Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

10/8 Richard Charnin Midterms Forecast Model: Rasmssn LV(45R-42D);Gallup new LV;GOP 12% Sen win prob

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-10-10 12:50 AM
Original message
10/8 Richard Charnin Midterms Forecast Model: Rasmssn LV(45R-42D);Gallup new LV;GOP 12% Sen win prob
Edited on Sun Oct-10-10 01:29 AM by tiptoe
2010 Midterm House & Senate Forecast Model:RV/LV Polls, Undecided Voters & Election Fraudbit.ly/aurqKJ

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionForecastModels.ht...

October 8, 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 based on a likely voter cutoff model (LVCM). 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 display 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.

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.

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.

Unlike the Senate, House Generic polls have been primarily RV samples (except for Rasmussen, which only provides LV sub-samples). But the ratio will shift to virtually all LVs as Election Day approaches.


Latest Polling Analysis

Gallup
The GOP leads the full 3000 RV sample by 46-43%
The GOP leads the 1883 LV sub-sample by 53-40%.
Therefore, 1118 RV respondents did not pass the Gallup LVCM. The Democrats lead this "unlikely to vote" group by 48-35%
.

Rasmussen
The GOP leads the LV sub-sample by 45-42%. They led in the prior poll by 46-40%.
Rasmussen does not provide RV poll results.

Senate Models

RV & LV (15 RV and 22 LV polls) (Table 1)

The RV polls are from CNN/Time.
The Democrats have a 52.7-45.3 simulated seat margin (100% win probability).
The Democrats lead the 37-poll weighted average by 45.3-44.3%.

LV (37 LV polls)
Most polls are from Rasmussen.
The Democrats have a 49.6-48.4 simulated seat margin (88% win probability).
The GOP leads the LV poll weighted average by 47.2-43.4%.
Each 1% incremental vote-switch to the GOP gives them 2 additional seats (Table 5).

RV (15) vs. LV (15) sub-sample (Table 1a)
The Democrats lead the RV poll unweighted average by 48.7-40.8% and the LV sub-sample by 46.5-45.3%.
The Democrats win 10-12 of the 15 races (2 are tied) in the full RV sample and 7 in the LV sub-sample.
The Democrats win 8 seats, if 50% of the registered voters excluded in the LV sub-sample are included.


House Models

Latest 13 RV polls (Table 6)
The GOP leads the average RV poll by 45.7-43.8%.
The GOP has a 224-211 seat margin (74% win probability).

Latest 15 LV polls
The GOP leads the average by LV poll 47.4-40.3%.
The GOP wins control by a 235-200 projected seat margin (99% win probability).
Each 1% incremental vote-switch to the GOP gives them 4 additional seats (Table 7).

2010 Generic polls (Table 9)
The GOP leads the 116 non-Rasmussen poll average by 45.0-43.2% with a projected 223-212 majority and 69% win probability.
The GOP leads the 38 Rasmussen poll average by 45.2-37.1% with a projected 237-198 majority and 99.6% win probability.


October 8House and Senate Forecast Summary

Average Poll Share
Dem
Projected Share (%)
Simulated Seat Proj
WinProb


Senate
Weighted Average
RV (14) & LV (23)
LV only
Diff
Unweighted Average
RV sample
LV sub-sample
Diff

House
Latest Generic Polls
RV
LV
Diff
Total

2010 Generic Polls
Non-Rasmussen
Rasmussen (LV)
Diff
Total
Polls


37
37
-

15
15
-



13
15
-
28


116
38
-
154
Dem
%

45.3
43.4
1.8

48.7
46.5
2.3



43.8
40.3
3.4
41.9


43.2
37.1
6.1
41.7
GOP
%

44.3
47.2
(2.9)

40.8
45.3
(4.5)



45.7
47.4
(1.7)
46.6


45.0
45.2
(0.2)
45.3
Spread
%

1.0
(3.8)
4.7

7.9
1.1
6.8



(1.9)
(7.1)
5.1
(4.7)


