but the Dems still "lost" 10-15 House seats they should have won.
Mark Lindeman said this: “personally, I think Pew was probably not far off”, referring to the final Pew Generic poll (47 Dem / 43% Rep). None are as blind as those who will not see. The Democrats won all 120 pre-election polls. Mark refuses to recognize the obvious. What about the other 119 pre-election polls? Is it just a coincidence that he chose to believe the Pew poll, an obvious outlier in which the 4% Democratic margin was 10% below the trend line?
Talk about cherry-picking! The Generic poll model projected a 56-42% Democratic landslide with a vote share which steadily increased over the 14 months from Sept. 2005 to Election Day. The GOP trend line was flat. The 120-poll regression analysis was mathematically sound; the trend line closely matched both the 7:0pm National Exit poll and the Wikipedia vote count.
This is a linear time series regression graph of the 120 Generic polls:
The Final 2006 National Exit poll was matched to the recorded, fraudulent vote count, with more than the usual percentage of uncounted votes and switched votes. Literally thousands of reported machine “glitches” were documented nationwide; 18,000 missing votes in FL-13 caused the Democrat to lose. Virtually all documented vote switches were Democratic to Republican. AsCasey Stengel used to say: you can look it up.
http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm 5-poll Moving Avg Projection Poll Survey Dates DEM GOP Other Diff DemMA GOPMA Dem GOP Diff DiffMANumber Average All 49.5 38.3 12.1 11.2 49.5 38.3 56.8 43.2 13.6 13.6 2005 1 Newsweek RV 905 50 38 12 12 50.0 38.0 57.2 42.8 14.4 14.42 Pew RV 911 52 40 8 12 51.0 39.0 57.0 43.0 14.0 14.23 DemCorp LV 921 48 39 13 9 50.0 39.0 56.6 43.4 13.2 13.94 Newsweek RV 930 47 42 11 5 49.3 39.8 55.9 44.2 11.7 13.35 DemCorp LV 1010 46 41 14 5 48.6 40.0 55.4 44.6 10.9 12.8 6 GWU LV 1012 47 41 13 6 48.0 40.6 54.8 45.2 9.7 11.97 Hotline RV 1016 40 31 29 9 45.6 38.8 55.0 45.0 9.9 11.18 DemCorp LV 1023 48 39 12 9 45.6 38.8 55.0 45.0 9.9 10.49 Gallup RV 1023 50 43 7 7 46.2 39.0 55.1 44.9 10.2 10.1
10 ABC/WP RV 1102 52 37 12 15 47.4 38.2 56.0 44.0 12.1 10.4 11 DemCorp LV 1106 48 40 12 8 47.6 38.0 56.2 43.8 12.5 10.912 Newsweek RV 1105 53 36 11 17 50.2 39.0 56.7 43.3 13.4 11.613 Hotline RV 1115 41 35 24 6 48.8 38.2 56.6 43.4 13.2 12.314 DemCorp LV 1120 48 41 11 7 48.4 37.8 56.7 43.3 13.4 12.915 Time RV 1201 48 36 15 12 47.6 37.6 56.5 43.5 13.0 13.1 16 DemCorp LV 1204 49 39 12 10 47.8 37.4 56.7 43.3 13.4 13.217 CBS/NYT RV 1206 42 33 25 9 45.6 36.8 56.2 43.8 12.3 13.018 DemCorp LV 1212 49 41 9 8 47.2 38.0 56.1 43.9 12.2 12.819 Hotline RV 1213 43 33 25 10 46.2 36.4 56.6 43.4 13.3 12.820 NPR LV 1218 45 37 17 8 45.6 36.6 56.3 43.7 12.6 12.7
21 ABC/WP RV 1218 51 41 9 10 46.0 37.0 56.2 43.8 12.4 12.5 2006 22 Gallup RV 108 49 43 8 6 47.4 39.0 55.6 44.4 11.1 12.3
23 CBS/NYT RV 125 43 34 23 9 46.2 37.6 55.9 44.1 11.8 12.224 Dem Corp LV 125 49 41 10 8 47.4 39.2 55.4 44.6 10.9 11.8
25 ABC/WP RV 126 54 38 9 16 49.2 39.4 56.0 44.0 12.1 11.7 26 Pew RV 205 50 41 9 9 49.0 39.4 56.0 44.0 11.9 11.627 Gallup RV 212 50 43 8 7 49.2 39.4 56.0 44.0 12.1 11.8
28 GWU LV 215 46 41 14 5 49.8 40.8 55.4 44.6 10.9 11.629 Hotline RV 219 46 31 23 15 49.2 38.8 56.4 43.6 12.8 12.030 DemCorp LV 227 48 40 12 8 48.0 39.2 55.7 44.3 11.4 11.8 31 Gallup RV 301 53 39 7 14 48.6 38.8 56.2 43.8 12.3 11.9
32 FOX LV 301 48 34 18 14 48.2 37.0 57.1 42.9 14.2 12.3
33 Gallup RV 312 55 39 7 16 50.0 36.6 58.0 42.0 16.1 13.3
34 NPR LV 314 52 37 11 15 51.2 37.8 57.8 42.2 15.6 13.9
35 Newsweek RV 317 50 39 11 11 51.6 37.6 58.1 41.9 16.2 14.9 36 Time RV 323 50 41 9 9 51.0 38.0 57.6 42.4 15.2 15.437 CBS RV 409 44 34 22 10 50.2 38.0 57.3 42.7 14.6 15.538 ABC/WP RV 409 55 40 5 15 50.2 38.2 57.2 42.8 14.3 15.239 Gallup RV 409 52 42 6 10 50.2 39.2 56.6 43.4 13.1 14.7
40 Pew RV 416 51 41 8 10 50.4 39.6 56.4 43.6 12.8 14.0 41 CNN RV 423 50 40 9 10 50.4 39.4 56.5 43.5 13.0 13.642 Cook 430 44 32 24 12 50.4 39.0 56.8 43.2 13.5 13.443 Gallup RV 430 54 39 7 15 50.2 38.8 56.8 43.2 13.6 13.2
44 FOX LV 503 41 38 21 3 48.0 38.0 56.4 43.6 12.8 13.2
45 CNN RV 507 52 38 10 14 48.2 37.4 56.8 43.2 13.7 13.3 46 CBS/NYT RV 508 44 33 23 11 47.0 36.0 57.2 42.8 14.4 13.647 Newsweek RV 512 50 39 11 11 48.2 37.4 56.8 43.2 13.7 13.648 ABC/WP RV 515 52 40 9 12 47.8 37.6 56.6 43.4 13.1 13.549 Fabrizio LV 517 39 36 25 3 47.4 37.2 56.6 43.4 13.3 13.650 Hotline RV 521 42 36 22 6 45.4 36.8 56.1 43.9 12.2 13.3 51 Gallup RV 604 51 42 7 9 46.8 38.6 55.6 44.4 11.1 12.7
52 Gallup RV 611 51 39 10 12 47.0 38.6 55.6 44.4 11.3 12.2
53 FOX LV 614 46 33 20 13 45.8 37.2 56.0 44.0 12.0 12.0
54 CNN RV 615 45 38 16 7 47.0 37.6 56.2 43.8 12.5 11.855 Pew RV 619 51 39 10 12 48.8 38.2 56.6 43.4 13.2 12.0 56 Hotline RV 625 41 36 24 5 46.8 37.0 56.5 43.5 13.0 12.457 ABC/WP RV 625 52 39 9 13 47.0 37.0 56.6 43.4 13.2 12.858 Gallup RV 625 54 38 7 16 48.6 38.0 56.6 43.4 13.3 13.0
59 TIME LV 629 47 35 18 12 49.0 37.4 57.2 42.8 14.3 13.4
60 Gallup RV 709 51 41 9 10 49.0 37.8 56.9 43.1 13.8 13.5
61 AP-Ipsos RV 712 51 40 9 11 51.0 38.6 57.2 42.8 14.5 13.862 FOX LV 712 42 34 25 8 49.0 37.6 57.0 43.0 14.1 14.0
63 Hotline RV 723 48 32 20 16 47.8 36.4 57.3 42.7 14.6 14.364 CBS/NYT RV 725 45 35 20 10 47.4 36.4 57.1 42.9 14.2 14.265 Gallup RV 770 51 40 8 11 47.4 36.2 57.2 42.8 14.5 14.4
66 CNN RV 803 53 40 7 13 47.8 36.2 57.4 42.6 14.8 14.467 ABC/WP RV 806 52 39 8 13 49.8 37.2 57.6 42.4 15.2 14.768 AP-Ipsos RV 809 55 37 8 18 51.2 38.2 57.6 42.4 15.1 14.869 FOX LV 809 48 30 22 18 51.8 37.2 58.4 41.6 16.8 15.3
70 Gallup RV 810 50 41 9 9 51.6 37.4 58.2 41.8 16.4 15.7
71 Newsweek RV 811 51 39 10 12 51.2 37.2 58.2 41.8 16.3 16.072 Pew RV 813 50 41 9 9 50.8 37.6 57.8 42.2 15.5 16.073 Hotline RV 820 40 33 27 7 47.8 36.8 57.0 43.0 14.1 15.874 Gallup RV 820 47 45 7 2 47.6 39.8 55.2 44.8 10.3 14.5
75 CNN RV 820 52 43 6 9 48.0 40.2 55.1 44.9 10.2 13.3 76 CBS/NYT RV 821 47 32 21 15 47.2 38.8 55.6 44.4 11.2 12.377 TIME LV 824 51 40 9 11 47.4 38.6 55.8 44.2 11.6 11.5
78 Newsweek RV 825 50 38 12 12 49.4 39.6 56.0 44.0 12.0 11.179 FOX LV 830 48 32 21 16 49.6 37.0 57.6 42.4 15.3 12.0
80 CNN LV 902 53 43 4 10 49.8 37.0 57.7 42.3 15.4 13.1 81 ABC RV 907 50 42 9 8 50.4 39.0 56.8 43.2 13.5 13.682 Pew RV 910 50 39 11 11 50.2 38.8 56.8 43.2 13.6 14.083 Gallup RV 910 53 41 7 12 50.8 39.4 56.7 43.3 13.4 14.2
84 FOX LV 913 41 38 21 3 49.4 40.6 55.4 44.6 10.8 13.3
85 Gallup LV 917 48 48 4 0 48.4 41.6 54.4 45.6 8.8 12.0
86 CBS/NYT RV 919 50 35 15 15 48.4 40.2 55.2 44.8 10.5 11.487 CNN LV 924 55 42 3 13 49.4 40.8 55.3 44.7 10.6 10.888 FOX LV 927 49 38 14 11 48.6 40.2 55.3 44.7 10.6 10.3
89 Hotline RV 927 43 33 24 10 49.0 39.2 56.1 43.9 12.2 10.590 Zogby LV 928 42 33 25 9 47.8 36.2 57.4 42.6 14.8 11.7 91 CNN LV 1002 53 42 5 11 48.4 37.6 56.8 43.2 13.6 12.492 AP-Ipsos RV 1004 51 38 11 13 47.6 36.8 57.0 43.0 13.9 13.093 Pew RV 1004 51 41 8 10 48.0 37.4 56.8 43.2 13.5 13.694 TIME LV 1005 54 39 7 15 50.2 38.6 56.9 43.1 13.8 13.9
95 Newsweek RV 1006 51 39 7 12 52.0 39.8 56.9 43.1 13.8 13.7 96 ABC RV 1008 54 41 5 13 52.2 39.6 57.1 42.9 14.2 13.997 CNN LV 1008 58 37 5 21 53.6 39.4 57.8 42.2 15.6 14.298 Gallup LV 1008 59 36 4 23 55.2 38.4 59.0 41.0 18.1 15.1
99 Harris LV 1009 49 36 15 13 54.2 37.8 59.0 41.0 18.0 16.0
100 FOX LV 1011 50 41 9 9 54.0 38.2 58.7 41.3 17.4 16.7
101 CNN LV 1015 56 40 4 16 54.4 38.0 59.0 41.0 17.9 17.4102 NBC RV 1016 52 37 11 15 53.2 38.0 58.5 41.5 17.0 17.7103 Newsweek LV 1021 55 37 8 18 52.4 38.2 58.0 42.0 16.1 17.3104 Gallup LV 1023 54 41 5 13 53.4 39.2 57.8 42.2 15.7 16.8
105 ABC RV 1023 54 41 5 13 54.2 39.2 58.2 41.8 16.3 16.6 106 CNN LV 1022 57 40 3 17 54.4 39.2 58.2 41.8 16.5 16.3107 Hotline RV 1023 52 34 13 18 54.4 38.6 58.6 41.4 17.2 16.4108 Zogby LV 1025 44 33 23 11 52.2 37.8 58.2 41.8 16.4 16.4109 FOX LV 1025 49 38 13 11 51.2 37.2 58.2 41.8 16.3 16.5
110 Newsweek LV 1027 53 39 8 14 51.0 36.8 58.3 41.7 16.6 16.6 111 CNN LV 1029 53 42 5 11 50.2 37.2 57.8 42.2 15.5 16.4112 NBC LV 1030 52 37 11 15 50.2 37.8 57.4 42.6 14.8 15.9113 CBS/NYT LV 1101 52 33 15 19 51.8 37.8 58.0 42.0 16.1 15.9
114 Newsweek LV 1103 54 38 8 16 52.8 37.8 58.4 41.6 16.9 16.0115 TIME LV 1103 55 40 5 15 53.2 38.0 58.5 41.5 17.0 16.0
116 Pew LV 1104 47 43 10 4 52.0 38.2 57.9 42.1 15.8 16.1
117 ABC LV 1104 51 45 4 6 51.8 39.8 56.8 43.2 13.7 15.9
118 USA/Gallup LV 1106 51 44 4 7 51.6 42.0 55.4 44.6 10.9 14.8
119 CNN LV 1106 58 38 4 20 52.4 42.0 55.8 44.2 11.5 13.8120 FOX LV 1106 49 36 15 13 51.2 41.2 55.8 44.2 11.5 12.7
Generic Pre-election Poll Trend vs. the 7:07pm and Final National Exit Poll
To derive an approximation to the TRUE vote for all demographics, the 7pm NEP vote shares and weights were adjusted to match a 57.8-40.2% Wikipedia Democratic vote margin. The base case assumptions were: a) 4.0% of Democratic votes and 1.4% of Republican/other votes were uncounted and b) 7% of Democratic votes were switched to the Republicans.
The TRUE 16% Democratic margin was based on the 120-Generic poll linear trend which was confirmed in the Wikipedia early vote count. It has always been the case that millions of ballots, mostly Democratic, are never counted. In this election, uncounted ballots accounted for less than half of the total discrepancy. The major fraud factor was vote-switching at the polling place and/or the central tabulator. The analysis does not include the millions of disenfranchised voters (mostly Democratic) who never got to the polls. The Generic LV pre-election polls, as one-sided as they were, low-balled the intended Democratic vote.
In both the 7:07pm and Final 1:00pm Exit Polls, the results were adjusted to obtain an estimated TRUE vote. For each demographic, switched vote rates were applied to final vote shares to determine pre-switch shares. Uncounted votes were subtracted from the 7:07pm exit poll result. Unlike the Final, the 7:07pm poll was NOT matched to the vote count. Uncounted and switched vote shares were added back to the Final since it was contaminated in matching to the vote count.
