You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

9/17 ELECTION MODEL(TIA): OBAMA SURGING, 319EV! WHY THE MODEL DIFFERS FROM 538, ELECTORAL-VOTE & RCP [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
tiptoe Donating Member (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

  • Chart   State Poll Aggregate + Projection Trend
  • Chart   National 5-Poll Moving Average Projection
  • Chart   State vs. National: Vote Share Projection Trends
  • 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
     2008 Election Model Fraud Analyzer 
  • Uncounted  &  Switched Votes
  • Chart   Effect on Obama Projected Vote Share
  • Chart   Effect on Obama Projected Electoral Vote
  •  
     
    This
    State
    National
    State
    National
    Monte Carlo
    Simulation

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

    9/17/2008
    Aggregate
    Average
    Projection
    Projection
    Electoral Vote

    Obama
    McCain
     46.54 (50.69) 
     45.28 (49.31) 
     47.00 (51.20) 
     44.80 (48.80) 
    51.45
    48.55
    51.92
    48.08
    319
    219


        

    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 Obamas Electoral Vote Win Probability. Its a simple calculation if you use Monte Carlo simulation. Obama won 4906 of 5000 Election trials, so its 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, its 92%. Of course, all of these calculations assume that a fraud-free election is held today. Its 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 257247 (34 tied). realclearpolitics at 227207 (104 toss-up). The fivethirtyeight.com at 288250. But the 2008 Election Model (EM) had Obama leading 285253. 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 5149% 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% :

    • The state projected vote share V(i) is the state poll share PS(i) plus the undecided voter allocation UVA(i):

      V(i) = PS(i)+UVA(i),   for i=1,51 states

      For this example, a final Obama projected vote share V(i) = .49 for all states is assumed (with distinct state poll shares and respective undecided voter allocations implied). Five states total 100 EV.


    • The probability P(i) of winning each state assuming a 4% polling MoE (95% confidence):

      P(i)  =  NORMDIST ( V(i),  0.5,  .04/1.96,  true )

      .31 = NORMDIST( .49,  0.5,  .04/1.96,  true)  for each of the 5 states       (the NORMDIST function is available in Excel)

      The 2008 Election Model would allocate 31% of 100 EV to Obama and 69% of 100 EV to McCain.

    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 didnt 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 McCains 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 3835 Democrat/Republican 'Party ID' mix.

    Kerry won  the 12:22am Preliminary NEP by 5148%.    ( 13,047 random sample, 1% MoE )

    The mix was changed to 3737 in the Final NEP  to 'force' a match to the Recorded vote;

    Bush won  the 1:25pm 'forced' Final NEP by 5148%.

    Likewise, the Gore/Bush 'Voted 2000' weights were changed from 3941 to 3743 in the Final    ('13047' & '13660' here).

    The election was stolen.  Bush was the official winner by 50.748.3% with 286 EV.  The Final Exit Polls were "adjusted" accordingly.

    The final 2004 Election Model projection indicated that Kerry would win 337201 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 52.047.0% (2-party 52.5%) with 337 electoral votes exactly matching the Election Model!

    In the 2006 midterms, the 7pm NEP had a 3935 Democratic/Republican weighting mix. The Democrats won the NEP by 5543%. But the weights were changed to 3836 in the Final NEP in order to match the 5246% recorded vote; the Dem 12% margin was cut in half. Once again, the 'Voted 2004' weights were transformed: from Bush/Kerry 4745 at 7pm to 4943 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 McCains gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms, while he supports the most unpopular president in history.