(1.8)
(8.1)
6.3
(3.6)
Dem
%

50.5
48.1
2.4

54.0
50.6
3.4



49.0
46.5
2.6
47.7


49.1
45.9
3.2
48.2
GOP
%

49.5
51.9
(2.4)

46.0
49.4
(3.4)



51.0
53.5
-2.6
52.3


50.9
54.1
(3.2)
51.8
Dem


52.4
49.5
3.0

10
7
3.0



211
200
11
205


212
198
14
208
GOP


45.6
48.5
(3.0)

3
8
(5.0)



224
235
(11)
230


223
237
(14)
227
GOP


0%
12%
-

-
-
-



74%
99%
-
94%


69%
99.6%
-
88%

Pollsters Are Paid To Predict the Recorded Vote - Not the True Vote

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.

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.

Since 2000, LV poll projections have closely matched recorded vote-count shares, while RV poll projections closely matched unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls. In each election, the final exit polls were "forced" to match the recorded vote-count. . In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Poll required impossible returning Bush voter turnout in order to match the recorded vote. Since pre-election LV poll predictions also matched the recorded vote, what can we conclude?

The media cites low Democratic enthusiasm in the 2010 midterms, but turnout will exceed the LV sub-sample. Unfortunately, most pollsters wont provide RV samples in the two weeks prior to the election. The media will gush on how close the final LV predictions came to the vote but ignore the real reason:systemic election fraud.

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


Senate:

Projected GOP LV (Recorded) Vote Share:
LV Poll Projection = 49.4 = 46 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 3.4%.

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 = 53.53 = 50.96 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 2.57%

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 1988, 11 million votes were uncounted; in 2000, 6 million; in 2004, 4 million; in 2006, 3 million.

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 (1% MoE, 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

08-Oct
Simulation Forecast
Expected Senate Seats
Poll Type
RV&LV
Net Gain
Win Prob

OnlyLV
Net Gain
Win Prob
Count
37



37
Dem
52.7
-
100.0%

49.6
-
88.0%
GOP
45.3
4.3
0.0%

48.4
7.4
12.0%
Ind
2



2


Weighted Avg

RV&LV
OnlyLV
Unwtd Avg
RV
LV



37
37

15
15
Poll Share
Projection
Dem
45.3%
43.4%

48.7%
46.5%
GOP
44.3%
47.2%

40.8%
45.3%
Dem
50.5%
48.1%

54.0%
50.6%
GOP
49.5%
51.9%

46.0%
49.4%



ASSUMPTIONS
Fraud
MoE
UVA
Base Case
0.0%
4.0%
50.0%

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






Seats
Current

Dem
57

GOP
41

Ind
2


Projection (table)
Seats
RV&LV
LV

RV&LV
Flip to
Lean
Safe
Tossup

Dem
54
49


1
1
10
6

GOP
44
49


4
3
17
0





NOTES:
Average of a 200 election trial simulation
Probability of winning a 50 senate seat majority

08-Oct
*tossup
Poll Type
Poll Share %
Dem %
Projection Share (%)
GOP
Within






AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA

CO
CT
DE
FL
GA

HI
IA
ID
IL
IN

KS
KY
LA
MD
MO

NC
ND
NH
NV
NY1

NY2
OH
OK
OR
PA

SC
SD
UT
WA
VT

WI
WV

37
37


Held By
R
R
D
R
D

D*
D
D
R
R

D
R
R
D*
D

R
R*
R
D
R

R
D
R
D
D

D
R
R
D
D*

R
R
R
D
D

D*
D*

RV&LV

OnlyLV






RV

RV
RV
RV
RV





RV



RV


RV




RV
RV

RV
RV


RV




RV


RV

Dem
45.3
43.4


22
30
39
37
56

47
56
59
31
34

68
37
27
42
34

24
46
33
54
39

36
25
40
43
60

67
42
24
54
45

30
30
25
50
64

48
46
GOP
44.3
47.2



38
59
53
51
37

44
37
34
38
52

20
55
64
38
50

66
46
54
38
50

49
69
48
32
33

39
49
67
37
45

70
70
52
44
29

46
48
Margin
1.0
(3.8)



(16)
(29)
(14)
(14)
19

3
19
25
(7)
(18)

