TruthIsAll
07-08-2010, 09:30 PM
http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
An Open Letter to Nate Silver
Updated: July 24, 2010
Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Nate, since your recent hiring by the NY Times, the R2K flap and your exchanges with Zogby, you have been getting lots of publicity from blogs such as vanity fair and motherjones.com. Your characterization of Zogby’s expertise (that he is the “world’s worst pollster”) says more about you then it does about him. Zogby ranked #1 in 1996 and 2000 (yes, Gore won Florida, despite what the NY Times said), and came close in the 2004 and 2008 elections, yet you fail to give him credit and rank him dead last. Why? Because you go along with the media-perpetuated myth that the recorded vote is sacrosanct. In other words, you discount the fraud factor and fail to distinguish between the True Vote and the recorded vote.
Below, you will see why Gore won by perhaps three million more than his recorded 540,000 vote margin; why Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million; why the Democratic Tsunami was denied in the 2006 midterms; and why Obama won by nearly 22 million votes in 2008, not the 9.5 million recorded.
I hereby challenge you to try and debunk the data, logic and mathematics used in the True Vote Model. If you cannot do so, then the underlying premise of your ranking system (that the recorded vote is an appropriate baseline to measure pollster performance) is invalid.
As an Internet blogger who has been posting pre-election and exit poll analyses to prove election fraud since 2004, I have occasionally looked at your postings on fivethirtyeight.com. I will say right here that unlike the bloggers and mainstream media (MSNBC, the NY Times, etc.) who extol your forecasting “expertise”, I do not believe you are quite the polling guru that they claim you are.
I say this as one who has been building quantitative models since 1965 for defense/aerospace manufacturers, Wall Street investment banks and has consulted for many financial and corporate enterprises. I have three degrees in Mathematics, including an MS in Applied Mathematics and an MS in Operations Research.
Your 2008 simulation model win probabilities did not sync with the projected vote shares. The major flaw in your model was to conflate it with your pollster rankings, an ill-conceived methodology. The first rule of model building is KISS (keep it simple stupid). You not only introduced an extraneous variable into your model, but the rankings were incorrect – a double whammy. Now, what do I mean by this, you ask?
You fail to distinguish the True Vote from the Recorded vote by ignoring vote miscounts. The premise on which your models are based (that fraud does not exist) is incorrect from the get-go. In your ranking system, pollsters who come close to the recorded vote (i.e. Rasmussen in 2004) are ranked high, but pollsters who come close to the True Vote (i.e. Zogby) are ranked low. The fact that Zogby is ranked at the bottom is a clear indictment of your approach. Ranking pollsters based on their performance against the recorded vote is a waste of time. Fortunately for you, your fans are unaware of the distinction between the recorded vote and the True Vote. In fact, most are unaware of the extent in which their votes have been compromised by fraud. In your models, election fraud is never a factor.
This is the simple, yet fundamental equation that you seem to be blissfully unaware of: Recorded Vote = True Vote + Fraud.
In 2004, Zogby’s final polling in nine battleground states was within 0.5% of the unadjusted exit poll average (after allocating undecided voters).
Kerry led in 8 states by 50.2-44.8%. The base case assumption was that he would capture 75% of the undecided (UVA) vote and win all 9 states by 53.7-45.9%. Assuming a conservative 55% UVA scenario, he would still win 8 states by 52.7-46.8%. Kerry officially won 4 of the 9 states by 50.1-49.4%. The margin of error was exceeded in 7 states, a 1 in 4.7 billion probability.
Poll Kerry Bush
Zogby 50.2 44.8 (final pre-election polls)
Projection 53.7 45.9 (75% undecided to Kerry)
Exit (WPE) 53.2 45.8
` Zogby Poll Projection Exit Poll Recorded
Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush
CO 47 48 50.3 49.1 50.1 48.6 47.4 52.1
FL 50 47 51.9 47.6 50.9 48.3 47.3 52.3
IA 50 44 54.2 45.4 50.7 48.4 49.5 50.1
ME 50 39 57.6 41.5 55.5 42.7 54.1 45.1
MI 52 45 53.9 45.6 54.4 44.7 51.5 48.0
MN 52 44 54.5 44.8 55.7 43.0 51.5 47.9
OH 50 47 52.3 47.7 54.2 45.4 48.9 51.1
PA 50 45 53.8 46.3 55.3 44.0 51.3 48.7
WI 51 44 54.3 45.1 52.0 47.0 49.9 49.6
Total 50.2 44.8 53.7 45.9 53.2 45.8 50.1 49.5
In 1996, Zogby was within 0.3% of the recorded vote.