The theoretical Intended Vote is given by:
IV = Recorded + Uncounted + Switched + Disenfranchised
The True Vote is given by:
TV = Recorded + Uncounted + Switched
National Exit Poll Source..... Dem Rep Other CNN-7pm 55.2% 43.4% 1.5%CNN-Final 52.2% 45.9% 2.5%NYT 53.1% 44.9% 2.0% Reported National VoteWikipedia 57.7% 41.8% 0.5%CBS- Nat 52.7% 45.1% 2.2%CBS-State 51.3% 46.4% 2.3% 120 Generic Poll Linear Regression TrendDem = 46.98 + .0419xRep = 38.06 + .0047x Substituting x = 120 and allocating 60% of the undecided vote (UVA) to the Democrats: ........ Trend + UVA = ProjectionDem = 52.01 + 4.42 = 56.43%Rep = 38.62 + 2.95 = 41.57% Wikipedia Summary of the November 7, 2006
United States House of Representatives election results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_2006 ……Party Seats……....... Popular Vote …… .2004 2006 Dem 202 233 +31 39,267,916 57.7% +11.1% Rep 232 202 -30 28,464,092 41.8% –7.4% Ind 1 0 -1 69,707 0.1% + 0.5%
Other 0 0 0 255,876 0.4% –3.2% Total 435 435 0 68,057,591 100%
Democratic Projection ProbabilitiesProj Freq Prob54.0 120 100.054.5 119 99.255.0 116 96.755.5 105 87.556.0 92 76.756.5 76 63.3 57.0 47 39.257.5 31 25.858.0 20 16.758.5 5 4.259.0 1 0.8 Note: 76.7% probability that the vote share would exceed 56% National Exit Poll Timeline vs. the True Vote (Generic Poll Trend) VOTED 2004--------- 7:07pm ----------- --------- 1pm Final --------- ----- True Generic Vote -----
MIX Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherKerry 45% 93% 6% 1% 43% 92% 7% 1% 49% 93% 6% 1%Bush 47% 17% 82% 1% 49% 15% 83% 2% 46% 17% 82% 1%Other 4% 67% 23% 10% 4% 66% 23% 11% 1% 67% 23% 10%DNV 4% 67% 30% 3% 4% 66% 32% 2% 4% 67% 30% 3% TOTAL 100% 55.2% 43.4% 1.4% 100% 52.2% 45.9% 1.9% 100% 56.7% 42.1% 1.2%
Democratic Vote Share Sensitivity to NEP “How Voted in 2004” Weights National Exit Poll (7pm)
Weight: DNV 4%; Other 4% 7pm
Kerry 43% 44% 45% 46% 47% 48% 49% 50% 51%Bush 49% 48% 47% 46% 45% 44% 43% 42% 41%Dem 53.7% 54.4% 55.2% 56.0% 56.7% 57.5% 58.2% 59.0% 59.8% Final National Exit Poll (1pm)
Weight: DNV 4%; Other 4% 1pm
Kerry 43% 44% 45% 46% 47% 48% 49% 50% 51%Bush 49% 48% 47% 46% 45% 44% 43% 42% 41%Dem 52.2% 53.0% 53.7% 54.5% 55.3% 56.0% 56.8% 57.6% 58.4% True Vote Weight: DNV 4%; Other 1% TrueKerry 43% 44% 45% 46% 47% 48% 49% 50% 51%Bush 52% 51% 50% 49% 48% 47% 46% 45% 44%Dem 52.2% 52.9% 53.7% 54.5% 55.2% 56.0% 56.7% 57.5% 58.3% NATIONAL EXIT POLLCNN.com - Elections 2006 Demographic Summary
10,207 Respondents 13,251 Respondents7:07pm 11/07 1:00pm 11/08 Generic Pre-election Trend
Categ Dem Rep Other Dem Rep Other Margin Dem Rep Other Margin Vote04 55.20% 43.36% 1.44% 52.19% 45.88% 1.93% 6.31% 57.50% 41.33% 1.17% 16.17%Gender 55.04% 43.47% 1.49% 52.55% 44.96% 2.49% 7.59% 58.04% 40.47% 1.49% 17.57%Rac/Gen 54.81% 43.71% 1.48% 52.62% 45.51% 1.88% 7.11% 57.77% 40.23% 0.00% 17.54%Race 55.10% 43.11% 1.79% 53.34% 44.85% 1.81% 8.49% 57.88% 41.31% 1.81% 16.57%Age 54.89% 43.44% 1.67% 52.44% 44.92% 1.64% 7.52% 57.89% 40.44% 1.67% 17.45% Income 55.07% 43.27% 1.66% 53.28% 44.89% 1.83% 8.39% 57.92% 40.42% 1.66% 17.50%Educ 55.05% 43.39% 1.56% 52.95% 45.47% 1.58% 7.48% 57.86% 40.58% 1.56% 17.28%Decided 57.16% 41.48% 1.35% 54.25% 44.24% 1.51% 10.01% 58.19% 40.45% 1.35% 17.74%Party 54.50% 43.72% 1.78% 53.04% 45.56% 1.40% 7.48% 57.80% 40.45% 1.75% 17.35%Ideology 54.42% 43.58% 2.00% 52.53% 45.47% 2.00% 7.05% 57.34% 40.66% 2.00% 16.68% Region 55.04% 43.54% 1.42% 52.74% 45.32% 1.94% 7.42% 57.94% 40.34% 1.94% 17.60%Religion 54.22% 43.90% 1.88% 52.64% 45.30% 2.06% 7.34% 57.50% 40.62% 1.88% 16.88%Area 54.84% 43.40% 1.76% 52.79% 45.21% 2.00% 7.58% 57.84% 40.40% 1.76% 17.44%Senate 55.83% 42.60% 1.57% 55.11% 43.89% 1.00% 11.23% 57.75% 40.83% 1.42% 16.92% Mean 55.08% 43.28% 1.63% 53.03% 45.10% 1.79% 7.93% 57.80% 40.61% 1.53% 17.19%StDev 0.69% 0.58% 0.18% 0.76% 0.52% 0.34% 1.23% 0.22% 0.32% 0.48% 0.45% HOW VOTED IN 2004 MIX Dem Rep Other MIX** Dem Rep Other MIX* Dem Rep OtherKerry 45% 93% 6% 1% 43% 92% 7% 1% 50% 93% 6% 1%Bush 47% 17% 82% 1% 49% 15% 83% 2% 45% 17% 82% 1%Other 4% 67% 23% 10% 4% 66% 23% 11% 1% 67% 23% 10%DNV 4% 67% 30% 3% 4% 66% 32% 2% 4% 67% 30% 3%TOTAL 100% 55.20% 43.36% 1.44% 100% 52.19% 45.88% 1.93% 100% 57.50% 41.33% 1.17% GENDER MIX Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep Other MIX* Dem Rep OtherMale 49% 53% 45% 2% 49% 50% 47% 3% 48% 55% 43% 2%Female 51% 57% 42% 1% 51% 55% 43% 2% 52% 59% 40% 1%TOTAL 100% 55.04% 43.47% 1.49% 100% 52.55% 44.96% 2.49% 100% 57.08% 41.44% 1.48% RACE/GENDER MIX Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherWM 39% 47% 51% 2% 39% 44% 53% 3% 39% 50% 48% 2%WF 40% 51% 48% 1% 40% 49% 50% 1% 40% 53% 45% 2%NWM 9% 76% 22% 2% 9% 75% 23% 2% 9% 78% 20% 2%NWF 11% 79% 20% 1% 11% 78% 21% 1% 11% 84% 14% 2%TOTAL 99% 54.26% 43.27% 1.47% 99% 52.09% 45.05% 1.86% 99% 56.96% 40.06% 1.98% WHEN DECIDED MIX Dem Rep Other MIX*** Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherToday 9% 60% 37% 3% 10% 61% 36% 3% 9% 62% 35% 3%3Days 9% 57% 41% 2% 9% 51% 47% 2% 9% 58% 40% 2%Week 8% 53% 45% 2% 9% 52% 47% 1% 8% 54% 44% 2%Month 21% 58% 41% 1% 21% 54% 44% 2% 21% 58% 41% 1%Before 52% 57% 42% 1% 50% 54% 45% 1% 52% 57% 42% 1%TOTAL 99% 56.59% 41.07% 1.34% 99% 53.71% 43.80% 1.49% 99% 56.94% 40.72% 1.34% RACE MIX Dem Rep Other MIX** Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherWhite 80% 49% 49% 2% 79% 47% 51% 2% 80% 50% 48% 2%Black 10% 88% 12% 0% 10% 89% 10% 1% 10% 90% 10% 0%Latino 8% 72% 26% 2% 8% 69% 30% 1% 8% 74% 24% 2%Asian 2% 65% 35% 0% 2% 62% 37% 1% 2% 71% 29% 0%Other 1% 59% 36% 5% 2% 55% 42% 3% 1% 62% 33% 5%TOTAL 101% 55.65% 43.54% 1.81% 101% 53.89% 45.27% 1.84% 101% 56.96% 42.23% 1.81% AGE MIX Dem Rep Other MIX**** Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep Other18-29 11% 60% 38% 2% 12% 60% 38% 2% 11% 62% 36% 2%30-44 23% 55% 43% 2% 24% 53% 45% 2% 23% 57% 41% 2%45-59 33% 55% 44% 1% 34% 53% 46% 1% 33% 58% 41% 1%60+ 33% 53% 45% 2% 29% 50% 48% 2% 33% 54% 44% 2%TOTAL 100% 54.89% 43.44% 1.67% 99% 52.44% 44.92% 1.64% 100% 56.89% 41.44% 1.67% INCOME MIX Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep Other< 15 7% 67% 30% 3% 7% 67% 30% 3% 7% 69% 28% 3%15-30 12% 63% 35% 2% 12% 61% 36% 3% 12% 65% 33% 2%30-50 21% 58% 41% 1% 21% 56% 43% 1% 21% 61% 38% 1%50-75 22% 52% 46% 2% 22% 50% 48% 2% 22% 54% 44% 2%75-100 15% 53% 46% 1% 15% 52% 47% 1% 15% 54% 45% 1%100-150 13% 50% 48% 2% 13% 47% 51% 2% 13% 51% 47% 2%150-200 5% 47% 51% 2% 5% 47% 51% 2% 5% 49% 49% 2%200+ 5% 48% 51% 1% 5% 45% 53% 2% 5% 49% 50% 1%TOTAL 100% 55.07% 43.27% 1.66% 100% 53.28% 44.89% 1.83% 100% 56.95% 41.39% 1.66% REGION MIX Dem Rep Other MIX* Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherNE 22% 64% 35% 1% 22% 63% 35% 2% 22% 66% 33% 2%MidW 27% 57% 42% 1% 27% 52% 47% 1% 27% 59% 40% 1%South 29% 45% 54% 1% 30% 45% 53% 2% 30% 48% 50% 2%West 21% 57% 40% 3% 21% 54% 43% 3% 21% 58% 39% 3%TOTAL 99% 54.49% 43.10% 1.41% 100% 52.74% 45.32% 1.94% 100% 57.03% 41.25% 1.94% EDUCATION MIX Dem Rep Other MIX*** Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherNoHS 4% 64% 35% 1% 3% 64% 35% 1% 4% 67% 32% 1%HSG 21% 57% 42% 1% 21% 55% 44% 1% 21% 59% 40% 1%Col 30% 52% 46% 2% 31% 51% 47% 2% 30% 54% 44% 2%
Grad 26% 52% 46% 2% 27% 49% 49% 2% 26% 54% 44% 2%PostG 19% 60% 39% 1% 18% 58% 41% 1% 19% 62% 37% 1%TOTAL 100% 55.05% 43.39% 1.56% 100% 52.95% 45.47% 1.58% 100% 57.09% 41.35% 1.56% EDUCATION MIX Dem Rep Other MIX** Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherNoDeg 54% 55% 43% 2% 55% 53% 45% 2% 54% 55% 43% 2%Grad 46% 55% 43% 2% 45% 53% 46% 1% 46% 59% 39% 2%TOTAL 100% 55.00% 43.00% 2.00% 100% 53.00% 45.45% 1.55% 100% 56.84% 41.16% 2.00% PARTYID MIX Dem Rep Other MIX** Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherDem 39% 93% 6% 1% 38% 93% 7% 0% 40% 94% 5% 1%Rep 35% 9% 90% 1% 36% 8% 91% 1% 35% 12% 87% 1%Ind 26% 58% 38% 4% 26% 57% 39% 4% 25% 61% 35% 4%
TOTAL 100% 54.50% 43.72% 1.78% 100% 53.04% 45.56% 1.40% 100% 57.05% 41.20% 1.75% IDEOLOGY MIX Dem Rep Other MIX* Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherLib 21% 88% 10% 2% 20% 87% 11% 2% 21% 91% 7% 2%Mod 48% 62% 36% 2% 47% 60% 38% 2% 48% 64% 34% 2%Con 32% 21% 77% 2% 32% 20% 78% 2% 32% 22% 76% 2%TOTAL 101% 54.96% 44.02% 2.02% 99% 52.00% 45.02% 1.98% 101% 56.87% 42.11% 2.02% RELIGION MIX Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep Other MIX Dem Rep OtherProt 55% 46% 52% 2% 55% 44% 54% 2% 55% 49% 49% 2%Cath 26% 56% 43% 1% 26% 55% 44% 1% 26% 58% 41% 1%Jewish 2% 87% 10% 3% 2% 87% 12% 1% 2% 87% 10% 3%Other 6% 71% 25% 4% 6% 71% 25% 4% 6% 75% 21% 4%None 11% 76% 22% 2% 11% 74% 22% 4% 11% 80% 18% 2%TOTAL 100% 54.22% 43.90% 1.88% 100% 52.64% 45.30% 2.06% 100% 57.07% 41.05% 1.88%
2006 Uncounted and Switched Votes
The goal of this model is to determine the percentage of votes which needed to be switched from the Democrats to the Republicans in order to match the Nov. 9 CBS News reported 52.7% Democratic vote. The Democratic 120 Generic poll trend forecast 56.4%; the initial Wikipedia vote count was 57.7D-41.8R. The model assumes that the Wikipedia numbers represented the TRUE national vote. The analysis does not include the millions of disenfranchised voters (mostly Democratic) who never got to the polls. The Generic LV pre-election polls, as one-sided as they were, low-balled the intended Democratic vote.
Based on historical statistics, approximately 3% of total votes cast are never counted. Approximately 75% of them are Democratic. The racial mix was used to approximate the number of uncounted votes in each state, assuming that 8% of non-whites and 2% of white votes were uncounted. The base case analysis assumes that 7% of the recorded votes were switched. To match the Wikipedia vote share, we assume that 3.16% of total votes cast were uncounted and. Almost one in 12 Democratic votes must have been switched to the Republicans.
To derive an approximation to the TRUE vote in each demographic category, the 7pm NEP vote shares and weights were adjusted to match the Wikipedia vote. The base case assumptions were: a) 4.0% of Democratic votes and 1.4% of Republican/other votes were uncounted and b) 7% of Democratic votes were switched to the Republicans.
The 16% Democratic margin was based on the 120-Generic poll linear trend which was confirmed in the Wikipedia early vote count. It has always been the case that millions of ballots, mostly Democratic, are never counted. In this election, uncounted ballots accounted for less than half of the total discrepancy. The major fraud factor was vote-switching at the polling place and/or the central tabulator.
The Intended Vote is given by:
IV = Recorded + Uncounted + Switched + Disenfranchised
The True Vote is given by:
TV = Recorded + Uncounted + Switched
Assuming a 7.0% switch-vote rate, the Democratic TRUE vote was 56.94%, a close match to the Generic 120-Poll trend line projection. At an 8.5% switch rate the TRUE vote was 57.7%, matching the Wikipedia recorded vote share.
Base Case Model Assumptions:Switched: 7.00% Dem to RepUncounted: 3.16% of total votes cast Uncounted Vote SharesRace Share Reported Pct Unctd Total Pct Unctd White 2.0% 62542 81.7% 1276 63819 80.7% 1.61% Other 8.0% 14043 18.3% 1221 15264 19.3% 1.54% Total 3.16% 76585 100% 2497 79082 100% 3.16% Base Case Summary Switched TRUE VoteDem 75% 40331 52.66% 1873 42204 53.37% 2.45% 2823 45027 56.94%Rep 23% 34564 45.13% 574 35138 44.43% 0.75% -2823 32315 40.86%Other 2% 1690 2.21% 50 1740 2.20% 2.87% 0 1740 2.20%Total 3.16% 76585 100.0% 2497 79082 100.0% 3.16% 0 79082 100.0% Wikipedia: U.S. House of Representatives Election Results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_2006 Party Seats........ Popular Vote ... 2004 2006 Dem 202 233 +31 39,267,916 57.7% +11.1% Rep 232 202 -30 28,464,092 41.8% –7.4% Indep 1 0 -1 69,707 0.1% 0.5% Other 0 0 0 255,876 0.4% –3.2% Total 435 435 0 68,057,591 100% 0 Probability of DiscrepancyMoE 1.50% Prob = NORMDIST (0.5266, 0.5694, 0.015/1.96, TRUE) 1 in 86,082,782 Sensitivity Analysis of Democratic TRUE Vote to Switched-vote rateSwitch Dem% Probability: 1 in5.0% 56.17% 444,1216.0% 56.43% 2,308,702 (matches 120 Generic poll trend)6.5% 56.68% 13,359,3117.0% 56.94% 86,082,782 (base case)7.5% 57.19% 617,885,8358.0% 57.45% 4,941,793,3898.5% 57.70% 43,247,703,725 (matches Wikipedia vote count) U.S. House Vote
(thousands)CBS News 11/09 Reported Uncounted Switch TRUE Total Dem GOP Other Margin Total% Dem Rep Other Dem Dem Rep Other Margin 76585 52.66% 45.13% 2.21% 7.53% 3.16% 1873 574 50 2823 56.94% 40.86% 2.20% Discrepancy AL 579 38.7% 60.8% 0.5% -22.1% 3.7% 16 5 0.4 16 42.6% 56.8% 0.6% 7.1%
AK 202 40.1% 56.9% 3.0% -16.8% 3.7% 6 2 0.2 6 44.0% 53.0% 2.9% 7.2%AZ 1127 42.5% 51.1% 6.4% -8.6% 2.7% 23 8 0.6 34 46.2% 47.5% 6.3% 7.1%AR 747 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 19.9% 3.1% 18 6 0.5 31 64.5% 35.5% 0.1% 9.7%CA 6236 56.9% 39.8% 3.3% 17.2% 3.4% 158 53 4.2 248 61.3% 35.4% 3.3% 9.3% CO 1371 53.1% 41.7% 5.2% 11.4% 2.6% 27 9 0.7 51 57.2% 37.7% 5.1% 8.5%CT 1079 60.4% 39.0% 0.6% 21.4% 2.9% 23 8 0.6 46 64.9% 34.5% 0.6% 9.6%DE 509 38.7% 57.2% 4.1% -18.5% 3.5% 13 4 0.4 14 42.5% 53.4% 4.1% 6.9%FL 3727 40.2% 58.0% 1.8% -17.8% 3.1% 88 29 2.3 105 43.9% 54.2% 1.8% 7.0%GA 1916 41.7% 58.3% 0.0% -16.6% 4.0% 58 19 1.5 56 45.8% 54.2% 0.1% 7.5% HI 338 65.1% 34.9% 0.0% 30.2% 6.4% 16 5 0.4 15 69.9% 30.0% 0.1% 11.6%ID 435 39.8% 55.9% 4.4% -16.1% 2.3% 8 3 0.2 12 43.3% 52.4% 4.3% 6.6%IL 3127 55.4% 44.2% 0.4% 11.2% 3.2% 75 25 2.0 121 59.7% 39.8% 0.5% 9.1%IN 1646 48.8% 49.9% 1.3% -1.1% 2.7% 33 11 0.9 56 52.8% 45.9% 1.4% 7.9%IA 1028 47.7% 50.6% 1.8% -2.9% 2.3% 18 6 0.5 34 51.5% 46.7% 1.8% 7.6% KS 827 43.7% 54.4% 1.9% -10.8% 2.7% 16 5 0.4 25 47.4% 50.6% 1.9% 7.2%KY 1244 47.9% 49.0% 3.1% -1.0% 2.6% 24 8 0.6 42 51.8% 45.1% 3.1% 7.8%LA 901 32.6% 64.4% 3.0% -31.7% 4.2% 28 9 0.7 21 36.5% 60.6% 3.0% 6.4%ME 529 65.2% 30.4% 4.3% 34.8% 2.2% 9 3 0.2 24 69.9% 25.8% 4.3% 10.0%MD 1344 61.6% 35.3% 3.1% 26.3% 4.1% 41 14 1.1 58 66.2% 30.8% 3.0% 10.2% MA 1068 74.3% 18.5% 7.2% 55.7% 2.8% 22 7 0.6 56 79.3% 13.6% 7.1% 11.5%MI 3516 51.0% 46.2% 2.8% 4.7% 3.1% 83 28 2.2 126 55.2% 42.1% 2.7% 8.4%MN 2178 53.0% 42.5% 4.5% 10.5% 2.6% 42 14 1.1 81 57.1% 38.4% 4.5% 8.5%MS 581 43.2% 50.8% 6.0% -7.6% 4.3% 19 6 0.5 18 47.4% 46.8% 5.9% 7.9%MO 2050 47.1% 50.3% 2.6% -3.2% 2.9% 45 15 1.2 68 51.0% 46.4% 2.6% 7.8% MT 805 39.0% 59.1% 1.9% -20.1% 2.5% 15 5 0.4 22 42.5% 55.6% 1.9% 6.6%NE 586 43.9% 56.1% 0.0% -12.3% 2.5% 11 4 0.3 18 47.6% 52.4% 0.0% 7.2%NV 573 50.1% 45.2% 4.7% 4.9% 3.0% 13 4 0.3 20 54.2% 41.2% 4.6% 8.3%NH 402 52.0% 47.0% 1.0% 5.0% 2.2% 7 2 0.2 15 56.0% 43.0% 1.0% 8.2%NJ 1859 51.0% 47.6% 1.3% 3.4% 3.4% 47 16 1.3 66 55.3% 43.4% 1.4% 8.5% NM 545 55.8% 44.2% 0.0% 11.6% 2.9% 12 4 0.3 21 60.1% 39.9% 0.1% 9.0%NY 3561 64.2% 35.6% 0.2% 28.6% 3.6% 95 32 2.5 160 68.8% 30.9% 0.3% 10.4%NC 1842 50.8% 49.2% 0.0% 1.5% 3.6% 49 16 1.3 65 55.0% 44.9% 0.1% 8.6%ND 433 65.6% 34.4% 0.0% 31.2% 2.5% 8 3 0.2 20 70.3% 29.7% 0.0% 10.2%OH 3763 52.4% 47.4% 0.2% 4.9% 2.9% 82 27 2.2 138 56.5% 43.2% 0.3% 8.5% OK 905 41.2% 57.2% 1.5% -16.0% 3.3% 22 7 0.6 26 45.0% 53.4% 1.6% 7.2%OR 1264 56.4% 41.4% 2.2% 15.0% 2.5% 24 8 0.6 50 60.7% 37.1% 2.2% 8.9%PA 3815 54.0% 44.7% 1.3% 9.3% 2.8% 81 27 2.2 144 58.2% 40.4% 1.3% 8.7%RI 372 71.0% 11.3% 17.7% 59.7% 2.7% 7 2 0.2 18 75.9% 6.8% 17.3% 11.0%SC 1072 43.5% 55.3% 1.2% -11.8% 3.9% 32 11 0.8 33 47.6% 51.2% 1.2% 7.7% SD 667 69.1% 29.4% 1.5% 39.7% 2.7% 13 4 0.4 32 73.9% 24.5% 1.5% 10.7%TN 1712 50.2% 46.6% 3.2% 3.7% 3.1% 40 13 1.1 60 54.4% 42.5% 3.2% 8.3%TX 3994 44.6% 51.8% 3.6% -7.2% 3.0% 90 30 2.4 125 48.5% 48.0% 3.5% 7.5%UT 549 42.6% 51.5% 5.8% -8.9% 2.4% 10 3 0.3 16 46.3% 48.0% 5.7% 7.0%VT 524 53.2% 44.7% 2.1% 8.6% 2.2% 9 3 0.2 20 57.3% 40.6% 2.1% 8.4% VA 2148 37.7% 56.8% 5.5% -19.1% 3.6% 57 19 1.5 57 41.5% 53.1% 5.4% 6.8%WA 1309 61.3% 38.1% 0.5% 23.2% 2.9% 28 9 0.8 56 65.9% 33.6% 0.6% 9.7%WV 446 57.8% 42.2% 0.0% 15.7% 2.3% 8 3 0.2 18 62.2% 37.8% 0.0% 9.0%WI 1852 54.0% 45.1% 0.8% 8.9% 2.6% 36 12 1.0 70 58.2% 40.9% 0.8% 8.6%WY 377 48.8% 49.3% 1.9% -0.5% 2.3% 7 2 0.2 13 52.7% 45.4% 1.9% 7.8%
120 Generic Poll Projection Trend vs. Final 10 Poll Average
This is an update to the Generic poll model using two projection methods:1) Allocating undecided voters (UVA) to the final 120-poll linear trend. 2) Allocating the UVA to the average of the final 10 Generic polls. The 120-poll trend and 10-poll projections matched to within .05%. The reported Democratic vote share was 1) 51.3% based on CBS state totals (11/09).2) 52.7% based on CBS national totals.3) 57.7% based on Wikipedia national totals.4) 52.6% based on the CNN Final National Exit Poll (11/08). Key model results: Assuming the Democrats captured 60% of the undecided vote,1-the 120-Generic poll trend line projected a 56.43% share2-the Final 10 Generic poll average projected a 56.38% share
The probability is near ZERO that the vote/poll discrepancies were due to chance. Either a) the 120 pre-election Generic polls and Wikipedia vote count are wrong or b) the CBS reported vote count and CNN exit poll are wrong.
PROJECTED DEMOCRATIC VOTE SHARE BASED ON THE 120-GENERIC POLL TREND LINE 120 Generic Poll Linear Regression Trend:Dem = 46.98 + .0419xGOP = 38.06 + .0047x Substituting x=120 and allocating 60% (UVA) to the Democrats: ........Trend + UVA = ProjectionDem = 52.01 + 4.42 = 56.43%Rep = 38.62 + 2.95 = 41.57% ________________________________________________ PROJECTED DEMOCRATIC VOTE SHARE BASED ON THE FINAL 10-POLL AVERAGE Assumption: 60% of the undecided vote (UVA) allocated to Democrats .............. Dem GOP Margin Avg Date 52.0 38.7 13.3 Harris 1023 47 33 14AP 1030 56 37 19CBS 1101 52 33 19Nwk 1103 54 38 16TIME 1103 55 40 15 Pew* 1104 47 43 4 ABC* 1104 51 45 6 USA* 1106 51 44 7
CNN 1106 58 38 20FOX 1106 49 36 13 Average 52.0% 38.7% 13.3% UVA 4.4% 2.9% 0.9% ----- ----- ----- -----Projection 56.4% 41.6% 14.8%CBS State Vote 51.3% 46.4% 4.9% ----- ----- ----- -----Discrepancy -5.1% 4.8% -9.9% 3(*) outliers Average 49.67 44.00 5.672-party 53.02 46.98 7 polls Average 53.00 36.43 16.572-party 59.27 40.73 10 PollsAverage 52.00 38.70 13.302-party 57.33 42.67 _________________________________________________________________ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS I: Probability of discrepancy between:Combined CBS state vote and the Democratic 10-Poll projection for various MoE and UVA assumptions. 10 Polls 52.00%60% UVA 4.38% ----------- -----Projected 56.38% UVA 50% 56.1% 60% 65% 70% 75%Proj. 55.7% 56.1% 56.38% 56.8% 57.2% 57.5% Democratic projectionMargin 13.3% 14.2% 14.8% 15.5% 16.2% 17.0%Deviation 4.4% 4.8% 5.1% 5.5% 5.8% 6.2% MoE Probability of Vote Discrepancy 1 in1.25% 219b 36t 1286t nc nc nc1.50% 151m 5.4b 62b 1.8t 63t 3002t1.75% 1.8m 25m 157m 1.9b 26b 428b2.00% 99k 766k 3m 21m 161m 1.4b 2.25% 13k 68k 207k 950k 4.8m 27m2.50% 3k 12k 29k 102k 381k 1.5m2.75% 1k 3.2k 6.8k 19k 58k 186k3.00% 446 1.2k 2.2k 5.3k 14k 37k _________________________________________________________________ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS II: Probability of discrepancy between:120 Generic Poll trend forecast and the Final NEP for various MoE assumptions Democratic vote share:Exit poll: 52.70% Generics: 56.43% Deviation: 3.73% MoE Probability: 1 in1.00% 7,474,854,153,3121.25% 402,249,1541.50% 1,825,0261.75% 67,847 2.00% 7,7872.25% 1,7282.50% 5792.75% 2553.00% 135 _________________________________________________________________ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS III: Probability of discrepancy between:Wikipedia vote count and the National Exit Poll for various MoE assumptions Democratic share:Exit poll: 52.7% Wikipedia: 57.7% Deviation: 5.0% MoE Probability: 1 in1.00% nc1.25% 450,359,962,737,0501.50% 30,938,221,9751.75% 93,056,001 2.00% 2,083,9002.25% 150,5662.50% 22,5772.75% 5,4673.00% 1,838 _________________________________________________________________
The Interactive Election Simulation (D) determined that Kerry’s won by 51.8-47.2% based on the weighted state exit polls (WPE) and 50.8-48.2% based on the 12:22am National Exit Poll. It contains worksheets for 1) state pre-election and exit polls (WPE, Composite, Best GEO, 2) 18 national pre-election polls, 3) 12:22am National Exit Poll, 4) “How Voted in 2000” demographic sensitivity analysis, 5) state and precinct exit poll response optimizations analysis; 6) Gender vote analysis; 7) Ohio exit poll and 8) Census 2004 vote data. The key assumptions which drive the model are user-entered. Pre-election: undecided voter allocation; Exit Poll: “cluster” effect. This graph displays the results of a simulation of state and national pre-election and exit polls.
The True Vote Model encapsulates the mathematical arguments which strongly suggest that Kerry easily won the 2004 election. It uses 2000/2004 election data, 2000 voter mortality and voter turnout in 2004 in order to determine mathematically feasible (and plausible) weights. The 12:22am NEP vote shares are the base case assumptions. According to the Census, a total of 125.74mm votes were cast and 3.44mm were uncounted.
A powerful sensitivity analysis feature enables the user to view the effects of incremental changes in the assumptions on Kerry’s national vote. Alternative scenario combinations are displayed in various tables.
Here’s a challenge to those who still believe Bush won: come up with just ONE plausible Bush win scenario.
(12:22am and Final 2pm NEP are available for reference)
Enter your own assumptions
for:
1) Kerry's share of New, Gore, Bush and Other 2000 voters
2) Turnout of Gore, Bush,
Other 2000 voters in 2004
3) Uncounted votes as a % of total votes cast (2.74% according to the 2004
Census)
TruthIsAll (TIA) is the pseudonym of a former Democratic Underground (DU) regular who now posts elsewhere. Many of his writings are available at http://www.truthisall.net. TIA argues, among other things, that the 2004 U.S. presidential pre-election polls and the exit polls both indicate that John Kerry won the election.
I don't know who he is. Apparently he has worked in quantitative analysis for many years; he has described himself as an "Excel expert." His allegations of election fraud -- in particular, his enumeration of (presumably far-fetched) things one must believe in order to believe that Bush won the 2004 election -- formed the template for the 2005 Project Censored story making the same case.
Many people believe that TIA's arguments irrefutably demonstrate that John Kerry won the popular vote and the election. Many more people believe that TIA's arguments have no merit whatsoever, and therefore don't bother to try to refute them. I do not like to see weak arguments go unchallenged. (But plenty of people have criticized TIA's arguments -- I make no claim to originality.)