48
(18)
(37)
4
(16)

(42)
0
(21)
16
(11)

(13)
(44)
(8)
11
27

28
(7)
(43)
17
0

(40)
(40)
(27)
6
35

2
(2)
Dem
50.5
48.1


42.0
35.5
43.0
43.0
59.5

51.5
59.5
62.5
46.5
41.0

74.0
41.0
31.5
52.0
42.0

29.0
50.0
39.5
58.0
44.5

43.5
28.0
46.0
55.5
63.5

64.0
46.5
28.5
58.5
50.0

30.0
30.0
36.5
53.0
67.5

51.0
49.0
GOP
49.5
51.9


58.0
64.5
57.0
57.0
40.5

48.5
40.5
37.5
53.5
59.0

26.0
59.0
68.5
48.0
58.0

71.0
50.0
60.5
42.0
55.5

56.5
72.0
54.0
44.5
36.5

36.0
53.5
71.5
41.5
50.0

70.0
70.0
63.5
47.0
32.5

49.0
51.0
Win Prob
0.0%
12.0%



100%
100%
100%
100%
0%

23%
0%
0%
96%
100%

0%
100%
100%
16%
100%

100%
50%
100%
0%
100%

100%
100%
98%
0%
0%

0%
96%
100%
0%
50%

100%
100%
100%
7%
0%

31%
69%
Flip
5





GOP













GOP


Dem





GOP

















GOP
MoE
10









CO


FL





IL



KY






NH




OH


PA




WA


WI
WV


Table 1a
Registered vs Likely Voters



Pollster
RV/LV

CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)

CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)

CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)
CNN/TIME (RV & LV)

15
Polls
Average
Win

CA
CO
CT
DE
FL

IL
KY
MO
NV
NY1

NY2
OH
PA
WA
WI
RV Full Sample
Dem
48.73
10

56
47
56
59
31

42
46
39
43
60

67
42
45
50
48
Rep
40.80
3

37
44
37
34
38

38
46
50
32
33

39
49
45
44
46
Margin
7.93
7

19
3
19
25
(7)

4
0
(11)
11
27

28
(7)
0
6
2
LV subsample
Dem
46.47
7

52
44
54
55
31

43
42
40
40
55

57
42
44
53
45
Rep
45.33
8

43
49
44
39
42

42
49
53
42
41

41
51
49
44
51
Margin
1.13
(1)

9
(5)
10
16
(11)

1
(7)
(13)
(2)
14

16
(9)
(5)
9
(6)
50% of RV-LV
Dem
47.60
8

54.0
45.5
55.0
57.0
31.0

42.5
44.0
39.5
41.5
57.5

62.0
42.0
44.5
51.5
46.5
Rep
43.07
7

40.0
46.5
40.5
36.5
40.0

40.0
47.5
51.5
37.0
37.0

40.0
50.0
47.0
44.0
48.5
Margin
4.53
1

14.0
(1.0)
14.5
20.5
(9.0)

2.5
(3.5)
(12.0)
4.5
20.5

22.0
(8.0)
(2.5)
7.5
(2.0)


Table 1b
Sensitivity Analysis: RV vs. LV Polls

Effect of LV-excluded RV Turnout and Vote Switch on Democratic Seats


15 polls
Turnout of LV-excluded Registered Voters (RV- LV)

0%
25%
50%
75%
100%

8
Democratic Senate Wins


Vote Switch
% to GOP


None
1%
2%
3%
4%
7
6
6
6
6
8
6
6
6
6
8
8
7
6
5
9
8
7
7
5
10
9
7
6
6


Table 2
Probability Distribution of GOP Net Gains (refer to source)


Table 3
Projection Trend (refer to source)


Table 4
GOP Senate Seat Forecast

Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Poll Type(refer to source)


Table 5
GOP Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection (zero fraud)

RV&LV
RV/LV Undecided Vote Allocation to GOP

40%
45%
50%
55%
60%

3
Net Senate Seat Gain



Vote
Switch
to GOP
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
3
4
6
7
8
3
5
7
7
9
3
5
7
8
9
5
6
8
9
9
5
8
8
9
10

44
GOP Total Senate Seats






0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
44
45
47
48
49
44
46
48
48
50
44
46
48
49
50
46
47
49
50
50
46
49
49
50
51


Table 6
House Generic Ballot Forecasting Model
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_c...


