Exit Poll Versus Reported Vote Count
By Theodore de Macedo Soares
Election results from the computerized vote counts of the 2020 California Democratic Party presidential primary differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. According to the exit poll Sanders won big in CA (by 15%). The unobservable computer counts cut his lead by half (to 7.3%). In the total delegate count to date, substituting the estimated California and Texas exit poll delegate apportionments for the apportionments derived from the computer counts, results in candidate Sanders currently leading candidate Biden by 42 delegates instead of trailing by 45. The possibility exists that massive voter suppression is currently occurring during the extended unfinished count of California ballots.
The combined discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for candidates Sanders and Biden currently totals 7.7%; more than double the 3.1% margin of error for the exit poll difference between the two. Warren’s and Biden’s discrepancies totals 5.6%, double the 2.5% margin of error. All margin of errors calculated at 95% confidence interval (CI). See table note 5. Values greater than the margin of error are considered statistically significant. The discrepancies in favor of Biden in California as in many of the other states to date, substantially exceed the margin of error at 99% (CI).
The discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for candidates Sanders and Bloomberg totals 6.7%; more than double the 2.6% margin of error for the exit poll difference between the two. Warren’s and Bloomberg’s discrepancies totals 4.6%, about double the 2.1% margin of error. To date, California computers totaled 250,600 less votes for Sanders and Warren than projected by the exit polls and 236,700 more votes for Biden and Bloomberg.
The discrepancies between the exit polls’ projections of each candidate’s vote share and the vote shares derived from unobservable computer counts have a considerable impact on the apportionment of delegates to each candidate. The apportionment of delegates is, after all, the main reason for these state primaries.
The current (3/9/2020) apportionment of California delegates, in accordance with the computer counts, stands at 185 for Sanders and 143 for Biden. (These numbers will change in the following days). The estimate derived from the exit polls calculates to 207 delegates for Sanders and 122 for Biden. In Texas, computer counts resulted in 90 delegates for Sanders and 102 for Biden. Sanders’ Texas’ exit poll estimates at 121 delegates for Sanders and 71 for Biden. Substituting California and Texas exit polls’ estimated delegate count for the computer derived counts results in Sanders leading the current delegate count by 543 to 501 for Biden. See endnote for detailed procedures.[i]
A week after Super Tuesday’s elections, the California vote count stands at 89% completed according to the NYT and 70% according to CNN. California’s website for the Secretary of State (SOS) provides a link to a PDF estimate of 3 million votes remaining uncounted between March 4-6. Almost all are mail-in ballots and provisional votes. The SOS website states: “In processing vote-by-mail ballots [and provisional ballots], elections officials must confirm each voter’s registration status, verify each voter’s signature on the vote-by-mail envelope, and ensure each person did not vote elsewhere in the same election before the ballot can be counted.” At the end of this examination and final count, the main question that the SOS must answer is how many of these votes were not counted—100,000, 200,000, half a million or much less?
By all accounts so called “voter fraud,” when a voter votes more than once in an election, is exceedingly rare. Anecdotally, I recall reading news of only one prosecution for such fraud. The second question that the SOS must answer is how many mail-in and provisional voters they positively identified as having voted twice in this election?
The third question that must be answered is how many votes were not counted because of some variation between the signature on the ballot and the voter registration form. As there is, to my knowledge, literally no evidence that “voter fraud” exists beyond single numbers in the U.S. the answers to these questions will determine if the office of California’s Secretary of State is participating in massive voter suppression.
The United States remains one of the
few major democracies in the world that continue to allow computerized vote
counting—not observable by the public—to determine the results of its
elections.[ii]
Countries such as Germany,[iii]
Norway,
Netherlands,
France,[iv]
Canada,[v]
United Kingdom,
Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and many other countries
protect the integrity and trust of their elections with publicly observable
hand-counting of paper ballots.[vi]
[1] Exit poll (EP) downloaded from CNN’s website by TDMS on election night, March 3, 2020 at 11:00 PM ET. Candidates’ exit poll percentage/proportion derived from the gender category. Number of EP respondents: 2,350. As this first published exit poll was subsequently adjusted towards conformity with the final computerized vote count, the currently published exit poll differs from the exit poll used here and available through the link below.
[2] Candidates’ percentage/proportion of the total computer-generated vote counts derived from reported counts (94% reporting) updated on March 6, 2020 and published by The New York Times. Total number of voters: 3,290,429
[3] The difference between the exit poll proportion and reported vote proportion for each candidate (subtracting values in column two from the values in column three). A positive value indicates the candidate did better and received a greater share of the total reported count than projected by the exit poll. For example, candidate Biden, reported percentage/proportion of the total vote increased by 4.5% compared to his exit poll share.
[4] This column shows the percentage increase or decrease from the candidate’s exit poll projection (difference in column four divided by exit poll proportion in column two). Shown only for candidates with 4% or more share in the exit poll.
[5] This column presents a distinct Margin of Error (MOE) of the exit poll (EP) for the differences between candidate Biden and each of the other candidate’s EP results. The exit poll MOE, for example, between Biden and Sanders is 4.0% and the MOE between Biden and Warren is 3.9%. For simplicity MOE not shown for candidates with less than 4% share in the EP. MOE calculated at 95% CI according to multinomial formula in: Franklin, C. The ‘Margin of Error’ for Differences in Polls. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. October 2002, revised February 2007. Available at: https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf
[6] The disparities between the exit poll and the reported computer-generated vote counts comparing Biden and each of the other candidates (subtracting each candidate’s difference between exit poll and computer count from Biden’s difference of 4.5%.). Disparities for candidates Sanders and Warren are double their respective MOE. For example, candidate Biden’s unverified computerized vote count exceeded his EP projected vote proportion by 4.5% while Sander’s computerized count understated his EP projected vote proportion by 3.7% for at total discrepancy of 8.2%. This 8.2% disparity, greatly exceeding the statistical 4.0% margin of error based on their exit poll proportions, is significant as it cannot be attributed to the MOE.
Endnotes
[i] Delegates are usually apportioned by a mix: delegates from the proportions of votes at the congressional district level and the proportions at the state level. Examination of the data indicated this fact not significant in estimating delegate apportionment using exit poll vote shares. As only two candidates received 100% of delegates in CA, their
computer vote proportions of 33.8% for Sanders to 26.5% for Biden were transformed to total 100%, keeping their vote proportion ratios they became 56% Sanders, 44% Biden. Sanders’ assigned 185 delegates was divided by his 56% share to determine number of delegates per percentage of vote share—3.30 delegates per percentage point. The same approach with Biden’s assigned 143 delegates resulted in 3.25 delegates per percentage point. As these numbers were virtually identical, varying by less than 0.05, the mix of delegate sources had no significant effect.
The exit poll shares (38% for Sanders and 23% for Biden) were transformed to total 100% keeping their exit poll ratios: 63% Sanders, 37% Biden). These transformed shares were then multiplied by the votes per share times 100 to arrive at 207 delegates for Sanders and 122 for Biden (totaling 329 delegates, and due to rounding almost exactly equaling the 328 total delegates assigned by the vote count). Similar calculations were performed for the Texas primary. This detailed procedure should be enough to duplicate by others and an Excel worksheet is available upon request.