I also think that these particular weak arguments lead to poor political judgments. If TruthIsAll is right, it follows that the 2004 election was obviously stolen. So, one might conclude, among other things, that (1) most voters preferred Kerry to Bush, (2) Democratic political leaders are effectively complicit in a cover-up, and (3) Democrats cannot win crucial elections until and unless the current voting systems are thrown out. I disagree with all of these conclusions.
(Now that the Democrats have won House and Senate majorities in the 2006 election, argument #3 must be modulated. Fraud-minded observers now often argue that the Republicans stole some votes and even some seats, but that either for some reason they could not -- or did not dare? -- steal enough votes, or that they had to decide how many votes to steal several weeks in advance, and were caught flat-footed by a late Democratic surge. As I address on the Miscellaneous page, I have seen no convincing evidence of widespread vote miscount.)
He has many posts, but many of them make these basic claims:
It is pretty easy to look around and determine that not many political scientists are expressing agreement with these views. But why not? It could be that political scientists have a status quo bias and/or are afraid to rock the boat by confronting unpleasant truths; perhaps some are even paid by Karl Rove. It could be that political scientists simply haven't looked at the evidence. It could be that political scientists see gaping holes in TIA's arguments. It could be some combination of those factors, and others besides. For what it's worth, I will explain at some length why I don't agree with TIA's views.
Please note that this is not a one-size-fits-all election integrity FAQ. Do you think that electronic voting machines are almost ridiculously insecure and unreliable? I do, although I certainly don't agree with every word of every critic. Do you think that John Kerry won or should have won Ohio? You may be right. I don't know. I doubt it, but I haven't set out to knock down each and every argument about fraud or vote suppression in the 2004 election -- in fact, I agree with several of them. But the arguments (by TIA and others) that Kerry won the popular vote are not at all likely to be true, in my opinion.
I have rarely quoted TIA at length because (1) the FAQ is already very long and (2) TIA's writing is often hard to read. But if you think I have mischaracterized one of his arguments, or if you have other questions or comments about the FAQ, please feel free to contact me at [my last name]@bard.edu.
According to most observers, most pre-election polls put George W. Bush slightly ahead of John Kerry. The summary of "final trial heats" at pollingreport.com shows Bush ahead in 10, Kerry ahead in 3, and one tied. (The average margin was Bush +1.45%.) Among the "pollster vote projections" (in which the pollsters may make subjective judgments about how undecided voters are likely to vote), five favor Bush, two favor Kerry, and one is a tie. (For what it is worth, both projections favoring Kerry are attributed to Democratic pollsters; one projection favoring Bush is attributed to a Republican pollster. So among nominally neutral pollsters, Bush was ahead in four projections and tied in the fifth; the average margin was Bush +1.3%.)
Please note that every single one of these polls yielded a result within its statistical margin of error, even assuming that the polls were otherwise perfect. So they certainly don't justify high confidence that Bush was "really" ahead, much less that he was destined to win. Some folks might say that the polls revealed a "statistical tie," but that characterization throws away useful information. As I said, most of the polls put Bush slightly ahead.
Yet TruthIsAll argued, in his final Election Model, that the pre-election polls gave Kerry a 99.99% probability of winning the popular vote (as well as a 99.8% probability of winning the electoral vote). Why are his numbers so different? There are two main reasons.
First, TruthIsAll uses poll results for all registered voters, rather than for likely voters, whenever possible. Presumably he believes that the pollsters were biased toward understating Kerry support. In many surveys, people who are least likely to vote tend to favor Democratic candidates. So, for instance, the final pre-election survey by the Pew Research Center gave Bush a 3-point lead among "likely voters," but gave Kerry a 1-point lead among all "registered voters." TruthIsAll uses the figure that puts Kerry ahead, even though Pew itself headlined the report, "Slight Bush Margin in Final Days of Campaign." [More on turnout and likely voters below.]
Second, TruthIsAll assumes that undecided voters will (or did) sharply favor Kerry. (His final model assumed that 75% of undecided voters would vote for Kerry -- although, in fairness, he also considered alternative proportions.) [More on undecided voters on the next page.]
TIA:
Kerry and Bush were essentially tied at 48 in the final national pre-election polls, but the trend of undecided voters was to Kerry. Of the 18 national polls analyzed in the pre-Election Model, 9 were registered voter (RV) and 9 were likely voter (LV). Kerry led in 11 of the 18 polls, Bush in 6. The ABC RV poll was a tie. Kerry led the 18-poll average by 47.8-47.7% and the 9-RV poll average by 47.2-46.7%. Bush led the 9-LV poll average by 48.8-48.4%. Kerry led the 18-pre-election poll average every month except for January and September. The 0.87 statistical correlation between the 11-poll average Bush monthly approval and average poll was close to a perfect 1.0.
Final Election Day Zogby and Harris LV polls were not included in the Nov.1 election model. Both had Kerry winning by 50-47%. Including these polls, Kerry led in 13 by 48.0-47.5%. But that was before the allocation of undecided voters. Harris and Zogby said they were breaking 2-1 to 4-1 for Kerry. The 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP) had Kerry winning the 6% of voters who decided on Election Day by 53-40% and the 10% who decided during the month prior to the election by 60-38%. So there is no doubt that Kerry won a solid majority of late undecided voters. The Nov.1 Election Model included a sensitivity analysis based on 5 undecided voter scenarios in which Kerry was projected to win 60, 67, 75, 80 and 87% of the undecided vote.
You continue to reject the historical fact that late undecided voters would break for the challenger, Kerry. But world-class pollsters Zogby and Harris, who have a combined 60 years of polling experience, indicated that their Election Day polling Kerry won undecided voters by 67-75%. The National Exit Poll also reported that Kerry won a clear majority of undecided voters. This was not unusual; historical evidence indicates that undecided voters break for the challenger over 80% of the time, especially when the incumbent is unpopular - and Bush had a 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day. Final Zogby polls in nine battleground states had Kerry leading by an average of 50-45%. He was projected to win all nine by 53-46%, but only won five by 50-49%. The margin of error was exceeded in six states - a 1 in 52 million probability.
You dismiss the significance of the Bush 48.5% approval rating on Election Day. But all presidential incumbents with approval below 50% lost re-election (Ford, Carter, Bush I) while all incumbents over 50% won (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton). The near-perfect 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly approval rating and national poll average share is further evidence. The correlation was confirmed by the 12:22am National Exit Poll which Kerry won by 51-48%.
You overlook the fact that 41 states switched to Bush from the final pre-election polls to the recorded vote. But none of the 10 states which switched to Kerry was a battleground state. Forty-three states red-shifted to Bush from the 12:22am exit polls. Oregon was the only battleground state which shifted to Kerry – by less than one percent. It’s also the only state in which voting is done by mail. Was this all just a coincidence, a case of bad polling or an indication that fraud occurred?
This is a graph of the 2004 National Pre-election Polls Monthly Trend
Basically, those probabilities (for both state and national polls) assume that all his assumptions (for instance, about how "undecided" voters will vote) are right, and that the only source of uncertainty is random sampling error. I argue below that his assumptions are more wrong than right. They certainly aren't 100% reliable. (TruthIsAll himself suggests that the polls might be biased -- against Kerry, of course.)
TIA:
Mark says that my assumptions are not “100% reliable” and “are more wrong than right”. What does 100% reliability mean when it comes to assumptions? And how are they more wrong than right? Let’s take a close look at some assumptions.
-Does he mean the base case 12:22am NEP vote shares?
The sensitivity analysis provides a range of assumptions: 2000 voter turnout, Kerry’s share of returning Gore, Bush, Nader voters and others who did not vote in 2000. Which assumptions does he believe are more wrong than right?
-Does he mean the undecided voter allocation?
I provide a 60-87% undecided voter allocation range (see the Monte Carlo EV sensitivity analysis). The 75% base case matches that of world-class pollsters Zogby and Harris. I trust their combined 70 years of experience a lot more than the Mystery Pollster. What polls did he run? Is Mark implying that MP knows more than Zogby and Harris?
-Does he mean the Margin of Error?
I use pre-election state poll 600- sample MoE (4%)
I use the given national pre-election polls sample-size to compute the MoE.
The state exit poll MoE is adjusted for a user-entered cluster effect.
The 12:22am National Exit Poll (13047 sample) adjusted for a 30% cluster effect yields a 1.12% MoE.
In the notes to the NEP, Edison-Mitofsky claim the MoE is 1.0%.
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/NEP13047.mht
-Does he mean the annual mortality rate?
I use the published U.S. 0.87% annual rate. It’s a fact.
-Does he mean the assumption that only living Gore, Bush or Nader 2000 voters could have voted in 2004?
It’s a fact. Or does he believe in reincarnation?
-Does he mean the random sampling assumption?
I refer once again to Edison-Mitofsky’s notes (link above).
-Does he mean my assertion that the Final NEP “How Voted in 2000” weights (43% Bush / 37% Gore) and corresponding vote shares were drastically changed to match the Bush 51-48% vote?
It’s a fact. The Final NEP has always been matched the recorded vote.
-Does he mean my assertion that the “How Voted in 2000” weights were mathematically impossible?
It’s a fact. Do the math.
-Does Mark agree that matching to the NEP only makes sense if the election is fraud-free?
Is it his assumption that 2004 was fraud-free? What about 2000, 2002 and 2006?
-Does he mean my assertion that the election was stolen?
In light of the above, is that not a fair conclusion?
________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, high turnout is not a reason to dismiss the likely-voter results. Most pollsters already expected high turnout. For technical reasons, it is hard to compare pollsters' various turnout assumptions to the official figures, but the survey results don't change very sharply if we change turnout assumptions by a few points. To include every respondent who claims to be registered would include many people who have very little prospect of voting.
In Pew's final pre-election poll (data available for download here), Pew scored over 62% of its respondents as "likely voters," scoring 8 or 9 on its 0-to-9 likely voter scale. (Actually, this percentage is weighted -- for instance, young respondents weigh more heavily than older ones. The unweighted results are even less favorable to Kerry.) The actual presidential turnout in 2004 is estimated by Dr. Michael McDonald at about 60.3% of the eligible voting-age population. In order for Kerry to take a slight lead in the Pew survey, one must either include all voters scoring as low as 5 on the likely voter scale -- which implies about 77% voting-age turnout -- or assume that about three quarters of all undecided voters would vote for Kerry. In order to give Kerry an appreciable lead, one has to jack up the projected turnout and allocate the vast majority of undecided voters to Kerry.
By strange coincidence, TruthIsAll did exactly that: he jacked up the turnout to include all self-reported registered voters (which, in the Pew survey, would be about 80% voting-age turnout, or around 160 million voters nationwide instead of 120 million), and allocated three quarters of undecided voters to Kerry. Presto, Kerry took the lead.
In January 2005, TIA claimed, "Any reputable pollster will tell you that in this election, RV's were a more accurate gauge of the vote." What a strange claim. Pollingreport.com reports (here and on the following "earlier" pages) likely-voter results from well over a dozen separate pollsters. Were they all disreputable? Did they all repudiate their likely-voter models?
TIA:
It’s nonsense to extrapolate voter turnout based on the type of poll. Pollingreport.com also provides companion RV polls from these same pollsters. Nine of the final 18 national polls in my pre-election model were RVs – and presto! Kerry won 5. Nine were LV’s – and presto! Kerry won 6! You could look it up.
There TIA's data hold up somewhat better, although his probabilities don't. While the national polls (prior to TIA's massaging) fit the official results rather closely, the state polls do not fit as well. The median state poll in TIA's analysis, prior to TIA's allocation of undecideds, had a Kerry margin about 2.8 points larger than Kerry's actual performance. After allocating undecideds 75% to Kerry, the median discrepancy is about 4.5 points.
Looking at the crucial battleground states, the discrepancies don't seem very suspicious.
TruthIsAll had Kerry ahead by three points in Ohio, but only one Ohio poll out of the last ten actually put Kerry ahead. (This discrepancy could owe to flukes of timing, TIA's preference for registered-voter results, and/or TIA's reported propensity to ignore certain survey results he regards as biased.) Thus, although TIA's final model (again, the link -- find "OH") gave Kerry an 86.49% probability of winning Ohio, most observers would have leaned in the other direction. In my roundup, combining RealClearPolitics.com and electoral-vote.com figures, Bush had an average 1.9-point lead in the Ohio polls, quite close to his official margin of 2.1 points. (By the way, I checked two sources to ensure that RealClearPolitics' evident political bias didn't seep into its poll reporting; the results are closely comparable. Below, I link to RCP because its tables are easier to read.)
Similarly, because of TIA's allocation of most undecideds to Kerry, his Interactive Election Simulation spreadsheet gave Kerry a 73% chance of winning Florida despite depicting the race as nominally tied in the polls. In his final model report, Kerry has over an 86% probability of winning Florida. (The RealClearPolitics.com roundup gives Bush a narrow average margin of 0.6 points, with Bush ahead in 4 polls, Kerry ahead in 3, and the other 2 tied.) Bush did clearly do better in Florida than polls had projected, winning by just over 5 points.
Kerry won Pennsylvania as projected -- although even there, TIA's 96.69% probability in the final model seems misplaced. Kerry's 2.3-point winning margin in Pennsylvania was smaller than TIA's estimated 5 points prior to allocating undecideds. However, in the RealClearPolitics.com roundup, no poll put Kerry more than 4 points ahead; the average was 0.9 points, and the median was 2 points.
In summary, first of all, TruthIsAll's simulation results asserting a 99.8% probability that Kerry would win the electoral vote depended heavily on very favorable assumptions about Ohio and Florida. Second, the state polls may have overstated Kerry's official vote share, although part of the overstatement probably owes to TIA's selection of polls. (Later I will consider the argument that the state-level pre-election poll discrepancies and the exit poll discrepancies support each other as evidence of fraud.)
TIA:
You fail to distinguish between weighted and unweighted averages, claiming Bush led the pre-election state polls. But you used an unweighted average to derive the national share. Kerry led the national weighted average (based on state voting population) from July to Election Day, except for a brief period in September. Kerry also led in the national pre-election polls all year.
You use the median of the data set when you should be using the weighted mean. Despite your protestations to the contrary, the pre-election polls did NOT match the official recorded vote, but DID match the exit polls. Kerry led the 18 nationals by a slight 0.5% - before my so-called undecided allocation “massaging”. Allocating undecided voters is necessary for projecting the final vote. Even professional pollsters do it. It’s foolish to ignore undecided voters, especially when a very unpopular president with a 48% approval rating is running. I believe Zogby and Harris.
On the other hand, matching the Final NEP to a miscounted recorded vote is not massaging; at best, it’s inadvertent poll-rigging and intellectually dishonest. It implies ZERO fraud. There is no justification for matching the Final Exit Poll to the recorded vote. It’s just catapulting the propaganda for an illegitimate regime. The use of bogus, mathematically impossible weights and implausible vote shares in order to match the Final National Exit Poll to a fraudulent vote count is, well…fraudulent.
The Interactive Election Simulation graph displays the results of a 200- election trial run. In PA, Kerry’s RECORDED exit poll margin understated his TRUE margin by 5%. As for Ohio, you apparently still believe that Bush won the state. Kerry won the OH exit poll by 52-48%. And you claim that Bush clearly did better in Florida (he “won” by 5 points). Once again, you fall into the insidious trap of implicitly assuming that the RECORDED vote was fraud-free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIA and others have argued that the pre-election polls were biased against Kerry because they do not cover people who only use cell phones -- and these were disproportionately young voters who favored Kerry. Scott Keeter, drawing on a close analysis of Pew Research Center survey data, has concluded that because the polls are weighted to match the age distribution in the population, cell-phone-only voters had little effect on the polls' accuracy. "While cell-only voters were more supportive of John Kerry than voters overall, they were similar to voters within their own age cohort." (Keeter's findings also appeared in Public Opinion Quarterly.) Certainly Pew's age weightings seem fairly close to the mark. For instance, in their final pre-election poll (weighted), respondents aged 18-24 comprise 8.5% of the likely voters, and respondents 18-34 total 22.9%. In the Current Population Survey, self-reported voters 18-24 are 9.3% of all voters, and voters 18-34 are approximately 23.8% (derived from Table B). If one assumes, generously, that voters 18-24 favored Kerry about 60% to 40%, then any underrepresentation of young voters may have cost Kerry a small fraction of a percentage point in Pew's likely voter estimate.