PROJECTIONUVA
50%
50%
CURRENTSEATS
178
255


Latest
POLL AVERAGE
PROJECTED 2-PARTY %
Projected Seats
3% MoE GOP

Model
LV
RV

Total

2010
LV
RV
A

Total
Polls
15
13

28

Polls
63
88
3

154
GOP
47.4
45.7

46.6

GOP
45.7
45.2
40.0

45.3
Dem
40.3
43.8

41.9

Dem
38.8
43.7
43.3

41.7
Spread
7.1
1.9

4.7

Spread
6.9
1.5
(3.3)

3.6
GOP
53.5
51.0

52.3

GOP
53.4
50.7
48.3

51.8
Dem
46.5
49.0

47.7

Dem
46.6
49.3
51.7

48.2
Margin
7.1
1.9

4.7

Margin
6.9
1.5
(3.3)

3.6
GOP
235
224

230

GOP
234
223
212

227
Dem
200
211

205

Dem
201
212
223

208
WinProb
99%
74%

94%

WinProb
99%
69%
14%

88%


Table 7
Sensitivity Analysis, GOP House Forecast:
# of GOP House Seats

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection

Base case assumptions:50% UVA to GOPZeroVote-switch % to GOP

Projections
Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP

40%
45%
50%
55%
60%

224
GOP House Seats


Vote Switch
% to GOP
No Fraud
1%
2%
3%
219
223
228
232
221
226
230
234
224
228
232
237
226
230
235
239
228
233
237
241
Sensitivity Analysis, GOP House Forecast:
Probability of GOP winning a House Majority

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection

Base case assumptions:50% UVA to GOPZeroVote-switch % to GOP


(refer to source)




Table 8
Latest Generic Polls

PROJECTIONUVA
50%
50%

POLL
PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE
GOP
GOP
10-POLL MOVING AVERAGEGOP
GOP

Pollster
CBS News/NY Times
Democracy Corps (D)
ABC News/Wash Post
Rasmussen Reports

Gallup
Gallup
Newsweek
FOX News
Gallup

Rasmussen Reports
CNN/Opinion Research
Politico/GWU/Battleground
Reuters/Ipsos
Gallup
(sourcefor more)
Date
10/1- 10/5
10/2 - 10/4
9/30 - 10/3
9/27 - 10/3

9/27 - 10/3
9/27 - 10/3
9/29 - 9/30
9/28 - 9/29
9/20 - 9/26

9/20 - 9/26
9/21 - 9/23
9/19 - 9/22
9/16 - 9/19
9/13 - 9/19
...
Sample
na
867
669
3500

1882
3000
902
900
3000

3500
506
1000
953
2925
...
Type
LV
LV
LV
LV

LV
RV
RV
RV
RV

LV
LV
LV
RV
RV
...
GOP
45
49
49
45

53
46
43
44
46

46
53
47
45
45
...
Dem
37
43
43
42

40
43
48
39
46

40
44
42
46
46
...
Spread
8
6
6
3

13
3
(5)
5
0

6
9
5
(1)
(1)
...
GOP
54.0
53.0
53.0
51.5

56.5
51.5
47.5
52.5
50.0

53.0
54.5
52.5
49.5
49.5
...
Dem
46.0
47.0
47.0
48.5

43.5
48.5
52.5
47.5
50.0

47.0
45.5
47.5
50.5
50.5
...
Margin
8.0
6.0
6.0
3.0

13.0
3.0
(5.0)
5.0
0.0

6.0
9.0
5.0
(1.0)
(1.0)
...
Seats
237
232
232
226

248
226
208
230
219

232
239
230
217
217
...
WinProb
100%
98%
98%
84%

100%
84%
5%
95%
50%

98%
100%
95%
37%
37%
...
GOP
52.25
52.30
52.25
51.68

52.00
51.68
51.70
52.20
52.05

52.15
52.35
51.85
51.60
51.90
...
Dem
47.75
47.70
47.75
48.32

48.00
48.32
48.30
47.80
47.95

47.85
47.65
48.15
48.40
48.10
...
Margin
4.5
4.6
4.5
3.4

4.0
3.4
3.4
4.4
4.1

4.3
4.7
3.7
3.2
3.8
...
Seats
229
229
229
227

228
227
227
229
228

229
230
227
226
228
...