[ii] Fittingly, according to a recent Gallup World Poll, only 40% of Americans say they are confident in the honesty of U.S. elections. Finland and Norway with 89% of their citizens expressing confidence in the honesty of their elections along with the citizens of 25 other countries have greater confidence in their elections than do Americans.
[iii] In 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that every important aspect of an election must be observable by the public and thus “meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections.” No amount of machine testing, security requirements, and licensing procedures can compensate for the constitutional requirement that “the essential steps of the electoral procedure being examined by the citizens.” And “trust in the regularity of the election
only [be realized] by the citizens themselves being able to reliably retrace the voting.”
The court also noted that while vote fraud with hand-counted ballots would be easy to detect, “programming errors in the software or deliberate electoral fraud committed by manipulating the software of electronic voting machines can be recognized only with difficulty.”
[iv] During the 2007 presidential election, eighty-three municipalities (France has 36,569 municipalities) were allowed to use voting machines. Due to security concerns and the inability of voters to determine if their votes are counted correctly a moratorium, that remains today, prevents additional municipalities from introducing voting machines. In the 2012 elections only 64 municipalities continued their use. The French government desires a total ban on their use.
[v] In Canada, the results of federal elections are determined exclusively by hand-counted paper ballots. Some provinces have adopted voting machines for local elections. See here, here and here.
[vi] The United States’ long ballots–containing federal, state, and local races–are commonly cited as being unwieldy for hand-counting. The use of Sweden’s method of providing different colored paper ballots for federal, state, and local races that are then sorted prior to hand-counting addresses this objection and allows for at least the hand-counting of federal elections with only three races per ballot.
***
California 2020 Democratic Party Primary Exit Poll. Published by CNN at poll’s closing on election night.
Comments made on this or related pages that may be helpful to the reader (comments made on another page will open a new tab):
Why the exit polls accessible today differ from the exit poll used here.
I’ve been thinking about how to get the word out fast and how to have the biggest impact…. I think we need to contact the offices of Rashida Tlaib , Pramila Jayapal, AOC, and Ro Khanna immediately. I’ve done so already but I’m hoping more people with do so as well. I also think we need to work on getting one or more of the super celebrities endorsing Bernie Sanders to speak out now….. actors/actresses/musicians/athletes/etc… the bigger the name the better and especially those who have been on the trail with Bernie and or performed at his rallies. I’ve been trying various ways to contact Michael Moore for a while now but I’d like help with that… and especially help with the musicians and other celebrities. Politicians will be much more reticent to speak out than celebrities I think and celebrities can garner massive attention with one tweet and or one press conference… plus that would FORCE the corporate media to cover it, even if negatively. So please just jump in, take initiative and help, help, help!!! Anyone have a connection to any of these people? It would also be good if people could show up in person at these offices and at rallies with signs and try to talk to key people in person. I’m also trying to get to get in touch with Nina Turner and some other Bernie people. HELP!!! Finally, I think we should try to get Tulsi Gabbard to speak out… she’s one of the candidates who has been negative affected by all this and that would give her standing if we should want to take legal action and or request records/recounts. Plus, I think we should really try to get Andrew Yang, Mr.s MATH, involved because he would get the technical side of this instantly. And let’s not give up on Elizabeth Warren yet either. She was slighted in these contests too and she should be infuriated if she knows the truth. Oh, and local media in any state affected is also a good place to send info.
Great ideas Cindy! I wish I had those connections! I’m also trying to reach out to the Carter Center, asking them to say something. Common Causes is addressing voter suppression, but I’m also trying to get them to pay attention to the exit poll discrepancies.
I loved reading that! Keep up the good work Tina! If we could get just a few groups to send out an email to their mega list explaining in brief what’s really going on and then linking to Ted’s work, we might just reach critical mass!
Cindy, again many thanks!
Common Cause has supported Registrars responsible for election fraud. Although you can’t see it on the outside, we fought long and hard re election fraud in LA County years ago, and Common cause was responsible for rumors spread which excused the registrar of Voters. It took months and many meetings to find out. They are not exactly who they appear to be. They will NOT address election fraud.
I think this is true for many groups… faux grassroots.. not true grassroots… funded indirectly by the corporate establishment with a top down approach. Having said this, we cannot give up reaching out. Let’s say we reached out to 100 groups and 99 brushed us off but just one sent out a nice message to their massive email list…. we might get enough out of that to make the time to send out to the 100 groups worthwhile. We just have to keep trying. I totally understand the feeling of being deflated after trying and trying and not getting anywhere… been there done that many times… but the glorious victories make up for that many times over! This issue affects all other issues we care about… without true democracy we can’t get anything changed. We must stay focused on getting the word out no matter how many times it takes, not matter how many people/groups we must reach out to… keep the big picture in mind! I’m giving this pep talk to myself as much as anyone else 🙂
I can help with this so that we neither waste our time, nor alert the oppisition. I will check out who is behind the major blue groups weve all been hearing from. I know Justice Democrats are Bernie people, and Third Way are Wall Streeters. If we get a tighter list, we”ll be mire effective.
Tina, Thank you!
I have been doing exactly that non-stop for two days. Twitter really speeds this up. Made a 4 part tweet to cover statistics. Also sent emails to progressive broadcasters, Sunrise Movement, Justice Dems, Our Revolution, Mark Ruffalo and Susan Sarandon, about 10 people running Bernie’s campaign. Even one to Warren with the MA link. (Persist!), Michael Moore, Robert Reich, the Intercept, Democracy Now, National Lawyers Guild, The Nation mag, Democracy for America, Ilhan, Rashida and AOC. And Tom Steyer – hoping he will use his millions to sue.
It infuriates me that the next round of primaries will be rigged no matter how well Bernie does in reality. All the networks are doing a post-mortem on his campaign, reviewing all the mistakes he made to lose this to Biden in such a stunning fashion. Seems no one imagines there could be another reason.
I can’t thank you enough Ted for doing CA so soon. Since I live in CA I think I have standing to demand investigation into this. I am so angry! I was a poll worker years ago and I know how EASY it is to count hand-marked ballots. A no brainer. We used to have such a good voting system and now it’s complete garbage.
By the way Ted, CA apportions delegates in two ways. 1) the statewide results and 2) congressional districts. I assume that’s why Bloomberg has so many delegates. He probably campaigned in wealthy districts on his way to Samoa.
I’ll keep checking in to see if you have any more ideas about how to get this into the national conversation.
Nikki, you’re on fire! Thank you so much. Keeping fingers crossed we make this info super viral. Btw, I talked with John Brakey who’s now in Michigan and he said the MI Secretary of State is having them DESTROY THE DIGITAL BALLOTS!!! He gave a very lame and nonsensical reason for it…. it’s a huge red flag they’re planning a massive rigging there…. digital ballots (basically images of the paper ballots that are near impossible to tamper with) would make doing an audit much easier… and they know that… so they turn them off so they disappear when the machine is turned off… the default is to save them and there’s no good reason to turn that off… so we should spread the word on this as well…. as John would say, they’re set to “steal with impunity.”
Nikki, thank you so much!
Nikki, have you tried contacting the Rising team at the Hill, Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti? They may be open to giving some coverage to this issue as they are highly skeptical of the establishment.
Yes, I sent Saagar an email on 3-7. No response.