He ranked # 1.
In 2000, Zogby was within 0.1% of the recorded vote.
He ranked #1
But there were 6 million uncounted votes.
Gore won by at least 3 million votes.
The election was stolen.
In 2004, Zogby was within 1.2% of the recorded vote.
His Election Day polling had Kerry by 50-47%.
Kerry’s True Vote was 53.2% - a 10 million margin.
The election was stolen.
In 2006, Zogby ranked #7.
The pre-election Generic Poll Trend Model forecast a 56.4% Democratic Landslide.
The unadjusted National Exit Poll had 56.4%.
The landslide was denied.
In 2008, Zogby was within 2.2% of the recorded vote.
He ranked # 4.
Obama had a 58% True Vote share and won by 22 million votes.
The landslide was denied.
So why is Zogby at the very bottom of your pollster rankings?
Since you rank pollsters based on how close their polls match the recorded vote, I assume that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky are ranked at the top, since their final state and national exit polls always seem to match the recorded vote. So why don’t they release the unadjusted exit polls as well? These may actually reflect the True Vote. As one who purports to be a Quant, you should be interested in the statistical rationale for matching the final exit polls to a rigged recorded vote .
Check with your new employer, the Grey Lady. The NYT is an important part of the National Exit Pool, the consortium that sponsors the exit polls. The NEP also includes the Washington Post, ABC, CNN, AP and Fox News. That’s plenty of MSM polling power. It is the height of hypocrisy to expect transparency from R2K and not releasing raw, unadjusted precinct exit poll data from 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008 that would prove election fraud. That information would be very useful. It might indicate which exit poll precincts show discrepancies to the recorded vote that are virtually impossible mathematically.
What are your thoughts about the 2010 primaries in MA, AR, SC and AL? Does the fact that Coakley won the hand-counts in MA indicate something to you? Does the fact that 40 AR precincts that favored Halter were closed down right before the election indicate something? What about the unknown, non-campaigner Greene winning in SC by 59-41% but losing the absentees by 84-16%? The DINOS on the state election commission refused to consider the recommendations of computer scientists to investigate the voting machines that were obviously rigged. In AL on June 8, the attorney general issued an opinion that an automatic recount does not apply in a primary election. Knowing all this, will you factor fraud into your 2010 projections – along with estimated turnout and final polling shares?
Do you want further confirmation that Kerry won in a landslide? As an “expert” analyst, you should have taken a close look at the 2004 National Exit Poll. If you had, you would have seen that the Final NEP as always, was forced to match the recorded vote by increasing the 2004 percentage mix of returning 2000 voters from 41% at 12:22am (13047 respondents) to an impossible 43% in the Final (13660) at 1:00am. Bush’s vote shares were also inflated to implausible levels.
According to the Final NEP, 43% (52.6 million) of 2004 voters were returning Bush 2000 voters. But this was impossible. Bush only had 50.46 million recorded votes. Based on voter mortality tables, 2.5 million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Therefore at most only 48 million returning Bush voters could have voted in 2004. But if an estimated 98% turned out, 47 million voted. Therefore, the number of returning Bush voters was inflated by at least 5 million. Kerry won the election by 10 million votes. You are welcome to try and refute the True Vote Model.
Do you want to see a proof that Obama won by nearly 22 million votes and not by the recorded 9.5 million? As an “expert” analyst, you should have taken a close look at the 2008 National Exit Poll. If you had, you would have seen that the Final NEP, as is always the case, was forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the number of returning 2004 voters to an impossible level. According to the NEP, 46% (60 million) of 2008 voters were returning Bush 2004 voters and 37% were returning Kerry voters. That means there were 12 million more returning Bush voters than Kerry voters – and that’s assuming the myth perpetuated by the mainstream media (who you are now going to work for) that Bush won by 3 million votes in 2004. Do you believe it? How could that be?
