Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » tiptoe Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
tiptoe's Journal
Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Nov 03rd 2010, 09:43 PM


Richard Charnin’s 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraud    bit.ly/9B1nts

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionFore...

Nov 1, 2010

Pollsters and Pundits are Paid to Project the Recorded Vote – Not the True Vote    bit.ly/cBX9eW

Mainstream media pollsters and pundits and liberal websites dare not mention the F-word. But why should they when only a few Democratic politicians will even discuss election fraud and must realize that votes are always miscounted. But very few are aware just how massive the theft was in 2004. They are quick to concede without calling for recounts. Al Franken was an exception in 2008 but in 2004 he was dismissive of analysts who pointed to exit polls as indicators.

Election activists have been trying for ten years to get the mainstream media to talk about the stolen elections. The media would rather focus on bogus GOP claims of non-existent Acorn "voter fraud".

Pollsters and media pundits are paid to project the official recorded vote. By utilizing LV polls, they anticipate the election fraud they know is coming; the LV polls are a proxy for the recorded vote-count. One would expect election forecasters to project both the recorded and True vote — but they dare not mention the fraud factor. They ignore the fact that since the 2000 election, RV projections have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the True Vote). In the 2006 midterms and 2008 presidential elections, RV projections gave the Democrats a 7% higher margin than the corresponding final LVs.

In 2010, it’s still the same old story. We can expect the average LV projection to once again closely match the recorded vote.

In 2006, before the National Exit Poll was adjusted, the Democrats had a 56.4%. two-party share (13,251, Col 24•7470), matching the pre-election RV trend.
But the share was eventually 'forced' to match a 53% recorded vote-count share in the Final NEP (13,251).**

In 2008 final pre-election RV polls indicated that Obama would win by 12%; the LV polls projected a 7% margin. But unadjusted and preliminary exit poll data has not and will not be made available. That would be nice. But thank goodness for the Final NEP. It’s another in a long line of Smoking Guns. When the Final’s impossible number of returning Bush and third-party phantom voters are replaced by a feasible mix (as it was in 2004), the True Vote analysis indicates that Obama had a 57-58% share and won by 22 million votes. The True Vote landslide was based on the same NEP vote shares that were necessary to match the recorded vote count. But who is to say that the NEP vote shares were not adjusted (along with the returning voter mix) as well? After all, that is what happened in 2004.

The key question is: Will Democratic voter turnout overcome the systemic fraud component?

**NOTE: The 2006 unadjusted national exit poll also shows 48.4% of 6113 return-voters indicated "Bush" when polled for their vote in 2004 (Col 55•2,957).
Vote'04
Kerry
Bush
Other
2006 Unadj
47.33%
48.37%
4.30%
2004 Prelim
50.78%
48.22%
1%
2004 Final
48%
51%
1%
 
Matching 2004 near exactly, the 2006 unadjusted exit poll Bush share is yet another independent confirmation of the 2004 Preliminary NEP vote-share and, thereby, further indication the forced-match basis for the '04 Final NEP (51%-Bush) was bogus, i.e., the 2004 recorded vote count was fraudulent. With Bush share unwavering, the impossible 4.3% "Other" implies returning-Kerry voters near-wholly comprise the 3.3% share-difference with 2004, protesting, perhaps, their party's early concession, and with relatively few, if any, identifying with the "winner". Any "GOP" 'bandwagon effect' in 2006 is insignificant, if not entirely absent.
Two years post-election, the unadjusted Preliminary national exit poll shares for 2008 remain suppressed by the consortium of news outlets Fox, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC.


Table 9
Pollster Averages

 
POLL AVERAGE
GOP
 
 PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE      GOP
 
GOP
 
GOP

Polling Firm
Rasmussen Reports (LV)
Gallup
FOX News
CNN/Opinion Research
PPP (D)

Democracy Corps (D)
ABC News/Wash Post
Ipsos/McClatchy
Quinnipiac
Pew Research

USA Today/Gallup
Newsweek
Reuters/Ipsos
GWU/Battleground
Time

McLaughlin & Associates (R)
Associated Press/GfK
POS (R)
Bloomberg
National Journal/FD

Washington Post
Zogby
NPR
McClatchy/Marist
CBS News/NY Times

 Non-Rasmussen 
em;text-align:left">Count
41
41
17
13
8

9
9
4
4
8

3
5
5
4
2

2
4
2
3
1

1
2
1
3
4

156
Sample
3500
1662
915
841
784

861
774
913
1977
na

970
857
865
1000
915

1000
769
850
865
1200

na
2069
800
694
na

1046
em">MoE
1.7%
2.4%
3.2%
3.4%
3.5%

3.3%
3.5%
3.2%
2.2%
3.0%

3.1%
3.3%
3.3%
3.1%
3.2%

3.1%
3.5%
3.4%
3.3%
2.8%

3.0%
2.2%
3.5%
3.7%
3.0%

3.0%
em;color:maroon">GOP
45.4
47.3
43.7
49.2
44.3

46.8
47.0
43.5
41.3
45.3

46.0
43.6
46.2
44.0
42.5

42.0
49.5
43.5
45.0
35.0

44.0
47.5
44.0
44.7
44.8

45.8
em;color:blue">Dem
37.2
44.5
38.5
45.0
42.5

44.1
45.3
44.8
39.0
43.6

45.3
46.8
44.6
41.3
40.0

36.0
44.5
40.5
41.3
39.0

48.0
43.5
39.0
46.0
41.0

43.2
em">Spread
  8.1  
  2.8  
5.2
4.2
1.8

2.7
1.7
(1.3)
2.3
1.6

0.7
(3.2)
1.6
2.8
2.5

6.0
5.0
3.0
3.7
(4.0)

(4.0)
4.0
5.0
(1.3)
3.8

  2.6  
em;color:maroon">GOP
54.1
51.4
52.6
52.1
50.9

51.3
50.8
49.4
51.1
50.8

50.3
48.4
50.8
51.4
51.3

53.0
52.5
51.5
51.8
48.0

48.0
52.0
52.5
49.3
51.9

51.3
em;color:blue">Dem
45.9
48.6
47.4
47.9
49.1

48.7
49.2
50.6
48.9
49.2

49.7
51.6
49.2
48.6
48.8

47.0
47.5
48.5
48.2
52.0

52.0
48.0
47.5
50.7
48.1

48.7
em;border:1px solid white">Margin
8.1
2.8
5.2
4.2
1.8

2.7
1.7
(1.3)
2.3
1.6

0.7
(3.2)
1.6
2.8
2.5

6.0
5.0
3.0
3.7
(4.0)

(4.0)
4.0
5.0
(1.3)
3.8

2.6
em;color:maroon">Seats
237
225
231
229
223

225
223
217
224
223

221
212
223
225
225

232
230
226
227
211

211
228
230
216
228

225
em">WinProb
100%
87%
94%
89%
69%

78%
68%
35%
84%
70%

58%
17%
68%
81%
78%

97%
92%
81%
86%
8%

10%
97%
92%
36%
89%

78%

 

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Undecided Voters, Turnout and Final Exit Polls

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM)

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems lead Generic RV polls (Pew, ABC, CBS, McClatchy, Newsweek, NBC)

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems keep Senate 50-48 (53-45 before vote miscounts)

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: The Fraud Component

Another Independent Confirmation of a Fraudulent 2004 recorded vote count

10/31 Charnin Midterms Forecast: LV poll model matches Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, but...

 

Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Nov 03rd 2010, 11:27 AM


Richard Charnin’s 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraud    bit.ly/adCbdW

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM)


Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionFore...

Nov 1, 2010

The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM)

Generic polling data shows that Democrats comprise 58% of registered 2-party voters who do not pass the LVCM screen.

In 2004, there were 22 million voters who did not vote in 2000. Nearly 60% of newly registered voters were Democrats for Kerry. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic tsunami gave them control of both houses. In 2008, there were approximately 15 million new voters, of whom 70% voted for Obama. All pre-election polls interview registered voters. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the full Registered Voter (RV) sample. LV polls exclude most "new" registered voters–first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election.

Most pollsters use the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM), a series of questions regarding past voting history, residential transience, intent to vote, etc. Since students, transients, low-income voters, immigrant new voters, etc. are much more likely to give "No" answers than established, wealthier, non-transient voters, Republicans are more likely to exceed the cutoff than Democrats. A respondent who indicates “yes” to four out of seven questions might be down-weighted to 50% compared to one who answers “yes” to all seven.       bit.ly/a8UYRb

The LVCM assigns a weight of zero to all respondents falling below the cutoff, eliminating them from the sample. But these potential voters have more than a zero probability of voting. The number of "Yes" answers required to qualify as a likely voter is set based on how the pollster wants the sample to turn out. The more Republicans the pollster wants in the sample, the more "Yes" answers are required. This serves to eliminate many Democrats and skews the sample to the GOP.

In 2010, Generic RV and LV polls project that approximately 70% of registered voters will vote.
Democrats comprise 58% of registered 2-party voters who do not pass the LVCM screen.


Table 1a
Registered vs Likely Voters

CNN/TIME
.96 correlation ratio between RV and LV margins
























18
Polls
Average
Wtd Avg
Win

AK
AR
CA
CO
CT

DE
FL
IL
KY
MO

NV
NY1
NY2
OH
PA

WA
WI
WV
RV Full Sample
Dem
46.5
49.4
10

41
22
56
47
56

61
31
42
46
39

43
60
67
43
45

48
45
45
Rep
41.3
40.4
6

53
36
37
44
37

32
42
38
46
50

32
33
39
49
45

44
48
38
Margin
5.2
8.9
4

(12)
(14)
19
3
19

29
(11)
4
0
(11)

11
27
28
(6)
0

4
(3)
7
 
LV subsample
Dem
44.6
46.8
7

23
41
52
44
54

57
32
43
42
40

40
55
57
40
44

51
44
44
Rep
45.7
45.3
10

37
55
43
49
44

38
46
42
49
53

42
41
41
55
49

43
52
44
Margin
(1.1)
1.5
(3)

(14)
(14)
9
(5)
10

19
(14)
1
(7)
(13)

(2)
14
16
(15)
(5)

8
(8)
0
 
50% of RV-LV
Dem
45.6
48.1
9

32.0
31.5
54.0
45.5
55.0

59.0
31.5
42.5
44.0
39.5

41.5
57.5
62.0
41.5
44.5

49.5
44.5
44.5
Rep
43.5
42.9
9

45.0
45.5
40.0
46.5
40.5

35.0
44.0
40.0
47.5
51.5

37.0
37.0
40.0
52.0
47.0

43.5
50.0
41.0
Margin
2.1
5.2
0

(13.0)
(14.0)
14.0
(1.0)
14.5

24.0
(12.5)
2.5
(3.5)
(12.0)

4.5
20.5
22.0
(10.5)
(2.5)

6.0
(5.5)
3.5
Prob
77%
97%


0%
0%
100%
36%
100%

100%
0%
84%
11%
0%

97%
100%
100%
0%
19%

98%
3%
91%

Table 7a
Likely Voter Cutoff Model

 
Registered Voters
 
"Likely Voters"
 

Pollster
Gallup
Pew Research
CNN/Opinion Research
ABC News/Wash Post
McClatchy/Marist
Newsweek
Associated Press/GfK
FOX News
Reuters/Ipsos

Total
Date
31-Oct
30-Oct
30-Oct
28-Oct
25-Oct
20-Oct
18-Oct
13-Oct
11-Oct


Sample
2027
2373
921
1015
807
848
1338
1200
854

11383
GOP %
48
43
49
45
41
42
46
41
46

44.7%
Dem %
44
44
43
49
47
48
47
39
44

44.7%
 
Sample
1539
1809
542
786
461
773
846
687
720

8163
GOP %
55
48
52
49
46
45
50
48
48

49.5%
Dem %
40
42
42
44
46
48
43
39
44

42.6%
 
Turnout
76%
76%
59%
77%
57%
91%
63%
57%
84%

71.7%
GOP %
31%
35%
50%
32%
42%
19%
42%
45%
44%

39.5%
Dem %
69%
65%
50%
68%
58%
81%
58%
55%
56%

60.5%


Table 7b
Democratic Projection Sensitivity
50% Dem UVA -- Voter Turnout and Share of RV Cutoff

RV&LV
 
Voter Turnout

 
 
Mix
85%
 
RV
100%
true

 
 
Democratic Share


Dem Share
of RV Cutoff
70%
60%
50%
46.60%
46.60%
46.60%
47.80%
47.60%
47.40%
49.00%
48.60%
48.30%

 
 
Democratic Seats




70%
60%
50%

204.3
204.3
204.3
209.5
208.8
208.0
214.8
213.3
211.8
 
Democratic Projection Sensitivity
60% Dem Shr RV Cutoff -- Voter Turnout & Dem Share of UVA

RV&LV
 
Voter Turnout

 
 
Mix
85%
 
RV
100%
true

 
 
Democratic Share


Dem Share
of UVA
75%
60%
50%
48.50%
47.40%
46.60%
49.80%
48.50%
47.60%
51.00%
49.60%
48.60%

 
 
Democratic Seats




75%
60%
50%

212.9
207.7
204.3
218.3
212.6
208.8
223.7
217.4
213.3

 

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems lead Generic RV polls (Pew, ABC, CBS, McClatchy, Newsweek, NBC)

A second Independent Confirmation of a Fraudulent 2004 recorded vote count

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems keep Senate 50-48 (53-45 before vote miscounts)

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: The Fraud Component

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Undecided Voters, Turnout and Final Exit Polls
 

Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (<0 votes)
Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Nov 02nd 2010, 07:13 PM


Richard Charnin’s 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraud    bit.ly/cbsrMx

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model:  The Fraud Component


Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionFore...