An on line progressive newspaper may also do an article on it. It’s called Common Dreams. Chris Hedges writes for Truth Dig and has a show called On Contact on RT. He is a true investigative journalist.
Nikki, you should also try to contact Jordan Charlton of Status Coup. He’s the only Indy journalist who covers such matters in the trenches.
Krystal Ball has been actively sharing/retweeting Ted’s work and other election integrity reports on Twitter… I think they should interview Ted and also John Brakey.
Hi Nikki! I also live in CA. If additional names are needed or assistance, count me in. You can find me on Twitter @GinaBLemos.
Nikki, I can help. It sounds like you are way ahead of me. Do you need backup? Or do you have numbers you could share?
I have been retired a while, but I was a print journalist and I might still have working in friends at a couple papers. Thats not much, but if you have other suggestions or ideas how I could be useful, Im game. LMK!
Code Pink and other groups (housing, environment, health) seems to have been able to break into the media fabric with direct action at campaign events.
Guys… please… pump the breaks here. You’re reacting to specious data. Exit polls are highly unreliable. You can’t use them to extrapolate actual vote count with any level of certitude.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/
Disagree. If you notice that the Republican primary that happened at the same time same districts had less than 1% discrepancies and Dem had 8% something is definitely wrong
Exit polls, when properly conducted, are actually an international gold standard used to detect whether election fraud has occurred.
Totally different kind of exit polls. The exit polls TDMS is analyzing are intended for election fraud detection. The methodology is entirely different
Exit polls are extremely reliable and anyone that says otherwise is trying to help steal an election.
Exit polls have long been regarded as the most accurate of all polling methods. To claim anything else is suspicious. Both parties are cheating now so the arguments against them are universal. Paper ballots counted by hand is the only way to vote.
and counting them in public, protecting the chain of custody in every way humanly possible!
Exit polls are EXTREMELY RELIABLE ❗ Our country has always used them. Variances have NEVER been at these #’s❗ And NEVER SHOULD EXIT POLLS BE CHANGED TO MATCH VOTER MACHINE COUNTS‼
THIS IS ELECTION FRAUD‼
THEREFORE, THIS entire election is fraudulent, & sb STOPPED❗ Ballots MUST BE PAPER ONLY‼
FYI, in other countries, if the variance is more than 2%, there is an automatic investigation/audit.
Thanks for sharing this, I will pass it on!!!
I have been trying Michael Moore and TYT as a TYT affiliate, I’m hoping to get some traction soon.
I got a text from one of Bernie’s volunteers, and I informed them that Bernie, and his campaign managers need to conduct an investigation on election fraud, for the sake of election integrity. Also provided links that Ted provides under every new post, so they can look into it too. Also forwarded the message directly to 1 of Bernie’s Team Members on Facebook. Here: https://www.facebook.com/moumita.ahmed
On their official campaign page, it shows that she’s a team member who manages his official social media pages on Facebook. I’ve only been able to find 2 that she manages, and they are: The People for Bernie Sanders, and Millennials for Bernie. It’s slowly gaining traction because I’ve had several people react to them in support. Great work everyone and let’s keep going!
Fantastic! I also text messaged Faiz, as I was a volunteer, but haven’t heard back. When I get home I’m intend to send a similar message to all contacts I have!
We must keep it going! ❤️
Wow to what you said!
I have been working with other problem trying to figure out what to do..
I am willing to make calls/emails to whoever is needed! So how are you gathering all of this info together to prove it’s reliability? I’ve been seeing people doubting what’s going on with the poll, but it’s too real to not do something about.
there is an article with AOC commenting on the theft of our votes today.
Thank you everyone for all you have done so far. I have also been sharing info in groups and elsewhere. I tried DMing Bernie sanders campaign and also manager, Chuck Rocha no response, Nina Turner- no response, and TYT-They acknowledged my email and said they would pass my email along to the team.
I sent them the below info along with a pic of Michigan votes disappearing for Bernie that someone had posted. It shows one screens nap at10:07 pm with 60.13% reported votes for Bernie at 728,097 votes and 52.86% and then at 10:09 pm, with 60.21% reporting, it drops down to 425,034 votes with 53.28%. The votes then showing reallocated to Biden. I wasn’t able to post the pic here.
Also, Here are some links about voter fraud info I found, which are very enlightening.
Please at least watch the first video of an election integrity advocate from Illinois. Her information is incredible.
1. If you go to you tube and look for a video by Hard Lens Media called “Whistle-blower exposes voting machine fraud” a woman who is an election integrity advocate talks about the fraud they found in 2016 and what they are seeing this year. It is very enlightening and disgusting at the same time. I urge you all to watch it! Here is link.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=pcQ5x_LFkDA
2. Research from TDMS Research took the exit polls before they were adjusted to match the results and found shocking results…
[CLICK] ON BELOW LINK TO WATCH VIDEO…
https://youtu.be/t78Ff26-V8s
3. Article from Gray zone and Code Pink regarding investigating inconsistencies.
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/09/grayzone-codepink-international-election-observers-oas-2020-democratic-primary/?fbclid=IwAR2hbU0Mny7qZLSZMXRTq8kUnvfaQyZDzZf7vqsnqJrU3udYTcsxWu91cFY
I hope the right people will look into this.
Thanks so much
Does anyone know someone who could create an amazing meme of Ted’s work that we could share on social media?
I could but potentially do that. I’m an amateur meme maker
You’re hired Andrew and much appreciated!
How’s everyone doing so far? We still gaining traction? I’ve been sharing nonstop. Facebook is creating nationwide restrictions for sharing links. Google and Twitter is tampering with search results.
I think Twitter is ghosting some of us too… up to their old tricks… they seem to do this a pivotal times! We need to keep going though. See the post I’m about to make here on Lee Camp’s video.
Yes, please do. I reached out to Tulsi yesterday. She’s in my home state and did a live video, and at that time I shared a direct link to this site, with some information that was shared from here as well. She responded directly to my comment a little later but I got it.
They shadow trending hashes when you type them yes at pivotal times. Did it to #NotMeUs & #JoeMentia
Is that what’s happening? After reading this I went back through my tweets and I’m getting 0-3 engagements whereas before I’d have many more, and 0 interactions. This is so disheartening
[…] When California was called for Bernie Sanders with barely 1% of the vote counted, I admit I was a bit puzzled as to how the likes of CNN could call it at such an early point in the process. Well, it turns out that CNN gets the results of exit polling conducted by Edison Research. Those polls gave Sanders a 15% winning margin in California. Yet according to TDMS research… […]
Can you do a post to explain the level at which election fraud should be investigated? I mean, I keep seeing people say that a 2% discrepancy between exit polls and ballot counts is enough to suggest election fraud, but I can’t find anything authoritative to back that claim, aside from a YouTube video here and there. People say USAID uses the 2% measure, but I can’t find that in any of their literature, and organizations like NDI don’t seem to publish that kind of guideline, either. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places?
Don’t know if such exists. If it exists it’s probably the percentage above the margin of error (MOE) for the exit poll. In my posts these are very high.
I’m not certain that a poll and vote discrepancy is as much evidence of fraud, as say the discrepancy between percentage of votes cast and percentage of delegates awarded, is evidence of a mathematically broken voting system. Given how the US system works, it could be a squeaky clean election and still have anywhere from 5 to 15% of error.