But it’s much worse than that. If Kerry won by 10 million votes as the True Vote Model indicates (you are welcome to try and refute it) then there were approximately 10 million more returning Kerry voters than Bush voters. Assuming the same NEP vote shares that were used to match the recorded vote, Obama wins by 22 million votes, not the 9.5 million recorded.
The 2008 NEP indicated that 4% (5 million) of the electorate consisted of returning third-party voters. That was clearly impossible; only 1.2 million third-party votes were recorded in 2004. In their zeal to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to create millions of phantom Bush and third-party voters.
In the eleven presidential elections from 1968 to 2008, the Republicans won the popular vote by 49-45%, (6% went to third parties). But the Democrats won the True Vote by 49-45%.
It’s all in my book: Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll.
As the first analyst to use Monte Carlo simulation in the 2004 Election Model (and the updated 2008 Election Model), I applied extensive exit poll analysis in developing a post-election True Vote Model. It proves that not only were the 2000 and 2004 elections stolen, it is likely that 1968 and 1988 were as well. There were at least 6 million uncounted votes in 1968, 11 million in 1988, 6 million in 2000 and 4 million in 2004 – and the clear majority were Democratic (minority) votes.
The Edison Mitofsky 2004 Evaluation Report provides the exit poll discrepancies (WPE) of 238 state presidential election exit polls from 1988-2004. Of the 66 that exceeded the 3% margin of error, 65 favored the Republican. Was it due to reluctant Bush responders and/or exuberant Democratic responders? No, it was the result of millions of uncounted votes (mostly Democratic) and millions of phantom Bush voters.
The Final 2004 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation) projected Kerry would win a 51.3% share and 337 electoral votes. This closely matched the unadjusted aggregate state exit polls (52%) and the 12:22am National Exit Poll (51.2%). The True Vote Model indicated that Kerry had a 53.2% share. Of course Bush won by a bogus 50.7-48.3% recorded vote margin. How did your projections pan out?
In the 2006 midterms, the pre-election Trend Model (based on 120 Generic polls) projected a 56.43% share for the Democrats. The unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a nearly identical 56.37%. The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the 52% recorded vote. Nate, which one do you believe was correct? You are surely aware of documented miscounts in quite a few congressional elections, virtually all favoring the GOP (see FL–13, FL-24, OH-1, etc.). How did your projections pan out?
The Final 2008 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation) exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2%(53.1%) of his 52.9% share. But it was wrong. Obama did much better than that.
The final state pre-election likely voter (LV) polls did not fully capture the late shift to Obama. Had they been registered voter (RV) polls, adjusted for undecided voters, Obama would have had a 57% share. He had 57% and 420 EV in the True Vote Model. As shown below, the final Gallup RV tracking poll gave Obama a 53-40% margin. After allocating undecided voters, he had 57% - matching the True Vote Model. How did your projections pan out?
As one versed in statistics, are you aware that the expected electoral vote is the simple summation:
EV = å Win probability (i) * EV (i), where i=1,51 states?
Do you see why only state win probabilities, based on the latest polling adjusted for undecided voters, are necessary to calculate the expected EV?
Do you now see why a simulation or “meta-analysis” is unnecessary overkill for calculating the expected (“theoretical”) electoral vote?
Do you understand that the only reason for running a Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation is to determine an EV probability distribution?
The 2008 Election Model Monte Carlo simulation required only 5000 election trials for the mean EV (365.8) to converge to the theoretical expected value (365.3) illustrating the Law of Large Numbers. Do you see why an electoral vote simulation of more than 5000 election trials is overkill?
So what does it all mean?
It means that any and all polling analysis that fails to consider voter mortality, uncounted votes and a feasible voter turnout is doomed to produce the wrong result. The correct result is the True Vote based on total votes cast. The wrong result is the recorded vote that ignores uncounted votes but includes phantom voters.
It means that the recorded vote, the basis for your rankings, never reflects the True Vote!
It exposes your ranking system, which places John Zogby (the only pollster to predict the True Vote in the last three presidential elections) at the bottom of a list of scores of obscure pollsters, as being fatally flawed.