    Polling data source:
    Electoral-vote.com
    RealClearPolitics.com


    THE 2008 ELECTION MODEL

    Last
    Aggregate
    5-poll
    2-party
    2-party
    Monte Carlo
    Simulation

    Update
    State
    National
    State
    National
    Expected

    9/17/2008
    Average
    Average
    Projection
    Projection
    Electoral Vote

     
     
     
    60% UVA
     
     

    Obama
    McCain
    46.54
    45.28
    47.00
    44.80
    51.45
    48.55
    51.92
    48.08
    319
    219


    2004 Final
     
     
    75% UVA
     
     

    Kerry
    Bush
    47.88
    46.89
    47.80
    46.60
    51.80
    48.20
    51.77
    48.23
    337
    201



    Projected Recorded Vote   (assuming fraud)

    Obama Vote Share      after adjustment for:

    Popular Vote
    Electoral Vote
    48.9%
    235
    3% -
    4% -
    Uncounted Votes
    Switched Votes


    Sensitivity Analysis Vote Share Impact on Electoral Vote

    Undecided Voter Allocation Scenario
     
     
    Base Case

    Obama
    40%
    50%
    60%
    70%
    80%


    Projected 2-Party Vote Share

    Obama
    McCain
    49.8
    50.2
    50.6
    49.4
    51.45
    48.55
    52.3
    47.7
    53.1
    46.9


    MoE
    Obama popular vote win probability

    2.0 %
    2.5 %
    3.0 %
    35.7
    42.7
    45.1
    89.2
    73.2
    66.0
    99.8
    92.2
    82.8
    100.0
    98.7
    93.1
    100.0
    99.9
    97.8


    Obama Expected Electoral Vote

    Average
    Median
    279.0
    280
    299.9
    301
    319.1
    320
    338.3
    338
    358.2
    357

    Maximum
    Minimum
    362
    177
    372
    215
    399
    230
    416
    264
    427
    278


    Obama Electoral Vote Win Probability

    Trial Wins
    Probability
    3240
    64.8
    4435
    88.7
    4900
    98.00
    4994
    99.9
    5000
    100.0


    95% Confidence Level
    Upper
    Lower
    330
    228
    347
    253
    363
    276
    380
    297
    402
    315


    States Won
    Obama
     
    23
     
    25
     
    26
     
    29
     
    30
     



     

     
    2008 POLLING ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS

    National Model see atop
    State Model
    (2-party vote shares)

    Click state abbreviation for election fraud articles

    L A T E S T    P O L L S
     
     
    OBAMA vs KERRY
    MONTE CARLO  EV  SIMULATION

     

     
     
    Pre-Undecided Voter Allocation
     
    Projection
    Projection
    JK Exit Poll
    Recorded
    Diff
     
    Diff
    Obama
    Obama
    Sprd*wt
    Battlegrnd
    EV Flip(*)
    Poll
    Date

    9/10
    9/10
    8/16
    7/14
    9/15

    9/14
    7/31
    2004
    9/12
    9/15

    9/10
    2/28
    9/10
    8/12
    9/15

    9/10
    8/20
    8/11
    8/17
    9/10

    9/5
    8/5
    9/10
    9/12
    9/10

    9/10
    9/9
    7/28
    9/11
    9/10

    9/12
    9/9
    9/15
    9/15
    9/9

    9/15
    9/7
    8/7
    9/14
    8/20

    7/23
    9/9
    8/20
    8/21
    9/13

    2/28
    9/15
    9/10
    9/10
    8/5
    9/10
    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
    46.54 %

    35
    35
    37
    33
    52

    47
    55
    90
    55
    48

    38
    61
    37
    58
    45

    52
    35
    38
    38
    52

    53
    51
    48
    47
    39

    45
    42
    32
    46
    51

    48
    47
    53
    47
    41

    49
    24
    49
    47
    51

    40
    43
    36
    38
    26

    63
    48
    49
    39
    50
    39
    McCain
    45.28 %

    55
    54
    49
    49
    37

    47
    37
    9
    43
    44

    56
    31
    54
    36
    51

    40
    58
    54
    54
    38

    41
    39
    45
    46
    52

    50
    53
    50
    48
    45

    43
    45
    40
    48
    55

    47
    56
    42
    46
    30

    53
    47
    55
    49
    63

    28
    46
    46
    44
    47
    58
     
    Diff
    1.26

    (20)
    (19)
    (12)
    (16)

