The NGO Project Part VIII: FL Strong
FL breaks the pattern of CTCL dominance in D vote harvesting
Introduction
Question: Is CTCL misrepresenting the information on the IRS Form 990 stating that the PURPOSE of the grants were to help support the SAFE administration of public elections during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Answer: It appears so given the results of both aggregate, state and county by county analysis as we will see below. It appears this is a quantifiable democrat ballot harvesting operation.
Background
This is Part VIII in The NGO Project series which examines the role NGOs had in determinative outcomes in the 2020 Presidential Election. In prior articles, I focused on the effect CTCL had on AZ, CO, GA, MA, MI, NM, NY, PA, UT, and WI.
This article will solely focus on CTCL in Florida (FL).
Calculation Basis
The calculation basis was previously explained in detail here. In this article, I do make one adjustment and that is to calculate the 2020DIFF factor by weighted average rather than arithmetic average.
Analysis
Of the 67 FL counties, 11 (17%) are CTCL Counties because grants were made in the county. Total votes cast in CTCL Counties were ~ 4,787,095 (43%) and NonCTCL Counties were ~ 6,304,663 (57%). To state it a different way, on a per County basis, CTCL had the opportunity to influence ~ 43% of FL voters.
Where the other 57% not susceptible to the Plandemic?
The total amount of grants to FL was ~ $16,040,095 and the value of individual grants ranged from ~ $70,000 to $6.2MM.
14MM of the grants (88%) were focused in 5 counties of Broward, Hillsborough, Leon, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. Stated a different way, for CTCL counties, 45% of the counties received 88% of the funding.
The $/vote spent by CTCL in these five counties range from $1.48/vote to $8.79/vote (all parties). These five counties account for 35% of the total vote in FL.
2020DIFF Calculated with Weighted Average
For this analysis, I used a slightly different way to calculate the 2020DIFF using a weighted average based on total votes in a county. This is what it looks like.
w = Total County Vote / Total State Vote
a = D/R2020 - D/R2016 (for CTCL Counties)
a' = a * w (per county)
2020DIFF = sum(a'1:a'n)
This method in theory permits a better correlation for D vote harvesting because it is weighted for counties with higher vote totals.
Here is where FL blows up the model completely
Looking at the BOTH the average and weighted average for 2020DIFF, Floridians seem to have turned out an overcame the intended effect of CTCL. Both values are -.100 or -10%.
This means that R trended higher in CTCL counties on average despite the CTCL spending. This is FL STRONG!
This is the first time in applying this analysis type for 665 counties in 11 states that this has occurred. Am I ready to say that CTCL spending INCREASED R voter turnout? No, not yet.
FL appears to be an aberration based on what I have looked at so far.
But wait, there is more.
50% of FL counties had a county 2020DIFF value that were negative, meaning higher relative R turnout. This included 6 of the 11 CTCL counties….whoops, hate it when that happens.
NonCTCL counties do EXACTLY trend with what I have seen in all the other 665 counties examined to date. The D/R ratio, on average, does not change between 2016 and 2020. In FL it was effectively 0 for both the arithmetic average and weighted average.
To state it a different way, when CTCL is not involved in our elections, voters turnout in ratios exactly the same as 2016.
Conclusion
FL completely shattered the mold CTCL had in mind through strong R turnout. Therefore I cannot calculate a D contribution “harvesting” from CTCL.
That is not to say that CTCL suppressed R gains even more, but that is beyond the scope of this analysis type. Just keeping it real folks……
References
CTCL IRS Form 990 (used revised form from January 2022)