Nov 1, 2010


The Fraud Component

Since 2000, LV poll projections have closely matched recorded vote-count shares, while RV poll projections closely matched unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls. In each election, the final exit polls were "forced" to match the recorded vote-count. . In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Poll required impossible returning-Bush-voter turnout in order to match the recorded vote. Since pre-election LV poll predictions also matched the recorded vote, what can we conclude?

Pre-election:
Fraud factor = Registered voter (RV) projection – Likely voter (LV) projection (i.e. recorded vote)


Senate
Fraud factor = 3.9% = 54.3 – 50.4
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a 1-seat gain for the GOP (Table 5)
.

House
Fraud factor = 3.0% = 53.3 - 50.3
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a 4-seat gain for the GOP (Table 7)
.

Post-election:
Fraud factor = Unadjusted exit poll – Final exit poll (forced to matched the recorded vote)

(Note: The mainstream media (National Election Pool)  did not release  unadjusted-state or un-forced preliminary-national exit polls in 2008, and they won’t in 2010, either.


Table 5
GOP Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection (zero fraud)

RV&LV
 
RV/LV – Undecided Vote Allocation to GOP

 
 
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%

 
VoteSwitch GOP
 
Net Senate Seat Gain

0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
3.0
3.9
5.0
6.2
7.3
3.6
4.7
5.8
7.0
8.1
4.3
5.2
6.5
7.7
8.7
4.9
6.1
7.3
8.5
9.4
5.6
6.7
8.0
8.9
9.8

 
 
 
GOP Total Senate Seats

0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
44.0
44.9
46.0
47.2
48.3
44.6
45.7
46.8
48.0
49.1
45.3
46.2
47.5
48.7
49.7
45.9
47.1
48.3
49.5
50.4
46.6
47.7
49.0
49.9
50.8


Table 7
Sensitivity Analysis, GOP House Forecast:  
# of GOP House Seats

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection

Base case assumptions:    50% UVA to GOP    Zero Vote-switch % to GOP
 

RV Projections
 
Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP

 
 
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%

 
 
 
GOP House Seats


Vote Switch
% to GOP
 
No Fraud
1%
2%
3%
216
221
225
229
219
223
227
232
221
225
230
234
223
228
232
236
226
230
234
239
 

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems keep Senate 50-48 (53-45 before vote miscounts)

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems lead Generic RV polls (Pew, ABC, CBS, McClatchy, Newsweek, NBC)

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Undecided Voters, Turnout and Final Exit Polls
 
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Nov 02nd 2010, 05:50 PM


Richard Charnin’s 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraud    bit.ly/chL3qT

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Undecided Voters, Turnout and Final Exit Polls


Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionFore...

Nov 1, 2010


Pre-election Kerry and Obama poll shares of "unlikely voters" ('RV minus LV') closely matched their National Exit Poll share of "new" voters ('DNV').

In 2004, final pre-election polls** indicated that Kerry had a 57.7% share of RV deemed by the LVCM "unlikely to vote" ('RV minus LV').
The '04 12:22am Prelim Nat'l Exit Poll showed Kerry had a  57%  share of first-time voters and other RV who did not vote in 2000 ('DNV').

In 2008, the final pre-election polls indicated that Obama had a 73.3% share of the "unlikely to vote" ('RV minus LV').
The vote-count-matched Final Nat'l Exit Poll showed him with a 71% share of the first-time and other voters who did not vote in 2004 ('DNV').


**NOTE:

1) The 2004 respectively-aggregated RV & LV-subsample final polls of CBS+Gallup+ABC+FOX+Pew give independent confirmation to the Preliminary exit poll of 2004 (Kerry, 51-48%, 1% MoE), not to the Final that was "forced" to match the recorded vote-count (Bush 51-48% and secret).


2) The 2006 unadjusted national exit poll additionally shows 48% of 6113 return-voters indicated "Bush" when polled for their vote in 2004 (Col 55•2,957).
Vote'04
Kerry
Bush
Other
2006 Unadj
47.33%
48.37%
4.30%
2004 Prelim
50.78%
48.22%
1%
2004 Final
48%
51%
1%
 
Matching near exactly, the 2006 unadjusted exit poll Bush share is yet another independent confirmation of the 2004 Preliminary NEP vote-share and, thereby, further indication the forced-match basis for the '04 Final NEP (51%-Bush) was bogus, i.e., the 2004 recorded vote count was fraudulent. With Bush share unwavering, the impossible 4.3% "Other" implies returning-Kerry voters near-wholly comprise the 3.3% share-difference with 2004, with relatively few, if any, identifying with the "winner". Any "GOP" 'bandwagon effect' in 2006 is insignificant, if not entirely absent.

3) For 2008, the equivalent unadjusted Preliminary national exit poll shares were unreleased by the consortium of news outlets Fox, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC. Two years post-election, the 51 unadjusted state and 3 un-forced preliminary-national exit polls remain suppressed. Could it have something to do with cover-up of Obama's TRUE margin of victory, since the 2004 and 2006 un-forced exit polls expose Bush's fraudulent victory?


The projected turnout of registered voters is the ratio:
Turnout = LV poll sub-sample / RV poll full-sample

The Democratic two-party share of unlikely voters is the ratio of unlikely Dem RVs to unlikely Dem and GOP RVs.
Dem share = Dem / (Dem + GOP )


In 1988, 11 million votes were uncounted; in 2000, 6 million; in 2004, 4 million; in 2006, 3 million.

In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote count shares. Projections based on the final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. Undecided voters typically break heavily for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challengers, but many pollsters did not allocate accordingly. Democratic voter turnout was underestimated by the pre-election LV polls (see 2004 Final Pre-election Polls).                   bit.ly/d2yEQh                  bit.ly/claROe               bit.ly/aW4gYX



GOP Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Poll Type

GOP
Vote Share %
 
Seats (latest polls)
 
Seats (simulation)
 
Net Gain

UVA
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
LV
51.4
51.9
52.3
52.7
53.1
RV&LV
48.7
49.2
49.7
50.2
50.7
 
LV
47
49
49
49
49
RV&LV
44
45
45
45
45
 
LV
47.1
47.6
48.3
48.5
49.1
RV&LV
43.9
44.5
45.1
45.7
46.7
 
LV
6.1
6.6
7.3
7.5
8.1
RV&LV
2.9
3.5
4.1
4.7
5.7

 

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems keep Senate 50-48 (53-45 before vote miscounts)

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems lead Generic RV polls (Pew, ABC, CBS, McClatchy, Newsweek, NBC)
 

Read entry | Discuss (4 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Nov 02nd 2010, 04:59 PM


Richard Charnin’s 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraud    bit.ly/cJFMcx

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems keep Senate 50-48  (53-45 before vote miscounts)


Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionFore...

Nov 1, 2010

The LV Model predicts a 234-201 GOP House and a 50-48 Democratic Senate. Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball predicts a 233-202 GOP House and a 49-49 Senate. Electoral-vote.com has a 51-48 Democratic Senate and a 217-201 GOP House with 17 ties. But the registered voter (RV) projections tell a different story.

The Democrats lead the weighted average of 18 Senate RV polls by 8.5%. They lead the corresponding LV sub-samples by 0.9%.
The RV projections indicate a 53-45 Democratic Senate.


Senate Forecast
(UVA – undecided voter allocation)


Charnin Model
Table 1 – Simulation
18 RV + 19 LV
18 LV + 19 LV



Table 5 – Projection
I. UVA: 50% Dem / 50% GOP



II. UVA: 60% Dem / 40% GOP
No fraud
3% Vote switch



Larry Sabato: Crystal Ball
Electoral-vote.com

 
Forecast Seats
 
Dem Seat
DEM
52.9
49.7



52.7
49.3


54.0
50.8

49
51
GOP
45.1
48.3



45.3
48.7


44.0
47.2

49
48
Margin
+ 7.8
+ 1.4



+ 7.4
+ 0.6


+ 10.0
+  3.6

  0
+ 3



Table 1
2010 Midterms:Senate and House Forecast Model
Senate Forecast Simulation Summary


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/la...     bit.ly/azDXlw 

1-Nov

Senate

Current
100
Dem
57
GOP
41
Ind
2
Simulation¹
Forecast Seats

Poll Type
RV(18) & LV(19)
LV(18) & LV(19)

Count
37
37
Dem
52.9
49.7
GOP
45.1
48.3
.2em;color:black">GOP Win Prob²
0.0%
12.5%



CNN/Time
Type
RV
LV sub-sample

Latest Polls
Type
RV&LV
LV




18
18


Polls
37
37


Poll Share
Dem
Projection
Dem
49.2%
46.6%


Dem
45.2%
43.5%
GOP
40.6%
45.8%


GOP
44.6%
48.1%
Margin
8.5%
0.9%


Margin
0.6%
(4.6%)
Dem
54.3%
50.4%


Dem
50.3%
47.7%
GOP
45.7%
49.6%


GOP
49.7%
52.3%



.2em;font-weight:bold">ASSUMPTIONS
Fraud
MoE
UVA
Base Case
0.0%
4.0%
50.0%
 
Vote-share deviation to GOP, 1988-2004
Poll margin of error
Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP





.2em">
Seats
Current

Dem
57

GOP
41
 

Ind
2
 
 

.2em">Projection (table)
Seats
RV&LV
LV

RV&LV
Flip to
Lean
Safe
Tossup

Dem
53
49


0
2
9
6

GOP
45
49


4
3
17
0





NOTES:
¹ Average of a 200 election trial simulation
² Probability of winning a 50 senate seat majority
 

 
1-Nov
*tossup
Poll Type
Poll Share %
Dem %
 
Projection Share (%)
 
em;text-align:left;color:black">GOP
em;text-align:left"> 
em;text-align:left">Within

5em;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;line-height:1.3">

Weighted Avg
Weighted Avg


AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA

CO
CT
DE
FL
GA

HI
IA
ID
IL
IN

KS
KY
LA
MD
MO

NC
ND
NH
NV
NY1

NY2
OH
OK
OR
PA

SC
SD
UT
WA
VT

WI
WV
 
37
37


Held By
R
R
D
R
D

D
D
D
R
R

D
R
R
D*
D

R
R*
R
D
R

R
D
R
D*
D

D
R
R
D
D*

R
R
R
D*
D

D*
D

RV&LV

OnlyLV


RV

RV

RV

RV
RV
RV
RV





RV



RV


RV




RV
RV

RV
RV


RV




RV


RV
RV
Dem
45.2
43.4



22
30
42
37
53

49
56
61
31
34

68
37
27
42
35

27
44
33
54
39

40
25
44
43
60

67
43
24
54
47

30
30
25
48
64

45
45
GOP
44.6
48.1



36
59
53
51
37

44
37
32
42
52

20
55
64
38
53

67
46
54
38
50

48
69
51
39
33

39
49
67
37
43

70
70
52
44
29

48
38
em;color:blue">Dem
50.3
47.7



43.0
35.5
44.5
43.0
58.0

52.5
59.5
64.5
44.5
41.0

74.0
41.0
31.5
52.0
41.0

30.0
49.0
39.5
58.0
44.5

46.0
28.0
46.5
52.0
63.5

64.0
47.0
28.5
58.5
52.0

30.0
30.0
36.5
52.0
67.5

48.5
53.5
em;color:maroon">GOP
49.7
52.3



57.0
64.5
55.5
57.0
42.0

47.5
40.5
35.5
55.5
59.0

26.0
59.0
68.5
48.0
59.0

70.0
51.0
60.5
42.0
55.5

54.0
72.0
53.5
48.0
36.5

36.0
53.0
71.5
41.5
48.0

70.0
70.0
63.5
48.0
32.5

51.5
46.5
em">Win Prob²




100%
100%
100%
100%
0%

11%
0%
0%
100%
100%

0%
100%
100%
16%
100%

100%
69%
100%
0%
100%

98%
100%
96%
16%
0%

0%
93%
100%
0%
16%

100%
100%
100%
16%
0%

77%
4%
em;font-weight:bold">Flip
4





GOP













GOP








GOP
















GOP

em;font-weight:bold">MoE
11









CO








IL



KY




NC

NH
NV



OH


PA




WA


WI
WV

 

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Dems lead Generic RV polls (Pew, ABC, CBS, McClatchy, Newsweek, NBC)

11/01 Charnin Midterms Model: Undecided Voters, Turnout and Final Exit Polls
 
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Recommend (+2 votes)
Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Oct 18th 2010, 01:24 AM
Richard Charnin’s 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraud    bit.ly/dakW23
bottom )

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionFore...      

