 |
Latest | Greatest | Lobby | Journals | Search | Options | Help | Login |
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
|
tiptoe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-08 12:09 AM Original message |
| 9/17 ELECTION MODEL(TIA): OBAMA SURGING, 319EV! WHY THE MODEL DIFFERS FROM 538, ELECTORAL-VOTE & RCP |
|
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Thu Sep-18-08 12:22 AM by tiptoe
2008 ELECTION MODEL A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Updated: September 17 Press REFRESH after linking to a graph to view the latest update 2008 Election Model Fraud Analyzer
15-Poll End Sample Poll NATIONAL MODEL Pre UVA 5-Poll Mov Avg 2-Party Projection (60% UVA) 5-Poll Mov Avg Trend Rasmussen Gallup Hotline/FD CBS/NYT Zogby Ipsos Newsweek AP/gFk FOX News NBC/WSJ CBS/NYT CNN ABC/WP IBD/TIPP USA/Gallup Registered V vs Likely V Poll Averages Date 9/16 9/16 9/16 9/16 9/15 9/15 9/11 9/10 9/09 9/08 9/07 9/07 9/07 9/07 9/07 Size 3000 LV 2765 RV 913 RV 800 LV 1008 LV 1046 RV 1038 RV 812 RV 900 RV 1000 RV 655 RV 942 RV 1000 LV 868 RV 823 LV RV avg LV avg Total MoE 1.79% 1.86% 3.24% 3.46% 3.09% 3.03% 3.04% 3.44% 3.27% 3.10% 3.83% 3.19% 3.10% 3.33% 3.42% Obama 47 47 45 49 47 45 46 44 42 46 44 48 47 40 44 44.7 46.8 45.4 McCain 48 45 42 44 45 45 46 48 45 45 46 48 49 45 54 45.5 48.0 46.3 Other 5 8 13 7 8 10 8 8 13 9 10 4 4 15 2 9.8 5.2 8.3 Spread (1) 2 3 5 2 0 0 (4) (3) 1 (2) 0 (2) (5) (10) (0.8) (1.2) (0.9) Obama 47.0 46.6 46.4 46.2 44.8 44.6 44.4 44.8 45.4 45.0 44.6 45.0 43.8 44.4 46.0 McCain 44.8 44.2 44.4 45.6 45.8 45.8 46.0 46.4 46.6 46.6 48.4 47.2 46.0 44.8 43.8 Spread 2.2 2.4 2.0 0.6 (1.0) (1.2) (1.6) (1.6) (1.2) (1.6) (3.8) (2.2) (2.2) (0.4) 2.2 Obama 51.9 52.1 51.9 51.1 50.4 50.4 50.2 50.1 50.2 50.0 48.8 49.7 49.9 50.9 52.1 McCain 48.1 47.9 48.1 48.9 49.6 49.6 49.8 49.9 49.8 50.0 51.2 50.3 50.1 49.1 47.9 Spread 3.8 4.2 3.8 2.2 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 (2.4) (0.6) (0.2) 1.8 4.2 Win Prob 98.2 98.7 87.7 73.7 61.0 59.2 54.1 51.8 54.8 51.0 27.0 42.2 48.0 69.8 88.8 The Obama Surge The jarring economic news combined with a sharp increase in Sarah Palin negatives has caused Obama to rebound sharply in the state and national polls. The National model is at 51.92% thanks to Gallup, Hotline, Zogby and CBS. In the new CNN/Time state polls, he is leading in FL, OH, and VA and is nearly tied in NC. The State Monte Carlo model projects him to win 319 Electoral votes with 51.45% of the two-party vote. But the key result, as always, is Obama’s Electoral Vote Win Probability. It’s a simple calculation — if you use Monte Carlo simulation. Obama won 4906 of 5000 Election trials, so it’s exactly 98.12%. More confirmation: based on the national polls, there is a 98% probability that Obama will win the popular vote; based on the state polls, it’s 92%. Of course, all of these calculations assume that a fraud-free election is held today. It’s a snapshot which changes slightly every day. But today was a major turning point. See the State vs. National vote share projection Trend. Why Election Model projections differ from the Media, Academia and the Bloggers There are a variety of election forecasting models used in academia, the media and internet election sites. The corporate MSM (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, etc.) sponsors national polls to track the “horserace” and state polls to calculate the electoral vote. As of Sept.16, three well-known sites each had McCain in front: electoral-vote.com had him leading by 257–247 (34 tied). realclearpolitics at 227–207 (104 toss-up). The fivethirtyeight.com at 288–250. But the 2008 Election Model (EM) had Obama leading 285–253. Why the difference? • The EM uses Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. Monte Carlo is widely used to analyze diverse risk-based models when an analytical solution is impractical or impossible. The EM is updated weekly based on the latest state and national polls. The model projects the popular and electoral vote, assuming both clean and fraudulent election scenarios. The EM allocates the electoral vote based on the state win probability in calculating a more realistic total Expected EV. • Corporate MSM pollsters and media pundits use state and national polling data. Electoral vote projections are misleading, since they are calculated based on the latest state polls regardless of the spread; the state poll leader gets all of its electoral votes. This is statistically incorrect; they do not consider state win probabilities. And there is no adjustment for the allocation of undecided voters. For example, assume that McCain leads by 51–49% in each of five states with a total of 100 electoral votes. Most models would simply assign the 100 EV to McCain. But that is an oversimplification: Obama could easily win one or more of the states, since his win probability is 31% :