    15

    0
    19
    81
    12
    4

    (18)
    30
    (17)
    22
    (6)

    12
    (23)
    (16)
    (16)

    14

    12
    13
    3
    1
    (13)

    (5)
    (11)
    (18)
    (2)

    6

    5
    2
    13
    (1)
    (14)


    2
    (32)
    7
    1
    21

    (13)
    (4)
    (19)
    (11)
    (37)


    35
    2
    3
    (5)
    3
    (19)
     
    Obama
    51.45 %

    41.0
    41.6
    45.5
    43.6
    58.8

    50.6
    60.1
    90.6
    56.2
    52.8

    41.6
    65.8
    42.4
    61.5
    47.4

    56.8
    39.2
    42.7
    42.6
    58.0

    56.6
    57.3
    52.2
    51.2
    44.4

    48.2
    45.0
    42.8
    49.6
    53.4

    53.4
    51.9
    57.2
    50.0
    43.4

    51.4
    36.0
    54.5
    51.2
    62.4

    44.2
    49.0
    41.5
    45.9
    32.6

    68.4
    51.6
    52.0
    49.2
    51.8
    40.8
    Final  Kerry
    51.80 %

    42.0
    39.8
    48.8
    51.0
    55.8

    50.8
    56.5
    86.3
    57.8
    52.3

    46.5
    52.5
    38.3
    57.0
    41.3

    54.5
    39.3
    42.8
    49.0
    58.3

    56.3
    70.8
    54.3
    55.0
    47.3

    49.3
    41.3
    37.3
    50.5
    51.5

    56.0
    50.5
    60.0
    49.0
    42.5

    52.3
    36.3
    54.5
    53.8
    62.0

    44.3
    46.5
    49.2
    40.0
    29.3

    58.3
    48.5
    55.0
    50.0
    54.8
    33.5
    IMS  WPE
    52.49

    42.3
    40.6
    45.0
    45.7
    60.7

    50.6
    62.9
    91.5
    61.9
    51.5

    42.4
    58.7
    32.6
    57.1
    40.8

    51.2
    37.5
    40.3
    44.0
    56.1

    60.2
    66.4
    55.0
    56.3
    49.5

    49.5
    37.6
    37.4
    53.4
    57.8

    58.1
    53.6
    65.1
    50.0
    35.0

    54.6
    34.2
    51.9
    55.7
    62.7

    46.2
    36.3
    43.6
    42.4
    28.4

    67.2
    50.3
    57.4
    40.7
    52.6
    32.9

    Kerry
    48.76

    37.2
    35.9
    44.8
    45.0
    54.9

    47.5
    54.9
    90.1
    53.9
    47.6

    41.8
    54.6
    30.6
    55.4
    39.7

    49.7
    37.0
    40.1
    42.6
    54.1

    56.5
    62.6
    51.7
    51.6
    40.2

    46.6
    39.0
    33.0
    48.4
    50.7

    53.5
    49.5
    59.0
    44.0
    35.9

    49.2
    34.8
    51.9
    51.4
    60.0

    41.3
    38.8
    43.0
    38.6
    26.3

    59.5
    45.9
    53.4
    43.6
    50.2
    29.4
    Projection
    (0.35)

    (1.0)
    1.9
    (3.2)
    (7.4)

    3.0

    (0.1)
    3.6
    4.3
    (1.6)
    0.6

    (4.9)
    13.3
    4.2
    4.5
    6.2

    2.3
    (0.0)
    (0.0)
    (6.4)
    (0.3)


    0.4
    (13.5)
    (2.1)
    (3.8)
    (2.9)

    (1.1)

    3.8
    5.6
    (0.9)
    1.9

    (2.6)
    1.4
    (2.8)
    1.1
    0.9

    (0.9)
    (0.3)
    (0.0)
    (2.6)