October 15, 2010

As we get closer to Election Day, we see a familiar pattern developing. The incessant media mantra is that the GOP is headed for a blowout win in the House with an outside chance of winning the Senate.

Pre-election polls all interview registered (RV) voters; likely voter (LV) polls are a sub-sample based on a likely voter cutoff model (LVCM). But the widely-followed realclearpolitics.com and other election sites show only the LV samples. The RV listings are being phased out. It happens in every election cycle.

CNN/Time provides 16 Senate RV polls (Democrats lead by 7.7%) with the corresponding LV subsets (Democratic 1.1% margin). But RCP only shows the LVs.

The latest 10 Generic polls listed at RCP are LVs. The GOP has a 1.9% lead in the latest 15 Generic RV polls and a 6.6% margin in 22 LV polls.
In 2010, 39 of the 163 polls listed are Rasmussen LVs in which the GOP leads by 8.1%. The GOP leads by just 2.3% in the other 124 polls.
Apparently RCP believes that Rasmussen is a non-partisan pollster, since he is included in the RCP average of “non-partisan affiliated polls”.

RCP displays two 1883-sample Gallup LV Generic polls. The GOP leads by 53-41 in the high turnout model and by 56-39 in the low turnout model.
The full 3000-sample RV is not shown (GOP by 47-44). The Democrats have a 48-35% margin among the 1118 RV respondents who did not pass the Gallup LVCM.

Not a single Zogby Generic 2010 poll has been listed by RCP. The latest Zogby LV shows a 45-45 tie.

The House and Senate forecast models (below) provide a comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls. The assumption is that the election is held today.


9em;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold">
October 8     House and Senate Forecast Summary

 
 
Average Poll Share
Dem
 
Projected Share (%)
 
Simulated Seat Proj
WinProb

 
Senate
Weighted Average
   RV (14) & LV (23)
   LV only
   Diff
Unweighted Average
   RV sample
   LV sub-sample
   Diff

House
Latest Generic Polls
   RV
   LV
   Diff
   Total

2010 Generic Polls
   Non-Rasmussen
   Rasmussen (LV)
   Diff
   Total
Polls


37
37
-

16
16
-



15
22
-
37


124
39
-
163
Dem
%

45.3
43.5
1.8

48.3
46.3
2.1



44.0
40.9
3.1
42.2


43.2
37.1
6.1
41.7
GOP
%

44.3
47.2
(2.9)

40.6
45.2
(4.6)



45.9
47.5
(1.6)
46.8


45.5
45.2
(0.2)
45.4
Spread
%

1.0
(3.7)
4.7

7.7
1.1
6.6



(1.9)
(6.6)
4.7
(4.6)


(2.3)
(8.1)
5.8
(3.7)
 
Dem
%

50.5
48.1
2.3

53.8
50.5
3.3



49.1
46.7
2.3
47.7


48.9
45.9
2.9
48.2
GOP
%

49.5
51.9
(2.3)

46.2
49.5
(3.3)



50.9
53.3
-2.3
52.3


51.1
54.1
(2.9)
51.8
 
Dem


52.9
49.8
3.1

10
7
3



212
201
10
206


211
198
13
208
GOP


45.1
48.2
(3.1)

4
8
(4)



223
234
(10)
229


224
237
(13)
227
GOP


0%
10%
-

2 tie
2 tie
-



73%
98%
-
94%


74%
99.6%
-
88%
 

Registered and Likely Voter Polls

The Senate model employs simulation analysis of the latest RV and LV polls to forecast average GOP net gains, associated win probabilities and trends. The built-in sensitivity analysis displays the effects of various undecided voter allocation and vote-switching scenarios.

The House model provides a summary comparison of the latest RV and LV Generic polls, win probabilities and a moving average projection. As in the Senate model, the sensitivity analyses display the effect of various undecided voter and vote-switching assumptions on forecast vote shares, House seats and win probabilities. The 2010 summary table illustrates the wide difference between Rasmussen and other pollsters. The 2006-2010 Generic Poll table provides a historical context.

Democrats always do better in the full RV sample than in the LV sub-sample (see the LVCM model below). LV polls exclude millions of registered voters who actually vote — and most of them are Democrats. In addition, millions of votes are cast but never counted in every election — and most of them are Democratic as well. The good news is that proliferation of electronic voting has reduced the uncounted vote rate. The bad news is that votes can be switched, stuffed or dropped at the voting machine and/or the central tabulator where they are counted.

Polling websites generally display only Senate LV polls. CNN/Time has provided both RV and LV samples, but only the LVs are listed at realclearpolitics.com. The Senate RV model forecast is therefore a mix of RV and LV polls. Without a full corresponding RV poll for every LV sample, a comparable analysis is difficult.

Unlike the Senate, House Generic polls have been primarily RV samples (except for Rasmussen, which only provides LV sub-samples). But the ratio will shift to virtually all LVs as Election Day approaches.

The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM)

In 2004, there were 22 million voters who did not vote in 2000. Nearly 60% of newly registered voters were Democrats for Kerry. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic tsunami gave them control of both houses. In 2008, there were approximately 15 million new voters, of whom 70% voted for Obama. All pre-election polls interview registered voters. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the full Registered Voter (RV) sample. LV polls exclude most "new" registered voters–first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election.

Most pollsters use the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM), a series of questions regarding past voting history, residential transience, intent to vote, etc. Since students, transients, low-income voters, immigrant new voters, etc. are much more likely to give "No" answers than established, wealthier, non-transient voters, Republicans are more likely to exceed the cutoff than Democrats. A respondent who indicates “yes” to four out of seven questions might be down-weighted to 50% compared to one who answers “yes” to all seven.       bit.ly/a8UYRb

The LVCM assigns a weight of zero to all respondents falling below the cutoff, eliminating them from the sample. But these potential voters have more than a zero probability of voting. The number of "Yes" answers required to qualify as a likely voter is set based on how the pollster wants the sample to turn out. The more Republicans the pollster wants in the sample, the more "Yes" answers are required. This serves to eliminate many Democrats and skews the sample to the GOP.

Pollsters Are Paid To Predict the Recorded Vote - Not the True Vote

The media/pollster drumbeat of a “horse race” is largely based on the LV polls. The focus on LV polls conditions the public to expect a recorded vote which in fact will surely understate the True Democratic share. The pollsters discount the RV sample, fully expecting that their LV projections will be a close match to a fraudulent recorded vote — but they never mention the F-word. They know that votes are miscounted in every election. And so their final LV-based poll predictions are usually quite accurate. Pollsters are paid to predict the recorded vote—not the True Vote.

As Election Day approaches, the MSM gradually phases out RV polls for LV polls which lowball the projected Democratic vote share. And so the general public is prepared for the fraudulent recorded vote-counts that the MSM knows are coming.

Since 2000, LV poll projections have closely matched recorded vote-count shares, while RV poll projections closely matched unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls. In each election, the final exit polls were "forced" to match the recorded vote-count. . In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Poll required impossible returning Bush voter turnout in order to match the recorded vote. Since pre-election LV poll predictions also matched the recorded vote, what can we conclude?

The media cites low Democratic enthusiasm in the 2010 midterms, but turnout will exceed the LV sub-sample. Unfortunately, most pollsters won’t provide RV samples in the two weeks prior to the election. The media will gush on how close the final LV predictions came to the vote but ignore the real reason: systemic election fraud.

The Fraud Component

Historically, projections based on final pre-election LV polls underestimated voter turnout and yet closely matched impossible final exit polls and fraudulent recorded vote counts. Projections based on final pre-election RV polls (adjusted for undecided voters) were a close match to the unadjusted preliminary exit polls and the True Vote.

Pre-election Model:
  Recorded vote share = LV poll projection = RV poll projection + Fraud component

Post-election Model:
  Recorded vote share = Final Exit Poll = Unadjusted Preliminary Exit Poll + Fraud component


Senate:

Projected GOP LV (Recorded) Share (CNN/Time RV & LV):
LV Poll Projection = 49.5 = 46.2 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 3.3%.

Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud):
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 2 seats (Table 5).

Projected GOP House Vote Share:
Share = 53.3 = 50.9 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 2.4%

Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud):
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 4 seats (Table 7).

Undecided Voters, Turnout and Election Fraud

In 1988, 11 million votes were uncounted; in 2000, 6 million; in 2004, 4 million; in 2006, 3 million.

In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote count shares. Projections based on the final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. Undecided voters typically break heavily for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challengers, but many pollsters did not allocate accordingly. Democratic voter turnout was underestimated by the pre-election LV polls (see 2004 Final Pre-election Polls).                   bit.ly/d2yEQh                  bit.ly/claROe               bit.ly/aW4gYX

Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote count, (i.e. the final pre-election LV polls). The underlying assumption is that the recorded vote count is correct (i.e. zero fraud). In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Polls required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (110% and 103%, respectively). In the 2004 Final NEP (13660 respondents), the Bush vote shares were increased dramatically over the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (1% MoE, 13047 respondents). For 2008, the NEP media consortium of news outlets FOX, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC has suppressed results of fifty-one unadjusted-state and three un-forced preliminary-national exit polls.        bit.ly/bAc6OK   bit.ly/amsJiB   bit.ly/bRhlz4   bit.ly/diYEJ5   bit.ly/a2j7xl  bit.ly/bsL7lk  bit.ly/dfIPTI

Once again, as in every election cycle, the media avoids the real issues. Martha Coakley won the hand-counts in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s seat but lost to Scott Brown; Vic Rawl won the absentee vote but lost to unknown Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary; Mike Castle won the absentee ballots but lost to Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware GOP Senate primary. But there has not been a peep about any of this in the mainstream media. Apparently, we must just accept the conventional wisdom that even though the votes have vanished in cyberspace and can never be verified, they were not tampered with. The media lockdown is not limited to past stolen elections. The MSM prepares us for election fraud by listing final pre-election LV polls and ignoring RV polls.



Table 1
2010 Midterms: Senate and House Forecast Model
Senate Forecast Simulation Summary


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/la...     bit.ly/azDXlw 

08-Oct
Simulation Forecast¹
Expected Seats
Poll Type
RV&LV
Net Gain
Win Prob²

OnlyLV
Net Gain
Win Prob²
Count
37



37
Dem
52.9
-
100.0%

49.8
-
90.5%
GOP
45.3
4.3
0.0%

48.4
7.4
12.0%
Ind
2



2


Weighted Avg

RV&LV
OnlyLV
Unwtd Avg
RV
LV



37
37

16
16
Poll Share
 
Projection
Dem
45.3%
43.5%

48.3%
46.3%
GOP
44.3%
47.2%

40.6%
45.2%
Dem
50.5%
48.1%

53.8%
50.5%
GOP
49.5%
51.9%

46.2%
49.5%



.2em;font-weight:bold">ASSUMPTIONS
Fraud
MoE
UVA
Base Case
0.0%
4.0%
50.0%
 
Vote-share deviation to GOP, 1988-2004
Poll margin of error
Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP





.2em;font-weight: bold">
Seats
Current

Dem
57

GOP
41
 

Ind
2
 

 
.2em;font-weight: bold">Projection (table)
Seats
RV&LV
LV

RV&LV
Flip to
Lean
Safe
Tossup

Dem
54
50


1
1
10
6

GOP
44
48


4
4
16
0





NOTES:
¹ Average of a 200 election trial simulation
² Probability of winning a 50 senate seat majority
 

 
08-Oct
*tossup
Poll Type
Poll Share %
Dem %
 
Projection Share (%)
 
em;text-align:left;color:black">GOP
em;text-align:left"> 
em;text-align:left">Within

2em;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;line-height:1.3">





AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA

CO
CT
DE
FL
GA

HI
IA
ID
IL
IN

KS
KY
LA
MD
MO

NC
ND
NH
NV
NY1

NY2
OH
OK
OR
PA

SC
SD
UT
WA
VT

WI
WV
 
37
37


Held By
R
R
D
R
D

D*
D
D
R
R

D
R
R
D*
D

R
R*
R
D
R

R
D
R
D
D

D
R
R
D
D*

R
R
R
D*
D

D*
D

RV&LV

OnlyLV






RV

RV
RV
RV
RV





RV



RV


RV




RV
RV

RV
RV


RV




RV


RV
RV
Dem
45.3
43.5



27
30
39
37
56

47
56
61
31
34

68
37
27
42
34

27
46
33
54
39

36
25
44
43
60

67
42
24
54
45

30
30
25
48
64

45
45
GOP
44.3
47.2



35
59
53
51
37

44
37
32
38
52

20
55
64
38
50

67
46
54
38
50

49
69
51
32
33

39
49
67
37
45

70
70
52
44
29

48
38
em;color:blue">Dem
50.5
48.1



46.0
35.5
43.0
43.0
59.5

51.5
59.5
64.5
46.5
41.0

74.0
41.0
31.5
52.0
42.0

30.0
50.0
39.5
58.0
44.5

43.5
28.0
46.5
55.5
63.5

64.0
46.5
28.5
58.5
50.0

30.0
30.0
36.5
52.0
67.5

48.5
53.5
em;color:maroon">GOP
49.5
51.9



58.0
64.5
57.0
57.0
40.5

48.5
40.5
37.5
53.5
59.0

26.0
59.0
68.5
48.0
58.0

71.0
50.0
60.5
42.0
55.5

56.5
72.0
54.0
44.5
36.5

36.0
53.5
71.5
41.5
50.0

70.0
70.0
63.5
47.0
32.5

49.0
51.0
em">Win Prob²
0.0%
9.5%



98%
100%
100%
100%
0%

23%
0%
0%
96%
100%

0%
100%
100%
16%
100%

100%
50%
100%
0%
100%

100%
100%
96%
0%
0%

0%
96%
100%
0%
50%

100%
100%
100%
16%
0%

77%
4%
em;font-weight:bold">Flip
5





GOP













GOP


Dem





GOP
















GOP


em;font-weight:bold">MoE
11



AK





CO


FL





IL



KY






NH




OH


PA




WA


WI
WV


Table 1a
Registered vs Likely Voters

CNN/TIME
.95 correlation ratio between RV and LV margins
























16
Polls
Average
Win

CA
CO
CT
DE
FL

IL
KY
MO
NV
NY1

NY2
OH
PA
WA
WI
WV
RV Full Sample
Dem
48.31
9

56
47
56
61
31

42
46
39
43
60

67
42
45
48
45
45
Rep
40.63
4

37
44
37
32
38

38
46
50
32
33

39
49
45
44
48
38
Margin
7.69
5

19
3
19
29
(7)

4
0
(11)
11
27

28
(7)
0
4
(3)
7
 
LV subsample
Dem
46.25
7

52
44
54
57
31

43
42
40
40
55

57
42
44
51
44
44
Rep
45.19
8

43
49
44
38
42

42
49
53
42
41

41
51
49
43
52
44
Margin
1.06
(1)

9
(5)
10
19
(11)

1
(7)
(13)
(2)
14

16
(9)
(5)
8
(8)
0
 
50% of RV-LV
Dem
47.28
8

54.0
45.5
55.0
59.0
31.0

42.5
44.0
39.5
41.5
57.5

62.0
42.0
44.5
49.5
44.5
44.5
Rep
42.91
7

40.0
46.5
40.5
35.0
40.0

40.0
47.5
51.5
37.0
37.0

40.0
50.0
47.0
43.5
50.0
41.0
Margin
4.38
1

14.0
(1.0)
14.5
24.0
(9.0)

2.5
(3.5)
(12.0)
4.5
20.5

22.0
(8.0)
(2.5)
6.0
(5.5)
3.5



Table 1b
Sensitivity Analysis: RV vs. LV Polls

Effect of LV-excluded RV Turnout and Vote Switch on Democratic Seats


15 polls
 
Turnout of LV-excluded Registered Voters (RV- LV)

 
 
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%

 
 
 
Democratic Senate Wins


Vote Switch
% to GOP
 
 
None
1%
2%
3%
4%
7
6
6
6
5
9
6
6
6
5
9
9
7
5
5
10
9
8
6
5
10
10
7
7
6


Table 2
Probability Distribution of GOP Net Gains (refer to source)


Table 3
Projection Trend  (refer to source)


Table 4
GOP Senate Seat Forecast

0em;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px">Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Poll Type   (refer to source)


Table 5
GOP Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection (zero fraud)

RV&LV
 
RV/LV – Undecided Vote Allocation to GOP

 
 
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%

 
3
 
Net Senate Seat Gain



Vote
Switch
to GOP
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
3
4
5
7
7
3
5
6
7
8
3
5
6
8
9
5
5
8
9
9
5
7
9
9
10

 
44
 
GOP Total Senate Seats






0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
44
45
46
48
48
44
46
47
48
49
44
46
47
49
50
46
46
49
50
50
46
48
50
50
51
 


Table 6
House Generic Ballot Forecasting Model   
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...

 

 
PROJECTION  UVA
50%
50%
 
CURRENT   SEATS
178
255


Latest
 
POLL AVERAGE
 
PROJECTED 2-PARTY %
 
Projected Seats
em">3% MoE GOP

Model
LV
RV

Total

2010
LV
RV
A

Total
em">Polls
22
15

37

Polls
70
90
3

163
em;color:maroon">GOP
47.5
45.9

46.8

GOP
45.9
45.2
40.0

45.4
em;color:blue">Dem
40.9
44.0

42.2

Dem
39.1
43.7
43.3

41.7
em">Spread
6.5
1.9

4.6

Spread
6.7
1.5
(3.3)

3.7
em;color:maroon">GOP
53.3
50.9

52.3

GOP
53.4
50.7
48.3

51.8
em;color:blue">Dem
46.7
49.1

47.7

Dem
46.6
49.3
51.7

48.2
em">Margin
6.5
1.9

4.6

Margin
6.7
1.5
(3.3)

3.7
em">GOP
234
223

229

GOP
234
223
212

227
em">Dem
201
212

206

Dem
201
212
223

208
em">WinProb
98%
73%

94%

WinProb
99%
69%
14%

88%


Table 7
Sensitivity Analysis, GOP House Forecast:  
# of GOP House Seats

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection

Base case assumptions:    50% UVA to GOP    Zero Vote-switch % to GOP
 

Projections
 
Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP

 
 
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%

 
224
 
GOP House Seats


Vote Switch
% to GOP
 
No Fraud
1%
2%
3%
219
223
228
232
221
226
230
234
223
228
232
237
226
230
234
239
228
232
237
241
 
Sensitivity Analysis, GOP House Forecast:  
Probability of GOP winning a House Majority

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection

Base case assumptions:    50% UVA to GOP    Zero Vote-switch % to GOP
 

(refer to source)




Table 8
Latest Generic Polls

 
PROJECTION  UVA
50%
50%

 
 
POLL
 
PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE
 
GOP
 
GOP
 
10-POLL MOVING AVERAGE        GOP     
 
em">GOP

Pollster
FOX News
Reuters/Ipsos
Zogby
Bloomberg
Rasmussen Reports

Gallup
Gallup
CNN/Opinion Research
CNN/Opinion Research
CBS News/NY Times

Democracy Corps (D)
ABC News/Wash Post
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Gallup
(source  for more)
em;text-align:left">Date
10/11 - 10/13
10/7 - 10/11
10/7 - 10/10
10/7 - 10/10
10/4 - 10/10

9/30 - 10/10
9/30 - 10/10
10/5 - 10/7
10/5 - 10/7
10/1- 10/5

10/2 - 10/4
9/30 - 10/3
9/27 - 10/3
9/27 - 10/3
9/27 - 10/3
...
Sample
687
720
2071
721
3500

3000
1953
938
504
na

867
669
3500
1882
3000
...
Type
LV
LV
LV
LV
LV

RV
LV
RV
LV
LV

LV
LV
LV
LV
RV
...
em;color:maroon">GOP
48
48
45
40
47

47
53
47
52
45

49
49
45
53
46
...
em;color:blue">Dem
39
44
45
42
39

44
41
47
45
37

43
43
42
40
43
...
em">Spread
9
4
0
(2)
8

3
12
0
7
8

6
6
3
13
3
em;color:maroon">GOP
54.5
52.0
50.0
49.0
54.0

51.5
56.0
50.0
53.5
54.0

53.0
53.0
51.5
56.5
51.5
...
em;color:blue">Dem
45.5
48.0
50.0
51.0
46.0

48.5
44.0
50.0
46.5
46.0

47.0
47.0
48.5
43.5
48.5
...
em;color:black">Margin
9.0
4.0
0.0
(2.0)
8.0

3.0
12.0
0.0
7.0
8.0

6.0
6.0
3.0
13.0
3.0
...
Seats
239
228
219
215
237

226
246
219
235
237

232
232
226
248
226
...
em; orange">WinProb
100%
90%
50%
26%
100%

84%
100%
50%
99%
100%

98%
98%
84%
100%
84%
...
em;color:maroon; green">GOP
52.45
52.30
52.33
52.67
52.94

53.22
53.22
52.28
52.56
52.25

52.30
52.25
51.68
52.00
51.68
...
em;color:blue">Dem
47.55
47.70
47.67
47.33
47.06

46.78
46.78
47.72
47.44
47.75

47.70
47.75
48.32
48.00
48.32
...
em; purple">Margin
4.9
4.6
4.7
5.3
5.9

6.4
6.4
4.6
5.1
4.5

4.6
4.5
3.4
4.0
3.4
...
em">Seats
230
229
230
231
232

233
233
229
231
229

229
229
227
228
227
...


Table 9
Pollster Averages

 
POLL AVERAGE
GOP
 
PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE
 
GOP
 
GOP

Polling Firm
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
FOX News
CNN/Opinion Research
PPP (D)

Democracy Corps (D)
ABC News/Wash Post
Ipsos/McClatchy
Quinnipiac
Pew Research

USA Today/Gallup
Newsweek
Reuters/Ipsos
GWU/Battleground
Time

McLaughlin & Associates (R)
Associated Press/GfK
POS (R)
Bloomberg
National Journal/FD

Washington Post
Zogby
NPR
McClatchy/Marist
CBS News/NY Times

 Non-Rasmussen 
em;text-align:left">Count
39
35
14
11
8

8
6
4
4
4

3
3
4
3
2

2
2
2
2
1

1
1
1
1
2

124
Sample
3500
1563
885
861
784

869
na
913
1977
na

970
889
868
1000
915

1000
445
850
798
1200

na
2071
800
815
na

1018
em">MoE
1.7%
2.5%
3.3%
3.3%
3.5%

3.3%
3.0%
3.2%
2.2%
3.0%

3.1%
3.3%
3.3%
3.1%
3.2%

3.1%
4.6%
3.4%
3.5%
2.8%

3.0%
2.2%
3.5%
3.4%
3.0%

3.0%
em;color:maroon">GOP
45.2
46.7
43.3
49.0
44.3

46.4
47.7
43.5
41.3
43.8

46.0
43.7
46.3
43.7
42.5

42.0
51.0
43.5
44.0
35.0

44.0
45.0
44.0
47.0
42.5

44.7
em;color:blue">Dem
37.1
44.8
38.7
45.5
42.5

44.0
44.7
44.8
39.0
45.3

45.3
46.0
44.8
41.7
40.0

36.0
44.0
40.5
41.0
39.0

48.0
45.0
39.0
45.0
37.5

43.2
em">Spread
  8.1  
  2.0  
4.6
3.5
1.8

2.4
3.0
(1.3)
2.3
(1.5)

0.7
(2.3)
1.5
2.0
2.5

6.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
(4.0)

(4.0)
0.0
5.0
2.0
5.0

  1.5  
em;color:maroon">GOP
54.1
51.0
52.3
51.8
50.9

51.2
51.5
49.4
51.1
49.3

50.3
48.8
50.8
51.0
51.3

53.0
53.5
51.5
51.5
48.0

48.0
50.0
52.5
51.0
52.5

50.7
em;color:blue">Dem
45.9
49.0
47.7
48.2
49.1

48.8
48.5
50.6
48.9
50.8

49.7
51.2
49.3
49.0
48.8

47.0
46.5
48.5
48.5
52.0

52.0
50.0
47.5
49.0
47.5

49.3
em;border:1px solid white">Margin
8.1
2.0
4.6
3.5
1.8

2.4
3.0
(1.3)
2.3
(1.5)

0.7
(2.3)
1.5
2.0
2.5

6.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
(4.0)

(4.0)
0.0
5.0
2.0
5.0

1.5
em">Seats
237
224
229
227
223

225
226
217
224
216

221
214
223
224
225

232
235
226
226
211

211
219
230
224
230

223
em">WinProb
100%
74%
93%
88%
72%

78%
84%
34%
77%
31%

59%
22%
69%
74%
79%

98%
99%
84%
84%
10%

10%
50%
95%
74%
95%

69%


Table 10
2006-2010 Registered and Likely Voter Poll Summary  (refer to source)







If you believe that Kerry won in 2004 and that landslides were denied in 2006 and 2008, then you must also believe that the ...

If you believe that Bush won fairly in 2004 and the Democratic landslides of 2006 and 2008 were not denied, then you must believe that the ...

 


Read entry | Discuss (36 comments) | Recommend (+11 votes)
Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion: Presidency
Thu Oct 14th 2010, 12:50 AM

Richard Charnin’s latest proofs of vast election fraud by the Republicans
Richard Charnin has just posted “An Introduction to the True Vote Model.” This method offers an invaluable alternative to the other polling numbers out there — all of which are predicated on the blithe (and indefensible) assumption that there’s no election fraud.

http://richardcharnin.com/TrueVoteModelInt...

Also, Richard has updated and clarified his proof that Obama won in ’08 by over 20 million votes:

http://richardcharnin.com/ObamaProof.htm

So who is Richard, anyway? Some of you have asked. His bio is below, so that you’ll get a sense of his credentials. (Of course, it would be great if other, mainstream pollsters — like, say, Nate Silver — would engage with Richard’s stuff, weigh in on his methodology and try to say exactly how he’s wrong. But, strangely, they’ve so far refused to do it.)

MCM



Richard Charnin Bio

Upon graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, Richard Charnin (“TruthIsAll”) began his career as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer. In 1976, he moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for three major investment banks. When personal computers became available in 1982, he converted many of these application programs to spreadsheets. As a software consultant, he has specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. He has an MS in applied mathematics (Adelphi University, 1969) and an MS in Operations Research (Polytechnic Institute of NY, 1973).

The firms for which he worked or consulted include (among many others) Grumman Aerospace, Merrill Lynch, Smith Barney, E.F. Hutton, Chase Manhattan, Bank of Montreal, Algemene Bank of the Netherlands, AT&T, PepsiCo, Eastman Kodak and Nomura Securities.

Charnin never imagined that years later he would become a prolific Internet poster. But after the 2000 election fiasco, he was motivated to develop a robust election forecast model. In July 2004 he began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls. Immediately following the election, he began posting exit poll analyses on a frequent basis. The postings sparked heated debates and attracted hundreds of viewers.

Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Recommend (+13 votes)
Posted by tiptoe in Election Reform
Sun Oct 03rd 2010, 09:27 PM
2010 Midterm House & Senate Forecast Model: RV/LV Polls, Undecided Voters & Election Fraud – x    http://bit.ly/abXXCf

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         pt;font-family:Arial;font-style:italic;font-weight:normal">main article: http://bit.ly/auSg8p

October 2, 2010

The House and Senate forecast models provide comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls. The assumption is that the election is held today. Pre-election polls interview registered voters; likely voter polls are a sub-sample. They are not separate polls.

The Senate model employs simulation analysis of the latest RV and LV polls to forecast average GOP net gains, associated win probabilities and trends. The built-in sensitivity analysis displays the effects of various undecided voter allocation and vote-switching scenarios.

The House model provides a summary comparison of the latest RV and LV Generic polls, win probabilities and a moving average projection. As in the Senate model, the sensitivity analyses displays the effect of various undecided voter and vote-switching assumptions on forecast vote shares, House seats and win probabilities. The 2010 summary table illustrates the wide difference between Rasmussen and other pollsters. The 2006-2010 Generic Poll table provides a historical context.

Latest Polling Analysis

The latest Newsweek Generic RV poll has the Democrats leading 48-43%, their biggest lead since the Gallup 49-43% RV poll in July.

The GOP average LV poll margin is 5% higher than the average RV margin.

Senate Models

RV & LV (15 RV and 22 LV polls)
Most of the RV polls are from CNN/Time.
The Democrats have a 52.4-45.6 simulated seat margin (100% win probability).
The Democrats lead the 37-poll weighted average by 44.7-43.8%.
The Democrats lead the 15 RV poll unweighted average by 46.1-41.1 and the corresponding 15 RV polls by 44.1-43.9%.

LV (37 LV polls)
Most polls are from Rasmussen.
The Democrats have a 50.0-48.0 simulated seat margin (91.5% win probability).
The GOP leads the LV poll weighted average by 46.2-42.8 (4.7% difference in margin from the RV&LV average).
Each 1% incremental vote-switch to the GOP gives them 2 additional seats (Table 5).

House Models

RV (12 polls)
The GOP leads the average by 45.7-43.8%.
The GOP has a 223-212 seat margin (73% win probability).

LV (10 polls)
The GOP leads the average by 47.0-40.0% (5.2% difference in margin from the RV average).
The GOP wins control by a 235-200 seat margin (99% win probability).
Each 1% incremental vote-switch to the GOP gives them 4 additional seats (Table 7).

Democrats always do better in the full RV sample than in the LV sub-sample (see the LVCM model below). LV polls exclude millions of registered voters who actually vote — and most of them are Democrats. In addition, millions of votes are cast but never counted in every election — and most of them are Democratic as well. The good news is that proliferation of electronic voting has reduced the uncounted vote rate. The bad news is that votes can be switched, stuffed or dropped at the voting machine and/or the central tabulator where they are counted.

Since 2000, LV poll projections have closely matched recorded vote-count shares and final exit polls (which are "forced" to match the recorded vote). The RV poll projections closely matched the unadjusted-state and preliminary-national exit polls.

As Election Day approaches, the MSM gradually phases out RV polls for LVs which lowball the projected Democratic vote share. And so the general public is prepared for the fraudulent recorded vote-counts that the MSM always knows are coming.

2em;font-family:Arial,Verdana;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold">
  October 2 House and Senate Forecast Summary

 
 
Average Share (%)
GOP
 
Projected Share (%)
 
Projected Seats
WinProb

Polls
Senate
Unwtd Avg
15
15



Wtd Avg
37
37



House
12
10



22
Type


RV
LV

Diff


RV&LV
LV

Diff


RV
LV

Diff

Total
Dem


46.1
44.1

-2.0


44.7
42.8

-2.0


43.8
40.0

-3.8

42.1
GOP


41.1
43.9

2.8


43.8
46.6

2.8


45.7
47.0

1.3

46.3
Spread


-5.1
-0.3

4.8


-0.9
3.8

4.7


1.8
7.0

5.2

4.2
 
Dem


-
-




50.5
48.1

-2.4


49.1
46.5

-2.6

47.9
GOP


-
-




49.5
51.9

2.4


50.9
53.5

2.6

52.1
 
Dem


-
-




52.5
50.0

-2.5


211.7
200.4

-11.3

206.5
GOP


-
-




45.4
48.1

2.7


223.3
234.6

11.3

228.5
GOP


-
-




0.0%
8.5%

8.5%


73%
99%

26%

91%
 

The media/pollster drumbeat of a “horse race” is largely based on LV polls. The narrative conditions the public to expect a recorded vote which in fact understates the True Democratic share. The pollsters discount the RV sample for a fraud component, fully expecting that the LV projections will be a close match to the recorded vote — but they never mention the F-word. They know that votes are miscounted in every election. And so their final LV-based polling forecasts are usually quite accurate. Pollsters are paid to predict the recorded vote—not the True Vote.

The 2010 midterms are different from the last four elections in that a low Democratic voter turnout is expected. Election fraud will very likely cost the Democrats a few seats in the House and Senate. And the number will be close to the difference between the RV and LV samples. But there may not be RV samples for us to calculate the difference on Election Day. And once again, pollsters will be complimented on how closely their final LV predictions matched the recorded vote.

For the Senate races, polling websites generally display only LV polls. CNN/Time provides both RV and LV samples, but only the LVs are listed at realclearpolitics.com. The Senate RV forecast model is therefore a mix of RV and LV polls. Without a full corresponding RV poll for every LV sample, a comparable analysis is difficult.

In the House, Generic polls have had a more equitable mix of RV and LV samples. But expect a shift to virtually all LV samples as Election Day approaches.

The Fraud Component

In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls underestimated voter turnout and yet closely matched impossible final exit polls and fraudulent recorded vote counts. Projections based on final pre-election RV polls (adjusted for undecided voters) were a close match to the unadjusted preliminary exit polls and the True Vote.

Pre-election Model:
  Recorded vote share = LV poll projection = RV poll projection + Fraud component

Post-election Model:
  Recorded vote share = Final exit poll = Unadjusted Preliminary Exit Poll + Fraud component


Applying the formula to the latest Senate and House Generic Polls:

Projected GOP Senate Vote Share:

Share = 51.9 = 49.5 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 2.4% (4.8% margin).

Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud):
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 2 seats (Table 5).

Projected GOP House Vote Share:
Share = 53.5 = 50.9 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 2.6% (5.2% margin)

Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud):
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 4 seats (Table 7).



The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM)

In 2004, there were 22 million voters who did not vote in 2000. Nearly 60% of newly registered voters were Democrats for Kerry. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic tsunami gave them control of both houses. In 2008, there were approximately 15 million new voters, of whom 70% voted for Obama. All pre-election polls interview registered voters. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the full Registered Voter (RV) sample. LV polls exclude most "new" registered voters–first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election.

Most pollsters use the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM), a series of questions regarding past voting history, residential transience, intent to vote, etc. Since students, transients, low-income voters, immigrant new voters, etc. are much more likely to give "No" answers than established, wealthier, non-transient voters, Republicans are more likely to exceed the cutoff than Democrats. A respondent who indicates “yes” to four out of seven questions might be down-weighted to 50% compared to one who answers “yes” to all seven.       bit.ly/a8UYRb

The LVCM assigns a weight of zero to all respondents falling below the cutoff, eliminating them from the sample. But these potential voters have more than a zero probability of voting. The number of "Yes" answers required to qualify as a likely voter is set based on how the pollster wants the sample to turn out. The more Republicans the pollster wants in the sample, the more "Yes" answers are required. This serves to eliminate many Democrats and skews the sample to the GOP.

Undecided Voters, Turnout and Election Fraud


In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote count shares. Projections based on the final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. Undecided voters typically break heavily for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challengers, but many pollsters did not allocate accordingly. Democratic voter turnout was underestimated by the pre-election LV polls (see 2004 Final Pre-election Polls).                   bit.ly/d2yEQh                  bit.ly/claROe               bit.ly/aW4gYX

Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote count, (i.e. the final pre-election LV polls). The underlying assumption is that the recorded vote count is correct (i.e. zero fraud). In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Polls required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (110% and 103%, respectively). In the 2004 Final NEP (13660 respondents), the Bush vote shares were increased dramatically over the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (13047 respondents). For 2008, the NEP media consortium of news outlets FOX, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC has suppressed results of fifty-one unadjusted-state and three un-forced preliminary-national exit polls.        bit.ly/bAc6OK   bit.ly/amsJiB   bit.ly/bRhlz4   bit.ly/diYEJ5   bit.ly/a2j7xl  bit.ly/bsL7lk  bit.ly/dfIPTI

Once again, as in every election cycle, the media avoids the real issues. Martha Coakley won the hand-counts in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s seat but lost to Scott Brown; Vic Rawl won the absentee vote but lost to unknown Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary; Mike Castle won the absentee ballots but lost to Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware GOP Senate primary. But there has not been a peep about any of this in the mainstream media. Apparently, we must just accept the conventional wisdom that even though the votes have vanished in cyberspace and can never be verified, they were not tampered with. The media lockdown is not limited to past stolen elections. The MSM prepares us for election fraud by listing final pre-election LV polls and ignoring RV polls.



Table 1
2010 Midterms: Senate and House Forecast Model
Senate Forecast Simulation Summary
   
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/la...     bit.ly/azDXlw 

02-Oct
# Polls

15
15
37
Poll Type

RVonly
onlyLV

RV&LV


Current Senate Seats

Simulation Forecast¹
37
RV&LV
Net Gain
Win Prob²
 

37
OnlyLV
Net Gain
Win Prob²

Unwtd  Avg
Dem

46.1
44.1
41.4

Dem
57

Total Senate
52.5
-
100.0%

50.0
-
91.5%
Share (%)
GOP

41.1
43.9
47.6

GOP
41

 Seats
45.5
4.5
0.0%

48.0
7.0
8.5%

Undec
12.8
12.0
10.9

Ind
2



2
-
-

2
-
-
.2em;font-weight:bold">ASSUMPTIONS
Fraud
MoE
UVA
 
0.0%
4.0%
50.0%
 
Vote-share deviation to GOP, 1988-2004
Poll margin of error
Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP









.2em;font-weight: bold">Projection (table)
RV&LV
Seats

Flip to
Lean
Safe
Tossup

Dem
54

1
2
8
7

GOP
44

4
4
16
0





NOTES:
¹ Average of a 200 election trial simulation
² Probability of winning a 50 senate seat majority

 

 
 
State-by-State:   Latest Polls, Weighted Averages RV&LV vs onlyLV, Poll Type, Projection % (after UVA), GOP Win Probabilities, Flipped Senate Seats

Probability Distribution of GOP Net Gains

Projection Trend — 8/26 to 10/2, Share & Net GOP Seat Gains by LV and RV&LV Poll Types  

GOP Senate Seat Forecast – Sensitivity Analysis: Vote Share, Seats (Projection table), Seats (Simulation), Net Gain (Sim), by Undecided Voter Allocation and Poll Type

GOP Senate Seat Forecast – Sensitivity Analysis: Net GOP Gain, Total GOP Senate Seats by Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch % to GOP (fraud component)

House Generic Ballot Forecasting Model – by Latest and Cumulative-2010 LV and RV Poll Type: Projected 2-Party %, Projected Seats, GOP House Majority Win Probability

GOP House Seat Forecast – Sensitivity Analysis:  # of GOP House Seats by Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch % to GOP (fraud component)

 
GOP House Seat Forecast – Sensitivity Analysis:  Probability of GOP winning a House Majority by Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch % to GOP (fraud component)

Latest Generic Polls – Type, Poll, Projected 2-party %, GOP Seats, GOP WinProb, Projected Moving Average, GOP Seats MA

Pollster Averages – Count, Sample Size, Margin of Error, Poll, Projected 2-party %, GOP Seats, GOP Win Probability

2006-2010 Registered and Likely Voter Poll Summary

Reference: 2004-2008 Pre-election Polls

If you believe that Kerry won in 2004 and that landslides were denied in 2006 and 2008, then you must also believe that the...
If you believe that Bush won fairly in 2004 and the Democratic landslides of 2006 and 2008 were not denied, then you must believe that the...

Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll – Reviews


 

Read entry | Discuss (18 comments) | Recommend (+8 votes)
Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Sep 18th 2010, 09:38 PM
2010 House and Senate Forecast Model: RV/LV Polls, Undecided Voters and Election Fraud

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionFore...     bit.ly/9B1nts

Sept. 18, 2010

The 2010 Senate and House forecast models will be updated on a regular basis as new polling data becomes available. The models consider the difference between likely voter (LV) and registered voter (RV) polls. Since 2004, LV polls have accurately projected the recorded vote while RV polls (adjusted for undecided voters) closely matched the unadjusted and preliminary exit polls. Final RV polls gave the Democrats a 2-4% higher vote share than the LV polls.

Based on a mix of RV and LV polls, the Senate Forecast Simulation Model indicates that the Democratic majority will shrink to 53-45.
The LV poll projections indicate a 50-48 Democratic Senate.
There is a 12% probability that the GOP will gain control (at least 50 seats).

Based on the latest 13 Generic RV polls in which the GOP leads by 47.3-41.9%, the Generic Poll Forecasting Model projects a 233-202 GOP House majority. The latest 7 LV polls (47.4-37.7%) project a 239-196 majority.

Registered and Likely Voters

In 2004, there were 22 million voters who did not vote in 2000. Nearly 60% of newly registered voters were Democrats for Kerry. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic tsunami gave them control of both houses. In 2008, there were approximately 15 million new voters of whom 70% voted for Obama. All pre-election polls interview registered voters. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the full Registered Voter (RV) sample. LV polls exclude most "new" registered voters – first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election.

Most pollsters use the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM), a series of questions regarding past voting history, residential transience, intent to vote, etc. Since students, transients, low-income voters, immigrant new voters, etc. are much more likely to give "No" answers than established, wealthier, non-transient voters, Republicans are more likely to exceed the cutoff than Democrats. A respondent who indicates “yes” to four out of seven questions might be down-weighted to 50% compared to one who answers “yes” to all seven.

The LVCM assigns a weight of zero to all respondents falling below the cutoff, eliminating them from the sample. But these potential voters have more than a zero probability of voting. The number of "Yes" answers required to qualify as a likely voter is set based on how the pollster wants the sample to turn out. The more Republicans the pollster wants in the sample, the more "Yes" answers are required. This serves to eliminate many Democrats and skews the sample to the GOP.

Undecided Voters, Turnout and Election Fraud

In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote shares. Projections based on the final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. Undecided voters typically break heavily for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challengers, but many pollsters did not allocate accordingly. Democratic voter turnout was underestimated by the pre-election LV polls (see 2004 Final Pre-election Polls).

Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote count, (i.e. the pre-election LV poll). The underlying assumption is that the recorded vote count is correct (i.e. zero fraud). In 2004 and 2008, the Final national exit polls required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (110% and 103%, respectively). In the 2004 Final NEP (13660 respondents), the Bush vote shares were increased dramatically over the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (13047 respondents). The NEP media consortium of news outlets FOX, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC has suppressed the release of the 2008 unadjusted state exit polls and un-forced preliminary national exit polls.

The secret vote count fraud process inhibits the possibility of state recounts. Only Oregon and Washington have mandatory hand recounts of machine tallies.
2010 Senate Forecast Simulation Model


Seats
Current

Lean
Safe
Tossup
 
Dem
57

0
8
8
GOP
41

2
16
0
Ind
2




MoE
UVA


GOP
Seats
Gain
4%
60%
 
Simulation
RV/LV
45
4
Poll margin of error
Undecided to challenger

Average
LV
48
7
Probability Distribution of GOP Net Gains

LV
Gain
Seats

Exact
At least

0
41

0.0%
100.0%

1
42

0.0%
100.0%

2
43

0.0%
100.0%

3
44

0.5%
100.0%

4
45

2.5%
99.5%

5
46

10.0%
97.0%

6
47

18.5%
87.0%

7
48

28.0%
68.5%

8
49

28.0%
40.5%

9
50

9.0%
12.5%

10
51

3.5%
3.5%

Projection Trend


Date
9/15
9/10
9/1
8/26
 
L
Dem
48.0%
48.3
48.5
49.4
V
GOP
52.0%
51.7
51.5
50.6
Net
Seat GOP

7.2
7.4
8.1
5.8

 
 
 
 
RV/
Dem
49.3%
49.7
49.6
50.8
LV
GOP
50.7%
50.3
50.4
49.2
Net
Seat GOP

4.1
5.0
6.4
4.6

GOP net gain is the average of 200 simulated election trials

2010 Generic Poll Projection Summary


Latest
Polls

LV
RV

Total

2010
LV
RV
A

Total

Count

7
13

20


50
79
3

132
 
GOP
47.4
47.3

47.4


45.2
45.2
40.0

45.1
POLL AVG
Dem
39.7
41.9

40.7


38.2
43.6
43.3

41.6
 
Spread
7.7
5.4

6.7


7.0
1.6
(3.3)

3.5
PROJECTED
GOP
54.4
53.0

53.8


54.2
50.9
48.0

52.0
2-PARTY
Dem
45.6
47.0

46.2


45.8
49.1
52.0

48.0
(see UVA)
Margin
8.9
6.0

7.6


8.4
1.8
(4.0)

4.1
GOP
Seats

239
233

236


238
223
211

228
GOP
WinProb

100%
100%

100%


100%
80%
2%

98%


2010 Pollster Average

AVERAGE
PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE
GOP
GOP


Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
FOX News
PPP (D)
Democracy Corps (D)

CNN/Opinion Research
ABC News/Wash Post
Ipsos/McClatchy
USA Today/Gallup
Quinnipiac

Newsweek
Reuters/Ipsos
Time
Polls
35
29
11
7
7

8
5
4
3
4

2
2
2
Sample
3500
1343
900
812
869

940
na
913
970
1977

882
899
915
MoE
1.6%
2.7%
3.3%
3.4%
3.3%

3.2%
na
3.2%
3.1%
2.2%

3.3%
3.3%
3.2%
GOP
45.1
46.4
42.5
44.3
46.0

48.4
47.4
43.5
46.0
41.3

44.0
46.0
42.5
Dem
36.8
45.1
38.5
42.1
44.1

45.5
45.0
44.8
45.3
39.0

45.0
44.5
40.0
Spread
8.3
1.3
4.0
2.1
1.9

2.9
2.4
(1.3)
0.7
2.3

(1.0)
1.5
2.5
GOP
55.0
50.7
52.5
51.2
51.0

51.5
51.3
49.3
50.4
51.4

49.4
50.8
51.5
Dem
45.0
49.3
47.5
48.8
49.0

48.5
48.7
50.7
49.6
48.6

50.6
49.2
48.5
Margin
10.1
1.5
4.9
2.5
2.1

3.1
2.6
(1.4)
0.7
2.8

(1.1)
1.7
3.0
Seats
241
223
230
225
224

226
225
216
221
225

217
223
226
WinProb
100%
70%
93%
76%
73%

83%
80%
33%
59%
89%

37%
69%
82%

2010 Generic Polls

POLL
PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE
GOP
GOP
PROJECTED MOVING AVERAGE

Date
9/6 - 9/12
9/6 - 9/12
8/31 - 9/7
8/30 - 9/5
8/30 - 9/5

9/1 - 9/2
8/30 - 9/2
9/1 - 9/2
8/27 - 8/30
8/23 - 8/29

8/23 - 8/29
8/25 - 8/26
8/19 - 8/22
8/16 - 8/22
8/16 - 8/22

8/16 - 8/17
8/11 - 8/16
8/9 - 8/15
8/9 - 8/15
8/10 - 8/11

8/6 - 8/10
8/6 - 8/9
8/2 - 8/8
8/2 - 8/8
7/21 - 8/5
Sample
1527
3500
1905
1651
3500

936
LV
900
928
3500

1540
856
950
1600
3500

827
890
1600
3500
900

935
606
3500
1600
2431
Type
RV
LV
RV
RV
LV

RV
LV
RV
RV
LV

RV
RV
RV
RV
LV

LV
RV
RV
LV
RV

RV
RV
LV
RV
RV
GOP
48
48
42
46
48

52
53
46
49
45

51
45
46
47
47

43
49
50
48
44

48
45
46
49
44
Dem
43
37
37
46
36

45
40
37
43
39

41
45
45
44
38

37
45
43
36
37

45
42
39
43
45
Spread
5
11
5
0
12

7
13
9
6
6

10
0
1
3
9

6
4
7
12
7

3
3
7
6
(1)
GOP
52.7
56.5
53.2
50.0
57.1

53.6
57.0
55.4
53.3
53.6

55.4
50.0
50.5
51.6
55.3

53.8
52.1
53.8
57.1
54.3

51.6
51.7
54.1
53.3
49.4
Dem
47.3
43.5
46.8
50.0
42.9

46.4
43.0
44.6
46.7
46.4

44.6
50.0
49.5
48.4
44.7

46.3
47.9
46.2
42.9
45.7

48.4
48.3
45.9
46.7
50.6
Margin
5.5
12.9
6.3
0.0
14.3

7.2
14.0
10.8
6.5
7.1

10.9
0.0
1.1
3.3
10.6

7.5
4.3
7.5
14.3
8.6

3.2
3.4
8.2
6.5
(1.1)
Seats
231
248
233
219
251

235
250
243
234
235

243
219
222
227
243

236
229
236
251
238

226
227
237
234
217
Win Prob
98%
100%
100%
50%
100%

99%
100%
100%
98%
100%

100%
50%
63%
91%
100%

98%
90%
100%
100%
100%

84%
80%
100%
100%
29%
GOP
54.2
54.5
53.9
53.6
53.8

53.6
53.6
53.1
52.9
53.3

53.4
53.0
53.2
53.6
53.7

53.1
53.0
53.3
53.6
53.0

52.3
52.8
52.9
52.8
52.1
Dem
45.8
45.5
46.1
46.4
46.2

46.4
46.4
46.9
47.1
46.7

46.6
47.0
46.8
46.4
46.3

46.9
47.0
46.7
46.4
47.0

47.7
47.2
47.1
47.2
47.9
Margin
8.5
9.0
7.7
7.2
7.5

7.2
7.2
6.2
5.9
6.7

6.8
6.0
6.4
7.1
7.4

6.3
6.1
6.6
7.2
5.9

4.6
5.5
5.7
5.5
4.2

The following is a summary of RV and LV polls from 2004 to 2010.

Reference: 2004-2008 Pre-election polls
Projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote shares.
Projections based on final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls.


The projected shares (in parenthesis) are based on the allocation of undecided voters (UVA).    bit.ly/claROe
Undecided voters typically break for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challenger.

Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote (i.e. the LV poll).    bit.ly/aoovHh
In 2008, the Final National Exit Poll required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (103%) to match the fraudulent vote count.    bit.ly/amsJiB
In 2004, Bush vote shares from the 12:22am Preliminary National Exit Poll (1% MoE) had to be inflated in the Final NEP as well (110%).    bit.ly/amsJiB

2004
Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3% (matched by the Final National Exit Poll).    bit.ly/dwaOZH

National pre-election polls

RCP
The final 15 pre-election polls listed by RCP were all likely voter (LV) polls.

RCP- 2004 Pre-election Polls    bit.ly/b4xn3h
The Oct 2 Newsweek poll – exactly one month before the election – was the last RV poll listed. Kerry led by 47-45  (52 – 47%).
An Oct 31 Gallup poll -- RV and unlisted -- had Kerry ahead 48-46% (projected  51 – 47%).

Bush led the final RCP 15-poll average by 48.9-47.4-1.0 (2.7% were undecided).
RCP projected Bush would capture 50% of the undecided vote and win by 50.0-48.5, closely matching the recorded vote.
Gallup projected that Kerry, the challenger, would win 88% of the undecided vote. Zogby and Harris had 75-80%.
    bit.ly/claROe

TIA Election Model
Kerry led the average of 18 national polls (9 RV and 9 LV) by 47.2-46.9 (projected  50.9 – 48.1%)

Charnin: 2004 Pre-election RV/LV Polling Trend Analysis.    bit.ly/9nwW3G

State Pre-election Polls

Bush led the unweighted average by  47.6 – 45.7%.
Charnin: 2004 Pre-election State Polling Trend    bit.ly/bSgeyI

The unweighted average is misleading.
State polls must be weighted by voting population to determine the overall national share.
Kerry led the 2004 Election Model weighted aggregate by 47.9-46.9% (projected  51.1 – 47.9%).
    bit.ly/cwya4J


Battleground state pre-election polls

LV polls
All final pre-election polls listed by RCP were likely voter polls.

