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)

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)
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
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-03-10 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for the confirmation DEMS WILL KICK GOP ASS....I needed that
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-03-10 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-03-10 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. One important thesis regarding "likely voters" and "registered voters":
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. That's an excellent observation.
Now why would they do that?

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. It's either random, or there's some predisposing factor.
But to tell the truth, I'd never noticed it before, and I'm embarrassed that I don't know how, survey-wise, the RVs and LVs are classified, or contacted.

I should study harder.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. "They are not separate polls." Refer to "The Likely Voter Cutoff Model"...
Edited on Tue Oct-05-10 05:41 AM by tiptoe


...here.

Different pollsters and polling groups have different approaches in determining who among a sample of "registered voters" are deemed "likely to vote." Thus, a pre-election "Likely"-voter "polling" is not a separate and independent physical sampling of Registered Voters (RV), but rather a mere culling of RVs deemed "unlikely to vote", based on 1) varying pollster criteria applied to already-sampled RVs and 2) pollster projection of actual turnout based on assumption. Re the Gallup system (emphasis mine):

In each sample, a subsample of likely voters is identified by taking into account each respondent's score on a 0 to 7 scale that assesses a person's likelihood to vote. The top scorers on this scale -- equal to the projected turnout -- are identified as likely voters. ... Gallup's system consists of asking respondents a battery of questions about past voting, current interest in the election, and self-reported interest in voting...Putting all of this information together, we can assign each voter a score based on our estimate of his or her probability of actually voting. Based on assumptions about actual turnout, we use the scores to select the pool of voters that we think best represents a realistic pool of likely voters come Election Day. (see, too, Gallup's "Expanded Likely Voter Model" for Presidential elections)

There is no fixed criteria set for defining a pool of "likely voters." It varies between pollsters and their skill -- or preference -- in "assumptions about turnout." How "unlikely to vote" is a registered voter who voted in the prior election? Not very often less than 3%. Such persons have been termed "habitual voters" who turnout 98% for elections. And that is a basic question pollsters typically ask not only of registered voters in pre-election interviews, but also of voters in post-election exit polls: "Whom did you vote for in the previous election?" Richard Charnin made good use of that information in confirming (p.49, Proving Election Fraud) the reliability of the 12:22am Preliminary National Exit Poll of voters that showed Kerry won by 51-48% versus the Final NEP vote-share that was "forced" to match a recorded vote count with Bush at 51-48%.

And which registered voters largely become excluded from "likely voter" subsamples as a result of questions about past voting? Naturally, "new" voters, i.e., first-time, newly-registered voters and others who 'Did Not Vote' in the previous election. Why is that significant for pre-election projection of Dem share based on LV criteria?

Democrats have recently fared an average 14% margin advantage amongst "new" voters -- that is, before Obama's whopping 71-27% win of "new" voters in 2008. (Kerry won "new" voters by 57-41% in 2004.) Pre-election projections of election-day Dem share based on Registered Voter (RV) polls would not exclude any registed voters, "new" or otherwise, while an RV subsample of "likely voters" based on "questions about past voting" might very well exclude a segment of the registered voters among which Democrats do very well relative to Republican candidates. Also, pre-election underestimates of turnout lower projected Dem share on election-day by raising the cutoff score for "likely voter" inclusion. How far off were pollster pre-election estimates of actual turnout in 2004 (similar to 2006 and 2008)? TruthIsAll studied and presented it here (scroll down to 2004) an average 6%. That translates to nearly 8m voters of 125m total. For 2008, one political analyst, Bruce Gyory, warned on Oct 29 that RV polls and not LV polls should be heeded for accurate projection of the vote, based on early-voting trends in certain states. (That Newsday article, as well as a series of articles by Stephanie Saul re NY voting system, is currently "unavailable".)

Thus, what we'll soon see in the pre-election polls is a not-so-gradual displacement of all-inclusive RV polls by pollster-dependent, voter-excluding LV polls, with the result being lowball projections of Dem shares for election day. This is why turnout is key to Democrats overcoming systemic Republican vote-count fraud. "The Republican candidate often benefits from a turnout advantage." That quote from the Gallup site might have been qualified more finely: '...benefits from a low-turnout advantage.'

This lowballing of projected Dem share by reversion to onlyLV polls lays a foundation and cover for vote-count fraud against Dems on election day, followed up by the coverup of always "forcing" Final exit polls to match the recorded vote count. And who 'takes care of the counting' of the vote? Self-admittedly (only "joking"?), rad Republicans like this guy. How successful has their "careful counting" been for the "GOP"? Check out Charnin's straightforward, no model, no assumption historical comparison of exit-poll responses of voters and official recorded counts of their votes, 1988 thru 2004  (p84, Proving Election Fraud).

Oh, a new twist — perhaps degree of desperation? — was added in 2008 to the cover-up of "GOP" election fraud: Suppression by the NEP consortium of news outlets FOX, AP, CNN et al of its contracted exit pollster's Evaluation Report, which, in 2004, contained 51 unadjusted state exit polls and three un-forced, preliminary-national exit polls. Charnin demonstrates in his book how those unadjusted state exit polls, aggregated, adds another national measure of confirmation the American electorate voted Kerry president, while the recorded (secret) vote count indicated otherwise. What might the 2008 unadjusted state exit polls reveal about Obama's true margin of victory and mandate, if made available?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Thank you for that excellent explanation, and
please consider making it an OP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. +1000! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R
Thanks for plugging on and looking the truth behind the polls. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R#5 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Autumn Colors Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&R (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. I got here too late to recommend - very important topic
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. Kicking.
Got here to late to rec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Catamount Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
13. Good work--thanks K and R
Sadly we must always be prepared for this, but it's good to find people at DU still working hard to fight !
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
15. And along with it is biased reporting, to provide a "reason"
why the thugs win. For example the uneven reporting of the Glen Beck event over the march last weekend. Plus the pelting of negative ads against Democrats, which Thom Hartmann has just reported are funded by out of the country business interests. Whether or not the ads have an effect, they provide a plausible "reason" why a minority viewpoint wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
byronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
17. Kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
18. ttt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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