This is it. The citizens of Wisconsin respond to Governor Scott Walker’s anti-union agenda today at the polling place with six Republican state Senators facing unprecedented recall elections all on the same day.
If Democrats succeed in winning three of today’s races they will wrest control of the state Senate from the GOP in what is clearly being regarded by all sides as a referendum on Walker’s radical agenda. (Democrats will also have to defend two seats of their own in two more recall elections next Tuesday.)
Yesterday, Public Policy Polling (PPP) came out with their final round of polls from over the weekend finding, in the four races surveyed, the Democrat with a healthy lead in one district, the Republican with a healthy lead in another, and two races too close to call either way, both statistical dead heats. PPP polled the other two races back in June, finding the D leading in one and the R leading in the other. (Eric Kleefeld at TPM has a few additional numbers from alternate sources.)
According to the pre-election polls then, this thing is believed to be incredible tight all around. Some $40 million is being spent on these races (only $3.75 million was spent on the entire slate of 15 Senate seats and all 99 Assembly seats last November) and dirty tricks are likely to be flying. But the bottom line seems to be that nobody knows what might happen given the unprecedented nature of six recall elections happening at once — in the middle of Summer. There is simply nothing to compare this to.
The one thing about which all pundits and partisans and partisan pundits seem to agree at this hour: It’ll all about turnout.
That’s almost true. In addition to turnout, it’ll also come down to the electronic vote tabulators used across the Badger State. Most municipalities in WI allow voters to vote on hand-marked paper ballots, but most of those ballots will be tallied only by oft-failed, easily-manipulated computer op-scan systems. Additionally, to their shame, the state has absolutely no mechanism for post-election human examination of optically-scanned ballots to ensure the computers have tallied them accurately. Once the computers (made by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia) report the supposed results, there is no double-checking of those computer tallies other than in the event of a recount…and readers of The BRAD BLOG know how well those go in the state of Wisconsin.
So we’ll be watching as close as we can today, and hope that voters in WI will be doing the same, from the moment wards open at 7am CT through close at 8pm CT and then throughout the tallying of ballots after polls close inasmuch as they can. Photographs and video tapes of ballots bags and poll tapes at the wards at the end of the night will be a very good idea tonight at every polling place.
If you spot any problems or concerns you feel we should know about — in the media or at the polls — please feel free let us know. We’ll do our best to keep an eye on comments today. In the meantime, we’ll be praying for six blowouts…one way or another.
I am a bit surprised that a large turnout is expected.
If that expectation is true, then there is no “what’s the use” overpowering sentiment in Wisconsin at this time.
Since there will be more poll watchers for this election, will there be an announcement of tallies at the individual sites?
Probably a dumb question, but I don’t know the answer.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress...n-projections/
Wisconsin Recall Election Projections
Aug. 4, 2011
Richard Charnin
http://richardcharnin.com/Wisco...rojections.htm
The Democrats need to win 3 of 6 GOP seats in the recall elections to gain control of the Wisconsin senate.
Assuming the Wisconsin 2008 presidential election
1) Recorded vote shares and election fraud (expected) in the recall elections, the Democrats will win 1 or 2 GOP seats.
2) Recorded vote shares and zero election fraud in the recalls, the Democrats will likely win 3 GOP seats.
3) True Vote shares and zero fraud in the recalls, the Democrats would likely win 6 GOP seats.
The Wisconsin Recall Projection Model is based on the following assumptions for each of the 6 GOP districts:
1. 2008 Presidential Election recorded vote
2. Estimated 2008 Fraud Factor (i.e. reduction in Obama’s True District vote share)
3. Obama voter turnout rate in recall
4. McCain voter turnout rate in recall
5. Democratic share of returning Obama voters
6. Democratic share of returning McCain voters
For the selected district, two sensitivity analysis tables display nine Democratic vote share scenarios based on
1) Democratic vote shares of returning Obama and McCain voters
2) Obama and McCain turnout rates
Base Case Assumptions
1 Equal 63% Turnout of Obama and McCain voters
2 Democratic 91% share of Obama voters
3 Democratic 5% share of McCain voters
Case 1: Assuming the 2008 Recorded Presidential Vote and Zero fraud in the 6 Recall elections
Projection: Democrats win 3 recall elections
Case 2: Assuming the 2008 True Vote (Obama’s True Vote was 1.5% higher than recorded) and Zero fraud in the Recall elections
Projection: Democrats win 6 recall elections
Assuming the 2008 recorded vote and the recall elections are fraudulent, the Democrats will win 1 or 2 elections.