RCP- 2004 Battleground States    bit.ly/9YajFS

Bush led the final unweighted average by 47.3-46.9%
Kerry led the LV poll projection by  50.5 – 48.5%

RV polls
Assuming Kerry did 1% better in the RV polls, he led by  51.5 – 47.5%.

Charnin: 2004 Battleground pre-election LV polls, Exit polls and Recorded votes    bit.ly/d8v0wT

Gallup
28 RV and 28 LV polls: FL 6, IA 4, MN 2, OH 6, PA 5, WI 5
LV: Bush led by 48.5-46.7 (projected  49.5 – 49.4% ).
RV: Kerry led by 47.1-46.4 (projected  50.9 – 47.7%).

Charnin: 2004 Gallup Pre-election RV and LV Polls    bit.ly/cgzNNk

State and National Exit Polls
Kerry led the unadjusted 2004 State Exit Poll weighted Aggregate by  52 – 47%.    bit.ly/cIuWyL
Kerry led the un-forced Preliminary 2004 National Exit Poll (<1%MoE,N=13,047) by  50.8 – 48.2%.    bit.ly/aukdM1

The election was stolen.

2006

House Generic Congressional ballot
RCP listed eight (8) final LV polls.
The Democrats led by 52-40.6% (projected  56 – 42%).

RCP- Generic Congressional Ballot    bit.ly/9jR6EG

The Oct 30 NBC/WSJ RV poll had the Democrats leading by 52-37 (projected  58 – 40%).
The unadjusted-final National Exit Poll (i.e., Roper, 13,251 respondents) had the Democrats winning  56.4 – 41.3%.

The Democratic Landslide was denied.
    bit.ly/a3QVNZ
Charnin: Landslide Denied: 2008 was an exact rerun of the 2006 midterms    bit.ly/aBS8Zk

2008

Obama won the recorded vote count by 52.9–45.6%, matched (as usual) by the forced Final National Exit Poll.    bit.ly/HP4Mq

Obama led the final 15 LV polls by 52.1-44.5 — (projected  53 – 45%), matching the recorded vote.    bit.ly/dwaOZH
RCP- General Election: McCain vs. Obama    bit.ly/1X6u4E

The final 4 RV polls from Gallup, Pew, CBS and ABC/WP were not listed.    bit.ly/dvFxJq
Obama led the RV average by 52.7-39.8 — projected  (57.2–41.3%).

Charnin: Why the Final Pre-election Polls and the National Exit Poll Confirm an Obama 20m Vote Landslide    bit.ly/9vEpUR

The Democratic landslide was denied.    bit.ly/cDc8SI
Charnin: 2008 Election Fraud Analytics    bit.ly/dmUhmT

Uadjusted State and unforced Preliminary National Exit polls have not been released.    bit.ly/dfIPTI

Conclusion

If you believe that Kerry won in 2004 and that landslides were denied in 2006 and 2008, then you must also believe that the
a) pre-election RV polls were essentially correct
b) pre-election LV polls were wrong
c) unadjusted exit polls were essentially correct
d) Final National Exit Poll was impossible
e) Elections were fraudulent and resulted in a 4-5% reduction in the True Democratic share

If you believe that Bush won fairly in 2004 and the Democratic landslides of 2006 and 2008 were not denied, then you must believe that the
a) Recorded vote matched the True Vote
b) Pre-election LV polls matched the recorded vote
c) Pre-election RV polls overstated the Democratic True vote
d) Unadjusted exit polls overstated the Democratic True vote
e) Final National Exit polls matched the recorded (True) vote, even though an impossible number of returning Bush voters were required
f) Elections were fraud-free even though the votes were not and could not be verified

 

Read entry | Discuss (3 comments) | Recommend (+2 votes)
Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Jul 03rd 2008, 12:32 AM



2008 ELECTION MODEL
A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation



Updated: June 30
 
  • Chart   State Poll Aggregate + Projection Trend
  • Chart   National 5-Poll Moving Average Projection
  • Chart   Battleground-State Polls
  • Chart   Battleground-State Win Probability
  • Chart   Obama Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency
  • Chart   Electoral Vote + Win Probability Trend
  • Chart   Electoral Vote + Projected Vote Share Trend
  • Chart   Undecided Voter Allocation + Win Probability
  • Chart   Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Trials
     
  • Last
    State
    National
    State
    National
    Monte Carlo
    Simulation

    Update
    Poll
    5-Poll
    2-party
    2-party
    Expected

    6/30/2008
    Aggregate
    Average
    Projection
    Projection
    EV

    Obama
    McCain
    47.0
    42.5
    48.4
    42.0
    53.3
    46.7
    54.2
    45.8
    339
    199

        
    10-Poll
    Last Poll
    Sample
     
    NATIONAL MODEL
     
    5-Poll Mov Avg
     
    5-Poll MA, 2-party Proj

    Trend
                          
    Rasmussen
    Gallup
    Time
    Bloomberg
    USA Today

    Newsweek
    FOX
    Rasmussen
    Gallup
    ABC/WP
    Date
            
    6/29
    6/29
    6/25
    6/23
    6/19

    6/18
    6/18
    6/18
    6/17
    6/15
    Size
                  
    3000 LV
    1000 RV
    806 RV
    916 RV
    921 RV

    930 RV
    803 RV
    802 RV
    1242 RV
    1205 RV
     
    Obama
            
    49
    47
    47
    49
    50

    51
    45
    48
    47
    49
    McCain
            
    44
    42
    43
    37
    44

    36
    41
    45
    42
    45
    Spread
            
    5
    5
    4
    12
    6

    15
    4
    3
    5
    4
     
    Obama
            
    48.4
    48.8
    48.4
    48.6
    48.2

    48.0
    46.6
    47.0
    46.8
    46.2
    McCain
            
    42.0
    40.4
    40.2
    40.6
    41.6

    41.8
    42.6
    42.8
    42.0
    42.0
     
    Obama
            
    54.2
    55.3
    55.2
    55.1
    54.3

    54.1
    53.1
    53.1
    53.5
    53.3
    McCain
            
    45.8
    44.7
    44.8
    44.9
    45.7

    45.9
    46.9
    46.9
    46.5
    46.7
    Diff
            
    8.3
    10.6
    10.5
    10.2
    8.6

    8.2
    6.2
    6.2
    7.0
    6.6

     
     

     

    Based on the latest polling, if the election was held today the Election Model indicates that
    Obama would win the electoral vote:  339199  EV.


    Projected Obama two-party vote share:
    53.3%  State aggregate weighted average
    54.2%  National (based on latest 5 national polls)

    Win probability:
    99.9% - electoral vote (based on a Monte Carlo simulation – 5000 election trials)
    99.9% - popular vote (assuming a 2.0% state aggregate margin of error)
    The win probability match confirms that the independent calculations are plausible (see below).

    Latest poll averages:
    Obama 47.0 - McCain 42.5 (state aggregate)
    Obama 48.4 - McCain 42.0 (5 national polls)

    Sensitivity Analysis
    Five undecided voter allocation scenarios were executed (5000 trials each).
    The allocations range from 50 – 70% for Obama.

    In the worst case scenario, 50% of undecideds were allocated:
    Obama had a 52.3% projected share, 312 EV and 96.3% EV win probability.

    In the best case scenario, 70% were allocated:
    Obama had a 54.3% projected share, 370 EV and 100% win probability.

    View the latest state/ national polling and corresponding popular and electoral vote projections below.

    But there’s a catch: It’s called Election Fraud.
    The Democratic True Vote is always greater than the Recorded Vote.
    A massive new voter registration and GOTV effort is required to overcome the fraud.

    Kerry won the True Vote in 2004. Bush had a 48% approval rating.
    McCain supports the most unpopular president in history with 25% approval.

    In a true democracy, this would be a slam dunk for Obama.
    • But approximately 3–4 million Obama votes will be uncounted.
    • The vote counts on DREs and central tabulators are unverifiable.

    Calculation of Win Probabilities
    The expected electoral vote is the average of the 5000 election trial simulation.
    • In the base case, Obama won 4996 trials.
      Therefore, there is a virtual 100% probability he will win the electoral vote.
    There is also a near 100% probability that he will win the popular vote.
    • The win probability is calculated using the normal distribution.
    • A 2-3% margin of error applied to the projected vote share.
    • His probability of winning is 99.9%: =NORMDIST (.533, .50, .02/1.96, TRUE)
    Obama’s win probability in each state is also calculated by the Excel NORMDIST function.
    The probabilities are based on 4% margin of error and the projected state vote share.
    • For example, in Florida, Obama is tied with McCain in the latest polls at 45%.
      Obama is projected to win the 2-party vote by 51 – 49%.
      His probability of winning is 69%: =NORMDIST (.51, .50, .04/1.96, TRUE)

    The 2008 Election Calculator
    This model determined that Obama will win a 71-59m landslide (54 - 45%).
    The True Vote is based on returning 2004 and new voter estimates based on:
    • 2004 recorded vote, mortality, uncounted votes, 2004 voter turnout in 2008 and estimated vote shares.

    2004 Election Model Review
    The model produced an amazing confirmation of the State and National models.
    • Both projected Kerry the winner with 51.8% of the popular vote (two-party share).
    • Both allocated to Kerry 75% of undecided voters (UVA base case scenario).
      The final national 5-poll moving average projection was 51.8%.
      The final national 18-poll moving average projection was 51.6%.
    The Monte Carlo simulation gave Kerry an expected 337 electoral votes in the base case.

    Election Model projections were based on state and national Pre-election polls and UVA.
    They closely matched the Preliminary national exit polls but not the Final NEP:

    The 12:22am Preliminary National Exit Poll indicated Kerry won by 5148%.
    The   1:25pm FINAL National Exit Poll indicated that  Kerry lost by 4851%.Either all state and national projected Pre-election polls and preliminary Exit polls were wrong, or the Recorded Vote was fraudulent.

    Exit Pollsters Edison-Mitofsky released their 2004 Evaluation report in Jan 2005:
    Kerry won the unadjusted (WPD) aggregate state exit poll by 51.8 – 47.2%.

    The Election Calculator Model used 12:22am NEP vote shares applied to returning and new voters.
    It determined that Kerry won a 67–57 million landslide, 53.2 - 45.4%.
    2004 Calculated True Vote
    12:22am NEP vote share

    2000 Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other


    DNV - 25.6 20.4% 57% 41% 2%
    Gore 95% 49.7 39.5% 91% 8% 1%
    Bush 95% 46.6 37.1% 10% 90% 0%
    Other 95% 3.8 3.0% 64% 17% 19%

    Total 100.1 125.7 100% 53.2% 45.4% 1.4%
    Votes cast 125.7 66.9 57.1 1.7

    Recorded Vote (actual) 122.3 59.0 62.0 1.2
    48.3% 50.7% 1.0%


    Unadjusted Exit Poll 51.9% 47.1% 1.0%
    Deviation from True Vote -1.3% +1.7% -0.4%
    Election Forecasting Methodology
    Two basic methods are used to forecast presidential elections:
    1. Vote share projections based on the latest state and national polls

      In the Election Model, state and national projections are based on the latest polls.
      Both state and national models allocate undecided voters to project the two-party vote.
      The state model uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine the expected electoral vote.
      The Election Model assumes the election is held on the latest poll date.

    2. Projections based on historical time-series regression models.
      These models forecast vote-share only and are usually executed months in advance of the election.

    Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Overview
    The objective is to calculate the expected electoral vote and win probability.
    The win probability for each state is calculated based on the current projection.

    For each of 5000 election trials:
    In each state, the winner is determined by comparing the win probability to a random number (0-1).
    The winner of the election trial is the candidate who wins at least 270 electoral votes.
    The win probability is simply the number of winning election trials divided by 5000.

    2004 Registered Voter (RV) vs. Likely Voter (LV) Polls
    The national pre-election RV polls were closer to the True Vote than likely voter LV polls.
    The LV polls, after adjustments, matched the RVs — and the unadjusted exit polls.