I’ll say that I have seen 2% as the threshold where we investigate foreign elections on a few sites, but our own acceptable MoE is 4%.
I don’t remember where I’ve read it, but I remember 1 site seeming really legit. ♂️
Doubters dismiss exit polls as unreliable, but historically reported results have been within 0.4% – 0.5% of exit polls as an absolute measure, but those numbers can be larger and still within reason. It is better to use the Margin of Error (MoE) of the exit goal as your guide though. That measure is specific to each election and exit poll.
* On any given election, if the results are outside the margin of error, that’s a serious red flag.
* If there are numerous elections, as in each state, outside the MoE, then you have a systemic problem.
* If the reported results always favor one side, or in the case here always go against Sanders, there is no other conclusion to reach other than you have electronic election fraud.
Jude, that’s great! Thanks
The combined comparisons from California and Texas between exit polls and computerized results offer the most damning data yet from Ted. Great to see the countervailing activity flowing from Cindy, Nikki, Jude, John Brakey, … This morning I’ve gathered pieces about how cruel and cynical the DNC’s USE OF BIDEN’S DOTAGE is to re-select Donald Trump as U.S. President … The fraud has never been so blatant–and that’s why we have great reasons for action and hope.
Here’s one piece and excerpt–https://medium.com/@carrielavender/dnc-elites-commit-elder-abuse-on-guy-they-know-will-lose-to-trump-e78215491cbc
The DNC doesn’t care about Biden’s health. As for his wife and family, one can only wonder if they’re being blackmailed or cravenly driven by lust for even greater power and wealth. The DNC doesn’t care about defeating Trump either. They only care about beating Bernie. They prefer Trump over Bernie, as Krystal Ball of The Hill’s Rising explains,
‘They would rather lose with Joe than win with Bernie . . . because if you lose with Joe, and you’re in the opposition, and Trump gets another four years, you’ve still got your gig flow; you’ve still got your access; you still have your power channels preserved. If Bernie wins, he’s getting rid of all of you. Your day is over! So it’s existential, and they’re treating it like it.’
https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-cabinet-vice-president-picks-b17882ac-3953-450f-8afb-38a3c8dcda57.html
Inside a future Biden (Wall Street) administration.
Quid pro quo endorsements. Fancy that.
No wonder Warren is holding out for the best bribe.
Totally agree!
How are exit polls conducted?
See: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/03/politics/what-are-exit-polls/index.html
Just reading about all this now for the first time…and quite naturally am dismayed (to put it politely). Do you use the Edison Research data to make your reports?
Yes, and the reported computer vote count. The exit polls I use are all linked at the bottom of each article now highlighted in a yellow box for easier visibility,
Nowhere in the exit poll do I see their margin of error. Where is their margin of error?
They are doing their best to throttle access to your site. A page pops up to say it is not secure. Beware of giving personel information- return to safety. It took several times to actually get here. We got your back and appreciate your work. it is amazing. Thank you!
Ted, is there any way you could set up mirrors of your site, preferably hosted outside the US and outside the grips of US control? This kind of centralized control problem will be a thing of the past when Holochain/Holo really gets going… I hope you are following that project… decentralized peer to peer “Nextnet” and lightening fast to boot. Good people with very compatible ethics too.
Probably because this site does not have a SSL certificate. Working on it right now. It will then be seen as secure–in my experience mainly a problem with Firefox. But thanks for the heads up because it was your comment that got me going to get the certificate! should be in place by tonight!
I’ve never had any trouble with your site loading right away, and no security warnings either. You are probably right about the browser. I use Chrome.
Took some time to consolidate all this into concise tweets. To speed up dissemination you can copy the following or retweet here: @NikkiAlex10
CA
1) The official vote counts in the Democratic Primary differed significantly from the exit polls conducted by Edison Research (hired by the networks to predict outcomes). See TDMS analysis of election rigging. Stunning.
https://tdmsresearch.com
2) TDMS analysis shows: Sanders won CA by 15%. Unobservable computer counts cut his lead by half to 7.3% … Sanders leads Biden by 42 delegates instead of trailing by 45… Combined discrepancies for Sanders and Biden totals 7.7%; more than double the 3.1% MOE
3) Discrepancies in favor of Biden in CA and many other states, substantially exceed the margin of error at 99% (CI). To date, California computers totaled 250,600 less votes for Sanders and Warren than the exit polls and 236,700 more votes for Biden and Bloomberg.
4) CA exit polls calculate Sanders at 207 delegates, Biden 122
Sanders Texas exit poll estimates Sanders at 121 delegates, Biden 71
California and Texas exit polls results in Sanders 543 delegates, Biden 501
https://tdmsresearch.com
________________________________________
MA
1) The official vote counts from the MA Democratic primary differed significantly from the exit poll. Sanders won in the exit poll and lost in the computer count. Discrepancies between Sanders and Biden totaled 8.2%— double the 4.0% margin of error.
https://tdmsresearch.com
2) Warren’s and Biden’s discrepancies totaled 8.0%, also double the margin of error.
Biden’s and Bloomberg’s vote counts showed the largest disparity from exit poll projections. Biden’s totals showed a 15.7% increase, gaining 60,900 more votes than projected by the exit poll.
3) Bloomberg gained 28.2%, approximately 34,500 more votes than projected. Biden and Bloomberg’s gains came largely at the expense of Sanders and Warren whose combined vote counts were 97,000 less than projected by the exit poll.
https://tdmsresearch.com
________________________________________
SC
1) The SC primary election results from the computerized vote counts differed significantly from the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. The disparities exceed the exit poll’s margin of error.
https://tdmsresearch.com
2) Biden’s vote count showed the largest disparity from his exit poll projection, an 8.3% increase of his projected exit poll share, gaining 19,700 more votes than projected by the exit poll. This gain came at the expense of Sanders, Warren, and Steyer.
________________________________________
VT
1) The official vote counts in the VT Primary differed significantly from the exit polls conducted by Edison Research (hired by the networks to predict outcomes). See TDMS analysis of election rigging. Stunning.
https://tdmsresearch.com
2) Sanders showed the largest discrepancy between the exit poll and computer vote counts, falling 6.3% in the vote counts—an 11% reduction of his exit poll share. Biden with an exit poll share of 17% outperformed his exit poll share by 4.5% in the vote counts—a 26.1% increase.
3) The combined discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for Sanders and Biden at 10.8% was double the 5.4% margin of error (95% CI) ~ the largest disparity of the 14 primary states that voted to date and for which an exit poll was conducted.
________________________________________
TX
1) The official vote counts in the TX Primary differed significantly from the exit polls conducted by Edison Research. According to the exit poll Sanders was tied with Biden but lost in the computer counts by 4.5%.
https://tdmsresearch.com
2) Sanders had the largest discrepancy between the exit poll and computer vote counts. His projected vote proportion fell 4% in the vote counts—a 12% reduction of his exit poll share. There is good reason to believe the exit poll just prior to publishing showed Sanders win in TX
3) The combined discrepancies between exit poll and the vote count for Sanders and Biden at 4.4% significantly exceeded the 2.9% margin of error for the exit poll difference between the two. The discrepancies between Sanders and Bloomberg at 5.4% was triple their respective MOE
________________________________________
NH
The official vote counts in the NH Primary differed significantly from the exit polls conducted by Edison Research, exceeding the MOE. Buttigieg’s vote count showed the largest disparity, a 12% increase, 8,000 more votes than his projected exit poll share.
https://tdmsresearch.com
________________________________________
Woo Hoo… go Jude!
