11/6/12

probability zero

CODA: Now for the limited hangout..."Number crunchers were right about Obama despite what pundits said," LA Times. 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-election-math-20121108,0,2926239.story

Story mentions Nate Silver for the NYT, Sam Wang, Drew Linzer, Scott Elliott... no mention of Richard Charnin. We wouldn't want to get CARRIED AWAY with the truth or anything about the fraud factor. Yes the math guys nailed it. No we don't want to say what that means about previous elections being rigged.

Money quotes:
"The most sophisticated quantitative work is not happening with people like me, but by those inside the campaigns themselves," Linzer said. He and other election quants said candidates employ high-powered math whizzes of their own to help predict outcomes and have far larger budgets than any college professor.
"Their work doesn't show up in a blog or newspaper, but it's their secret sauce," he said.

So, in other words, the campaigns know exactly what is going on at all times. All those nice donations? Used in part to know the truth about what the public really thinks, to better fine tune the mind-fucking on the campaign trail. Please send more money it's such a close race...

And:

Others decry the injection of mathematics in something as personal and heated as presidential politics. Their fear is that computers, rather than well-spoken pundits, might not only take the fun out of the races, but also change the way they're conducted.
Oh Dear God we couldn't have that. THE OTHERS LIKE TO HAVE FUN WITH YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES. THEY LIKE TO RUN SOCIAL ENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS ON YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES.

Math and facts.... Ruining Everything...

(Hey, Karl Rove gave it the good old college try...911 votes blah blah blah...
http://deadspin.com/5958372/karl-rove-in-denial-melts-down-on-fox-news-attempts-to-get-network-to-rescind-calling-election)

^^^^^^^

UPDATED at the bottom...

Too close to call...? Really...?*

What are the odds that has happened in multiple elections in recent history? How does this country stay so perilously divided, year after year?




http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
The cartogram map (top) scales states in proportion to their population and vote in the 2008 election.

Perhaps in reality, the race is not actually too close to call, but that NARRATIVE needs to be in place for a multitude of reasons. It might be too boring unless the race is kept "too close to call." Also, the challenger needs to have a PLAUSIBLE CHANCE of winning.... somehow... so people need to believe that the race is too close to call. That way, when some plausible things go wrong, the race can be tipped.


precedented

Updated Daily: Presidential True Vote / Election Fraud Forecast Model by Richard Charnin

The Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model is updated on a daily basis. The election is assumed to be held on the latest poll date.
11/06/2012 9am
Obama: 321 expected electoral votes; 99.6% win probability (498 of 500 trials).
He leads the state poll weighted average by 49.3-46.2%.
He leads in 16 of 18 Battleground states by 50.4-47.0% with 184 of 205 EV.

A 99.6% win probability according to this mathematician.

The True Vote Model indicates that Obama would have 55.2% of the two-party vote with 371 expected EV in a fraud-free election. Will he be able to overcome the systemic fraud factor?

Note that in a fraud-free election, the election is not actually too close to call.  Not even before the vote. The models show that Obama should win decisively.

1988-2008: 274 Exit state polls. An 8% Discrepancy
In the six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average recorded vote by 48-46%. But they led both state and national exit polls by 52-42%. There were approximately 375,000 respondents in the 274 state polls and 90,000 respondents in the six national polls. Overall, an extremely low margin of error.
1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database
The Ultimate Smoking Gun that proves Systemic Election Fraud:
1) The Likely Voter Cutoff Model eliminates newly registered Democrats from the LV sub-sample. Kerry had 57-61% of new voters; Obama had 72%.
2) Exit poll precincts are partially selected based on the previous election recorded vote.
3) In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 226 of 274 exit polls red-shifted to the Republicans. Only about 137 would normally be expected to red-shift. The probability is zero.
4) 126 of the 274 exit polls exceeded the margin of error. Only 14 (5%) would normally be expected. The probability is ZERO.
5) 123 of the 126 exit polls that exceeded the margin of error red-shifted to the Republicans. The probability is ZERO.
 
Please click through for the detailed analysis.

^^^^^^^

If the models show that Obama should win, then the narrative about the race being too close to call clearly benefits Romney. Aside from the tight race narrative putting pressure on people to turn out, Obama does not need the narrative to keep a win plausible. The models show with 99% certainty that Obama will win the electoral votes by a wide margin.

The models show that the race IS NOT too close to call.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/9380/the-4-neocon-romney-foreign-policy-advisers-that-would-pull-the-u-s-into-war-with-iran

So cui bono from the too close to call narrative? Romney.

Who is Romney allied to in the deep state apparatus? The neocons.



