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

10/02 Richard Charnin's House & Senate RV/LV Polling Forecast Model (w latest Newsweek Generic poll) [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-03-10 08:27 PM
Original message
10/02 Richard Charnin's House & Senate RV/LV Polling Forecast Model (w latest Newsweek Generic poll)
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Sun Oct-03-10 09:19 PM by tiptoe
2010 Midterm House & Senate Forecast Model: RV/LV Polls, Undecided Voters & Election Fraud – xhttp://bit.ly/abXXCf


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.


  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 votenot 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 votersfirst-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 (see2004FinalPre-electionPolls).bit.ly/d2yEQhbit.ly/claROebit.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/bAc6OKbit.ly/amsJiBbit.ly/bRhlz4bit.ly/diYEJ5bit.ly/a2j7xlbit.ly/bsL7lkbit.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 Kennedys seat but lost to Scott Brown; Vic Rawl won the absentee vote but lost to unknown Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary; Mike Castle won the absentee ballots but lost to Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware GOP Senate primary. But there has not been a peep about any of this in the mainstream media. Apparently, we must just accept the conventional wisdom that even though the votes have vanished in cyberspace and can never be verified, they were not tampered with. The media lockdown is not limited to past stolen elections. The MSM prepares us for election fraud by listing final pre-election LV polls and ignoring RV polls.



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

02-Oct
# Polls

15
15
37
Poll Type

RVonly
onlyLV

RV&LV


CurrentSenateSeats

Simulation Forecast
37
RV&LV
Net Gain
Win Prob

37
OnlyLV
Net Gain
Win Prob

UnwtdAvg
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
-
-
ASSUMPTIONS
Fraud
MoE
UVA

0.0%
4.0%
50.0%

Vote-share deviation to GOP, 1988-2004
Poll margin of error
Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP









Projection (table)
RV&LV
Seats

Flip to
Lean
Safe
Tossup

Dem
54

1
2
8
7

GOP
44

4
4
16
0





NOTES:
Average of a 200 election trial simulation
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



Refresh | +8 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform 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