    0.4

    (0.0)
    2.5
    (7.7)
    5.9
    3.4

    10.2
    3.1
    (3.0)
    (0.8)
    (3.0)

    7.3
     
    UnadjEP
    (1.04)

    (1.3)
    1.0
    0.5
    (2.0)
    (1.9)


    0.0
    (2.8)
    (0.9)
    (5.7)

    1.3

    (0.8)
    7.1
    9.8
    4.3
    6.6

    5.6
    1.7
    2.4
    (1.3)
    1.9

    (3.6)
    (9.1)
    (2.8)
    (5.1)
    (5.1)

    (1.3)

    7.4
    5.4
    (3.8)
    (4.4)

    (4.7)
    (1.7)
    (7.9)
    (0.0)

    8.4

    (3.2)
    1.8
    1.7
    (4.5)
    (0.3)

    (2.0)

    12.7
    (2.1)
    3.5
    4.2

    1.2
    1.3
    (5.4)
    8.5
    (0.8)
    7.9
    Exp EV
    319.3

    0.0
    0.0
    0.1
    0.0
    55.0

    5.5
    7.0
    3.0
    3.0
    24.7

    0.0
    4.0
    0.0
    21.0
    1.1

    7.0
    0.0
    0.0
    0.0
    4.0

    10.0
    12.0
    14.6
    7.2
    0.0

    2.0
    0.0
    0.0
    2.1
    3.8

    14.3
    4.1
    31.0
    7.5
    0.0

    15.1
    0.0
    6.9
    15.2
    4.0

    0.0
    0.9
    0.0
    0.8
    0.0

    3.0
    10.2
    9.2
    1.7
    8.1
    0.0
    Win Prob
    98.00

    0.0
    0.0
    1.4
    0.1
    100.0

    61.6
    100.0
    100.0
    99.9
    91.5

    0.0
    100.0
    0.0
    100.0
    10.1

    100.0
    0.0
    0.0
    0.0
    100.0

    99.9
    100.0
    85.9
    72.2
    0.3

    18.6
    0.7
    0.0
    42.2
    95.2

    95.2
    82.7
    100.0
    50.0
    0.1

    75.4
    0.0
    98.6
    72.2
    100.0

    0.2
    31.2
    0.0
    2.3
    0.0

    100.0
    78.3
    83.6
    34.8
    81.1
    0.0
    Rank
    100%







    6.2



    10.3





    2.5









    7.8
    6.1


    3.6


    2.7
    0.9

    4.6
    2.6

    9.1


    10.7

    1.1
    12.8



    1.1





    6.9
    5.0
    1.5
    4.6

    Evote
    219







    9



    27





    11









    17
    10


    11


    5
    4

    15
    5

    15


    20

    7
    21



    3





    13
    11
    5
    10

    to Obama
    6

    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

    These graphs display the effects of uncounted and switched votes on Obama's projected EV and 2-party vote share.
    Effect of uncounted and switched votes on the projected vote share
    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 wont 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 6259m 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 Bushs third term. Typically, challengers win 6090% 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 4080%, 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. Thats 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

    Its hard to understand why election forecasting blogs and academics and the media, who employ the latest state polls as input to their models, dont 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:

    • The state projected vote share V(i) is the state poll PS(i) plus the undecided voter allocation UVA(i):

      V(i)  =  PS(i)+UVA(i),   for i=1,51 states


    • The probability P(i) of winning each state assuming a 4% polling MoE (95% confidence):

      P(i)  =  NORMDIST ( V(i),  0.5,  .04/1.96,  true )


    • The expected electoral vote EVS(i) for each state (win probability times electoral vote):

      EVS(i)  =  P(i)* EV(i)


    • The total expected electoral vote EV as the sum of the state electoral votes:

      EV  =  Σ EVS(i),   for i = 1,51 states


    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.
     




     


    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     

    Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

    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