TIA:
In 2004, 122.3 million votes were recorded. According to voting records cited by Greg Palast, over 3 million additional votes were uncounted (spoiled, provisional, absentees, etc), confirming the 2004 Census Vote Survey (0.30% MoE) which indicated that 125.7mm voted. Approximately 27 million (22% of 125.7mm) were voters who did not vote (DNV) in 2000.
According to the 7:33pm National Exit Poll, about 61% of DNV (16.5mm) were NEW voters (mostly younger cell-phone users). Kerry won the DNV group by 59-39% (5.4mm votes). According to the 12:22am NEP (13047 respondents) Kerry won DNV by 57-41% (4.4mm votes). Assuming that Kerry’s share of NEW voters was equal to his total DNV vote share, then his vote margin was approximately 3.0mm among these NEW voters. Since Kerry lost the RECORDED vote by 3 million, the number of NEW voters was a significant component of the TRUE Kerry vote.
Undecided voters probably sometimes break sharply for the challenger. But I can find no evidence that this rule is useful in "allocating" reported undecided voters in presidential elections. In fact, overall, reported undecideds seem to break about evenly.
In support of the claim that undecideds break for the challenger, TruthIsAll has cited an essay by Chris Bowers at MyDD. Bowers canvassed 28 presidential polls going back to 1976, and concluded that "undecideds break overwhelmingly -- better than 6 to 1 -- in favor of the challenger in a Presidential race." But a close reading reveals that Bowers did not examine declared "undecided" voters at all!
Bowers basically found that on average, incumbents did about 0.3 points better than the final polls indicated, while challengers did about two points better -- indeed a ratio of more than 6 to 1. This result mostly had nothing to do with undecided voters. Nine of the 28 surveys were from 1996, a year in which the pre-election polls overstated incumbent Bill Clinton's winning margin by over 4 points on average. Five of those surveys reported no undecided voters whatsoever -- and their errors were not systematically different from the other four surveys'. (The second most accurate survey that year reported 11% undecided, equalling the other eight surveys combined.) Clearly Bowers's analysis cannot be used as a guide to allocate reported undecided voters. At most it might imply that challengers tend to do well when some polls report a lot of undecideds, but I see little support for even this inference.
I examined a total of 31 presidential polls going back to 1972, using the same National Council on Public Polls dataset used by Bowers. (1972 was the earliest year with multiple polls, at least one of which reported undecided voters.) In some elections, the polls with higher reported undecided rates indicated less net support for the incumbent than the other polls; in others, they indicated greater incumbent support. Overall, the results indicate no statistically significant relationship between percentage undecided and incumbent support. Thus, there is no statistical support for altering the margin to account for reported undecideds. Another way to say that is that reported undecideds seem to break about evenly (since allocating them doesn't appreciably alter the margin), perhaps slightly toward the challenger on average. But every election and every poll is different, so it is probably best just to say that we don't know.
TIA:
You neglect to mention that in our previous discussions (on DU and elsewhere), I cited a 155- election survey in which challengers won the undecided vote in 127 and incumbents won the undecided vote in just 19.
http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm
You also fail to mention that I have referred to world-class pollsters Zogby and Harris. They have stated that challengers typically win over 2/3 of the undecided vote. The reason is straightforward. Voters are undecided when they are not enthusiastic about the incumbent. Bush had a 48.5% average rating in Election Day. A clear majority were NOT satisfied with his performance - especially undecided voters.
Assuming that Kerry got 2/3 of the late undecided votes, he was poised to be 51.5-47.5% winner. My pre-election model forecast a 51.3 - 47.7% Kerry win based on final state pre-election polls and 51.1 - 47.9% based on the final 18 national pre-election polls. The exit polls indicate that Kerry won a solid majority of the late undecided voters (last three days), as well as those who decided in the last month (60-38%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what Zogby had to say about undecided voters and Bush approval ratings a few days before the election:
So, first of all, the numbers. We have been looking for months at what we call a virtual tie between Kerry and Bush. I can report to you this morning that it's an actual tie. It's 47 percent for Kerry and 47 percent for Bush. You will note that my hair is a little grayer these days than it has been, where we stand today, we have approximately 5 percent undecided. We go as low as 4 percent undecided on some days.
Who are these undecided voters? They do tend to be Independents, that is, in terms of party affiliation. They do tend to be moderates, meaning not liberal and not conservative. Unlike previous years, they tend to be middle-aged voters, meaning not young and not old. We have polled them -- the undecideds, that is. We have also done focus groups among undecideds. Contrary to popular belief, contrary to what I, personally, believed; these undecideds generally have told us that they had their minds made up in the past. This is a new phenomenon for them. They also told us that they were paying attention. They could identify for us basically where each candidate stood on the issues. Since we did the focus groups in the so called "battleground states" of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Minnesota, they told us that they have seen campaign commercials.
Here are some of the things that we have found out among undecided voters: They like the President as a person. They give the President good marks for leadership and decisiveness. They appear to be very much opposed to the war and to the way that we got into the war. They give the President good marks on personal morality and family values. At the same time, they tell us that they like John Kerry, that he is smart enough, they believe that he is competent enough to be President. They also feel that John Kerry is one that they identify with on their issues, which are domestic issues that we heard about, the economy and health care, education and so on. They have questions about whether or not they trust Kerry, about whether or not they believe where he stands on issues. They do tend to say, and I guess after hearing so many commercials and seeing so many commercials, that they feel that Kerry is a person who changes his position to win popular support.
The undecideds told us that they're passionate, that they will vote. Some of them indicated that they were actually agonizing over their choice. And they also told us that they're genuinely undecided. Significantly, from the polling, and not from the focus groups, we find that only 1 in 5 of the undecided voters tell us that the President of the United States deserves to be reelected. Between one-third and 40 percent, so between 30 and 40 percent of the undecideds tell us that they feel it is time for someone new, and then half of the undecideds are not sure, or they're undecided, about that question, the President.
Now, on the basis of history, if history is any guide whatsoever, I still believe: number one, that the race is about the incumbent, a referendum on the incumbent, and the fact that the incumbent has not broken 48 percent suggests to me that the President is not polling good numbers for reelection. In addition to that, in terms of the other barometric readings that I look at, you still have a net negative of voters who say that the President is not doing a good job. He gets a negative job performance rating. He gets a negative reelect, meaning slightly more people think it's time for someone new than that he deserves to be reelected. And slightly more people feel that the country is headed on the wrong direction. Now, the President has improved all of those numbers, but they're still not reelection numbers. In addition to that, on the top five issues that the voters tell us are tops on their minds, the President leads in one of those issues, fighting the war on terrorism: He leads substantially against Senator Kerry. Among the other four issues, Senator Kerry leads by double digits over the President.
The key reason why I still think that Kerry will win, perhaps, possibly (laughter) -- have I made myself clear here? Okay. That traditionally, the undecideds break for the challenger against the incumbent on the basis of the fact, simply, that the voters already know the incumbent, and it's a referendum on the incumbent. And if the incumbent is polling, generally, under 50 percent and leading by less than 10, historically, incumbents have lost 7 out of 10 times. In this instance you have a tie, a President who is not going over 48, undecideds who tell us by small percentages that the President deserves to be reelected. And in essence, it gives all the appearances that the undecideds -- the most important people in the world today -- have made up their minds about President Bush. The only question left is: Can they vote for John Kerry? If it's a good turnout, look for a Kerry victory. If it's a lower turnout, it means that the President has succeeded in raising questions about John Kerry's fitness”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what Harris Interactive said about undecided voters:
Final Pre-election Harris Polls: Still Too Close to Call but Kerry Makes Modest Gains
“The final Harris Polls show Senator John Kerry making modest gains at the very end of the campaign in an election that is still too close to call using telephone methods of polling. At the same time, the final Harris Internet-based poll suggests that Kerry will win the White House today in a narrow victory. Harris Interactive’s final online survey of 5,508 likely voters shows a three-point lead for Senator Kerry. The final Harris Interactive telephone survey of 1,509 likely voters shows a one-point lead for President Bush. Both surveys are based on interviews conducted between October 29, 2004 and November 1, 2004. The telephone survey is consistent with most of the other telephone polls, which show the race virtually tied.
If this trend is real, then Kerry may actually do better than these numbers suggest. In the past, presidential challengers tend to do better against an incumbent President among the undecided voters during the last three days of the election, and that appears to be the case here. The reason: undecided voters are more often voters who dislike the President but do not know the challenger well enough to make a decision. When they decide, they frequently split 2:1 to 4:1 for the challenger.
About one percentage point of the current difference probably reflects the inclusion in the online sample of people with cell phones but no landline (and therefore not included in the telephone survey) who favor Kerry by a wide margin”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what Frank Newport, Editor in Chief of the Gallup Poll, said about undecided voters and Bush approval:
Is the presidential race still too close to call?
Yes. No matter how you look at the data, the two major-party candidates are neck and neck. Gallup's final Oct. 29-31 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that if all registered voters actually turn out (which is not likely to happen, of course), John Kerry wins over George W. Bush by two points. Among likely voters, including our estimate of what the remaining undecided voters will do on Election Day, the race is dead even at 49% for each candidate.
Analyzing the data in other ways, such as modifying likely voter assumptions and changing turnout estimates, doesn't make a substantial difference in the election predictions. The support for both candidates is basically in the upper-40% range, and the final popular vote may well depend on which side is best able to mobilize its voters to go to the polls.
How does Gallup decide how to "allocate" undecided voters?
The allocation procedure is a Gallup tradition, and represents Gallup scientists' best estimate of what the final popular vote will be on Election Day.
Here's how it works. The unallocated numbers in the pool of likely voters (that is, the percentages of likely voters supporting Bush and Kerry, not including undecided voters) are 49% for Bush and 47% for Kerry. We assume, based on an analysis of previous presidential and other elections, that there is a high probability that the challenger (in an incumbent race) will receive a higher percentage of the popular vote than he did in the last pre-election poll, while there is a high probability that the incumbent will maintain his share of the vote without any increase. This has been dubbed the "challenger rule."
There are various explanations for why this may occur, including the theory that any voter who maintains that he or she is undecided about voting for a well-known incumbent this late in the game is probably leaning toward voting for the challenger.This persistent historical pattern is the basis for Gallup's decision to allocate the 3% undecided vote to Kerry and Nader/other, making the final estimate 49% Bush, 49% Kerry, and 2% Nader/other.
How might the president's job approval rating influence the outcome of the election?
A president's job approval rating is an important indicator of re-election probabilities. But like so much else in this election, this measure isn't giving us a great deal of direction right now. Bush's job approval has slipped to 48% among national adults and is thus below the symbolically important 50% point. If we take that 50% line seriously, then Bush is in a less-than-auspicious position. No president since Harry Truman has won re-election with a job approval rating below 50%.
But the last two presidents who lost (George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter) had job approval ratings much worse than George W. Bush's 48%. He is clearly not as bad off as they were. On the other hand, the winners all had job approval ratings well above 50%. Bush is in a gray zone when it comes to his job approval rating.
What is the impact of turnout among younger voters?
We've heard a lot about the impact of younger voters this year. The data indeed show that Kerry does better among younger voters -- that is, those under age 30. Among all national adults in that age group, Kerry wins by a 59% to 34% margin.
_______________________________________________________________
On average, it is true that incumbents don't do better -- or, rather, much better -- than their predicted shares in the final polls. As noted above, in the polls examined by Bowers (and by me), on average, incumbents did about 0.3 points better than the final polls indicated.
Averages can be misleading, and this one is. Remember the old joke about the hapless target shooter who grazes a tree with one shot, kills a bystander with the next, but brags that on average he nailed the bullseye? Well, in two of the five elections in the Bowers analysis (the five being 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980, and 1976), the incumbent improved his vote share by about 2 points over the polls. In 1984, Ronald Reagan averaged 57% over six polls and got 58.8% in the official returns. In 1976, Gerald Ford averaged 45.7% over three polls (although that average is influenced by one poll that is much lower than the others) and got 48.0% in the official returns.
These elections are partly offset by 1996, not only because Clinton actually earned a lower vote share than predicted in the polls (50.3% in the polls, 49.2% in the vote), but because there were more polls in that year. So, on average, the incumbent poll figures are close to the official percentages.
George W. Bush's 2004 share across the 14 trial heats in the pollingreport.com roundup was about 48.5%; his official vote share was 50.7%. Thus, an improvement of about two points, as in 1976 and 1984 -- hardly a wild exception to a well-established rule.
TIA:
I refer you to the preceding Zogby and Harris statements. Apparently, you disregard their combined 70 years of polling experience. You resort to citing a 2% deviation from the vote in 2 of the five elections. Reagan won a landslide. To say that he did 2% better in the poll average than the vote is reaching. As for Ford, you cite a limited 3-poll average. Since one of the three polls was much lower than the average, Ford’s vote share had to be lower than his other poll numbers indicated. Why not provide the actual poll results?
Once again, you assume that Bush’s true vote was 50.7%, and that there was no fraud. That is not a good assumption to make. This is analogous to the Final Exit Poll matching to an assumed fraud-free recorded vote count. My exit poll analysis indicates that the true Bush vote was 47%. The pre-election projection model had Kerry leading the final 18 national poll average by 48-47%.
TIA has stated that Bush's approval rating on November 1 was 48.5% based on the "average of 11 polls." I'm not sure which polls are included in that figure; different surveys typically yield slightly higher or lower approval figures. During October 2004, the Gallup Poll reported six approval figures for Bush: two above 50%, three below 50%, and one exactly 50%. The last pre-election survey put him at 48% approval, 47% disapproval, and 5% "not sure." (Gallup's two November polls gave Bush 52% and 55% approval.) So, Bush's final Gallup approval rating was below 50%, although not very far below.
So, is a final Gallup approval rating (slightly) below 50% a sure sign of imminent defeat? Starting in 1972, TIA cites three incumbents with approval ratings below 50, and two with approval ratings in the 50s. In order of approval rating, they are:
|
Year |
Incumbent |
Approval |
Vote |
|
1992 |
Bush (I) |
30 |
46.5% |
|
1980 |
Carter Carter and |
31 |
45.4% |
|
1976 |
Ford |
46 |
48.9% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
55 |
54.7% |
|
1972 |
Nixon |
59 |
61.8% |
(By the way, TIA's 1992 figure appears to be from late September. A Gallup/Newsweek poll in late October gave Bush a 37% approval rating, which does not much alter the analysis. I do not know why TIA excluded 1984; a Gallup poll in late October showed Reagan at 58% approval, and he won 59.2% of the vote.)
Notice that prior to 2004, there is no incumbent with an approval rating between 46 and 55. So, one might say it is a rule that "incumbents with approval ratings under 50 never win." But one might just as accurately say that "incumbents with approval ratings over 46 always win." Does one of these statements make more sense than the other? For what it is worth, let's examine a plot of final approval ratings vis-a-vis incumbent two-party vote shares from 1956 on.
In the plot above, the dashed blue line is the best-fit line for all these elections. The solid purple line is the best-fit line excluding the 1956 and 1964 elections, which appear to be out of trend. (The 1956 and 1964 approval ratings are from summer polls -- as are the 1972 and 1976 ratings.) Either way, it appears that incumbents with approval ratings over 45 are likely to win! The thinner, vertical purple line depicts this break-even point. (Notice that Carter in 1980 and Bush in 1992 each won over 45% of the two-party vote despite approval ratings in the low 30s.) Note also that 2004 lies below the best-fit lines: if anything, Bush might have been expected to do slightly better in the election based on his approval rating. With so few data points, it would be fairest to say that the election could have gone either way.