Recall Election Fraud Scenarios
Assume
1) Obama’s Wisconsin True Vote was 1% higher than recorded
2) Equal Obama/McCain percentage turnout in the recall elections
3) Democrats win 92% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters
then
The GOP needs to switch 2% of Democratic votes to retain senate control
Assuming the Democrats win 94% of returning Obama voters, the GOP would need to switch 3%.
Thanks, Brad! Big day for all of us…
Dredd writes: “If that expectation is true, then there is no “what’s the use” overpowering sentiment in Wisconsin at this time.”
Oh, my dearest Dredd – it’s the OPPOSITE of a “What’s the use” sentiment in WI! You wouldn’t BELIEVE the force of our friends there; they have absorbed all the info here at The Brad Blog, Black Box Voting, Mark Crispin Miller’s site, FREEPRESS, stats of Richard C. and Jonathan Simon in record time, and have ACTED on it in such effective ways I am constantly inspired and healed by them.
(Richard C. has been a guiding light in helping our groups determine what we’re up against statistically; meting out the sacred math. He has been a HUGE asset and a very very good friend to WI.)
…and as far as turnout goes? Here’s a good sign! “Single anecdote from Darling recall Dist has AM turnout near 5 times higher than April Sup. Court election. via @sykescharlie [via Twitter]
…if anyone here would like to follow the threads being circulated from our WI peeps directly, check in with our E.I. Facebook Main page here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/elecinteg/
This is the main page that threads all the WI sister pages together…most of the posts are curated there.(I’ll be there all day, and all night, posting / redirecting and re-tweeting breaking developments.)
Also recommending you check in with EDA WISCONSIN (they are heading up today’s citizen exit polls:
https://www.facebook.com/groups...8;notif_t=like
Breaking news from Butler Co (in Waukesha) Jonathan Simon posts 33 min’s ago:
Btw, you don’t have to “FACEBOOK” to view these threads, nor do you have to be a member to hover and float / see all the info scrolling up directly from the citizen ground efforts there.
I’ll post any freaky WONK from the feeds in this thread at The Brad Blog as I can throughout the day…
Thanks again, Brad, for giving the voters an outlet, a voice, and this incredible archive LOADED with info for folks who are new to the mortifying issue of systematic election fraud.
You have NO idea how many people you have informed, prepared for days like this…
Richard: My concern is that models and statistics are not always reliable indicators, especially when we deal with the question of Election Fraud.
How are you calculating “expected” Election Fraud?
With e-voting, it is possible to alter the vote to any predetermined number or percentage. (e.g., the South Carolina Democratic primary where, in Lancaster County, Judge Rawl won paper-based absentee ballots over the virtually unknown and unemployed Alvin Greene by a staggering 84 percent to 16 percent margin; but Greene easily led among unverifiable Election Day e-votes by 17 percentage points, according to the machines).
Doesn’t your “expected” Election Fraud results depend upon the extent of the fraud?
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “Exit poll workers moved at one site; smooth sailing overall”
http://www.jsonline.com/news/st...127308863.html
Well, this is it.
Democrats can’t run on Social Security or Medicare. We can’t run on a peace dividend. We can’t run on human rights. We can’t run on health care. Obama has poisoned all of these wells.
But maybe we CAN turn the discontent in Wisconsin into a national workers movement. So let’s do that tonight, okay?
HHhhAHAaAA, Billy! Ok! I’m in! (I love your posts.)
Given the stakes, something is bound to happen. When it does, I’m sure I’ll find out about it first from The Brad Blog.
LOVELY video of sing-a-long in Wisconsin’s Capitol Rotunda form this morning! “Roll out the RECALL”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...layer_embedded
…they sing and dance, TOO?
Richard: My concern is that models and statistics are not always reliable indicators, especially when we deal with the question of Election Fraud.