HI Ted have you accounted for day of voting totals vs. mail in ballots?
Edison Research samples early voters https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/03/politics/what-are-exit-polls/index.html so this factor is already taken into account.
IGS Berkeley published a poll 100 hours before the vote which had Sanders 34%, Warren, 17%, Bloomberg 12%, and Biden at 8% – which made Joe completely unviable (below 15%) across the state and all its districts. He would have received ZERO delegates. Sanders based on that breakdown would have scored 300. The election would have been effectively over. Again 100 hours later after the endorsements a different result. Key detail, in the IGS poll is undecided at 7%. On basis of final results you would have to believe that Bernie received no growth, which is what the IGS pollster said to me when I contained him, “Bernie didn’t grow (based upon final result) in the last few days.” What your exit poll shows is that while Biden did make gains from the endorsements Sanders got half of the undecided, (what you would have expected) moving from 34% to 38%, which was effectively wiped out by the fraud. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5pn3k5pb Also at 15% Bernie would have scored a delegate difference over Biden at about 150, not the 60 at the recorded 7% victory he is now going to be given for California. Of course, even with this singular change result he would now be in the lead.
[…] has a new post on California here, which I will subject to the usual […]
We know that Biden had momentum. Is it possible that late mail-in-ballots caused the difference? Those are not captured by the exit polls, right?
Honestly, should we report this information to the Department of Justice or somewhere? Why are there not more people addressing this? The only organization I’ve seen take action so far is Code Pink. Yesterday, they asked the OAS to provide emergency election monitoring of the Democrat primary. I really hope they do, but I fear it might be too late. We need recounts and for the authorities to hold people accountable in order to change the media narrative about the direction of the primary race.
The author has also donated to the Sanders campaign for years. Possible bias at play here?
Possibly! But I can’t find any other logical explanation. Can you?
You are spamming all my posts with untruth. Once more and you will be banned from this site,
Are landline surveys relevant anymore? Only if you want to have older people skew your results. And most people don’t take surveys online. Why do you assume that your exit polls, or any exit polls, are unbiased? Many older voters who voted for Biden might not feel like revealing their vote, or talking to a surveyor. Did people vote absentee? How might those results skew the numbers?
Please excuse if I’ve missed this, but are there any states that hand count ballots so that we can compare exit polls to the hand counted totals?
I don’t know what is considered hand counted but Oregon uses a scantron like form and I believe has witnesses during counting. We vote in May and I don’t think we’ve had weird issues.
[…] 2020 Democratic Party Primaryhttps://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/09/california-2020-democratic-party-primary/‘Corporate Socialists’ Denounced as Trump Considers Fracking Industry Bailout Amid […]
I have been as well. Join Bernie and progressive groups on FB. It’s reaches our target audience and activists much faster.
Thanks for your help Gina!
You’re welcome! I’m also spreading this petition, requesting that the UN intervene to certify the results. It’s picking up steam and it’s close to 20,000 signatures now > https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/u-n-is-needed-to-oversee-democratic-primaries-due-to-election-fraud?bucket
I’m also compiling info today, to create a short video to show where Bernie is in the delegate count and how many are still outstanding. I can also work on one for the info on this site, to create awareness. Also, not sure how credible it is, but I’m hearing in Bernie FB groups that every third Bernie vote was changed to Biden in their system. Has anyone else heard this who can verify its authenticity?
How does the math work for that? Does the switching every 3rd vote take away 8% of Bernie’s vote and add 15% to Biden’s, as reported in MA?
Or like a twitter user saw in Texas Biden got 19,000 votes in an update and Bernie got 0. They aren’t very Sophisticated about it
Sorry guys but Theo’s got you on a wild goose chase while grasping at straws. I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary. He won my state. If he were winning contests now I’d be first in line to pound the pavement and man a phone bank for him. He’s not winning. Exit polls are not as reliable as you might think. Theo is looking for something that isn’t there.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/
538 is bullshit, exit polls are literally the most reliable there is.
You are literally asking someone just minutes after they voted who they voted for, exit polls are usually well under 1% accuracy.
Nate silver is a lying POS
Rather than making a blanket rejection of a source, can you actually address the the individual arguments 538 is making? I’m on the fence. I’d like to hear the counter arguments against the claims being made.
You realize that MoE refers to each individual candidate’s estimate, not the *difference between* the candidates, don’t you? So if Sanders’s MoE is +/- 3.1, that means a 95% CI around the 38.0 means that the “real” Sanders parameter is 95% likely to be between 34.9 and 41.1. Similarly, an MoE of 3.1 around Biden’s poll number of 23.0 means a 95% CI of from 19.9 and 26.1. So the final results are still outside of that, but not by nearly as much, and the projected difference between the two is not statistically significantly different from the actual margin.
Also, do the exit polls capture early and/or absentee voting? In Michigan, for instance, there was a record number of absentee ballots cast – and early deciders (the ones most likely to have voted absentee) broke much more heavily for Sanders than for Biden; thus, exit polling would have systematically underestimated Sanders’s numbers and overestimated Biden’s.
Your explanation is reasonably correct for the standard MOE that is applicable for a contest with only two candidates. For a contest with multiple candidates you need a more sophisticated MOE that directly measures MOE for the difference between any two candidates in a multi candidate field. A detailed explanation with examples is linked below every post on this election: https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/#comment-2157
interesting analysis. Thanks!
This is complete BS. I’m very dismayed to see progressives being taken for a ride by Ted. For a thorough debunking of his methodology please read this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/fj5go3/theres_no_exit_poll_discrepancy_a_deep_dive_into/
I know it is from a neoliberal forum but we’d expect that bc these are the people who usually critique us. I am a bernie support and full on socialist but I cannot let people be taken for a ride by people like Ted who are not mathematically equipped to be making such claims. Ted has yet to respond to this debunking of his methodology
The post was taken down within hours of my reply:
This post is entirely false. Readers, the first indication that a post is merely a “hatchet job” is when it is long and detailed like this but the author does NOT state that they contacted their target for a comment before doing all this work!
The exit polls have been conducted by Edison Research since 2003. They are not “preliminary” as this author claims but instead represents their final, best and most accurate assessment of who is going to win and by how much. The networks depend on these final estimates in order to call the races before the votes are counted.
Exit polls have been used throughout the world, including by the USAID as a means of checking the veracity of elections results. Once Edison starts incorporating the vote counts into their exit polls (what you can see now closely match the vote tabulations) they cease to be an exit poll and becomes an entirely different animal–a confirmation of the unobservable computerized vote counts.
Ted, This is the comment that got me wondering about this. You say:
“Once Edison starts incorporating the vote counts into their exit polls (what you can see now closely match the vote tabulations) they cease to be an exit poll and becomes an entirely different animal”
But according to the the fact-check website:
“Exit polls are weighted throughout the day, said Shaw, not just at the end. He called the analysis done by TDMS Research “misleading at best and corrosive at worst.”
So according to Shaw, these exit polls have been “an entirely animal” all
long because they’re weighted against the vote count long before that final adjustment. Do you have a source to prove that these exit poll are not weighted against the vote count until the very end? That would show that the fact-check article is outright lying.