TIA:
Carter and Bush both LOST and had approval ratings below 50%. You can have your own theories, but not your own facts. And the FACT is that ALL incumbents with final approval ratings under 50% LOST the election – and that includes Bush. Your attempt to twist this FACT is patently obvious. Your scatter plot is just a diversion. Why don’t you just accept this FACT and move on?
The 0.87 correlation between the Bush 11-poll average 2004 monthly approval rating and his monthly pre-election 18-poll average was close to a perfect 1.0, indicating a very strong relationship. His Election Day approval rating was 48.5%. Kerry won the 12:22am National Exit Poll by 51-48%.
TruthIsAll FAQ: (3)
That's a long story. Let me say first of all that the main point of the exit polls is not to project who will win the election -- although the exit poll interviews are combined with vote count data in order to make projections. Mostly, the exit polls are used to provide information about who voted for whom and why. This purpose explains why the exit poll questionnaires are so long -- containing up to 30 questions.
In 2004, the exit pollsters chose anywhere from 15 to 55 precincts in each state for their exit poll sample: a total of 1480 precincts nationwide. Interviewers are sent to the corresponding polling places, some of which host more than one precinct. At some polling places, interviewers were instructed to approach every voter; at most, interviewers were instructed to approach every "Xth" voter, where X could be anywhere from 2 to 10. This instruction is intended to provide a random sample within the precinct; the value of X is chosen to obtain about 100 completed questionnaires per polling place.
The interviewers ask each approached voter to complete the exit poll questionnaire (attached to a clipboard). Slightly over half of the approached voters agreed to complete the questionnaire. Three times during the day, the interviewers call in tallied results for reported votes (presidential and often statewide races), plus all the answers on a subsample of questionnaires. In some states with many early/absentee voters, the exit pollsters also conduct telephone surveys of these early voters. (In vote-by-mail Oregon, only a telephone survey is conducted.)
Back at 'exit poll central,' the exit pollsters use these data in two ways: to make projections and tabulations. Projections are estimates of the vote shares in each state (and DC), together with measures of the uncertainty in those estimates. These projections initially are based on the interview tallies, which are compared with past results from the same precincts. Sometimes the interview tallies alone suffice to "call" the winner of a state with great confidence, especially if the race was not expected to be very close to begin with. Often the interview tallies are inconclusive. In these more competitive states, the exit pollsters continually update their projections to incorporate actual vote counts. The analysts examine both "quick counts" from the exit poll precincts and selected other precincts, and cumulative county-level totals. As quick counts become available, they replace the interview data in the projections.
Tabulations "break down" the vote share by various categories: for instance, gender, family income, or religious affiliation. These tabulations are computed for each state and for a special national sample. Preliminary tabulations were released for each state as the polls closed, and later updated to match the updated projections -- in effect, to match the official returns. (Actually, the initial tabulations were weighted to match the composite projections, which incorporate not only interview data but pre-election expectations.) National tabulations were updated several times, incorporating interview data and official returns from various states as they became available. Such tabulations, as posted on CNN.com, became the basis for much of the exit poll controversy.
It depends, of course. Most attempts to argue that exit polls are highly accurate strangely steer around U.S. national exit polls; Steve Freeman, for instance, in his well-known 2004 paper, focuses on Germany and Utah. There is no single measure of exit poll accuracy, and even if there were, we wouldn't know what it equaled for all past U.S. exit polls. If you look closely, many of the arguments boil down to assertions that the exit polls should be accurate.
One useful accuracy measure is the "Within Precinct Error" (WPE), which basically equals the percentage difference between the exit poll margin and the official margin for each precinct. By convention, WPE is positive if the Republican candidate does better in the exit poll than in the official count, and negative if the Democratic candidate does better in the exit poll. (For instance, if Kerry led in a precinct exit poll by 5 points, but trailed in the official count by 3 points, the WPE would be -8 points.)
We know that in the last five large-scale presidential exit polls*, the average WPE has always been substantially negative, overstating the Democratic performance: -2.2 points in 1988, -5.0 points in 1992, -2.2 points in 1996, -1.8 points in 2000, and -6.5 points in 2004. (See page 34 of the evaluation report.) So, as far as we can tell from WPE, no recent exit poll has been accurate within the margin of error. And the 1992 survey was almost as far off as the 2004 survey. As Mark Blumenthal has pointed out, the documentary The War Room confirms that the actual 1992 exit poll projections -- at least at midday -- overstated Bill Clinton's performance. Few people noticed at the time: partly because the exit polls were not leaked on the Internet, partly because the discrepancies only altered the magnitude of Clinton's victory.
* Fine print: (1) I said "large-scale" because the Los Angeles Times has conducted national presidential exit polls, but those are much smaller. (2) In 1988, each network conducted its own exit polls; the WPE figure here is for CBS, the exit poll on which Warren Mitofsky worked. Later exit polls have been conducted by a series of network-sponsored consortiums.
Another useful accuracy measure is the Call 3 (end-of-day) "Best Geo Error" for each state. The Best Geo error is the discrepancy between the vote share estimate, based on interview data, and the official returns. (Like WPE, the Best Geo error is reported as a percentage difference in margins.) The vote share estimates can vary substantially from the raw percentages used to calculate WPE; they incorporate information on turnout, estimates of early and absentee voting (often based on telephone polls), and comparisons with past races. The average state Best Geo Error in 2004 was -5.0 points, somewhat smaller than the mean WPE.
TIA:
The exit polls always do not overstate the Democratic share; the vote count does. Remember, approximately 3% of total votes cast are never counted. Since about 80% (2.4%) are democratic, the exit poll margin differential due to this factor alone is 1.8%.
Probably not, although they certainly may contribute. Greg Palast offers an estimate of 3.6 million (or "3,600,380 to be exact") uncounted ballots in 2004 alone. In Palast's account, these include about 1.4 million spoiled ballots (ballots for which no presidential vote was counted, such as the infamous "hanging chad" ballots in Florida) -- also known as "residual votes" or "overvotes and undervotes." They also include about 1.1 million uncounted provisional ballots and over half a million absentee ballots. These figures do not add up to 3.6 million, and it isn't clear where they come from, how accurate they are, or what proportion of these ballots were cast for Kerry. (Electionline.org reported approximately 528,000 uncounted provisional ballots nationwide, although these figures were known to be incomplete.) We can at least say that many ballots go uncounted in each election, and there is good reason to believe that these uncounted ballots are disproportionately Democratic. (It is very hard to say how disproportionately Democratic they are.)
Whatever advantage uncounted ballots have conferred to Republican candidates in the past, they are unlikely to account for much of the exit poll discrepancies. There is no obvious relationship between uncounted ballots and exit poll results. For instance, New Hampshire has had double-digit exit poll discrepancies (Within Precinct Error) in three of the last four presidential elections (evaluation report, page 33), but its residual vote rate was 1.7% in 2000 and 1.2% in 2004. (Incidentally, 2000 was the election without a double-digit WPE in New Hampshire.)
One might suppose that uncounted ballots could at least account for a mean WPE of about -2, arguing like this: if 3% of votes are never counted, and if these uncounted votes skew 80:20 to Democrats (2.4% of total vote to 0.6%), then they cost Democrats about 1.8% on the margin. However, the arithmetic is less favorable to this analysis than one might suppose, because Democratic votes lost in heavily Democratic (or heavily Republican) precincts have minimal impact on expected WPE in those precincts. For instance, if a precinct's voters actually cast 90% of their votes for the Democratic candidate, but fully 5% of those Democratic votes go uncounted, the Democrat will end up with about 89.5% of the vote, for an expected WPE of -1 in that precinct.
One certainly can't rule out a priori that fraud might account for at least part of the 1992 exit poll discrepancies. But as far as I know, no one has made a serious attempt to argue that George H. W. Bush committed double-digit fraud in New Jersey that year (as the exit polls might be taken to suggest) -- or, more generally, to explain how Bush stole perhaps 5 million net votes that year, and why he bothered. In the end, the argument seems circular at best. People who began by asserting that exit polls are accurate end up asserting that the 1992 exit polls possibly may have been accurate.
TIA:
You gloss over uncounted votes as having minimal impact on WPE in heavily Democratic precincts. This assertion makes no sense. Votes are accumulated at the state level. The WPE in a particular precinct is irrelevant to the final accumulated state total. Compare the 2004 recorded vote (122.3mm) to total votes cast (125.7mm). That’s a 3.4 million vote difference. If we assume that 80% of the 3.4 million or 2.7 million were Kerry votes and the other 20% (0.70 million) were Bush votes, that’s a net loss of 2 million votes to Kerry. Since Bush “won” the recorded vote by 62-59mm, a full 2/3 of the 3 million vote margin was due to uncounted votes. Let’s do the numbers: Add Kerry‘s 2.7mm UNCOUNTED votes to his RECORDED 59mm to get his total of 61.7 million. Do the same for Bush: 62+0.7= 62.7mm. There goes the Bush “mandate” – from 3 to 1 million. And we haven’t even yet considered the votes which were SWITCHED electronically from Kerry to Bush.
Here is how Mitofsky International's website puts it: "[Mitofsky's] record for accuracy is well known. 'This caution in projecting winners is a Mitofsky trademark, one which has served him well...,' said David W. Moore, the managing editor of the Gallup Poll in his book, The Super Pollsters." (http://mitofskyinternational.com/company.htm) In other words, Mitofsky very rarely "called" or predicted the winner incorrectly. (Mitofsky died on September 1, 2006; as of this writing, the page I have cited is still active.)
If Mitofsky's calls were rarely wrong, doesn't this mean that the exit poll data must be highly accurate? No, it doesn't. One reason for Mitofsky's success was that he avoided making calls in close races based on interview data alone. Edison/Mitofsky (the firms that jointly conducted the 2004 exit poll) did not make any incorrect projections in 2004. Perhaps people who believe that the exit polls evince fraud should take Mitofsky's "caution in projecting winners" more seriously.
TIA:
“Mitofsky’s record for accuracy was well-known”. Does this quote refer to the preliminary or the Final exit polls? The Final is always matched to the vote count. We know that 3% of total votes cast in every election are uncounted and heavily Democratic. So from the get-go, matching to the Final vote is incorrect. And what about votes which are switched? So to argue that Mitofsky is accurate is a double-edged sword. Final exit polls are matched to a fraudulent recorded vote count while preliminary polls are closer to the True vote. But few are aware of the preliminary exit poll timeline, whereas the finals are shown on media sites and in the newspapers.
It depends on what one means by "the exit polls" and "won." As I explained above, there are really 51 different exit polls (if one counts the telephone-only poll in Oregon), one for each state plus D.C. For each state exit poll, we now know the final projection based on interview data alone (called the Call 3 Best Geo), as well as the pollsters' estimate of the uncertainty in each projection. (See the table on pages 21-22 of the exit poll evaluation report.) The final interview-only projection for Ohio showed Kerry ahead by 6.5 points with a "standard error" of 3.9 points. Using the conventional 95% standard for "margin of error," the margin of error would be 7.8 points. Using the 99.5% standard that the exit pollsters used as the first (not only) criterion for a "call status," the margin of error was over 10 points. So, Kerry's apparent lead in Ohio was within the margin of error. Kerry led in three other interview-only projections in states that Bush eventually won; all three were also within the margin of error. The election was too close to call based on exit poll data alone.
However, the national sample had about 12,000 respondents, and it gave John Kerry about a three-point margin. If the national exit poll were a random sample, its 95% margin of error on the margin would be about 1.8% -- so Kerry's lead appears to be outside the margin of error. The pollsters did not calculate an uncertainty estimate for the national sample, because they do not figure projections for the popular vote. If they did, probably even Kerry's lead in the national sample would be within the margin of error, at least using the 99.5% standard.
(Note that the concept of "margin of error" is widely misunderstood: see point 3.9 below.)
TIA:
You say: “However, the national sample had about 12,000 respondents, and it gave John Kerry about a three-point margin. If the national exit poll were a random sample, its 95% margin of error on the margin would be about 1.8% -- so Kerry's lead appears to be outside the margin of error.”
Not true. The NEP had 13047 respondents. The MoE is 0.86% assuming a zero cluster effect. For a 30% cluster effect, it’s 1.12%.
Pollsters always use a 95% confidence level to calculate the MoE (1.96 standard deviations from the mean).
If p = the Bush state poll vote share; 1-p = Kerry’s poll share; n= sample size.
MoE = 1.96 * sqrt (p* (1-p) / n) is the standard deviation.
The probability that the Bush state vote (v) would exceed his exit poll share (p) is given by the Excel function:
Probability = NORMDIST (p, v, MoE/1.96, true).
The probability that the Bush vote discrepancy would exceed the MoE in any given state is .025 (1 in 40)
The Bush vote/poll discrepancy exceeded the MoE in 16 states.
The probability that the MoE would be exceeded in 16 or more states by Bush is given by the Excel function:
Probability = 1- BINOMDIST (15, 50, .025, true).
The probability is 1 in 19 trillion!
TruthIsAll sometimes has argued that the exit polls should be treated as simple random samples (like drawing marbles from a hat). In this instance, the margin of error for Ohio, with a reported sample size of 2040, would be about 4.5 points on the margin using the 95% standard. There are two problems with this reasoning. First, the exit polls are not simple random samples; they are limited to a relatively small number of precincts (49 in Ohio), and this limitation increases the statistical uncertainty. Second, the pollsters do not use a textbook formula to calculate their margins of error. Instead, they examine the actual deviations of their exit poll samples from past results in the same precincts. Ideally, all these deviations would be of the same size, in the same direction. (For instance, hypothetically, the poll might show Bush doing 2 points better everywhere in 2004 compared to 2000 -- although a result that neat would be extraordinarily unlikely.) The greater the variability in these deviations, the larger the margin of error.
So, the pollsters' estimates of uncertainty (margins of error) were relatively large because the precinct-level results varied widely, compared with past returns. This wide variation could be an indicator of problems with the exit poll interviews. (One source of variation is that, as I mentioned, some of the polling places contain multiple precincts. Because the interviewers have no way to tell which voters come from which precincts, they interview voters from all the precincts -- but the interview results are compared with past returns from the "intended" precinct only.)
TIA:
E-M provides cumulative vote totals from 1250 precincts. An individual precinct MoE is not relevant. The Law of Large Numbers still applies. E-M clearly indicate the margin of error for various sample sizes in the NEP Methods statement table.
That table (on page 2 of the national methods statement) applies to percentages in the tabulations, not to the vote projections.
TIA:
The final exit poll “projections” are forced to match the recorded vote count. And what if the vote count is corrupted?
So much for the “projections”. Read the Edison - Mitofsky notes at the bottom of the 12:22am NEP screen shot.
Yes: overall, and in many states, the exit poll results differed from the official results by beyond the margin of error, overstating Kerry's performance. (This overstatement is often called red shift, meaning that the "red candidate" Bush did better in the official returns than in the exit polls.) For instance, I noted above that in Ohio, Kerry led in the best interview-only estimate by 6.5 points with a "standard error" of 3.9 points. A 95% confidence interval for the margin is about double the size of the standard error: plus or minus 7.8 points. So Kerry's lead was less than the margin of error, and Ohio was too close to call based on the interview data (even if the pollsters accepted nominal 95% confidence, which they don't). However, since Bush officially won Ohio by 2.1 points, the exit poll discrepancy in Ohio (based on this estimate) was 8.6 points. That discrepancy is beyond the margin of error, at least at a 95% confidence level.
As I mentioned earlier, it turns out that at least the last five presidential exit polls have had overall discrepancies (measured as Within Precinct Error) outside the margin of error, but the 2004 discrepancies were the largest. We don't know how many states were outside the margin of error.
TIA:
The Margin of Error was exceeded in 16 states – all in favor of Bush.