It means that your comments disparaging exit polls, along with your failure to do post-election True Vote analyses, indicate that you are in sync with a moribund mainstream media that perpetuates endemic Election Fraud by withholding raw exit poll data. They accept the recorded vote as Gospel - just as you do in your rankings. You will fit in very well at the NY Times.
When will you incorporate the True Vote into your analysis? Why do you ignore the fact that the mainstream media (i.e. the National Election Pool, which includes the NY Times) is responsible for the impossible adjustments (made by the exit pollsters they employ) to the final 2004, 2006, 2008 state and national exit polls? They had to match the polls to corrupted recorded vote counts, come hell or high water - and will surely do so again in 2010.
[code]
Table 1 displays probabilities that the Democratic share of 18-29 age group woud exceed that of other age groups in all 20 races.
Table 2 displays R2K daily statistics.
The margin of error is 1.96 times the standard deviation (a measure of volatility) at the 95% confidence level.
The standard deviation of Obama’s daily poll shares was 1.83%. It was 1.59% for the 3-day moving average.
Table 3 is a comparison of Gallup vs. R2K.
Gallup was a registered voter (RV) poll. R2K was a likely voter (LV) poll.
The average shares and volatilities (standard deviation) closely match.
There was a strong 0.70 correlation between Obama’s Gallup and R2K shares.
There was a good 0.50 correlation between McCain’s Gallup and R2K shares.
Gallup Change Change R2K Change Change
Obama McCain Obama McCain Obama McCain Obama McCain
Avg 49.65 42.90 0.15 -0.15 50.29 42.21 0.06 -0.02
Stdev 2.02 1.74 0.94 0.89 1.59 1.86 0.70 0.73
Table 4 compares the R2K tracking poll and other polls (including standard, non-tracking polls) It includes projections based on the allocation of undecided voters (UVA).
Assumptions
1) 75% of the undecided vote is allocated to Obama, the de-facto challenger.
2) third parties have 1.5% (the actual recorded share).
The final Gallup Obama projection (57.1%) is a close match to the True Vote Model (57.5%).
Obama final projected shares:
Gallup: 53 + .75 * 5.5 = 53 + 4.13 = 57.1%
R2K: 51 + .75 * 3.5 = 51 + 2.63 = 53.6%
Table 1
Probabilities that Democratic share of 18-29 age group exceeds that of other age groups in all 20 races.
Poll 18-29 Prob 18-29> given group
18-29 46.30 2-party any race ALL races
30-44 41.95 52.46% 94.63% 33.17%
45-59 40.40 53.40% 98.69% 76.81%
60+ 36.10 56.19% 100.00% 99.95%
2-party 52.46% 47.54% 46.60%
Correl 1 0.88 0.73 0.71
Stdev 6.67 7.07 4.55 6.06
Avg 46.3 41.95 40.4 36.1
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+
1 44 42 41 38
2 59 58 50 48
3 61 49 42 50
4 48 45 39 34
5 39 27 36 26
6 44 42 44 37
7 37 30 35 29
8 54 46 42 33
9 48 45 38 34
10 38 35 31 29
11 38 36 34 33
12 39 32 37 33
13 48 47 43 42
14 47 44 41 37
15 52 45 43 29
16 46 45 40 37
17 48 44 44 40
18 46 42 40 37
19 42 41 40 36
20 48 44 48 40
TABLE 2
R2K DAILY POLL vs. 3-DAY MOVING AVERAGE
DAILY 3-DAY AVERAGE
Obama 3-day Moving avg
McCain Obama Margin Change McCain Obama
avg 42.45 50.21 7.77 1.02 42.32 50.26
stdev 2.12 1.83 3.68 0.71 1.90 1.59
1103 45 52 7 2 45.67 50.67
1102 46 50 4 0 45.00 50.67
1101 46 50 4 2 44.33 51.33
1031 43 52 9 0 44.00 51.33
1030 44 52 8 2 44.67 50.67
1029 45 50 5 0 44.67 50.00
1028 45 50 5 0 44.33 49.67
1027 44 50 6 1 43.00 49.67
1026 44 49 5 1 41.67 50.00
1025 41 50 9 1 40.00 51.33
1024 40 51 11 2 40.00 51.67
1023 39 53 14 2 40.00 52.00
1022 41 51 10 1 41.00 51.33
1021 40 52 12 1 41.33 51.00
1020 42 51 9 1 42.33 50.33
1019 42 50 8 0 42.33 49.67
1018 43 50 7 1 43.00 49.67
1017 42 49 7 1 42.67 50.33
1016 44 50 6 2 42.33 51.67
1015 42 52 10 1 41.33 52.00
1014 41 53 12 2 41.00 52.00
1013 41 51 10 1 40.67 52.00
1012 41 52 11 1 40.33 52.33
1011 40 53 13 1 39.67 52.67
1010 40 52 12 1 39.67 52.33
1009 39 53 14 1 40.33 51.67
1008 40 52 12 2 41.00 50.67
1007 42 50 8 0 41.33 50.67
1006 41 50 9 2 40.67 51.67
1005 41 52 11 1 40.00 52.33
1004 40 53 13 1 39.67 52.33
1003 39 52 13 0 39.67 51.67
1002 40 52 12 1 40.33 51.00
1001 40 51 11 1 40.33 50.67
930 41 50 9 1 40.67 51.00
929 40 51 11 1 41.00 51.33
928 41 52 11 1 42.00 51.00
927 42 51 9 1 42.67 49.67
926 43 50 7 2 42.67 49.00
925 43 48 5 1 43.00 48.33
924 42 49 7 1 43.00 48.67
923 44 48 4 1 43.67 48.33
922 43 49 6 1 43.33 48.67
921 44 48 4 1 43.00 48.67
920 43 49 6 0 42.33 49.33
919 42 49 7 1 42.00 49.67
918 42 50 8 0 42.33 49.33
917 42 50 8 2 43.00 48.67
916 43 48 5 0 44.00 48.00
915 44 48 4 0 44.67 48.00
914 45 48 3 0 45.67 47.33
913 45 48 3 2 46.00 46.67
912 47 46 -1 0 46.00 46.67
911 46 46 0 2 46.00 46.67
910 45 48 3 2 Na na
909 47 46 -1 Na Na na
TABLE 3
GALLUP vs. R2K TRACKING POLLS (3-DAY AVERAGE)
GALLUP RESEARCH 2000
Gallup Change Change R2K Change Change
Obama McCain Obama McCain Obama McCain Obama McCain
Avg 49.65 42.90 0.15 -0.15 50.29 42.21 0.06 -0.02
Stdev 2.02 1.74 0.94 0.89 1.59 1.86 0.70 0.73
Correl 0.70 0.50
1102 53 40 1 -1 51 44 0 0
1101 52 41 0 0 51 44 0 -1
1031 52 41 0 0 51 45 1 0
1030 52 41 2 -1 50 45 0 1
1029 50 42 -1 0 50 44 0 1
1028 51 42 1 -1 50 43 0 1
1027 50 43 -2 1 50 42 -1 2
1026 52 42 1 0 51 40 -1 0
1025 51 42 0 0 52 40 0 0
1024 51 42 1 0 52 40 1 -1
1023 50 42 0 -1 51 41 0 0
1022 50 43 -1 1 51 41 1 -1
1021 51 42 -1 1 50 42 0 0
1020 52 41 0 0 50 42 0 -1
1019 52 41 0 -1 50 43 0 0
1018 52 42 2 0 50 43 -2 1
1017 50 42 0 -1 52 42 0 1
1016 50 43 1 0 52 41 0 0
1015 49 43 -1 0 52 41 0 0
1014 50 43 -1 1 52 41 0 1
1013 51 42 0 1 52 40 -1 0
1012 51 41 1 -2 53 40 1 0
1011 50 43 -1 1 52 40 0 0
1010 51 42 0 1 52 40 1 -1
1009 51 41 -1 0 51 41 0 0
1008 52 41 0 0 51 41 -1 0
1007 52 41 1 -1 52 41 0 1
1006 51 42 1 0 52 40 0 0
1005 50 42 0 -1 52 40 0 0
1004 50 43 0 1 52 40 1 0
1003 50 42 1 0 51 40 0 0
1002 49 42 1 -1 51 40 0 -1
1001 48 43 0 -1 51 41 0 0
930 48 44 -1 1 51 41 0 -1
929 49 43 -1 1 51 42 1 -1
928 50 42 0 0 50 43 1 0
927 50 42 1 -2 49 43 1 0
926 49 44 1 -1 48 43 -1 0
925 48 45 2 -1 49 43 1 -1
924 46 46 -1 2 48 44 -1 1
923 47 44 0 0 49 43 0 0
922 47 44 -1 0 49 43 0 1
921 48 44 -1 -1 49 42 -1 0
920 49 45 -1 1 50 42 1 0
919 50 44 1 0 49 42 0 -1
918 49 44 1 0 49 43 1 -1
917 48 44 1 -1 48 44 0 -1
916 47 45 1 -2 48 45 1 -1
915 46 47 1 0 47 46 0 0
914 45 47 0 0 47 46 0 0
913 45 47 0 0 47 46 0 0
912 45 47 0 -1 47 46 -1 1
TABLE 4
ALL POLLS vs. R2K TRACKING
Projections based on Undecided Voter Allocation
Projected Vote
Undecided Voter Allocation
All POLLS 75% 25% Research 2000
Obama McCain Margin Obama McCain Margin Obama McCain Margin
Average 49.87 42.67 7.20 54.34 44.16 10.19 50.33 42.33 8.00
Stdev 2.434 2.426 3.74 2.022 2.022 4.04 1.53 1.93 3.23
Max 54.00 47.00 16.00 59.88 47.63 21.25 53.00 46.00 13.00
PollsterSample Min 44.00 36.00 0.00 50.88 38.63 3.25 47.00 40.00 1.00
Nov
Marist 804LV 11/03 - 11/03 52 43 9 54.6 43.9 10.8 4 51 46 5
FOX News971LV 11/02 - 11/03 50 43 7 54.1 44.4 9.8 3 51 45 6
Zogby 1201LV 11/01 - 11/03 54 43 11 55.1 43.4 11.8 2 51 44 7
NBC/WSJ 1011LV 11/01 - 11/02 51 43 8 54.4 44.1 10.3 1 51 44 7
Res2k 1100LV 10/31 - 11/02 51 44 7 53.6 44.9 8.8 3 51 45 6
Oct
Gallup 2847RV 10/31 - 11/02 53 40 13 57.1 41.4 15.8 30 50 45 5
Hotl/FD 882LV 10/31 - 11/02 50 45 5 52.6 45.9 6.8 29 50 44 6
Rasmus 3000LV 10/31 - 11/02 51 46 5 52.1 46.4 5.8 28 50 43 7
ABC/WP 2446RV 10/31 - 11/02 54 41 13 56.6 41.9 14.8 27 50 42 8
CNN 1017LV 10/30 - 11/01 51 43 8 54.4 44.1 10.3 26 51 40 11
Pew 2587LV 10/30 - 11/01 49 42 7 54.6 43.9 10.8 25 52 40 12
Marist 543LV 10/29 - 10/29 50 43 7 54.1 44.4 9.8 24 52 40 12
CBS 1005LV 10/28 - 10/31 54 41 13 56.6 41.9 14.8 23 51 41 10
FOX 924LV 10/28 - 10/29 47 44 3 52.6 45.9 6.8 22 51 41 10
Battg 1000LV 10/27 - 10/30 49 45 4 52.4 46.1 6.3 21 50 42 8
Ipsos 831LV 10/23 - 10/27 50 45 5 52.6 45.9 6.8 20 50 42 8
Pew 1325RV 10/23 - 10/26 52 36 16 59.9 38.6 21.3 19 50 43 7
Newswk 882LV 10/22 - 10/23 53 41 12 56.4 42.1 14.3 18 50 43 7
FOX 936LV 10/20 - 10/21 49 40 9 56.1 42.4 13.8 17 52 42 10
CBS/NYT 771LV 10/19 - 10/22 52 39 13 57.6 40.9 16.8 16 52 41 11
NBC/WSJ 1159RV 10/18 - 10/20 52 42 10 55.4 43.1 12.3 15 52 41 11
CNN 764LV 10/17 - 10/19 51 46 5 52.1 46.4 5.8 14 52 41 11
Ipsos 773LV 10/16 - 10/20 50 42 8 54.9 43.6 11.3 13 52 40 12