Jimbo, you wrote: “Do you have a source to prove that these exit poll are not weighted against the vote count until the very end? That would show that the fact-check article is outright lying.”
Yes, Factcheck.org’s reprehensible journalism does seem to state that the exit polls are being altered all day long with the vote counts. Unfortunately, just about every sentence they wrote is misleading or untrue.
It is illegal, indeed, a felony for election board members of any state to release any vote counts to anyone before the polls close in a state. See, for example:
“Election results are not public information until the polls close, even if the county’s absentee ballots are tabulated well before the polls close. County election board members and staff must not release results before the polls close to any person since a violation of that law is a Level 6 felony. (3-14-4-10)” http://www.state.in.us/sos/elections/files/2019%20Election%20Administrator%27s%20Manual.Final.pdf Page 149.
This is how Edison gets their vote counts (they took over from AP last year) AFTER polls close in a state:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200324153343/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ap.org%2Fen-us%2Ftopics%2Fpolitics%2Felections%2Fcounting-the-vote
It doesn’t make sense to add together the errors of different candidates. If the margin of error is 2.5% and Sanders’ number is 3% low while Biden’s is 3% high, that’s only an error of 3%. It’s not like these are independent variables. It’s essentially the same variable, being measured in two different ways.
It’s still an interesting result (from a mathematical perspective), especially if the pattern has repeated in several states. I wish I could assign a p-value, but I do math in the computer science sense. I’m not a “real” statistician.
Guys like Nate Silver see these numbers and explain it away as flawed sampling. I’m not sold on that explanation. It’s curious that exit polls always “overrepresent” the more leftist candidate, and then only in a smattering of areas – not universally as one would expect if the phenomenon were truly an intrinsic error in the sampling process. It seems that exit polls are usually either incredibly accurate or deeply flawed in that one direction. It’s a pattern going back to Ohio in 2004.
You might want to look into the Gallagher (least squares) index scores for the primaries.
I think much of the disproportionality is explained by the voting system itself, with seats allocated being denominated by an integer, it’s implied there will be some non-zero modulus and disproportionality will enter the system. The difference between percentage of votes and percentage of delegates can vary by as much as 10% and other countries have solved this by reforming their voting systems to use proportional representation.
This is simply heartbreaking. Dems used to be the party of the people, the workers and the well educated.The demographics have changed. The GOP now boasts greater participation by the working class, while the Dems now have the well-heeled white folks, the well-educated across racial lines, the boomers and the billionaires. The bosses have finally become the Republicans they always wanted to be, and sure enough, theyre stealing the first election they could get their lying, cheating hands on. I weep for my country.
Hi Theo,
What’s the reason you’re computing MOE between candidates instead of between the two sampling instances, e.g., (1) the exit polls; & (2) the election results? To me, it sounds like your conclusion is opining on the likelihood of the results between the samples—but what you’re testing is whether or not Sanders falls within the MOE of relative to a competitor.
If the goal is to determine when exit polling differs from final results in a statistically significant fashion, then wouldn’t you want the null hypothesis (H0) to be: “The proportions between samples are equal”, which would mean you’d want to use the MOE calculations between samples (§3 in the reference material you linked to).
If that’s true, then your prose are misleading. I recreated your analysis with that in mind, and I’d be happy to share it, but I’m only showing 2 out of 7 (the number I checked) contests with statistically significance variation (one at 95% confidence and the other at 90%).
Thanks!
Hi Theo,
What’s the reason you’re computing MOE between candidates instead of between the two sampling instances, e.g., (1) the exit polls; & (2) the election results? To me, it sounds like your conclusion is opining on the likelihood of the results between the samples—but what you’re testing is whether or not Sanders falls within the MOE relative to a competitor.
If the goal is to determine when exit polling differs from final results in a statistically significant fashion, then wouldn’t you want the null hypothesis (H0) to be: “The proportions between samples are equal”, which would mean you’d want to use the MOE calculations between samples (§3 in the reference material you linked to).
If that’s true, then your prose are misleading. I recreated your analysis with that in mind, and I’d be happy to share it, but I’m only showing 2 out of 7 (the number I checked) contests with statistically significance variation (one at 95% confidence and the other at 90%).
Thanks!
For a contest with multiple candidates the proper MOE formula directly measures MOE for the difference between any two candidates in a multi candidate field. A detailed explanation with examples is linked below every post on this election: https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/#comment-2157
I understand, but you’re opining on the following (your language, my emphasis):
“The combined discrepancies BETWEEN the exit poll and the vote count for candidates Sanders and Biden currently totals”
How can you draw statistical significance conclusions between polls if you’re not using the “between polls MOE calculation”, which is in section #3 of the reference material you cite?
Thanks,
Rob
Wrong again. You’re literally have no understanding of the paper you are citing. Biden and Bernie’s vote share is near 100%, and candidates have dropped out meaning there are effectively two.
“Effectively two” can either be taken as n = 2, or else n is small, so again, the maximum spread approaches 2 x MOE. Even if you take n = 6, or 8 like it approximately was at the beginning, it decreases the maximum spread, but that’s still a small n, so it is still reasonably close especially given the vote share. Not in the first three states to nearly the same extent, it’s true. But still, it’s more than 1 x MOE. Now, it’s asymptotically close to 2 x MOE.
Please take down these misleading posts. You don’t even have a basic understanding of statistics. You’re making the left look bad. You should be ashamed of yourself
Interesting, Thanks!
How far back do these records go? Pre-2010 census? Pre-2000? If we took this data and lined it up with public records on precinct-by-precinct voting machine purchases, could we make a more convincing argument? What if we had a timeline of exit polling deviations, and cross-referenced that with a timeline of electronic voting machines purchases, and threw in the timeline of electoral infrastructure policy changes (annotated)? Is it possible to see what that might look like?
Hey, Theodore, I think one of the reasons your work hasn’t caught on is because you don’t provide proof of the non-adjusted exit-poll data. No reporter is going to risk their reputation by reporting this when you’re not able provide solid evidence. You need to use archive.org to capture the initial data every you collect it.
It’s a shame, because I believe you, but the way you’ve gone about this makes it difficult for politicians, celebrities, or journalists to take you seriously. Please please please provide proof of the non-adjusted data from now on.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200310163128/https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/entrance-and-exit-polls/texas/democratic
You’re in luck. Someone did archive the initial Texan data, it seems. Do this for every state.
Same with California:https://web.archive.org/web/20200310163128/https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/entrance-and-exit-polls/california/democratic
Send this to the Sanders campaign, to the ACLU, to any organization with legal power. Do not only send your assertions. SEND PROOF. Show them the archived links that I’ve provided in comparison with the current, adjusted data. Explain to them how Edison’s polls are used to conduct election-monitoring internationally and PROVIDE CITATATION FOR THIS AS WELL–there must be something online explaining how exit polls are used for election integrity in other countries. DO NOT SIMPLY ASK THEM TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. No legal or electoral entity is going to respond to you if you cannot supply proof right off the bat. Don’t even focus on the other states (useless since you don’t have proof); just try to convince them that something’s off in California and Texas, at least at first.
If you successfully alert the Sanders campaign, ask them if they have any opportunities to demand paper-based recounts.
