|
tiptoe's Journal
11/01 Charnin Midterms: Pollsters & Pundits are Paid to Project the Recorded Vote– Not the True Vote
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% 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. 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... 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 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 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 Democratic Projection Sensitivity 60% Dem Shr RV Cutoff -- Voter Turnout & Dem Share of UVA 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 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 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 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% 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 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% 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 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) 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 No fraud 3% vote switch II. UVA: 60% Dem / 40% GOP No fraud 3% Vote switch Larry Sabato: Crystal Ball Electoral-vote.com Table 1 2010 Midterms:Senate and House Forecast ModelSenate 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 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% 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% .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">Margin 0.6 (4.6) (14) (29) (11) (14) 16 5 19 29 (11) (18) 48 (18) (37) 4 (18) (40) (2) (21) 16 (11) (8) (44) (7) 4 27 28 (6) (43) 17 4 (40) (40) (27) 4 35 (3) 7 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 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 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 Dem 52.9 49.8 3.1 10 7 3 212 201 10 206 211 198 13 208 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 ModelSenate 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% .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">Margin 1.0 (3.7) (8) (29) (14) (14) 19 3 19 29 (7) (18) 48 (18) (37) 4 (16) (40) 0 (21) 16 (11) (13) (44) (7) 11 27 28 (7) (43) 17 0 (40) (40) (27) 4 35 (3) 7 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 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 Table 1b Sensitivity Analysis: RV vs. LV Polls Effect of LV-excluded RV Turnout and Vote Switch on Democratic Seats 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 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 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 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;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">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 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 ... 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 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 ... 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.
10/02 Richard Charnin's House & Senate RV/LV Polling Forecast Model (w latest Newsweek Generic poll)
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 ModelSenate 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% .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 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 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/la... bit.ly/azDXlw 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 Dem48.0% 48.3 48.5 49.4 V GOP52.0% 51.7 51.5 50.6 Net Seat GOP 7.2 7.4 8.1 5.8 RV/ Dem49.3% 49.7 49.6 50.8 LV GOP50.7% 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 47.4 47.3 47.4 45.2 45.2 40.0 45.1 POLL AVG Dem39.7 41.9 40.7 38.2 43.6 43.3 41.6 PROJECTED GOP54.4 53.0 53.8 54.2 50.9 48.0 52.0 2-PARTY Dem45.6 47.0 46.2 45.8 49.1 52.0 48.0 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 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 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 Gallup RasmussenReports CNN/OpinionResearch Gallup Rasmussen Reports CNN/Opinion Research ABC News/Wash Post FOX News USA Today/Gallup Rasmussen Reports Gallup Newsweek Reuters/Ipsos Gallup Rasmussen Reports Time Associated Press/GfK Gallup Rasmussen Reports FOX News CNN/Opinion Research PPP (D) Rasmussen Reports Gallup Pew Research 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 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 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 (0 comments)
2008 ELECTION MODEL A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Updated: June 30
Based on the latest polling, if the election was held today the Election Model indicates that Obama would win the electoral vote: 339 – 199 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.
Calculation of Win Probabilities The expected electoral vote is the average of the 5000 election trial simulation.
The probabilities are based on 4% margin of error and the projected state vote share.
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 Election Model Review The model produced an amazing confirmation of the State and National models.
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 51 – 48%. The 1:25pm FINAL National Exit Poll indicated that Kerry lost by 48 – 51%.
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 VoteTwo basic methods are used to forecast presidential elections:
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
|
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. Some things I enjoy about DU2 in its current configuration. 9 recs : By No Elephants Consulting firm with ties to Rahm behind paying astroturf groups to attend meetings? 5 recs : By madfloridian Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