• Bloggers also track state and national polls and do not adjust for undecided voters. A few use Monte Carlo simulation, but the EV win probabilities and frequency distributions are NOT consistent with the polling data. Either the state win probabilities and/or the simulation algorithm is incorrect. • Academic regression models predict the popular vote but are run months prior to the election. They are typically based on economic and political factors rather than state or national polling data. They do not project the electoral vote. In 2004, virtually all of them forecast Bush to win by 5-10%. But since the election was stolen, the models had to be wrong — they didn’t factor election fraud as an independent variable in the regression. In fact, they never even mentioned the F-word in describing their methodologies. Fixing the polls: Party ID, Voted in 2000, RV vs. LV There has been much discussion regarding the recent McCain “surge” in the national polls. Most national and state polls are sponsored by the corporate MSM. Gallup, Rasmussen and other national polls recently increased the Republican Party ID percentage weighting. This had the immediate effect of boosting McCain’s poll numbers. But there are 11 million more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. USA Today/Gallup changed the poll method from RV to LV right after the Republican convention. Party-ID weights were manipulated to favor McCain as well. There is a consistent discrepancy between Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) Polls. The Democrats always do better in RV polls. No wonder: Since 1988, Democratic presidential candidates have won new voters by an average 14% margin. The manipulation of polling weights is nothing new. Recall that the 2004 and 2006 Final National Exit Polls weightings were adjusted to match the recorded vote miscount. But all category cross-tabs had to be changed, not just Party ID. Of course, the Final Exit Poll (state and national) is always matched to the Recorded vote, even though it may be fraudulent — as it was in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This cannot be emphasized enough. Say it loud, again and again. In 2004, the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP) had a 38–35 Democrat/Republican 'Party ID' mix. Kerry won the 12:22am Preliminary NEP by 51–48%. ( 13,047 random sample, 1% MoE ) The mix was changed to 37–37 in the Final NEP to 'force' a match to the Recorded vote; Bush won the 1:25pm 'forced' Final NEP by 51–48%. Likewise, the Gore/Bush 'Voted 2000' weights were changed from 39–41 to 37–43 in the Final ('13047' & '13660' here). The election was stolen. Bush was the official winner by 50.7–48.3% with 286 EV. The Final Exit Polls were "adjusted" accordingly. The final 2004 Election Model projection indicated that Kerry would win 337–201 EV with 51.8% of the 2-party vote. In their Jan. 2005 report, exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky provided the average exit poll discrepancy for each state based on 1250 total precincts. Kerry won the unadjusted aggregate state exit poll vote share by 52.0–47.0% (2-party 52.5%) with 337 electoral votes — exactly matching the Election Model! In the 2006 midterms, the 7pm NEP had a 39–35 Democratic/Republican weighting mix. The Democrats won the NEP by 55–43%. But the weights were changed to 38–36 in the Final NEP in order to match the 52–46% recorded vote; the Dem 12% margin was cut in half. Once again, the 'Voted 2004' weights were transformed: from Bush/Kerry 47–45 at 7pm to 49–43 in the Final. The landslide was denied; 10-20 Dem seats were stolen. The “dead heat” claimed by pollsters, bloggers and the media is a canard — unless they are factoring fraud into their models and not telling us. The media desperately wants a horserace, and so they fail to adjust the polls for undecided and newly registered voters. They avoid McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms, while he supports the most unpopular president in history. Polling data source: Electoral-vote.com RealClearPolitics.com
National Model — see atop State Model (2-party vote shares) Click state abbreviation for election fraud articles
These graphs display the effects of uncounted and switched votes on Obama's projected EV and 2-party vote share. ?click">Effect of uncounted and switched votes on the projected vote share ?click">Effect of uncounted and switched votes on the electoral vote The Election Calculator Model The 2004 Election Calculator was developed as a response to the Final 2004 National Exit Poll. The Final was forced to match the recorded vote using impossible weightings. Read more about the 1988-2004 Election Calculator here. The 2008 Election Calculator projects Obama will win the True Vote by 71 – 59m. Read more about the 2008 Election Calculator here. The Great Election Fraud Lockdown: Uncounted, Stuffed and Switched Votes Professional statistical organizations, media pundits and election forecasters who projected a Bush victory never discuss Election Fraud. On the contrary, a complicit media has been in a permanent election fraud lockdown, as it relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won BOTH elections. They want you to believe that Democrats always do better in the exit polls, because Republican voters are reluctant responders. But they never consider other, more plausible explanations — such as uncounted votes and stuffed ballots. Read more here. Apparently, the MSM and election fraud naysayers are unaware that millions of ballots are either uncounted or stuffed. And that these anomalies have always favored a Bush: in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004. That is one reason why the Democratic True vote (and exit poll share) is always greater than the Recorded vote. The MSM does not want you to know the facts and assumes that you won’t try to reconcile the preliminary exit polls, census and recorded vote totals. If you try, expect to be labeled as a conspiracy nut. These are the facts: a) In most states, total votes cast exceeded votes recorded (uncounted ballots exceeded stuffed). In Florida, Ohio and about 10 other states, total votes recorded exceeded votes cast (ballot stuffing exceeded uncounted ballots). b) The majority (70-80%) of uncounted ballots are in Democratic minority precincts. In 2000, according to the 2004 Census, a net 5.4 million of 110.8m total votes cast (4.9%) were uncounted, of which approximately 4.0m were Gore votes. c) In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 62–59m with 286 EV. But 3.4m of 125.7 million total votes cast were uncounted (2.7%) and 2.5m were for Kerry. Adding back the uncounted votes, the recorded Bush 3.0m margin is cut in half, 62.9 - 61.5m. Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes conventional wisdom. Although the media commissioned exit polls which indicated that Kerry won by 5%, they never explained why mathematically impossible weights were used in the Final Exit Poll to 'force' a match to the recorded vote count. In the Three-Card Monte con, the mark is tricked into betting that he can find the money card among three face-down cards. A rigged election is the Vote Scam equivalent of the Three-card Monte. What you see in the exit polls is not what you get in the recorded count; the recorded vote is never equal to the True vote. In this con game, the voter is the mark. Any model which correctly calculates the True vote is doomed to fail in a rigged election. Allocating Undecided Voters: Sensitivity Analysis In the 2008 Election Model, Obama is considered to be the challenger, since McCain is running for Bush’s third term. Typically, challengers win 60–90% of the undecided vote (UVA), if the incumbent is unpopular. The State Model includes a sensitivity (risk) analysis of five Obama undecided voter (UVA) scenario assumptions ranging from 40–80%, with 60% as the base case. This enables one to view the effects of various projection assumptions on the expected electoral vote and win probability. Electoral vote forecasting models which do not provide a risk factor sensitivity analysis are incomplete. The National Model calculates a 5-poll moving average projection assuming the 60% UVA scenario. In 2004, final state and national Pre-Election Polls had the race nearly tied at 47%. Bush had a 48% approval rating. That’s one reason why the Gallup poll projected that Kerry would win 88% of the late undecided vote. The 2004 Election Model allocated 75% of the undecided vote to Kerry as the base case of a five UVA sensitivity analysis. The base case scenario projected that Kerry would have an expected 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote. His electoral vote win probability was over 99%. Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote: A Simple Summation It’s hard to understand why election forecasting blogs and academics and the media, who employ the latest state polls as input to their models, don’t use basic probability, statistics and simulation concepts in forecasting the electoral vote and corresponding win probability. A meta-analysis or simulation is not required to calculate the expected electoral vote. Of course, the individual state vote projections depend on the particular forecasting method used. This is the procedure in the 2008 Election Model for calculating the expected electoral vote:
Calculating the Probability of Winning the Electoral Vote: Monte Carlo Simulation The Excel-based Election Model is very straightforward as shown above. After updating the database for the latest state polling data, the vote shares are projected. The normal distribution function calculates the corresponding state win probability. The expected state EV is the product of the win probability and electoral vote. The sum of the 51 state expected EVs is the total expected EV. The final step is to calculate the EV Win Probability. The Election Model uses a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. MC is widely used for analyzing complex systems, when an analytical solution is prohibitive due to the virtually infinite number of possible combinations of risk-based variables (i.e. state win probabilities). A random number generator (RND) is used in the simulated election trials. The EV win probability is just a simple division: the number of winning election trials divided by 5000 (total trials). The Monte Carlo mean and median EV of the election trials match are always within one of the EV summation formula. This proves that 5000 election trials are sufficient to derive a theoretically accurate win probability. The simulation illustrates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN). With all due respect to Professor Sam Wang, his Meta-Analysis program is an unnecessarily complex combinatorial algorithm when compared to Excel and Monte Carlo simulation for calculating the expected Electoral Vote and Win Probability. Other links: 2004 Election Model Summary, Polling Analysis, National & State Model tables Confirmation of A Kerry Landslide Election Fraud Analytics and Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ HAVA Look: A Simple, Verifiable, Open Source, Paper Ballot Vote-Recording & Counting System Excel Models available for download: The Election Calculator: 1988-2004 2004 Interactive Simulation Model A Polling Simulation Model 2000-2004 County Vote Database |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC
