
Printerfriendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread 
This topic is archived. 
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 
tiptoe (1000+ posts) Send PM  Profile  Ignore  Wed Oct1508 07:14 PM Original message 
10/14 Election Model (TIA): Obama 372EV (51.244.8%, 7464m); Elec'n Calculator:(55.740.4%, 8058m) 
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Wed Oct1508 08:12 PM by tiptoe
2008 ELECTION MODEL A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Updated: October 14 Press REFRESH after linking to a graph to view the latest update 2008 Election Model Fraud Analyzer
15Poll End Sample Poll NATIONAL MODEL Pre Undecided Voter Allocation 5Poll Mov Avg 2Party Projection (60% UVA) 5Poll Mov Avg Trend Research2k Gallup Hotline/FD Rasmussen Zogby Battleground ABC/WP Newsweek FOX News Ipsos NBC/WSJ CBS/NYT CNN Marist AP/GfK Registered V vs Likely V Poll Averages Date 10/13 10/12 10/12 10/13 10/13 10/12 10/11 10/09 10/09 10/06 10/05 10/05 10/05 09/30 09/30 Size 1100 LV 2700 RV 838 LV 3000 LV 1208 LV 814 LV 766 LV 1035 RV 900 RV 858 RV 658 RV 616 LV 694 LV 943 LV 808 LV RV avg LV avg Total 2party MoE 2.95% 1.89% 3.39% 1.79% 2.82% 3.43% 3.54% 3.05% 3.27% 3.35% 3.82% 3.95% 3.72% 3.19% 3.45% Obama 52 51 48 50 49 51 53 52 46 47 49 48 53 49 48 49 50.1 49.7 54.0 McCain 41 41 42 45 43 43 43 41 39 40 43 45 45 44 41 40.8 43.2 42.4 46.0 Other 7 8 10 5 8 6 4 7 15 13 8 7 2 7 11 10.2 6.7 7.9 0.0 Spread 11 10 6 5 6 8 10 11 7 7 6 3 8 5 7 8.2 6.9 7.3 8.0 Obama 50.0 49.8 50.2 51.0 50.2 49.8 49.4 48.4 48.6 49.2 49.4 49.6 49.6 49.0 49.0 McCain 42.4 42.8 43.2 43.0 41.8 41.2 41.2 41.6 42.4 43.4 43.6 43.2 43.2 42.8 42.6 Spread 7.6 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.4 8.6 8.2 6.8 6.2 5.8 5.8 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.4 Win Prob 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.0 97.1 98.5 98.9 98.9 99.0 99.4 98.3 100.0 100.0 Obama 54.6 54.2 54.2 54.6 55.0 55.2 55.0 54.4 54.0 53.6 53.6 53.9 53.9 53.9 54.0 McCain 45.4 45.8 45.8 45.4 45.0 44.8 45.0 45.6 46.0 46.4 46.4 46.1 46.1 46.1 46.0 Spread 9.1 8.5 8.3 9.2 10.0 10.4 10.1 8.8 8.0 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.1 Win Prob 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.1 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 The 2008 Election Model assumes that current polls reflect the will of the electorate and a fraudfree election is held today. Obama has a solid margin in virtually all of the battleground states. Obama won all 5000 Monte Carlo simulation election trials with an expected (average) 367–171 electoral vote margin. His median EV was 371; the mode (most frequent trial result) was 372. He has a 99% probability of winning at least 330 electoral votes. View the State vs. National vote share projection Trend. National polls are current; state poll lag by a week or more. Obama’s projected aggregate state 2party vote (53.64%) is approaching the national average (54.56%) as the time lag between the polls decreases. The three most critical states weighted by the electoral vote and poll spread are OH (20.9), NC (20.90) and FL (14.3). The values represent the optimal percentage of campaign resources to be allocated to these states. The percentages change when the polls are updated. For McCain to win, he needs to switch at least 8% (1 in 12) of Obama’s votes to his column. National Model Tracking Poll Average Projected Vote (2party) Actual Projected State Model Aggregate Poll Share Projected Vote (2party) Actual Projected Electoral Vote Poll Projected Expected value Obama 50.00 54.56 52.16 50.09 53.64 51.24 372 372 367.12 McCain 42.40 45.44 43.84 43.99 46.36 44.76 166 166 170.88 Calculation method (base case) Rasmussen, Gallup, Research 2000, Hotline, Zogby Poll average+ 60% of undecided (UVA) to Obama 4% to third parties Weighted average of state polls (2004 recorded vote) Poll aggregate+ 60% of undecided (UVA) to Obama 4% to third parties Unadjusted Poll Leader Poll + 60% undecided (UVA) to Obama EV = ∑ (Projection win probability (i) * EV(i)), i=1,51 states Monte Carlo Simulation (60% UVA to Obama, 5000 election trials) Mean Median Mode Maximum Minimum 367.20 371 372 417 299 170.80 167 166 121 239 Average Expected EV Middle value Most frequent EV Obama Electoral Vote Win Probabilities Minimum Electoral Vote Winning Trials >Min EV Probability (EV > Min) 270 5000 100.0% 310 4996 99.92% 330 4953 99.1% 350 4475 89.5% 370 2546 50.9% 390 179 3.6% 410 5 0.10% Projected Vote Shares, Electoral Votes and Win Probabilities Electoralvote.com and RealClearPolitics now closely match the Election Model. As indicated in a prior update, these sites assign the full electoral vote to the state poll leader (regardless of the spread); they avoid using state win probabilities in calculating the EV. In the past, their EV totals were low and volatile compared to the Election Model; the polls were close and they did not allocate undecided voters. Now that Obama has pulled ahead in every battleground state, the Election Model undecided voter “kick” has virtually no impact on his expected EV; he is already projected to win. The discrepancy in win probabilities between the Election Model (100%) and FiveThirtyEight (90%) is due to fundamental differences in methodology. The 538 model adjusts state poll projections based on pollster rating weights as well as other factors. They forecast Election Day result. The Election Model assumes the election is held today and is fraudfree. The Election Model does not rank pollsters, but it does adjust the latest state poll average for a range of undecided voter allocations (40–80%) — a sensitivity “whatif” analysis. Ranking pollsters based on prior election results is a twoedged sword. If a pollster (Rasmussen) comes close to the recorded vote in a rigged election, does that mean he was more accurate than one who correctly projected the True Vote (Zogby)? Compare their performance in the 2000 election (Zogby was correct, Rasmussen was way off) to the totally corrupt 2004 election (Rasmussen was “correct” and Zogby was off). This was the electoralvote.com EV map on Nov 1, 2004. Compare the FiveThirtyEight Electoral Vote Distribution chart to the Election Model Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency chart. The Election Calculator Model In May, the 2008 Election Calculator projected that Obama would win the True Vote by 71–59m. May 2008 Estimated vote share 2004 DNV Kerry Bush Other Total Turnout — 95% 95% 95% 113.7 Voted 17.2 60.5 51.6 1.6 130.9 Mix 13.1% 46.2% 39.4% 1.2% 100.0% 130.9m Obama 59% 89% 11% 70% 54.1% 70.8m McCain 40% 10% 88% 11% 44.7% 58.5m Other 1% 1% 1% 19% 1.2% 1.6m 1) An increase of over 20% in new registered voters, the great majority of whom are Democratic. 2) A slight increase in the estimated Obama share of returning Kerry and Bush voters. 3) An increase in third party vote share. Obama is now projected to win by 80–58 million votes in a fraudfree landslide. 2004 DNV Kerry Bush Other Total Turnout — 95% 95% 95% 113.7 Votes 29.9 60.6 51.6 1.6 143.7 Mix 20.8% 42.2% 35.9% 1.1% 100.0% 143.7m Obama 59% 92% 11% 64% 55.7% 80.1m McCain 35% 5% 86% 11% 40.4% 58.1m Other 6% 3% 3% 25% 3.9% 5.6m If Obama wins just 9% of returning Bush voters and 90% of Kerry voters, he would win by 17.5m votes (54.2–41.6%). If he wins just 55% of new voters and 90% of Kerry voters, he would win by 17.2m votes (54–42%). If he wins by 52–44%, he would win by 74.7–63.4m. If he wins by 50–46%, he would win by 71.8–66.2m. The 19882004 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. In the Final, 43% of 2004 voters (52.6m) were former Bush 2000 voters; 37% were Gore voters. But Bush only had 50.5m votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5m died and another 2.5m did not return to vote. Therefore, only 45.5m Bush 2000 voters could have returned to vote in 2004. The Final overstated the Bush vote by 7 million in order to match a corrupt miscounted vote. The 2004 True Vote calculation was based on an estimated 100.1m returning 2000 voters, calculated as: Total votes cast in 2000 (110.8m) less voter mortality (5.4m) times 95% turnout (100.1m). Vote shares were based on the 12:22am National Exit Poll. The model determined that Kerry won by 66.9–57.1 million. Kerry did slightly better (53.2%) than the unadjusted state exit poll (52.0%) aggregate. The results indicate that 5.4m votes (8.0% of Kerry’s total) were switched from Kerry to Bush. 2004 DNV Kerry Bush Other Total Cast Turnout — 95% 95% 95% 100.1 Votes 25.6 49.7 46.6 3.8 125.7 Mix 20.4% 39.5% 37.1% 3.0% 100.0% 125.7m Kerry 57% 91% 10% 64% 53.2% 66.9m Bush 41% 8% 90% 17% 45.4% 57.1 Other 2% 1% 0% 19% 1.4% 1.7m Recorded Vote share Recorded Vote Unadjusted Exit Poll Deviation from True Vote 122.3 48.3% 59.0 52.0% 1.2% 50.7% 62.0 47.0% +1.6% 1.0% 1.2 1.0% 0.4%
2008 POLLING ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS National Model — see atop State Model (2party vote shares)
Polling data source: Electoralvote.com RealClearPolitics.com Election Model Calculations The projected vote share is equal to the latest poll plus the undecided voter allocation. V(i) = Poll(i) + UVA(i) The probability P(i) of winning state (i) is based on the projected state vote share V(i). It is calculated using the Excel Normal distribution function, assuming a 4.0% MoE for a typical 600sample poll: P(i) = NORMDIST ( V(i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true ) The expected state electoral vote is the product of the win probability and electoral vote. The total expected EV is given by the summation formula: EV = Σ P(i) * EV(i), where i = 1,51 The Electoral Vote Win probability is based on a 5000 electiontrial Monte Carlo Simulation. The EV win probability is the number of winning election trials/5000. 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. • 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 riskbased 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 51.0–49.0% in each of five states with a total of 100 electoral votes. Most models would assign the 100 EV to McCain. But Obama could easily win one or more of the states, since his win probability is 31%. The 2008 Election Model would allocate 31% of 100 EV to Obama and 69% of 100 EV to McCain. (more re '...Academia and the Bloggers') Fixing the polls: Party ID, Voted in 2000, RV vs. LV 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. PartyID weights were manipulated to favor McCain as well. (more on 'Fixing the Polls...') 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. Millions of mostly Democratic ballots are uncounted, spoiled and stuffed in every election and favored a Bush I and II in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004. That's why the Democratic True vote (and exit poll share) is always greater than the Recorded vote. Read more here. • In most states, total votes cast exceeded votes recorded (uncounted ballots exceeded stuffed). In Florida, Ohio and 10 other states, total votes recorded exceeded votes cast (ballot stuffing exceeded uncounted ballots). • The majority (7080%) of uncounted ballots are in Democratic minority precincts. According to the 2000 Vote Census, 5.4 million of 110.8m total votes cast (4.9%) were uncounted (approximately 4.0m were Gore votes). • In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 62–59m with 286 EV. But 3.4m of 125.7 million total votes cast were uncounted (2.7%) and 2.5m were for Kerry. If they were counted, the recorded Bush 3.0m margin is cut in half, 62.9  61.5m. And that's before vote rigging. (more) Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote and Win Probability (See here) Other links:
2004 Election Model Summary, Polling Analysis, National & State Model tables Confirmation of A Kerry Landslide Election Fraud Analytics and Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ Excel Models available for download: The Election Calculator: 19882004 2004 Interactive Simulation Model A Polling Simulation Model [link:tinyurl.com/6afes920002004 County Vote Database 
Printer Friendly  Permalink   Top 
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 19972002 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