^^^^^^^

Clearly, for whatever reasons, the MEDIA COOPERATES in this narrative by referencing certain polls.

Registered and Likely Voters
Historically, RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls after undecided voters are allocated and have been confirmed by the True Vote Model.
Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of Registered Voter polls and are excellent predictors of the recorded vote – which always understate the Democratic True Vote. One month prior to the election, the RV polls are replaced by LVs. An artificial “horse race” develops as the polls invariably tighten.
The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) understates the voter turnout of millions of new Democrats, thereby increasing the projected Republican share. Democrats always do better in RV polls than in the LVs. Based on the historical record, the Democratic True Vote share is 4-5% higher than the LV polls indicate. The LVs anticipate the inevitable election fraud reduction in Obama’s estimated 55% True Vote share.
Media pundits and pollsters are paid to project the recorded vote – not the True Vote. The closer they are, the better they look. They never mention the fraud factor which gets them there, but they prepare for it by switching to LV polls.
The disinformation loop is closed when the unadjusted, pristine state and national exit polls are adjusted to match the LV recorded vote prediction.
They have it down to a science, a social engineering science. But the belief that the election is too close to call is not true. For whatever reasons, it looks like more people support Obama than Romney. That's just the way it is, and consequently, we should not be subjected to all sorts of DRAMA about the election being too close to call, when it is not.


~~DRAMA CLUB~~
Team CNN texting their buddies during a break.
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/cnn?before=1352081754

^^^^^^^

What kinds of things would have to happen in order to flip the expected results.

The Boston Herald, a right-leaning paper, lists the things that could happen -- all the "nightmare" election scenarios, which seem to be the "new trend in American politics." http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1061172694&position=2


The razor-thin margin separating President Obama and Mitt Romney has conjured up a slew of nightmare election scenarios, ranging from a weeks-long wait amid calls for recounts and a tangle of legal challenges to a historic Electoral College tie that could give the GOP nominee the win — and Joe Biden, too.
“This could be drawn out and litigated,” said Boston University presidential historian Thomas Whalen, harking back to the 2000 election that needed a Supreme Court decision to put George W. Bush in office. “That seems to be the new trend in American politics.”


Except we see that the premise is faulty. There is not a razor-thin margin separating Obama and Romney. The razor-thin margin has been artificially constructed IN THE MEDIA by selecting Likely Voter polls which underestimate the Democrat turnout. But in order for the "nightmare" scenarios to have any chance of working, people must first believe in the razor-thin margin. It is a prerequisite condition. People on both sides of the political divide have to believe it in order for them to be continually divided.

So the Tavistock cycle of stress and relief and uncertainty can go on and on and on.

The media, the Drama Club, has done their role setting up the prerequisite conditions for people to believe that the election can go either way.

NOW......



Behold the Deep State, in the shadows.
It cannot come into the light directly.
You will see it in what happens,
and in what does not happen.


* We do not vote anymore, since 2008.

^^^^^^^

UPDATE: Edo left this link. Thank you, Edo. Additional curiosity that the video has, supposedly, only 309 views, yet 9395 Likes, 542 Dislikes, and 4879 comments....


My wife and I went to the voting booths this morning before work. There were 4 older ladies running the show and 3 voting booths that are similar to a science fair project in how they fold up. They had an oval VOTE logo on top center and a cartridge slot on the left that the volunteers used to start your ballot.

I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney's name and started tapping very closely together to find the 'active areas'. From the top of Romney's button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama's name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein's button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.

I asked the voters on either side of me if they had any problems and they reported they did not. I then called over a volunteer to have a look at it. She him hawed for a bit then calmly said "It's nothing to worry about, everything will be OK." and went back to what she was doing. I then recorded this video.

There is a lot of speculation that the footage is edited. I'm not a video guy, but if it's possible to prove whether a video has been altered or not, I will GLADLY provide the raw footage to anyone who is willing to do so. The jumping frames are a result of the shitty camera app on my Android phone, nothing more.



17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great analysis. I concur completely. The theft is being set up in real time. Even fat boy Rove is in the media calling Ohio for Romney. And he would know a thing or 2 about stolen elections and is probably still in the loop so to speak.

Edo said...

You can't make this shit up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM

A. Peasant said...

Thanks. I am wondering if they can really pull it off. If not they always have alternate plans, b c d, some of which could involve a false flag. The time between now and january is perfect for chaos events.

A. Peasant said...

Edo, i am going to add this to the post. Wow. BIg brass ones they got...

Anonymous said...