Pew 2382LV 10/16 - 10/19 53 39 14 57.9 40.6 17.3 12 53 40 13
Pew 1191LV 10/12 - 10/14 50 40 10 56.4 42.1 14.3 11 52 40 12
CBS/NYT 699LV 10/10 - 10/13 53 39 14 57.9 40.6 17.3 10 52 40 12
LAT 1030LV 10/10 - 10/13 50 41 9 55.6 42.9 12.8 9 51 41 10
Ipsos 1036RV 10/9 - 10/13 48 39 9 56.6 41.9 14.8 8 51 41 10
ABC/WP 766LV 10/09 - 10/11 53 43 10 54.9 43.6 11.3 7 52 41 11
Newswk 1035RV 10/08 - 10/09 52 41 11 56.1 42.4 13.8 6 52 40 12
FOX 900RV 10/08 - 10/09 46 39 7 56.1 42.4 13.8 5 52 40 12
NBC/WSJ 658RV 10/04 - 10/05 49 43 6 53.9 44.6 9.3 4 52 40 12
CBS/NYT 616LV 10/03 - 10/05 48 45 3 52.1 46.4 5.8 3 51 40 11
CNN 694LV 10/03 - 10/05 53 45 8 53.4 45.1 8.3 2 51 40 11
Ipsos 858RV 10/02 - 10/06 47 40 7 55.6 42.9 12.8 1 51 41 10
Sept
Marist 943LV 09/28 - 09/30 49 44 5 53.1 45.4 7.8 30 51 41 10
AP/GfK 808LV 09/27 - 09/30 48 41 7 55.1 43.4 11.8 29 51 42 9
CBS/NYT 769LV 09/27 - 09/30 50 41 9 55.6 42.9 12.8 28 50 43 7
Ipsos 1007RV 09/27 - 09/30 48 45 3 52.1 46.4 5.8 27 49 43 6
Time 1133LV 09/27 - 09/29 50 43 7 54.1 44.4 9.8 26 48 43 5
Pew 1181LV 09/27 - 09/29 49 43 6 53.9 44.6 9.3 25 49 43 6
ABC/WP 916LV 09/27 - 09/29 50 46 4 51.9 46.6 5.3 24 48 44 4
CBS/NYT 844RV 09/22 - 09/24 47 42 5 54.1 44.4 9.8 23 49 43 6
ABC/WP 780LV 09/20 - 09/22 52 43 9 54.6 43.9 10.8 22 49 43 6
FOX 900RV 09/20 - 09/22 45 39 6 55.9 42.6 13.3 21 49 42 7
Ipsos 923RV 09/20 - 09/22 44 43 1 52.6 45.9 6.8 20 50 42 8
NBC/WSJ 838LV 09/19 - 09/22 48 46 2 51.4 47.1 4.3 19 49 42 7
LAT 1085RV 09/19 - 09/22 49 45 4 52.4 46.1 6.3 18 49 43 6
CNN 697LV 09/19 - 09/21 51 47 4 51.4 47.1 4.3 17 48 44 4
Zogby 1008LV 09/13 - 09/15 47 45 2 51.9 46.6 5.3 16 48 45 3
Ipsos 1046RV 09/13 - 09/15 45 45 0 51.4 47.1 4.3 15 48 46 2
CBS/NYT 800LV 09/12 - 09/16 49 44 5 53.1 45.4 7.8 14 47 46 1
Quinpac 987LV 09/11 - 09/16 49 45 4 52.4 46.1 6.3 13 47 46 1
Newsw 1038RV 09/10 - 09/11 46 46 0 50.9 47.6 3.3 12 47 46 1
An Open Letter to Nate Silver
Updated: July 24, 2010
Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Nate, since your recent hiring by the NY Times, the R2K flap and your exchanges with Zogby, you have been getting lots of publicity from blogs such as vanity fair and motherjones.com. Your characterization of Zogby’s expertise (that he is the “world’s worst pollster”) says more about you then it does about him. Zogby ranked #1 in 1996 and 2000 (yes, Gore won Florida, despite what the NY Times said), and came close in the 2004 and 2008 elections, yet you fail to give him credit and rank him dead last. Why? Because you go along with the media-perpetuated myth that the recorded vote is sacrosanct. In other words, you discount the fraud factor and fail to distinguish between the True Vote and the recorded vote.