Oh, yes they are. Just compare my pre-Election Model and my post-election True Vote Models to the unadjusted exit polls in 2000, 2004, 2006.
It’s all documented here: http://richardcharnin.com/
How are you calculating “expected” Election Fraud?
Simplke, based on the historical Wisconsin recorded vote disrepancies from the True Vote.
https://spreadsheets0.google.co...tRWdaaFE#gid=0
With e-voting, it is possible to alter the vote to any predetermined number or percentage. (e.g., the South Carolina Democratic primary where, in Lancaster County, Judge Rawl won paper-based absentee ballots over the virtually unknown and unemployed Alvin Greene by a staggering 84 percent to 16 percent margin; but Greene easily led among unverifiable Election Day e-votes by 17 percentage points, according to the machines).
Doesn’t your “expected” Election Fraud results depend upon the extent of the fraud?
That’s why I always do a sensitivity analysis based on a range of assumptions around the BASE CASE:
https://spreadsheets.google.com...l=en_US#gid=11
Check it ALL out. The links are on my website.
2008
Election Model: Monte Carlo Forecast Simulation
2008 Election Fraud Analytics
The Primaries: Footprints of Election Fraud
A Conversation about the 2008 Election
Proof that Obama won by much more than 9.5 million votes
2006
2006 Midterms Overview
Quantifying the Risk
Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model
2004
2004 State Polling Trend
2004 RV and LV National Poll Trend
Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide
Introduction: To Believe Bush Won…
1. When Decided
2. Bush Approval Ratings
3. The Final 5 Million Recorded Votes
4. The Final Exit Poll: Forced to Match the Vote
5. Within Precinct Discrepancy
6. New Voters
7. Party ID
8. Gender
9. Implausible Gore Voter Defection
10. Voter Turnout
11. Urban Legend
12. Location Size
13. Sensitivity Analysis
14. Did Kerry Win 360 EV?
15. Election Simulation Analysis
16. Exit Poll Response Optimization
17. Florida
18. Ohio
19. New York
Appendix
A. Election Model: Nov.1 Projection
B. Interactive Monte Carlo Simulation: Pre-election and Exit Polls
C. 1988-2004 Election Calculator: The True Vote
D. The 2000-2004 County Vote Database
E. Statistics and Probability: Mathematics of Polling
“Voters greeted by long lines…”
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/...-by-long-lines
De Pere lies in Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District. Yuuup! That’s the Darling / Pasch race that covers 2 municipalities in…guess where? Wait for it…WAUKESHA. Guess who’ll be countin’ dem DEM votes? You guessed it…
..and guess where EDA wasn’t allowed to conduct citizen exit polls effectively? YUP! Butler Village is ALSO in District 8.
Okay, Bradpeeps! Head’s up! D8 is probably going to be our “too close to call”, late late late reported results!
Good news is: we’ve got GOOD people on the ground there, watching the vote count at the central location, tonight.
CORRECTION to my above post! De Pere is actually SENATORIAL DISTRICT 2 – Cowles (R) / Nusbaum – NOT DARLING’s district. Apologies, got my Senate and Congressional Districts confused…
Butler Village IS in Waukesha Co, Darling / Pasch – just to be clear.
Oh man, I sure hope they can’t flip the vote on this one!
Sorry, Richard, but I find both your arguments and models, which I linked to, thoroughly unconvincing!
I can understand how prior or current exit polls can be utilized to demonstrate that a given election result is likely the product of election fraud. But there is no possible way that your True Vote Model can predict the extent of election fraud in a future election.
If a malicious hacker has access to an e-voting system and pre-programs a 60-40 result, how people voted in prior elections or in the current election is absolutely meaningless. The results are determined by the hacker and not by your models or by the actual vote. That same hacker may have programed a 55/45 split in a prior election or not hacked the prior election.
Can you point to a prior election in South Carolina that, using your True Vote Model, would have predicted the absurdity of the Alvin Greene landslide “win” — as claimed by the machines?
Opt scan machine “malfunctioned“ in Fond du Lac. Ballots were placed in an auxiliary bin then later fed through another scanner. Fond du Lac city clerk predicts 75% to 80% voter turn out.
AP declares Republican Sen. Sheila Harsdorf winner in 10th District. Two Republican wins so far, four too close to call