    Other links:
    Latest 2008 Election Model

    Confirmation of A Kerry Landslide
    Election Fraud Analytics and Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

    Excel Models available for download:
    The Election Calculator: 1988-2004
    2004 Interactive Simulation Model
    A Polling Simulation Model
    2000-2004 County Vote Database

    Aggregate State and National Polls and Projections
    Undecided-Voter allocation effect on projected vote share, EV and win probability

    THE 2008 ELECTION MODEL

    Last
    State
    National
    State
    National
    Monte Carlo
    Simulation

    Update
    Poll
    5-Poll
    2-party
    2-party
    Expected

    6/30/2008
    Aggregate
    Average
    Projection
    Projection
    EV

    Obama
    McCain
    47.0
    42.5
    48.4
    42.0
    53.3
    46.7
    54.2
    45.8
    339
    199



    Sensitivity Analysis

    Undecided Voter Allocation Assumption
    Obama
    50%
    55%
    60%
    65%
    70%


    State model: Projected weighted average vote share
    Obama
    McCain
    52.3
    47.7
    52.8
    47.2
    53.3
    46.7
    53.8
    46.2
    54.3
    45.7


    MoE Probability Obama wins popular vote (normal distribution)
    2.0 %
    3.0 %
    98.6
    92.9
    99.7
    96.5
    99.9
    98.4
    100.0
    99.4
    100.0
    99.8


    Monte Carlo Probability Obama wins electoral vote (trial wins/ 5000)
    Win
    Probability
    4816
    96.3
    4960
    99.2
    4994
    99.9
    5000
    100.0
    5000
    100.0


    Projected Vote Share
    Obama
    McCain
    52.4
    47.6
    53.0
    47.0
    53.6
    46.4
    54.1
    45.9
    54.7
    45.3


    Obama Average Electoral Vote
    Average
    Median
    312
    313
    325
    326
    340
    340
    355
    355
    370
    370


    Maximum
    Minimum
    387
    236
    407
    239
    418
    255
    433
    277
    448
    281


    95% Confidence Level
    Upper
    Lower
    358
    266
    370
    280
    384
    295
    399
    311
    415
    325


    States Won
    26
    27
    28
    30
    31

     

     
    2008 POLLING ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS

    State Model
    State Polls Pre-Undecided Voter Allocation
    Projection
    Win
    Trial
    Flip to

    Total

    AL
    AK
    AZ
    AR
    CA

    CO
    CT
    DC
    DE
    FL

    GA
    HI
    ID
    IL
    IN

    IA
    KS
    KY
    LA
    ME

    MD
    MA
    MI
    MN
    MS

    MO
    MT
    NE
    NV
    NH

    NJ
    NM
    NY
    NC
    ND

    OH
    OK
    OR
    PA
    RI

    SC
    SD
    TN
    TX
    UT

    VT
    VA
    WA
    WV
    WI
    WY
    EV
    538

    9
    3
    10
    6
    55

    9
    7
    3
    3
    27

    15
    4
    4
    21
    11

    7
    6
    8
    9
    4

    10
    12
    17
    10
    6

    11
    3
    5
    5
    4

    15
    5
    31
    15
    3

    20
    7
    7
    21
    4

    8
    3
    11
    34
    5

    3
    13
    11
    5
    10
    3
    Obama
    47.0 %

    33
    41
    34
    40
    56

    46
    47
    90
    50
    45

    43
    61
    39
    60
    48

    47
    37
    35
    41
    55

    52
    53
    48
    51
    44

    43
    39
    36
    42
    51

    49
    47
    51
    43
    38

    46
    38
    48
    46
    53

    39
    34
    36
    39
    31

    63
    49
    55
    37
    52
    40
    McCain
    42.6 %

    59
    45
    44
    47
    36

    43
    44
    9
    41
    45

    53
    31
    52
    31
    47

    42
    47
    51
    50
    33

    39
    30
    42
    42
    50

    50
    47
    52
    45
    39

    33
    39
    34
    45
    44

    45
    52
    45
    42
    38

    48
    51
    51
    48
    55

    29
    47
    40
    45
    41
    53
    Diff
    4.6 %

    (26)
    (4)
    (10)
    (7)
    20

    3
    3
    81
    9
    0

    (10)
    30
    (13)
    29
    1

    5
    (10)
    (16)
    (9)
    22

    13
    23
    6
    9
    (6)

    (7)
    (8)
    (16)
    (3)
    12

    16
    8
    17
    (2)
    (6)

    1
    (14)
    3
    4
    15

    (9)
    (17)
    (15)
    (9)
    (24)

    34
    2
    15
    (8)
    11
    (13)
    BO EV
    317





    55

    9
    7
    3
    3



    4

    21
    11

    7



    4

    10
    12
    17
    10






    4

    15
    5
    31



    20

    7
    21
    4







    3
    13
    11

    10
































































    Obama
    53.3 %

    37.8
    49.4
    47.2
    47.8
    60.8

    52.6
    52.4
    90.6
    55.4
    51.0

    45.4
    65.8
    44.4
    65.4
    51.0

    53.6
    46.6
    43.4
    46.4
    62.2

    57.4
    63.2
    54.0
    55.2
    47.6

    47.2
    47.4
    43.2
    49.8
    57.0

    59.8
    55.4
    60.0
    50.2
    48.8

    51.4
    44.0
    52.2
    53.2
    58.4

    46.8
    43.0
    43.8
    46.8
    39.4

    67.8
    51.4
    58.0
    47.8
    56.2
    44.2
    Probability
    100.0 %

    0.0
    38.2
    8.1
    13.6
    100.0

    90.3
    88.5
    100.0
    99.7
    69.1

    1.1
    100.0
    0.3
    100.0
    69.1

    96.4
    4.5
    0.0
    3.6
    100.0

    100.0
    100.0
    97.7
    99.5
    11.5

    8.1
    9.7
    0.0
    46.0
    100.0

    100.0
    99.7
    100.0
    54.0
    27.4

    75.8
    0.1
    86.4
    94.5
    100.0

    5.5
    0.0
    0.1
    5.5
    0.0

    100.0
    75.8
    100.0
    13.6
    99.9
    0.2
    EV
    359





    55

    9
    7
    3
    3
    27


    4

    21
    11

    7



    4

    10
    12
    17
    10






    4

    15
    5
    31
    15


    20

    7
    21
    4







    3
    13
    11

    10


    Obama
    8







    Obama



    Obama





    Obama

    Obama


















    Obama

    Obama


    Obama












    Obama







    AL
    AK
    AZ
    AR
    CA

    CO
    CT
    DC
    DE
    FL

    GA
    HI
    ID
    IL
    IN

    IA
    KS
    KY
    LA
    ME

    MD
    MA
    MI
    MN
    MS

    MO
    MT
    NE
    NV
    NH

    NJ
    NM
    NY
    NC
    ND

    OH
    OK
    OR
    PA
    RI

    SC
    SD
    TN
    TX
    UT

    VT
    VA
    WA
    WV
    WI
    WY
    National Model
        
    10-Poll
    Last Poll
    Sample
     
    NATIONAL MODEL
     
    5-Poll Mov Avg
     
    5-Poll MA, 2-party Proj

    Trend
                          
    Rasmussen
    Gallup
    Time
    Bloomberg
    USA Today

    Newsweek
    FOX
    Rasmussen
    Gallup
    ABC/WP
    Date
            
    6/29
    6/29
    6/25
    6/23
    6/19

    6/18
    6/18
    6/18
    6/17
    6/15
    Size
                  
    3000 LV
    1000 RV
    806 RV
    916 RV
    921 RV

    930 RV
    803 RV
    802 RV
    1242 RV
    1205 RV
     
    Obama
            
    49
    47
    47
    49
    50

    51
    45
    48
    47
    49
    McCain
            
    44
    42
    43
    37
    44

    36
    41
    45
    42
    45
    Spread
            
    5
    5
    4
    12
    6

    15
    4
    3
    5
    4
     
    Obama
            
    48.4
    48.8
    48.4
    48.6
    48.2

    48.0
    46.6
    47.0
    46.8
    46.2
    McCain
            
    42.0
    40.4
    40.2
    40.6
    41.6

    41.8
    42.6
    42.8
    42.0
    42.0
     
    Obama
            
    54.2
    55.3
    55.2
    55.1
    54.3

    54.1
    53.1
    53.1
    53.5
    53.3
    McCain
            
    45.8
    44.7
    44.8
    44.9
    45.7

    45.9
    46.9
    46.9
    46.5
    46.7
    Diff
            
    8.3
    10.6
    10.5
    10.2
    8.6

    8.2
    6.2
    6.2
    7.0
    6.6
     

     

     

     

     

    Read entry | Discuss (7 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
    Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
    Wed Oct 31st 2007, 09:57 PM
    ...
    Wang Siqing, managing director of the Changzhou Yabang Pharmaceutical Company, estimated that uncertified chemical companies make half the active pharmaceutical ingredients sold in China. "The stuff produced by chemical plants is clearly counterfeit medicine, but they aren't investigating," Wang said in an interview at his office. "This has been happening in a regulatory void." He added that most chemical company exports go to unregulated markets in Africa or South America. "That's not to say these products don't enter the United States through these other countries," he said.

    To find out how well American consumers are being protected from unsafe imported drugs, investigators from the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently accompanied FDA officials on inspections of drug plants in China and India.

    In a letter to the FDA commissioner, the committee said that the agency was unable to provide such basic information as the number of firms exporting to the United States, and that overseas FDA inspectors lacked necessary logistical support. A House hearing on FDA oversight of foreign drug manufacturers is scheduled for Thursday.

    "China alone has more than 700 firms making drug products for the U.S., yet the F.D.A. has resources to conduct only about 20 inspections a year in China," said Representative John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The FDA said it would answer the committee's questions at the hearing.
    ...

    Another "angle" for precaution as long as FDA remains under-funded under pro-corporate, vulgar pro-deregulation Neocon *Co: Farmed Fish and Shellfish products from China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc ... Find them at your local Cerebrus-owned supermarkets, like Save-Marts and Lucky (formerly Albertson's in Northern California until this year). See Monterey Bay Aquarium: Seafood WATCH for Best   Good   Avoid Ratings advisories on 70+ seafood products by region and methods of production. (I ceased ordering the Fish Tacos at one restaurant, when I inquired where its Tilapia originated and the likely production methods, after noticing the same product in a local Lucky and its "Made in..." label.)

    Re the capitalistic practices of private equity firms like Blackstone, Carlyle Group, and Cerebrus (and why low-cost product lines from Asia are likely appearing in the latter's supermarkets): Read and/or see Bill Moyers Journal September 28 interview with Vanguard's John Bogle.
    Every week we hear of another publicly traded company being bought by a private equity firm. Some of those investment firms — like Blackstone, the Carlyle Group, and Cerebrus — have become almost as well known as the brand-name companies they've been snapping up, from Chrysler to Dunkin' Donuts to Toys R Us. But private equity firms have no real interest in toys, cars, or baked goods. What they are after is big and quick returns on their capital. To get it, they buy a company and cut the wages, pensions and health benefits of the employees who work there. ...
    Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
    Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
    Sun Jul 15th 2007, 09:58 AM
    Arnold Unplugged - It’s Hasta La Vista to $9 Billion if the Governator is Selected
    Friday, October 3, 2003

    Others: Enron & Ken Lay Archives
    This Just In! Arnold Responds To Palast Charges In “Arnold Unplugged - It’s Hasta la Vista to $9 Billion if the Governator is Selected”
    Commondreams.org
    Monday, October 6, 2003

    Told’ya So - Yurica Report
    Wednesday, October 15, 2003

    Siege Heil: The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus and the Destabilization of California — Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, October 6, 2003 by The Free Press
    ...
    On May 17, 2001, Schwarzenegger also met with Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay of Enron at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles. Through the utility deregulation plan signed into law by Pete Wilson, Schwarzenegger's chief advisor, California was destabilized, bankrupting the state government and opening the door for Tuesday's recall election. Lay has been George W. Bush's chief financial backer, and a close associate of Karl Rove's...



    Diebold Manipulation in CA? —Was the California Recall Election Rigged?
    Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
    Posted by tiptoe in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
    Thu Nov 09th 2006, 11:51 AM
    source: 2006.09.05 CBS - Evening News with Katie Couric #1 - Part. 3 (Introduction)
    "We're trying a few new things here on the Evening News.

    One is something we're calling 'freeSpeech'.

    Expressing your opinion is very American, one of the many privileges of living in this country.

    We want to encourage more civil discourse. So we're giving people a forum to express themselves, unfiltered and uninterrupted.

    And the lack of civil discourse is precisely what our first freeSpeech is all about.

    Morgan Spurlock is the author of Super Size Me, and, tonight, he's got a beef about going to extremes."


    source: What is a Right? (The Rabid Quill)
    On Katie Couric’s first CBS Evening News broadcast, she introduced the FreeSpeech segment by referring to the freedom of speech as a “privilege” we “enjoy” here in the most wonderful country in the free world, the U.S. of A. ...


    source: According to Maher, CBS' "Free Speech" is a misnomer (Media Matters for America, video)
    MAHER: And they said, we -- ex -- that's my point. They said, "We'll send over a list of acceptable topics," for our segment on free speech. And, Katie said, at the -- she introduced this on her first broadcast by saying, "Expressing your opinion is one of the privileges of living in this country." Well, sorry again, but I thought it was a right, and not a privilege. I thought -- and, again, I only bring this up because they're treating it as a privilege. And, if CBS News doesn't get the difference between a privilege and a right, we're in a lot of trouble in this country...


    source: Katie Couric's sign-off contest
    "Remember, freedom of speech is a privilege" (11+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:OLinda, HighSticking, The Gryffin, Ranting Roland, John DE, LithiumCola, mariva, alwaysquestion, FakeNews, myrealname, Dave the Rave, Cronesense

    by kismet on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 03:55:40 PM PST

    =====
    ouch (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:mariva, alwaysquestion, Cronesense

    she will never hear the end of that.

    CO-04: Say no to bigots in Congress like Marilyn Musgrave.

    by OLinda on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 05:11:24 PM PST
    Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
    Greatest Threads
    The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
    Visitor Tools
    Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
     
    Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
    About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
    Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.