Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The New Hampshire primary was rigged

TruthIsAll

 

 

Once again, as in 2004 and 2006, the average of the final pre-election polls matched the unadjusted exit poll.

Once again, as in 2004 and 2006, the probability that so many polls would exceed the MoE is close to ZERO.

 

Once again, as always, we will be inundated with tortured explanations of why the polls were "wrong".

Once again, as always, the mantra that the polls were wrong implies that fraud could not have occurred.

Once again, as always, the CNN Final Exit poll was forced to match an implausible final vote count.

Once again, as always, there will not be a random, robust, credible ballot recount.

Once again, as always, there will be a hue and cry to eliminate exit polling altogether.

 

Once again, as always, the uninformed masses will believe whatever the media tells them.

Once again, as always, there will be a variety of bogus rationalizations to “explain” the astounding discrepancies.

Once again, as always, the media myth: Clinton’s emotional display won her a huge, last-minute female sympathy vote.

Once again, as always, they can hardly wait for November to be fleeced again.

 

In 2004 they produced another bin Laden tape the weekend before the 2004 election.

In 2004 the media fell for the Rove myth of a massive fundamental Christian voter turnout.

But the fact is that the Democratic GOTV effort overwhelmed that of the GOP.

 

Once again, it’s DÉJÀ VU all over again.

 

ALL 20 FINAL pre-election polls (3-4% MoE) had Obama winning by an average of 8% over HRC.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html#polls

 

And the early (unadjusted) exit poll had Obama winning: by 8%.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535

 

The Zogby polling trend was to Obama:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1417

 

 

Date   Pollster      Sample Mix    MoE    BO     HRC    JE

 

106    StratVision   600    9.7%   4.0%   38     29     19

106    USA/Gallup    778    12.6%  3.5%   41     28     19

106    CBS News      323    5.2%   5.5%   35     28     19

106    Marist        636    10.3%  3.9%   36     28     22

 

106    CNN           599    9.7%   4.0%   39     30     16

107    Rasmussen     1774   28.7%  2.3%   37     30     19

107    Zogby         862    14.0%  3.3%   42     29     17

107    AmerResGrp    600    9.7%   4.0%   40     31     20

 

       Weighted Avg  6172   100%   1.25%  38.6   29.3   18.8

       Recorded Vote                     36.9   39.5   17.1

       Difference                        -1.7   10.2   -1.7

      

       Z-score                            -2.6   16.0   -2.7

 

 

 

Coincidence or ….

Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you compare votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:  The percentages are exactly opposite and match to within .0001%.

 

Optical Scan

Clinton   91,717   52.9507%
Obama     81,495   47.0493%

Total    173,212

 

Hand Counted

Clinton   20,889   47.0494%
Obama     23,509   52.9506%

Total     44,398

 

Optical Scan   173,212   79.60%

Hand counted    44,398   20.40

Total          217,610

 

 

Note that the percentages are mirror images and match to within .0001% (six decimal places).

Given that Obama won 52.9506% of the hand-counted votes, what is the probability Clinton would win 52.9506% of the 173,212 optical scan votes? 

 

These are real votes, not samples, so we can derive an estimate of the probability of voting machine fraud without considering a statistical margin of error. We KNOW exactly WHAT happened. We don't know WHY or HOW. But we can calculate a fair estimate of the probability that the result was just a coincidence or was due to a miscounting of the votes.

One might be tempted to say that the probability is 1 in 173,212 since there were exactly 173,212 joint optical scan ballots. But that would be unrealistic. We need to consider a plausible range of outcomes. Let's assume that Clinton could expect somewhere between 45%-55% of the 173,212 votes. That is a plausible 10% range of 17,321 possible outcomes, from 77,945-95,267.

 

Plausible range of outcomes

Maximum   55%   95,267
Minimum    45%   77,945
Difference   10%   17,321
 

Given the range of 17,321 possible outcomes, what is the probability HRC would get exactly 91,717 votes due to chance alone? 

The approximate probability that the anomaly was due to chance and just a coincidence: 0.0058% = 1/17,321
The approximate probability that the votes were manipulated:  99.9942%

 

Now we will try a different approach: calculate the probability based on the exit poll discrepancy.

Given that Obama led the poll at 8pm by 39-36%, what was the probability that HRC would win the official vote by at least 3% (39-36%)?

 

Assume that the exit poll margin of error was 1.5%.

 

                Exit Poll      Final Vote

Obama       39%              36%

Clinton       36%              39%

 

Use the Excel normal distribution function to calculate the probability that the discrepancy was due to chance:

Probability = normdist (.39, .36, .015/1.96, true)

 

The probability that the 6% discrepancy was due to chance = 0.0044% (1 in 22,577)

The probability that the votes were miscounted = 99.9956%

 

Sensitivity Analysis

 

MoE

Prob. 1 in

1.0%

   485,887,839

1.1%

 22,127,320

1.3%

   327,843

1.5%

    22,577

1.7%

     3,686

1.9%

     1,015

2.1%

       391

2.3%

       189

2.5%

       107

2.7%

        68

2.9%

        47

3.1%

        35