Obama’s EV and Popular Vote Win ProbabilityAssuming the election is held today, Obama’s win probability as calculated by

**fivethirtyeight.com** (

**71.5%**) is not consistent with their projected

**303–235** EV.

The Election Model uses a 5000-election trial Monte Carlo simulation. The model projects that

**if a fraud-free election is held today**, Obama would win

**323**–

**215** Electoral votes with

**51.1%** of the two-party vote. The EV win probability is a simple calculation: Obama won 4926 of 5000 simulated election trials; his

**win probability** is therefore

**98.5%** (4926/5000). It’s a snapshot which changes slightly every day.

The model indicates that for the same 303-235 EV split, Obama’s EV win probability is

**92%** (assuming he wins just 50% of the undecided vote). Since the probability calculations in both models are based on the

**latest state polls**, there is obviously a difference in

__methodology__ between the models.

The Election Model

**base case scenario** assumes that Obama will win

**60%** of the

**undecided vote**. And this is conservative, as he is presumed to be the challenger (McSame is running for the third Bush term).

View the Election Model

**Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency** chart.

**Note that 4926 (****98.5%**) of the 5000 simulated election trials are **over 270** for Obama. Compare this result to the equivalent fivethirtyeight.com chart in which 28.5% of the trials which McCain won are in red, while the **71.5%** Obama won are in **blue**. The chart should be 98.5% blue.Obama also leads the

**National** projection model (based on the average of the latest 5 national polls) with

**52.4%** of the 2-party vote. Note that the

__national polls __**lead** the state polls, so that we can expect a rise in Obama’s expected EV and win probability. The national model also assumes that he will win 60% of the undecided vote. The probability that he will win the popular vote is over

**98%**.

As of Sept.20,

electoral-vote.com has Obama leading by

**273**–

**265**;

realclearpolitics has him losing by

**202**–

**216** (120 tossup);

fivethirtyeight.com has Obama by

**303**–

**235**. But the

**2008 Election Model** (

**EM**) had Obama leading:

**323**–

**215**. Why the difference?

Why Election Model projections differ from the Media, Academia and the BloggersThere 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.

And why don’t they mention the fraud factor? If just 2% of votes cast are

**uncounted** (2.74% were in 2004) and 4% of Obama’s votes are

**switched** electronically to McCain,

**McCain will win by ****293**–**245** EV with 51.2% of the two-party vote.**•** 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

**over**simplification: 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 **PS(i)** and respective undecided voter allocations **UVA(i)** 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 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. LVThere 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).

Bush was the

official winner by 50.7–48.3% with 286 EV.

*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 Preliminary** NEP had a **39**–**35** Democratic/Republican weighting mix. The Democrats won that 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**