Also, DO NOT SEND YOUR KNOWLEDGE TO JOURNALISTS. THAT WILL NOT HELP SANDERS. If people start to believe that the elections are being directly rigged, it’ll hurt turnout.
PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD THE ARCHIVE VERSIONS. They have already been altered to match the vote count. Will only create more confusion. SEND OUT THE EXIT POLLS I ACTUALLY USED FOR THE CALCULATIONS. They are provided at the bottom every article. Thanks
I sent the wrong link. The following shows the original, unadjusted data of the California exit poll (Biden with 16% of men and 24% of women). https://web.archive.org/web/20200304090954/https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/entrance-and-exit-polls/california/democratic
It seems to me like Ted does not understand probability-based sampling for polls, and therefore chose to assume that CNN/Edison manipulated poll results. There is literally no reason to believe this is happening.
Ted is using incomplete data to make sweeping assumption. The polling data is “manipulated” at the end. Instead the pollers being to take off their weighting factors as they gain more votes and higher fidelity data. Ted is actually using data that is MORE manipulated (bc extra weight factors) than if he just waited until the end when these weighting factors were released.
“Instead the pollers being to take off their weighting factors as they gain more votes and higher fidelity data.”
This doesn’t even make sense. Weighting factor? That’s not even a thing! Do a little research, you’re just parroting some b.s. given by some corporate marketing slob.
THE ARCHIVED VERSION ARE ACTUALLY CORRECT. YOURS ARE NOT
Ted does not understand probability-based sampling for polls.
Ted is using incomplete data to make sweeping assumption. The polling data is not “manipulated” at the end. Instead the pollers begin to take off their weighting factors as they gain more votes and higher fidelity data. Ted is actually using data that is MORE manipulated (bc extra weight factors) than if he just waited until the end when these weighting factors were released.
There is a petition.
https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/u-n-is-needed-to-oversee-democratic-primaries-due-to-election-fraud
PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD THE ARCHIVE VERSIONS. They have already been altered to match the vote count. Will only create more confusion. SEND OUT THE EXIT POLLS I ACTUALLY USED FOR THE CALCULATIONS. They are provided at the bottom of every article. Thanks
That’s not what I meant. Look at the link for Texas. The snapshot was captured early enough that it contains the unadjusted data.
Can you explain what you mean by exit polls being altered to match vote counts? Why would they do that? Why manipulate exit polls after the fact… they’re no longer exit polls then
The exit polls I downloaded are provided through a link below ever article, What is your opinion of what more I can do to make this fact obvious?
Oh, I didn’t notice for some reason . . . My apologies.
I’d still recommend you use archive.org on every election-night to capture the data that you download. In case you don’t know how it works, you can use the website to manually archive a page whenever you want. I.e. you can use the website to create an incontrovertible record of the initial exit poll as soon as you see it. Here are instructions on how to do that if you need it: https://www.wikihow.com/Use-the-Internet-Archive%27s-Wayback-Machine
Without the archive, people can accuse you of doctoring the PDFs. The archive is the strongest way to record this information.
BTW, have you seen this? https://twitter.com/inmyownfashion/status/1237908699169071106 I’m interested to see your data on Michigan.
Great article but I think you may be missing something obvious which explains much, but probably not all of the disproportionality between vote percentages and delegate percentages. I can’t comment on the poll discrepancy, but it’s likely related.
The US primary voting system is actually not proportional. Delegates are integers (they can’t be further divided). However, with candidate-list systems, the modulus becomes a significant source of error unlike in proportional party-list systems.
The Gallagher index models this disportionality and the US doesn’t usually score too well, with as much as 10-12% of the votes /cast/ either being uncounted (by the candidate failing to reach threshold) or worse, going to the opposition because the denominator (number of delegates) is fixed, and is often far too low for any hope of fair redistribution.
The fix is actually simple, if there’s the political will to do so. A referendum would likely be required to put forward some more modern proportional representation systems to the public. (please just not STV, it should not be used for anything because of mathematical paradoxes like a ‘no-show winner’)
Hope this makes sense,
-Winston
Edit: If anyone’s curious here’s some quick’n’dirty Python code to compute Gallagher index scores:
https://pastecode.xyz/view/76be7419
Sorry, duplicate post because when I just tried, it was at the top of the comments. Now hopefully at the bottom. Just wanted people to see that
https://twitter.com/inmyownfashion/status/1237908699169071106/photo/1
if taken at face value and coming from a reliable source, shows Bernie votes being subtracted between one screen shot (earlier) and the next (later).
Adding to that: Note that the total vote count in the second, slightly later sample, was lower by about the same amount that the Sanders votes were. So, the Sanders votes apparently fell into oblivion. oops! This is all assuming that these are actual screen shots, nobody photoshopping or such.
Independently of that, the most dastardly thing I heard about Michigan (and wish I remember exactly where I read it) is that the feature of the voting machines there that saves a digital image of the “paper ballot” for auditing or whatever purposes later, can be toggled on or off by the polling place workers. And in the whole state, they were instructed by their elections officials to turn that feature *off* for last Tuesday’s election day.
Posting this which is part of a Twitter discussion thread. Someone earlier posted the thread URL I believe.
But here is a closeup showing, at least when I go there, consecutive updates (apparently from buzzfeed) of the MI vote count, with Bernie having quite a bit fewer in the later update than he had in the earlier update:
https://twitter.com/inmyownfashion/status/1237908699169071106/photo/1
Vote count going backwards? Heard about that same phenomenon in another primary in the Hard Lens YouTube segment which is something like “Whistleblower discusses Election Fraud” in 2016. She isn’t a whistleblower in the usual definition, is an election integrity activist in Chicago. In the primary she was watching, votes for Steyer were going backwards, were decreasing between earlier reports and later ones.
(P.S. If this posts successfully, be aware that my previous attempt from a different browser, different computer, hung. Could be cookies from this site confusing the browser).
This sounds like Dr. Laura Chamberlain. Do a google search and see if you can find the public testimony that she and others in her group gave in Chicago in 2016 after they saw election officials actually changing the vote tallies from paper to match the machine tallies… evidently, the actually saw them ERASE their own calculations from paper and then write in what the machines were reporting. I was among the most alarming testimony given during 2016 from well respected citizens who obviously had their act together and weren’t afraid to speak out very publicly. I remember sharing that video everyone.
I just donated to Bernie’s campaign again and as a top donor they gave me a space to write a short story as to why I believe in Bernie . They state that my message will be read, and some will he picked to forward to Bernie.
My note stated that I have gone weeks without power to donate to Bernie’s campaign which is true. What’s more important, is that Bernie has been cheated I left the address to the site. Fingers crossed!
Hi, I’m sorry I’ve been getting really frustrated waiting for the reminder of the delegates to be allocated in all the Bernie won states. I am thankful for your work! I don’t understand though. Are you saying that they use some confusing (to me) math to limit delegates, I mean all 412 from California won’t given out? And you also said that the % Bernie and Biden was calculated to equal 100% so they can share the appropriate total, and no other candidates get delegates but it is reported that warren won some and Bloomberg. I’m just confused.
I’m having trouble finding any analysis of historically comparing exit polls with real vote counts. Does anyone have a reference for this?
