The NGO Project Part XIII: CTCL in NV
All For Our Country
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: Nevada is a special case that requires a unique analysis that does not fit the model used for other states.
Background
This is Part XIII 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, CT, GA, MI, NH, NM, NY, PA, TX, UT, VA and WI.
This article will solely focus on CTCL in Nevada (NV).
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
Only 2 of the 17 NV counties (12%) received CTCL grants.
Total votes cast in CTCL counties were ~ 1,224,652 (87%) and NonCTCL counties were ~ 180,724 (13%). To state it a different way, on a per county basis, CTCL had the opportunity to influence 87% of NV voters.
The total amount of grants to NV was ~ $2,671,515 and the value of individual grants ranged from ~ $277,470 - $2,394,036. 90% of the grants were in one County….Clark.
The $/vote spent by CTCL in the two counties range from $1.10/vote to $2.46/vote (all parties).
To state that a different way, 100% of the grants were spent on 87% of the total votes cast in NV.
The average 2016 D/R ratio for CTCL Counties was 1.14 (not weighted). The average 2016 D/R ratio for NonCTCL Counties was 0.339 (not weighted). This means that CTCL grants were provided to more D leaning counties by a significant margin. This could indicate some D bias.
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.
But, I had to take a different approach for NV than what is outlined above.
The analysis for NV is simple due to only two counties being impacted. Clark County received 87% of the grant money so the entire state analysis, in this case is all about Clark County.
First, the 2016 D/R of Clark was 1.26. The 2020 D/R for Clark was 1.21 which means the county shifted to a more R heavy ratio even as the overall number of D voters increased by 118,000 D voters. To state it a different way, D voting increased by 30% in 2020. R voting increased by 35%. So the 2020DIFF turns out to be negative therefore a CTCL D harvesting contribution cannot be calculated, using the “conservative” assumptions of this model.
Conclusion
CTCL issued ~$975,000 grants in NV most of it to Clark County. The entire analysis centers around Clark County. Comparing CTCL and NonCTCL counties in this state is not possible.
References
CTCL IRS Form 990 (revised form from Jan 2022 used)
Telegram - https://t.me/electiondataanalyzer
Truth - @ElectionDataAnalyzer
The math here is simple, try this on your own. It is a model to look for trends, not an exact science.