Once again, your facts are wrong. The 12:22am Ohio exit poll discrepancy from the recorded vote was 3.12% - not 8.6%. Kerry led the 12:22am Ohio Exit Poll by 52.06 - 47.94%. Bush “won” the recorded vote by 51.06-48.94%. Assuming zero cluster effect, the margin of error was 2.21% for 1963 respondents; the exit poll discrepancy was 0.91% beyond the MoE. Assuming a 30% cluster effect, the MoE was 2.87% - still below the 3.12% discrepancy. Bush won the Final Ohio Exit Poll of 2020 respondents by 50.94-49.06%, but the vote shares and weights were forced to match the miscounted Ohio recorded vote. This was just like the final 2pm NEP in which vote shares and weights were changed from the 12:22am timeline to match the miscounted National vote.
But the exit poll matched the results of two independent models. The first was based on 12:22am NEP vote shares with weights adjusted to the Ohio 2000 recorded vote less the national 3.5% mortality rate and 95% turnout assumptions. Kerry was the 51.74-48.26% winner, within 0.32% of the exit poll. The second model was based on uncounted (3%) and switched vote (6.15%) assumptions applied to the recorded vote. Kerry was the 52.6-47.4% winner. A statistical analysis of actual ballots in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) indicated that 6.15% of Kerry’s votes were switched.
Margins of "error" refer to random sampling error. Most survey researchers would say that results outside the calculated margin of error most likely evince non-sampling error in the survey, such as non-response bias, sampling bias, or measurement error. The statistical "margin of error" assumes an unbiased sample, but competent survey researchers are rarely in a position to assume that they actually have unbiased samples.
Many people are under the mistaken impression that larger surveys are inherently more accurate. Larger surveys do have smaller margins of (sampling) error, but they are not inherently less vulnerable to non-sampling error. For instance, the 1936 Literary Digest presidential poll had a huge sample size of over 2.2 million respondents (out of 10 million post cards mailed), giving it a nominal margin of error of less than 0.1%. In the poll, Alf Landon held a dominating lead over Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with 57% of the projected vote. In the actual election, Landon got under 37%. The statistical odds against this outcome appear to be larger than anything ever reported by TruthIsAll. But the sample was not random: the mailing lists used to address the post cards tended to favor more prosperous voters, and in 1936 this class bias turned out to be catastrophic.
(People sometimes misinterpret these points as arguing that we should assume that fraud did not occur in 2004 -- whereupon they protest that other evidence points to fraud in 2004. But my point here has nothing to do with whether fraud occurred in 2004. It is about whether large survey errors should be interpreted as evidence of fraud.)
TIA:
Did you really mean to say “vote count” errors and not “survey” errors? The 1936 presidential poll only illustrates that polling was in its infancy. Scientific polling was unheard of. Since then, pollsters have constantly IMPROVED their methodology through sophisticated sampling techniques. Bush vote fraud has given polling a bad name. It’s the institutionalized uncounted and switched electronic votes which are the major cause of the polling discrepancies. But the fraud is not limited to these factors. Voter disenfranchisement works heavily against the Democrats even before the votes are miscounted. If all the votes were counted and everyone eligible was allowed to vote, the Democrats would win every election.
No, the largest exit poll discrepancies were generally not in battleground states. Using the "IM WPE" statistic (which averages the WPEs for all precincts in each state, as opposed to other methods that trim extreme values), the largest discrepancies were in Mississippi (-18.5), Connecticut (-16.0), Delaware (-15.9), Vermont (-15.2), and New Hampshire (-14.0). Using the actual interview-only projections, the largest discrepancies were in Vermont (-16.5), Delaware (-16.0), New York (-13.9), New Hampshire (-13.6), and Mississippi (-13.1). Of these six states, only New Hampshire was a battleground state. (It is true, however, that the average discrepancy in the battleground states was larger than the average discrepancy in other states. Edison/Mitofsky report that at the precinct level, the average WPE was -7.9 for precincts in 11 "swing states," and 'only' -6.1 for precincts in other states.)
TIA:
First of all, let’s get the magnitude of the discrepancies right. Your discrepancy is margin-based. That is misleading. For instance, the NY exit poll said that Kerry won by 63-36%. The recorded vote was 58.5- 40.1%, a 4.5% Kerry discrepancy, far below your 13.9% figure. In 2000, Gore won by 61-35% with 4% for Nader. According to the National Exit Poll, approximately 71% of Nader 2000 voters voted for Kerry and 21% for Bush. So let’s allocate the Nader vote: 75% to Kerry and 25% to Bush. Assuming Kerry matched Gore’s 61% vote and picked up an additional 3% from returning Nader voters, his true NY vote share was 61+3% = 64%. This is just 1% higher than the Exit Poll. It implies that fraud (uncounted and switched votes) cost Kerry 5.5% (64-58.5%).
In their evaluation report, they stated that the Within Precinct Error was "most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters" (page 3). They further state, "It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters. There were certainly motivational factors that are impossible to quantify, but which led to Kerry voters being less likely than Bush voters to refuse to take the survey. In addition there are interactions between respondents and interviewers that can contribute to differential non-response rates" (page 4).
The evaluation report lists several factors that were associated with differences in WPE, including interviewer distance from the polls; interviewer age and education; number of precincts at the polling place; and sampling rate at the polling place. It does not offer a master theory of the discrepancy.
TIA:
What about the fact that discrepancies are caused by uncounted and miscounted votes? Why don’t the exit pollsters even mention that? Why did they ignore the fact that their own data indicated a slight Bush bias? Why didn’t they provide a rationale for the fact that paper ballot precincts had a low average WPE compared to the touch screens, levers and optical scanners?
First of all, it is a name coined by critics. What the pollsters concluded in the evaluation report was simply that Kerry voters apparently participated at a higher rate. That statement doesn't entail that Bush voters recoiled from the interviewers. It is possible that some Bush voters did steer around interviewers, and/or that some Kerry voters steered toward interviewers, and/or that some interviewers subtly favored Kerry voters over Bush voters. The statements I quoted above do emphasize non-response bias -- i.e., that Kerry voters were less likely to refuse than Bush voters were. Sampling bias by interviewers (approaching more Kerry voters than Bush voters) could also contribute to a difference in participation rates.
The evaluation report never refers to "reluctant Bush responders." In fact, it doesn't venture any specific motivations -- reluctance, eagerness, fear, enthusiasm, defiance, shyness, or anything else. This reserve is appropriate because, after all, the exit pollsters did not interview the non-respondents, and therefore they cannot know specifically why the non-respondents did not respond. (Indeed, even being able to interview the non-respondents might not help very much.)
TIA:
The exit pollsters “concluded” that Kerry voters participated at a higher rate? Where is the evidence to that effect; the exit poll data implies a Bush bias (see Freeman). Could the discrepancy simply be due to Kerry voters outnumbering Bush voters? Once again, the exit pollsters had to conjure up an explanation of why the polls were “wrong” without considering the very real probability of fraud. But since the polls didn’t match the recorded vote, they assumed that the vote count was accurate, so…they adjusted exit poll weights and vote shares to match the vote count.
I will present several lines of argument that participation bias accounts for much of the exit poll discrepancy, and that fraud does not. (By the way, concluding that fraud doesn't account for the exit poll results isn't the same as ruling out fraud generally.) The pollsters had several good reasons to suspect from the outset that participation bias was important. First of all, non-response bias -- and other forms of non-sampling error -- are ubiquitous concerns in survey research. Survey researchers do not assume that their data are accurate within the computed "margin of error," because they are well aware of everything that can go wrong. Second, the national exit polls' history of overstating the Democratic vote share in precincts, as described in point 3.2, gives additional reason to consider participation bias likely.
Also, we know that the exit pollsters tested a specific hypothesis about massive fraud: that millions of votes were stolen on electronic voting equipment (Direct Recording Electronic machines and/or optical scanners). In the evaluation report, the pollsters state, "Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of voting equipment. Our analysis of the difference between the vote count and the exit poll at each polling location in our sample has found no systematic differences for precincts using touch screen and optical scan voting equipment. We say this because these differences are similar to the differences for punch card voting equipment, and less than the difference for mechanical voting equipment." (pages 3-4) That is, the largest exit poll discrepancies on average were in precincts with lever machines. Granted, it might be possible to steal many, many votes on lever machines, but as far as I know, no one predicted or suspected it.
Again, below I present other lines of argument that tend to point toward participation bias, and away from fraud, as explaining the exit poll discrepancies.
TIA:
There was no difference in WPE between touch-screens and optical scanners? They are really reaching with that one. That only means that both machines were rigged. Optical scanners results are fed into central tabulators, just like the touch screens. Were the central tabulators rigged? And what was the WPE in paper ballot precincts? How does it compare to the machines?
No, and I'm amazed how much mental effort has gone into elaborating this very weak argument. Here is the argument: The reported completion rate in precincts that voted 80%+ for Bush ("Bush strongholds") was 56%. The reported completion rate in precincts that voted 80%+ for Kerry was only 53%. So how can anyone claim that Kerry voters had a higher completion rate than Bush voters? Doesn't it appear that Bush voters had a higher completion rate?
One can work a lot of math into the argument, but basically the math is irrelevant. It seems that either one finds this argument compelling or one doesn't, regardless of the numbers attached. As a matter of logic, the argument has no force.
It is perfectly possible -- even likely -- that both Kerry voters and Bush voters completed the exit polls at a somewhat higher rate in "Bush strongholds" than their counterparts in "Kerry strongholds." The evaluation report suggests (on page 31) that "hypothetical completion rates of 56% among Kerry voters and 50% among Bush voters overall would account for the entire Within Precinct Error that we observed in 2004," but no one believes that those rates could apply everywhere. Indeed, the reported state-level completion rates ranged from 42.7% in South Dakota to 66.7% in Tennessee (pages 54-55) -- so we can be pretty sure that that both Kerry and Bush voters in Tennessee participated at a higher rate than their counterparts in South Dakota! Since Kerry did better in Tennessee than in South Dakota, can we conclude that Kerry voters had a higher completion rate overall? Absolutely not -- and if even the suggestion seems strange to you, then the "stronghold" argument should seem strange for the same reason. Comparing the overall completion rates in "Bush strongholds" and "Kerry strongholds" simply cannot tell us whether Kerry or Bush voters participated at a higher rate within either -- much less nationwide.
TIA:
Once again, you confound the basics. A Linear regression analysis of state exit poll response vs. poll and recorded/vote share indicates this relationship: exit poll response rates decreased going from Bush states to Kerry states, while Kerry’s poll and vote shares increased. To you, the regression analysis is irrelevant, but it disproves your case. The regression tells us that non-responders were more likely to be Kerry voters.
First to explain the "problem": The tabulation of the national exit poll at 7:33 pm on election night, based on 11,027 respondents, indicated that Kerry had a 3-point edge. The tabulation was later updated; a version time-stamped 12:22 am (just after midnight) showed 13,047 respondents, and one can infer that Kerry still leads by 3 points. The final tabulation, still available on CNN.com, reports 13,660 respondents and shows Bush ahead by approximately 3 points, as in the official returns.
At times TruthIsAll and others have suggested that these results are "impossible" in the sense that an additional 613 respondents cannot account for the shift from Kerry to Bush. Indeed they cannot. As I explained above, the tabulations are periodically updated in line with the projections -- and, therefore, in line with the official returns. The tabulation would have been updated even if there had been no additional respondents. So the whole idea of "impossible changes" is a red herring.
TIA:
You are creating the red herring by failing to mention that the FINAL EXIT POLL WAS FORCED TO MATCH THE VOTE COUNT – COME HELL OR HIGH WATER. THE FACT THAT THE “HOW VOTED IN 2000” WEIGHTS WERE MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, AND CORRESPONDING VOTE SHARES NOT PLAUSIBLE, WAS NEVER A CONSIDERATION.
Interested readers should refer to the DU Game thread in which you were finally forced to provide a plausible rationale for the Bush “mandate”. Unfortunately, you only succeeded in proving that there was none. Because you had to finally agreed that the 43/37 weightings were impossible, you had to force Bush vote shares much higher than they were in Final Exit Poll where they were already inflated to match the votes. So you compounded the fakery by hypothesizing that 14.6% of Gore voters defected to Bush in 2004. The 12:22am National Exit Poll said that 8% did – a 6.6% discrepancy. The margin of error assuming a 90/10 vote split for 3200 respondents is 1.7%.
If the official returns are more accurate than the exit polls -- and bear in mind that exit polls have been (presumably) wrong in the past -- then weighting to the official returns should, generally, provide more accurate tabulations. Weighting results to match known characteristics of the population (in this case, the voters) is called "post-stratification," and it is standard statistical practice. Of course, if the exit polls were more accurate than the official returns, then weighting to the official returns would provide less accurate tabulations. But even if one believes that they were, I see no reason to conclude that the exit pollsters thought so.
TIA:
Exit polls were presumably wrong in the past? Or was it the vote count? Could the “errors” have been a result of uncounted and miscounted votes? If demographic weightings are designed to match the population, then why were MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE 43% Bush / 37% Gore weights used in the Final Exit Poll? Post-stratification or post-misinformation? You see no reason to believe that the exit pollsters were aware of the significance of the demographic impossibility? They HAD to match the vote count, so they were well aware.
And so they went along with the Big Scam.
Not that I can see. The original tabulations were online for many hours, at the hardly obscure CNN.com. Exit pollsters commented on the results for reporters, and Warren Mitofsky appeared on PBS's NewsHour three days after the election. The exit poll discrepancies were not secret.
TIA:
The preliminary exit polls notes say that they were “not for public viewing”. Without the 12:22am download from Jonathan Simon, we would never know the true exit poll results.
There are several. One of my favorites is based on TruthIsAll's observation: "Based on the pre-election polls: 41 out of 51 states (incl DC) deviated to Bush. Based on the exit polls: 43 out of 51 deviated to Bush." As I discussed in Point 1, TruthIsAll's analysis of the pre-election polls is idiosyncratic: for instance, he estimated an 85% probability that Kerry would win Ohio, although only one poll out of the last ten put Kerry ahead there. Nevertheless, if the two sets of deviations tended to coincide -- if, for instance, Bush tended to do much better than the pre-election polls in the same states where he did much better than the exit polls -- then one might judge that both sets of results tended to point to fraud. (Note: this argument assumes that the extent of fraud varied from state to state, and that the differences in exit poll discrepancies partly reflect differences in fraud.)
Interestingly, as I show here, the relationship between these two deviations (official vs. pre-election polls, and official vs. exit polls) is flat to negative. That is, if anything, exit poll "red shift" overstating Kerry's support was largest in states where he did better than predicted in pre-election polls, or at least no worse. These results are calculated using TruthIsAll's own pre-election poll measures! While many people (including TruthIsAll) have asserted that pre-election polls may be biased, no one has explained why some state polls would be more biased than others, in a pattern that would cancel out the evidence of fraud. The lack of a positive correlation between these two deviations isn't strong evidence against fraud in any particular state, but it appreciably weakens the case that the exit polls point to fraud around the country. (A more detailed exploration of the data is here.)
Another strong reason to think that the exit poll discrepancies do not point to fraud involves the "swing" statistic. "Swing" is the percentage change in Bush's performance from 2000 to 2004, in each exit poll precinct. Swing tends to be fairly small, generally within a range of plus-or-minus 10 points. Generally, if an exit poll "red shift" of (say) 30 points tended to indicate 30-point fraud favoring Bush, then one would expect swing favoring Bush to be larger in such precincts than in precincts where the exit polls closely matched the official returns or even overstated Bush's support. But in fact, as I show here, there is essentially no correlation whatsoever between "swing" and "red shift." This result is hard to reconcile with fraud in the exit poll precincts, unless the fraud was precisely targeted in precincts where Bush would otherwise have done worse than in 2000.