Table 9
Pollster Averages

POLL AVERAGE
GOP
PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE
GOP
GOP

Polling Firm
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
FOX News
CNN/Opinion Research
PPP (D)

Democracy Corps (D)
ABC News/Wash Post
Ipsos/McClatchy
Quinnipiac
Pew Research

USA Today/Gallup
Newsweek
Reuters/Ipsos
GWU/Battleground
Time

McLaughlin & Associates (R)
Associated Press/GfK
POS (R)
Bloomberg
National Journal/FD

Washington Post
NPR
McClatchy/Marist
CBS News/NY Times

Non-Rasmussen
Count
38
33
13
9
8

8
6
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
2

2
2
2
1
1

1
1
1
2

116
Sample
3500
1508
900
892
784

869
na
913
1977
na

970
889
917
1000
915

1000
445
850
875
1200

na
800
815
na

997
MoE
1.7%
2.5%
3.3%
3.3%
3.5%

3.3%
3.0%
3.2%
2.2%
3.0%

3.1%
3.3%
3.2%
3.1%
3.2%

3.1%
4.6%
3.4%
3.3%
2.8%

3.0%
3.5%
3.4%
3.0%

3.0%
GOP
45.2
46.5
42.9
48.9
39.3

46.4
47.7
43.5
41.3
43.8

46.0
43.7
45.7
43.7
42.5

42.0
51.0
43.5
48.0
35.0

44.0
44.0
47.0
42.5

45.0
Dem
37.1
44.9
38.7
45.3
42.5

44.0
44.7
44.8
39.0
45.3

45.3
46.0
45.0
41.7
40.0

36.0
44.0
40.5
40.0
39.0

48.0
39.0
45.0
37.5

43.2
Spread
8.1
1.6
4.2
3.6
(3.2)

2.4
3.0
(1.3)
2.3
(1.5)

0.7
(2.3)
0.7
2.0
2.5

6.0
7.0
3.0
8.0
(4.0)

(4.0)
5.0
2.0
5.0

1.8
GOP
54.1
50.8
52.1
51.8
48.4

51.2
51.5
49.4
51.1
49.3

50.3
48.8
50.3
51.0
51.3

53.0
53.5
51.5
54.0
48.0

48.0
52.5
51.0
52.5

50.9
Dem
45.9
49.2
47.9
48.2
51.6

48.8
48.5
50.6
48.9
50.8

49.7
51.2
49.7
49.0
48.8

47.0
46.5
48.5
46.0
52.0

52.0
47.5
49.0
47.5

49.1
Margin
8.1
1.6
4.2
3.6
(3.2)

2.4
3.0
(1.3)
2.3
(1.5)

0.7
(2.3)
0.7
2.0
2.5

6.0
7.0
3.0
8.0
(4.0)

(4.0)
5.0
2.0
5.0

1.8
Seats
237
223
229
227
212

225
226
217
224
216

221
214
221
224
225

232
235
226
237
211

211
230
224
230

223
WinProb
100%
70%
92%
88%
15%

78%
84%
34%
77%
31%

59%
22%
59%
74%
79%

98%
99%
84%
100%
10%

10%
95%
74%
95%

69%


Table 10
2006-2010 Registered and Likely Voter Poll Summary(refer to source)







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 ...



Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-10 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. They stole our elections, our money, our future.
We haven't punished one of them. But we did get rid of ACORN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-10 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. K&R! Let's have a REAL "Tea Party"! Throw ES&S/Diebold election theft machines into
'Boston Harbor' (so to speak) and count every vote in PUBLIC view once again!

Otherwise the Jabberwocky Party wins.

:patriot:
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 Thu Jul 24th 2014, 01:40 AM
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