I would suggest watching “Stealing America one Vote at a Time”
Look for Richard Charmin and his site richardcharmin.wordpress..com . I don’t see evidence that he’a been very active during this election cycle but if I recall, he compared reported vote counts to exit polls in many previous elections. Remember, we have scant exit polls this time, meaning that Edison may be the only one. There were more in the past I believe.
Seems to be spelled Charnin. There was a schism i 2016 at the Democratic Underground site which I don’t generally recommend, but he used to post there a lot when the site was good, with his pen name Truth_is_all.
I have been writing people not about the count but about the election in general. I honestly can’t believe that we have that many stupid people who can see that Biden is not competent to run a country now no less his own life! His dementia is that bad. I wrote Senators, house representatives even some candidates asking how they can endorse this man after publicly saying he has these issues., reporters on record saying he has these issues. Then said if they can then I personally don’t feel they themselves are not competent either and they need to be removed from office . This is a disgrace and they know this will be a win for Trump . Trump already has a video showing how bad Biden is! It will be a cold day in hell that I vote for a man with dementia and Sundowning ! Any candidate, senator and congressman that has endorsed him sure has a screw loose and also needs to be removed from office democrat or not.
Hello All,
I met Shahid Buttar at Bernie’s rally in Richmond. He is running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress. He’s been on TYT several times. I sent him a message about the discrepancies that Ted has published here, and if he could please look into it.
He wrote me back this morning and said that
I was “right to be concerned” and thanked me for reaching out, and he will be looking into it!
This blog has been debunked. Pls see the following post
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/fj5go3/theres_no_exit_poll_discrepancy_a_deep_dive_into/
I met Shahid Buttar at Bernie’s rally in Richmond. He is running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress. He’s been on TYT several times. I sent him a message about the discrepancies that Ted has published here, and if he could please look into it.
He wrote me back this morning and said that
I was “right to be concerned” and thanked me for reaching out, and he will be looking into it!
Shahid did make mention of the suspicious outcomes on yesterday’s Damage Report on TYT https://twitter.com/thedamagereport/status/1238721694103154688?s=21
Can you address the the individual arguments 538 is making in their article about disregarding exit polls? I’m on the fence. I’d like to hear the counter arguments against the claims being made. This whole study hinges on whether exit polls are reliable, and I’m not seeing a consensus on that topic at all. I’d rather not blindly just make that assumption and hear the arguments on both sides. Thank you
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/
Have you watched “Stealing America one Vote at a Time?”
are we taking care of this and counting Senator Sanders delegates and removing the purloined ones to the Biden campaign? People have worked long and hard and we should not be subjected to the theft of our votes and our democracy.
thank you for all the work you are doing Theodore. But how do we get our delegates back? can we do this?
Maria, I believe the best chance is to convince Bernie and his team to speak out and announce there have been anomalies in the vote across many states and his putting together an election integrity team to investigate and take legal action if and where needed. Please contact Bernie directly, all his surrogates, his inner circle, prominent supporters, and as many other people as you can. I believe if Bernie hears from enough of us, he may speak out and take this action. He as a candidate has more legal standing and more rights than we do so it would be best to come from him with us supporting it, but even if he doesn’t, we still need to shout this from the rooftops.
Not sure if you should take Germany as an example. Half of their parliament *and* their entire government including judges is directly or indirectly selected by the majority party coalition. Only thing that makes it better is that they are forced into coalitions.
“In 2000, the percentage of the population considered ‘rural’ ranges from 20.5 percent –
62.9 percent depending on the definition used.”
From: https://www.ncsl.org/documents/agri/Rural_Demographics07-13.pdf
Now the question is: how large was the fraction of the rural electorate in your exit polls? The docs show that 5% were coming from rural areas. Does this match the voter demographics or are your discrepancies simply a result of ignoring voters now even in exit polls?
We are getting some traction on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/patrickcook28/status/1238992586687168518?s=21
Also Free Radicals have a video on YouTube that reads from tdmresearch! It so far has 1.6k views!
https://.youtu.be.A0dg_48tqas
The link supplied is not working.
https://youtu.be/A0dg_48tqas
This should work
Do your numbers actually relate to the CNN polls you are citing? I do not see your math here. Can you clarify your technique because I’m not sure it is valid.
Thank you everyone for all you have done so far. I have also been sharing info in groups and elsewhere. I tried DMing Bernie sanders campaign and also manager, Chuck Rocha no response, Nina Turner- no response, and TYT-They acknowledged my email and said they would pass my email along to the team.
I sent them the below info along with a pic of Michigan votes disappearing for Bernie that someone had posted. It shows one screens nap at10:07 pm with 60.13% reported votes for Bernie at 728,097 votes and 52.86% and then at 10:09 pm, with 60.21% reporting, it drops down to 425,034 votes with 53.28%. The votes then showing reallocated to Biden. I wasn’t able to post the pic here.
Also, Here are some links about voter fraud info I found, which are very enlightening.
Please at least watch the first video of an election integrity advocate from Illinois. Her information is incredible.
1. If you go to you tube and look for a video by Hard Lens Media called “Whistle-blower exposes voting machine fraud” a woman who is an election integrity advocate talks about the fraud they found in 2016 and what they are seeing this year. It is very enlightening and disgusting at the same time. I urge you all to watch it! Here is link.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=pcQ5x_LFkDA
2. Research from TDMS Research took the exit polls before they were adjusted to match the results and found shocking results…
[CLICK] ON BELOW LINK TO WATCH VIDEO…
https://youtu.be/t78Ff26-V8s
3. Article from Gray zone and Code Pink regarding investigating inconsistencies.
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/09/grayzone-codepink-international-election-observers-oas-2020-democratic-primary/?fbclid=IwAR2hbU0Mny7qZLSZMXRTq8kUnvfaQyZDzZf7vqsnqJrU3udYTcsxWu91cFY
I hope the right people will look into this.
Just saw this petition (and signed it) calling for the UN to monitor our elections, giving Ted’s exit poll research as a reason: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/u-n-is-needed-to-oversee-democratic-primaries-due-to-election-fraud
Lee Camp certainly has a way of driving the point home! This one is so well done, maybe we put part of it in a commercial!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk6iTd18lPI
Thank you for this study. Like a dead rat under the floor boards, I knew that Biden’s SUDDEN MIRACULOUS RESURGENCE on Super Tuesday, stunk to high heaven! You’ve provided the hard data to prove my very good instincts.
Remember when a Progressive candidate in the 2018 Primaries recorded Steny Hoyer saying that the results were already decided before the voting even happened? That means they had people in place to make sure the vote went how they wanted no matter who voters actually chose, and that was 2 years ago.
[…] predicted. For Sanders, the discrepancy was a loss of 4.2% and for Biden, it was a gain of 3.5%. According to analyst Theodore de Macedo Soares, the reason for these discrepancies may be because of the sheer volume of mail-in ballots. As the […]
[…] Click here to read the full article published by TDMS|Research on March 9th. […]
[…] According to the exit poll Sanders won by 15%. Computer counts cut his lead by half (once again more… To date, California computers totaled 250,600 fewer votes for Sanders and Warren than projected by the exit polls and 236,700 more votes for Biden and Bloomberg. The current (3/9/2020) apportionment of California delegates stands at 185 for Sanders and 143 for Biden. The estimate derived from the exit polls calculates to 207 delegates for Sanders and 122 for Biden. […]