TIA:
The naysayer swing vs. red-shift scatter chart flat regression line is the rationale for claiming that the exit poll discrepancies had little effect and therefore fraud was unlikely. But it is not supported by the mathematics; there are an infinite number of scenarios which would invalidate the premise. And you are comparing apples to oranges; you did not adjust the 2000 recorded vote. According to the 2004 National Exit Poll, Kerry won 71% of returning Nader voters compared to 21% for Bush. A similar split would have increased Gore’s margin by 1.4mm. Assuming that 75% of approximately 3 million uncounted votes were for Gore, his margin increases by another 1.5mm. When added to his recorded 540,000 vote majority, Gore’s adjusted margin becomes 3.4mm. And have not yet considered the effects of vote-switching. Thanks to Ohio, we know a lot more about vote-switching than we did in 2000. It’s very likely that Gore votes were switched to Bush. If 3% (1.5 million) were switched, then his final adjusted margin is 6.4 million: 3mm switched + 1.5mm uncounted + 1.4mm Nader + 0.54mm recorded.
You never normalized the 2-party state vote shares in calculating “swing”. Assuming 3% vote- switching from Gore to Bush, swing exceeded red-shift in 43 states. Average adjusted state swing was 4.0%; average red-shift, 1.5%. Weighted average adjusted swing was 3.74%; weighted average red-shift, 1.41%. Assuming zero vote-switching in 2000, adjusted swing exceeded red-shift in 32 states. Average adjusted swing was 2.58%; weighted average swing was 2.39%. An adjusted swing vs. redshift bar graph displays the deviations. Another scatter chart shows that adjusted swing exceeded 4% in 18 states while red-shift exceeded 4% in only 2 states. The naysayer swing vs. red-shift argument is just another ruse meant to divert, confuse and mislead.
The recorded 2000 vote needs to be adjusted by these factors:
1) Third-party (Nader) share of 2000 voters:
According to the National Exit Poll, Kerry won returning Nader 2000 voters by 71-21% over Bush. We need to revise the 2000 vote totals accordingly by allocating the Nader vote to Gore and Bush in the same proportion.
2) Uncounted votes:
According to the 2004 Election Census, there were 125.7mm total votes cast but only 122.3mm were recorded; 3.4mm (2.74%) were uncounted. In 2000, there were 104.7mm votes recorded. Assuming that the 2000 uncounted vote rate was equal to the 2004 rate, then 107.7mm total votes were cast and 3.0mm were uncounted. Since the majority of uncounted ballots are found in Democratic minority districts, a fair assumption is that 75% of these uncounted votes were for Gore. There were 180,000 spoiled ballots (under and over votes) in Florida.
3) Switched votes:
The True Vote Model base case scenario indicates that 6.8% of total votes cast for Kerry were switched to Bush. An exhaustive review of the ballots in Ohio's Cuyahoga County determined that 6.15% of Kerry’s votes were switched. For this analysis, the best case assumption is that 3.0% of Gore votes were switched.
Yes, beyond the facts that participation bias is common, that past exit polls have overstated Democratic performance, and that the exit poll discrepancies don't correlate with pre-election poll discrepancies, "swing" from 2000, or electronic voting machine use, there is also some evidence indicating participation bias in 2004. Specifically, some patterns in the exit poll discrepancies fit well with participation bias.
For instance, "red shift" is much greater in precincts where interviewers stood further from the polling place. The average WPE increases from -5.3 where interviewers stood inside the polling place to -12.3 where interviewers stood more than 100 feet away (evaluation report, p. 37). This result is consistent with the conjecture that Kerry voters were more eager to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters were -- and this disparity was more manifest in polling places where it was easier to avoid the interviewers entirely. The recorded completion rate falls from 59% where interviewers stood inside the polling place to 43% where they were more than 100 feet away; both refusal and "miss" rates go up. At that distance, the "random sample" becomes largely voluntary.
(Some people have objected that interviewer distance cannot account for the error in the poll because the WPE is so large even when interviewers stood inside the polling place. This misses the point. Edison/Mitofsky never asserted that interviewer distance accounts for non-response bias. If Bush voters and Kerry voters are equally willing to participate in the survey, then distance should not matter. But if they differ overall in their willingness to be interviewed, then it makes sense that greater distance would accentuate the difference.)
"Red shift" is also much larger at polling places with high interviewing rates -- that is, where interviewers were supposed to skip more voters between interviews (evaluation report, p. 36). Interestingly, however, the reported completion rates were not lower at these polling places. So it appears that interviewers at these polling places sometimes (probably unawares) ended up interviewing Kerry voters when they "should have" interviewed Bush voters. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that some interviewers did not rigorously enforce these interviewing rates, but rather sometimes interviewed voters who seemed more cooperative.
Red shift also varies with certain interviewer characteristics, such as age and education (evaluation report, pp. 43-45); it appears that interviewers who were college students were especially prone to biased results. Voters may have tended to assume that college students would be Kerry voters, and gravitate toward or away from them accordingly.
TIA:
Red-shift or red-herring?
Check this graph of Kerry State Vote vs Exit Poll vs. Completion Rate. As we move from high completion rate states to low completion, Kerry’s vote and poll shares increase. This is a graphic contradiction of the Bush voter non-response theory.
You could call it that, or you could call it scientific reasoning on the basis of incomplete evidence. William Jennings Bryan once said that "Darwinism... is only a guess and was never anything more" -- but Bryan made no systematic attempt to consider how well "Darwinism" explained a broad variety of evidence, compared with the explanatory power of alternative theories. Attributing outcomes to the unfathomable will of God "explains" them by eschewing any attempt to understand them. In practice, attributing exit poll outcomes to fraud often suffers the same limitation. People who insist that the exit polls evince fraud have made little or no attempt to explain, for instance, why the exit poll discrepancies vary with interviewer age and education, or why the exit polls point to double-digit fraud in New York, a lever-machine state where Bush had no chance of winning, and where the official result is very close to pre-election predictions. Given all the respects in which participation bias fits the data, and in which massive fraud does not, it is hard to understand how anyone can argue straightfaced that participation bias is the more speculative theory.
TIA:
The exit polls point to double-digit fraud in NY? That’s misleading. According to the exit poll, Kerry won NY by 63-36%. The recorded vote was 58.5- 40.1%, a 4.5% discrepancy. In 2000, Gore won NY by 61-35% with 4% of the vote going to Nader. According to the NEP, 71% of Nader 2000 voters voted for Kerry in 2004; just 21% voted for Bush, a better than 3-1 ratio. Let’s assume that Kerry matched Gore’s 61% and won 75% of Nader 2000 voters. Then Kerry won by 63-36%, matching the Exit Poll. And yes, there is evidence that Lever machines are vulnerable to miscounts at the voting machine and central tabulator.
No. As noted earlier, many forms of fraud may be compatible with the exit poll results. However, it seems hard to reconcile massive, widespread fraud -- on the order of many millions of miscounted votes -- with the exit poll results unless one begins by discounting the details of the exit poll results. By and large, the exit polls point to fraud in bizarre places (Delaware?) and sizes (how likely is it that Kerry would have won New Hampshire by double digits -- or New York by over 30 points?). One can explain away some of these results individually, but the entire pattern simply isn't very consistent with massive, widespread fraud.
TIA:
How likely is it that Kerry won NY by over 30 points? As we have shown, Gore won NY by 61-35% over Bush, with the remaining 4% to Nader. It’s very conceivable that Kerry at least matched Gore and won 75% of the Nader vote to end up with a 64-35% margin.
No, depending on what one means by "steal." In particular, I think it is at least possible that some combination of vote suppression (purges, long lines, intimidation, etc.) and uncounted votes cost John Kerry a victory in Ohio, and therefore in the election. (Obviously "uncounted votes" can be regarded as a form of vote suppression.) I doubt it, but I am not arguing against it here. Many forms of vote suppression would not even affect the exit poll results, if they discouraged people from coming to the polls in the first place. It is easier to believe that Kerry "could have" won Ohio than to believe that he should have won by over 6 points despite vote suppression, as the exit poll indicates.
Please note: I think that efforts to prevent people from voting, or to prevent their votes from being counted, are despicable regardless of whether they affect the outcome.
TIA:
Please note: switching votes electronically from Kerry to Bush is also despicable.
Go here for an analysis of Uncounted and Switched Votes
About 3200 exit poll respondents around the country were asked who they voted for in 2000. The weighted results look like this (screen shot excerpted from cnn.com):
TIA emphasizes two aspects of this table. First, he notes, it is impossible that 43% of the 2004 electorate voted for Bush in 2000. That would be over 52 million Bush voters, whereas Bush only got about 50.5 million votes in 2000. (Some of those voters must have died, or not voted for other reasons.) Ergo, it is necessary to apply "mathematically impossible weights" to the exit poll data in order to match the official returns, and so Kerry must actually have won. I will call this the "impossible 43%" argument.
Second, he argues:
The second argument is especially appealing to many people who regarded the 2004 election as in some sense a replay of the 2000 election. It seems very reasonable to say that if Kerry could just battle to a stalemate among the previous election's Gore and Bush voters, the Nader voters and new voters were bound to put Kerry over the top.
It assumes that exit poll respondents accurately report whom they voted for in the previous election. In reality, exit poll respondents seem to have overstated their support for the previous winner in every exit poll for which I could obtain data, ten in all, going back to 1976. (Yes, even Richard Nixon, despite resigning in disgrace, garnered a higher "recalled vote" percentage in 1976 than his official vote share in 1972!) In fact, TIA's first argument could just as well be applied to 2000: in that year, proportionately more exit poll respondents recalled having voted for Clinton in 1996 than could actually have done so.
Lots of other evidence indicates that people often report having voted for the previous winner although they didn't. Perhaps most telling is an (American) National Election Study (NES) "panel" in which people were interviewed soon after the 2000 election, and then reinterviewed in 2004. Of the people who said in 2000 that they had voted for Gore, about 7% said in 2004 that actually they had voted for Bush in 2000. (A smaller proportion, under 2%, similarly "switched" from Bush to Gore.) Also, among those who said in 2000 that they hadn't voted for president, about 36% said in 2004 that they had voted -- and those respondents reported voting for Bush by about 2 to 1. For several reasons, these percentages cannot be directly applied to the exit polls. Nevertheless, the panel does provide direct evidence of people misreporting their past votes, in Bush's favor.
So, while it is impossible that 43% of voters in 2004 actually voted for Bush in 2000, it is not at all impossible that 43% of voters would report having voted for Bush in 2000. In fact, this overstatement of past support is consistent with past exit poll results; it would be surprising if the percentage were not "too high."
TIA:
Ah, the “false recall” argument that people often report voting for the previous winner. But in 2000 GORE won by 540,000 votes in the official count. You cite the 2000 exit poll in which 45.5% respondents (48.1 of 104.74mm) said they voted for Clinton in 1996. His recorded vote was 45.6mm. How do we account for the 2.5mm discrepancy?
Once again, you assume that Clinton’s 45.6mm recorded vote was correct. Remember the uncounted votes? We need to compute Clinton’s true 1996 vote. The recorded vote was 91.3 million. If 3% of the total votes cast were uncounted, then 94.1mm votes were cast; 2.8mm were uncounted. Assuming 2.1mm (75%) of the uncounted votes Clinton’s, his true vote was 47.7mm , a 0.40mm deviation (0.83%) from the 48.1mm exit poll. That’s well within the 1.0% MoE.
In any case, it doesn’t matter what 2004 exit poll respondents said as to how they voted in 2000. The maximum number of returning 2000 voters in 2004 is limited to those who were still living in 2004. You have agreed to this simple fact, so false recall is a non-issue. It comes down to this: where did Bush find 16 million new votes? Assuming that 95% (46.5 of 48.7) million Bush 2000 voters also voted in 2004, he needed 62-46.2= 15.8 million new voters to match his 2004 recorded vote!
The second argument assumes that Kerry did about as well among Bush 2000 voters as Bush did among Gore 2000 voters. Superficially, the exit poll table supports this assumption. And many Democrats cannot believe that any appreciable number of Gore 2000 voters -- presumably outraged by the Supreme Court's intervention, not to mention countless Bush actions -- would actually vote for Bush in 2004.
But the problem with the first argument is crucial to understanding the problem with the second: one cannot assume that people have reported their past votes correctly. Among the people who reported having voted for Gore, only about 10% "defected" to Bush. But what about the people who actually voted for Gore in 2000 but reported having voted for Bush? One would expect that in 2004, such people would be more likely to vote for Bush than for Kerry. Indeed, in the 2000-2004 NES panel, this group favored Bush over Kerry by greater than a 5-to-2 ratio. Thus, the 10% Gore-to-Bush "defection rate" is understated, because it excludes people who actually voted for Gore in 2000 (but misreported this fact) and who voted for Bush in 2004.
By similar logic (also supported by evidence from the NES panel), the 9% "defection rate" of Bush 2000 voters to Kerry is somewhat overstated. It includes some people who actually voted for Gore, but reported having voting for Bush (in 2000) -- and then voted for Kerry! This finding may seem strange: one might imagine that people who misreported having voted for Bush in 2000 would invariably support Bush in 2004. But, as I just noted, this is observably not the case in the NES panel. Some people seem simply to forget having voted for Al Gore in 2000, but nonetheless end up (apparently) voting for Kerry.
(Kerry's margin among "new voters," i.e., people who did not vote in 2000, is probably also overstated, because some actual new voters who voted for Bush will have reported voting for Bush in 2000 as well. Of course I am leaving out several permutations of actual and reported votes!)
While there is no way of knowing the true defection rates, I estimate that the data are consistent with a Bush-to-Kerry defection rate of about 7-8% and a Gore-to-Bush defection rate of about 14%. For a more extensive discussion, see my paper, "Too Many Bush Voters?"
This argument is consistent with the fact that the pre-election national polls generally gave Bush a slight lead. Kerry was widely expected to do better than Bush among new voters -- so if these new voters were going to break a stalemate in Kerry's favor, they should have done so in the polls before the election. (Many people tend to discount this point because they assume that the pre-election polls somehow missed these new voters -- perhaps because the pollsters underestimated turnout and/or because many of the new voters were cell-phone-only users. I address both these arguments above.)
TIA:
Wow! That can only be described as a convoluted, faith-based set of hyper-hypotheticals. And this is where we part company. For one to believe that over 7 million Democratic Gore voters would defect and vote for the most incompetent, dishonest pRresident in history (with a 48.5% approval rating) who STOLE the 2000 election from them, is really a stretch – a perfect example of faith-based naysayer fundamentalism.
If one thinks of "Gore voters" as people who strongly supported Gore and resented the Supreme Court ruling that halted the Florida recount, then the result makes no sense. For that matter, if one thinks of "Gore voters" in that way, it makes no sense that they would forget (or at any rate not report) having voted for Gore. Nevertheless, the NES panel evidence indicates that many did. (Of course, the figure may not be as high as 14% -- although it could conceivably be even higher.)
One has to consider that many Americans who vote in presidential elections do not follow politics very closely. Some will unenthusiastically opt for one candidate or the other late in the process; if they voted for the candidate who ultimately lost, they may literally forget him. (Mike Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic nominee, seems to have been singularly subject to this fate. Dukakis lost the election by under 8 points, but in the 1993 General Social Survey, he retrospectively lost by 41 points.) Considerable research indicates that incumbent presidents tend to have an inherent advantage, which might be characterized as a "devil-you-know factor." Ray Fair estimates that from 1916 through 2000, an incumbent running for reelection had about a 3-point boost in expected vote share, although this advantage seems to have declined since 1960.
Some observers argue that George W. Bush had a particular advantage in 2004 given his standing as a wartime president. Americans are said to be reluctant to vote against incumbents in wartime. I am ambivalent about this argument, but we do not need to arrive at a sound-bite explanation of why an appreciable minority of Gore voters defected to Bush in order to conclude that they did.
TIA:
|
You sure as hell do need a sound-bite explanation of why so many Gore voters defected to Bush; all evidence indicates the opposite. NES, NES, NES. (N)ot (E)xactly (S)cientific. That’s the essence of your case.
Take a look at the True Vote Model ______________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|