Bush, Clinton, idiot Bush, Obama.
All serve Wall street, all launched bigger and more wars than their predecessors and the beat goes on.
Pelosi Democrats worked hard to protect Bush from impeachment, the same way Republican insiders prevent their wingnuts from going after Obama for his ATF fiasco in Mexico involving drug running, gun running and murder.
Both parties protect each other, both parties vote together on the big issues of war, money and corporate power.


As for the voting machine tempest???
This is THE best way to sell the big lie of a real political race. If one side is cheating, they must not be working together after all!!
Wrong.
This is fixed, with or without machines, pure theater to sell the illusion of democracy or choice. If the real bosses told Obama or Romney to shit their pants on live TV so the other side could win, like good soldiers (who know they would be shot for disobeying) they would follow those orders.
Voting machines and all related shenanigans are theatre.
All that said, the specific glitch in Edo's trip to the booth looks totally legit. Legit enough to piss off the people, but not enough to tip the election in a way it is not meant to go. IMO



Mark Twain

If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it.

james said...

great expose of the mechanics of what is going on, APea.

Many forms of professional racing use handicapping of one sort or another to create close contests. They know this has more punter appeal. The aim is to draw people into supporting the 'sport' through their time and money. And while ever they are doing that, the punters are not looking at alternatives that the promoters do not control.

It is a sport for the promoters and a circus for the rest of us.

A. Peasant said...

agreed that they all serve wall st and work together. but i think there are factions within the elite and they have disagreements on tactics. who is president is a tactical decision.

in addition, they always prefer that people feel they have chosen what the elite want to do anyway. they want soft compliance. so yes it is theater, but they want to also finesse the audience because it makes their jobs easier when they have many people who voluntarily chose the correct solution / candidate / etc. it gives them something to work with, a lever.

i also expect that everything that happens in the real world is fed into their SIMS-type models of the population.

in other words, i think they like to run these elections as a sort of live simulation exercise, just like they do war games and drills. it is all controlled outcomes however, since they control the parameters.

people should not participate. WE ARE NOT SIMS.

A. Peasant said...

hi James,
yes. i think we kind of said the same thing in different ways. ! ta.

Anon said...

Excellent analysis!

- Aangirfan

A. Peasant said...

Thanks, Aan.

Penny said...

Hey AP

To close to call
razor thin margins

Your right about creating the perception of 'excitement'

and keeping the perception of division alive...

You know because American's are divided?

They don't want anything in unison
Like, oh a better lifestyle
A good paying job
Healthcare for their families
better to sow the seeds of dissent

Isn't this the same as agenda as used in the middle east?
without the warfare (so far)

sectarianism

as long as we all believe we are divided
then we are
right AP?
mind control 101

same shit here in Canada, likely everywhere in the freedom loving west

Obama was a given, IMO.
All else was window dressing.
I actually wonder if the Israeli support of Romney was a reverse psychological push for Obama

Israel knows their support is falling, so put a twist on the propaganda, to get their man (Obama)in the oval office

Just a thought?

good post AP :)

oh and if I may, catch that talk I have up
I think you and james might truly enjoy that one
from Lysander Spooner
good stuff

A. Peasant said...

Hi pen,
Yes verypossibe that was a reverse psyop given the speed with which the narrative is correcting.

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000796817

Bring a bucket. The mossad creep m oren speaks. Kiss kiss hug hug with obaba. Problems? No problems.

Alsonote how wall st will make up quickly.

I expect, despite karl rove not getting the memo and making an ass of himself, that they will now proceed with the neocon false flag out of south america.

War is coming next.

I will check out lysander spooner thx.

Anonymous said...

Did we all watch the bright shiny object and forget to look at the only thing that mattered?

The many kerfuffles over voting irregularities ensure that both right and left camps get to whine, complain and show legitimate examples of cheating. Both sides get their two minutes.


Perhaps the only vote that meant anything, the only one that had something at stake was the prop 37 in California on GMO foods.
The points you make here about polling and forecasting can be applied to California. Land of Democrats, Hippies, smart people, healthy people, those with anti corporate views and a same day yes vote on pot legalization.
No way in Hell, no way, no way did Californians vote to be kept in the dark on GMO foods.
That vote mattered, that vote had to be rigged, and "they" want us talking about every vote except for that one.
Not saying this is pure fact, just my opinion. But it sure fits the MO of the usual suspects.
Peace.

A. Peasant said...

I think you should blog about it.

bholanath said...

Check this out on the Prop 37 'loss':
http://conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=97&contentid=10327

questioning said...

hello AP (hat-tip) thousands of executives a-headed to Denver.

http://tickergrail.blogspot.com/2012/11/thousands-of-corp-execs-booked-to-denver.html

A. Peasant said...

That definitely looks bad. However i am not surprised. Whatever they plan to do it has to be coming soon by my whiskers.

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.