Re: Possible that Sanders actually won the Ohio primary?

[Cliff Arnebeck]

I am an active grassroots supporter of Bernie Sanders' campaign.  Bernie is a true reformer in the public interest.  

As an election attorney I know our elections are systematically rigged.  However, really good progressive candidates can and do overcome the margin of fraud in their elections.  I believe Bernie will do so.  Like President Obama in 2008, Bernie may well conclude that he cannot get involved in litigation over criminal activity.  He may leave that to law enforcement authorities and/or public interest organizations, as President Obama did in the 2012 election.

I am working on behalf of several public interest clients to organize litigation against those who are systematically rigging our elections. The work of the experts on this list serve provides a wonderful foundation for such work.

Cliff Arnebeck

Office: 614-224-8771

Cell: 614-361-9434

-----Original Message-----
From: Theodore de Macedo Soares <teds...@yahoo.com>
To: Election Integrity <election...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Cliff Arnebeck <arne...@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 2:29 pm
Subject: Possible that Sanders actually won the Ohio primary?

In the Democratic race, as seen in my previous post to the group, Clinton had a relatively small margin of 3.8% over Sanders. This lead grew to 13.8%, an additional swing of 10% over Sanders much greater than the exit poll (EP) margin of error (MoE). In addition, yesterday, Missouri and Illinois showed EP wins by Sanders that turned to defeats with the computer counts.

Is it possible that in an uncorrupted exit poll Sanders actually won Ohio? A win in Ohio would have had the very important narrative association that Sanders could really win the nomination. Now the networks will be asking when Sanders will drop out of the race. An unexplained swing of 10% is huge, why not 15% or more?

We need better research into how exit polls are weighted and adjusted prior to and after initial publication. Are the exit polls "weighted" with the incoming computer vote counts before initial publication by the news networks? Is it the networks or NEP  that does this adjustment?

Possible evidence that the networks mess with the NEP exit polls:

The Ohio exit poll from NBC differed from the Ohio Exit poll by CNN. The interesting point is that the earlier NBC exit poll, captured (by someone else) 11 minutes prior to the CNN poll I captured, had a higher margin for Clinton. The later exit poll with a smaller Clinton margin, went against the grain of the huge swing towards Clinton.

NBC- OH: Sanders 45.7%  Clinton 53.3%  (7.6% margin for Clinton at 7:32pm)
CNN- OH: Sanders 47.6%  Clinton 51.4%  (3.8% margin for Clinton at 7:44pm)

One possible explanation is that NBC was adjusting NEP's exit poll more aggressively than CNN. We need to know how the exit polls are adjusted prior to initial publication--are all published exit polls already corrupted with "weighting" with the incoming vote counts? Who makes these adjustments?

At the very least, the Sanders campaign should demand to see the exit polls prior to weighting by NEP, the weighting factors applied and their rationale. Of course these exit polls would be free from the additional "weighting" with the incoming vote count.

Ted

[Theodore de Macedo Soares]

[John Marshall]

I am so sick of hearing Hillary Clinton misdirect that her campaign is about "removing barriers", yet she never says what they barriers are nor how they will remove them.  The biggest barrier to those struggling in this awful economy is the corporate control of the media.and the Wall Street and multinational money that dominates our elections -- she has zero integrity addressing this issues.  This must be why she lies so much.  Expect her to shift to the right big-time if she gets the Democratic nomination as she knows that young voters and well-informed progressives are not turning out for her like they turn out for Bernie.

Cliff -- I know that you understand Richard Charnin's book, Matrix of Deceit, which is available very inexpensively from Amazon.  A critical point is that the media is in cahoots with the election shenanigans and they need to gin-up stories to justify the votes totals that can be mathematically demonstrated to be fraudulent.  We know the media is overwhelmingly in the bag for Clinton.  I talked to some election advocates today, don't want to drop names, but I am told that the numbers do not look right, we can see the exit polls are off too-far to confirm the recorded votes.  A top quantitative analysis just got the unadjusted exit polls today and is starting an analysis of the data.

I hope this analys can also do the cumulative vote shares, ward-by-ward analysis that provides another way to mathematically prove fraudulent elections.   2016 will be another stolen election -- same situation as 2000 when the smirking chimp stole his first (he stole the second too).  

Does anyone else believe that the real reason for not confirming Obama's SCOTUS appointment has nothing to do with "the next president" and everything to do with neutering the court so that they cannot render a just and fair decision when the 2016 theft gets dragged through the federal courts?

Remember, the 2000 decision that annointed Chimpy POTUS specifically said that this decision was not to be a precedent for any other decisions.  With Scalia on the bench, it is a sure thing that another stolen election would be rubber stamped by SCOTUS.  Now, republicans are going to hold the entire nation hostage and ensure that there is no majority that can rule in-favor of election integrity in 2016.

Of course, if Trump is the nominee, Karl Rove will quietly get behind Clinton as she is a war-monger and Karl Rove and his allies are all about the military-industrial-complex.  They will not steal the election for Trump.  If Hillary is on the top of the Democratic ticket, turnout will be relatively low, the repugs will keep control of the House and Senate, and the White House race is a wild card (if it is not outright stolen).

Our biggest problem is that the U.S. Constitution does nothing to protect the public from election fraud and stolen elections.  In Wisconsin, we are seeing elections stolen.  Our Constitution does specifically state that the right to govern comes from the "consent of the people".  Stolen elections mean no consent.  Unverifiable elections, voter suppression, and gerrymandering also mean no consent.  

This is the angle we need to take to beat election fraud.  Germany threw out e-voting because it is entirely unverifiable and thus there is no consent from the people (under their constitution).  Cliff -- is anyone working on this angle?

Walker has stolen at least 2 elections -- explained in the 2 short videos below:

Recall the Recall Truth:  Walker Stole That Election

The Media and Scott Walker's 2014 Election Fraud

The good news is that Scott Walker, who is intellectually deficient and appears to suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome (there are reliable reports his mother had an alcohol problem -- google what this looks like and then look at Scott Walker), made too much of a fool of himself pretending to be a tough-guy riding on a Harley as Presidential timber.  

However, the in-state media continues to prop him up with propaganda and avoids asking him any questions about his massive failure on the national stage and helps him hide the multimillion dollar debt he ran up.  Because of election fraud, always enabled by a dysfunctional media echo chamber, we will have Walker here for years now -- even another term.

The nation was spared from this evil, petty man; but the fix is still in for 2016.  No one that steals elections does it with good intentions -- expect a major war within a couple of years, perhaps a global confrontation.

[Michael Keefer]

Ted,

I don't have answers to any of the interesting and important questions you raise, but can provide a bit of possibly relevant historical context from the 2004 election.

As your inverted commas make clear, any forcing of exit poll results into agreement with vote tally results (whether 'early' or after the completion of the vote tallying) isn't "weighting," but amounts to corruption of the data and betrayal of the methodology of exit polling.

(Exit polling data are of course properly weighted to correct for various forms of sampling bias before being released. Some of that sampling bias may be deliberate--e.g., an over-sampling of sub-groups of different kinds in the hope of getting statistically significant indications of their preferences.)

There's strong evidence that during the night of November 2-3, 2004 the exit polling consortium of Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International corrupted their data by forcing the state and national exit-poll data from contradiction to agreement with the vote-tally results--and the two principals, Joseph Lenski and Warren Mitofsky, disseminated what is clearly a misleading computer-glitch narrative to conceal the fiddling. (For detailed analysis, see sections 6 and 7 of the essay at www.michaelkeefer.com/blog/2015/9/15/the-unacknowledged-scandal-of-electoral-fraud.)

In that instance, the fiddling became visible in two ways: first, because the percentage swings from the November 2 exit poll data to the corrupted figures published on November 3 were completely disproportionate to the small increases in sample size reported on November 3; and secondly, because altering the overall Bush-Kerry preferences required a re-jigging of all the contributory percentages, sometimes with openly absurd results. (One of these was splendidly analyzed by Michael Collins, aka 'Autorank'.)

In any comparably detailed exit poll data (e.g. data giving break-downs by gender, ethnicity, rural vs. urban, etc.), a parallel corruption of the data should reveal itself to forensic analysis in similar ways.

But are the exit polls for primaries detailed in this way? And have the Edison people perhaps become more skilled in playing with numbers than they were twelve years ago?   

Michael      

--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Verified...@aol.com]

I don't think the networks are weighting independently but I do think there's a strong possibility that there is adjustment taking place before the first posting (i.e., before polls even close), such that the shift that we are seeing between first-post EPs and results may be mitigated and the real gap even larger (so in Ohio might have been outcome-determinative, <15% -- though this is just a possibility; there's no evidence for it).  Good luck getting any methodological info from NEP, E/M, or the networks. And of course if we question their artistic methodologies we wind up undermining one of the only EN baselines we have. It is possible that the NBC/CNN difference reflected a fairly rapid first adjustment that actually went toward Bernie, with subsequent adjustments restoring order as we've come to expect it. To me that is more likely than networks doing independent weighting, but it would be good if we could find out.  --  J