Below, you will see why Gore won by perhaps three million more than his recorded 540,000 vote margin; why Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million; why the Democratic Tsunami was denied in the 2006 midterms; and why Obama won by nearly 22 million votes in 2008, not the 9.5 million recorded.
I hereby challenge you to try and debunk the data, logic and mathematics used in the True Vote Model. If you cannot do so, then the underlying premise of your ranking system (that the recorded vote is an appropriate baseline to measure pollster performance) is invalid.
As an Internet blogger who has been posting pre-election and exit poll analyses to prove election fraud since 2004, I have occasionally looked at your postings on fivethirtyeight.com. I will say right here that unlike the bloggers and mainstream media (MSNBC, the NY Times, etc.) who extol your forecasting “expertise”, I do not believe you are quite the polling guru that they claim you are.
I say this as one who has been building quantitative models since 1965 for defense/aerospace manufacturers, Wall Street investment banks and has consulted for many financial and corporate enterprises. I have three degrees in Mathematics, including an MS in Applied Mathematics and an MS in Operations Research.
Your 2008 simulation model win probabilities did not sync with the projected vote shares. The major flaw in your model was to conflate it with your pollster rankings, an ill-conceived methodology. The first rule of model building is KISS (keep it simple stupid). You not only introduced an extraneous variable into your model, but the rankings were incorrect – a double whammy. Now, what do I mean by this, you ask?
You fail to distinguish the True Vote from the Recorded vote by ignoring vote miscounts. The premise on which your models are based (that fraud does not exist) is incorrect from the get-go. In your ranking system, pollsters who come close to the recorded vote (i.e. Rasmussen in 2004) are ranked high, but pollsters who come close to the True Vote (i.e. Zogby) are ranked low. The fact that Zogby is ranked at the bottom is a clear indictment of your approach. Ranking pollsters based on their performance against the recorded vote is a waste of time. Fortunately for you, your fans are unaware of the distinction between the recorded vote and the True Vote. In fact, most are unaware of the extent in which their votes have been compromised by fraud. In your models, election fraud is never a factor.
This is the simple, yet fundamental equation that you seem to be blissfully unaware of: Recorded Vote = True Vote + Fraud.
In 2004, Zogby’s final polling in nine battleground states was within 0.5% of the unadjusted exit poll average (after allocating undecided voters).
Kerry led in 8 states by 50.2-44.8%. The base case assumption was that he would capture 75% of the undecided (UVA) vote and win all 9 states by 53.7-45.9%. Assuming a conservative 55% UVA scenario, he would still win 8 states by 52.7-46.8%. Kerry officially won 4 of the 9 states by 50.1-49.4%. The margin of error was exceeded in 7 states, a 1 in 4.7 billion probability.
Poll Kerry Bush
Zogby 50.2 44.8 (final pre-election polls)
Projection 53.7 45.9 (75% undecided to Kerry)
Exit (WPE) 53.2 45.8
` Zogby Poll Projection Exit Poll Recorded
Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush
CO 47 48 50.3 49.1 50.1 48.6 47.4 52.1
FL 50 47 51.9 47.6 50.9 48.3 47.3 52.3
IA 50 44 54.2 45.4 50.7 48.4 49.5 50.1
ME 50 39 57.6 41.5 55.5 42.7 54.1 45.1
MI 52 45 53.9 45.6 54.4 44.7 51.5 48.0
MN 52 44 54.5 44.8 55.7 43.0 51.5 47.9
OH 50 47 52.3 47.7 54.2 45.4 48.9 51.1
PA 50 45 53.8 46.3 55.3 44.0 51.3 48.7
WI 51 44 54.3 45.1 52.0 47.0 49.9 49.6
Total 50.2 44.8 53.7 45.9 53.2 45.8 50.1 49.5
In 1996, Zogby was within 0.3% of the recorded vote.
He ranked # 1.
In 2000, Zogby was within 0.1% of the recorded vote.
He ranked #1
But there were 6 million uncounted votes.
Gore won by at least 3 million votes.
The election was stolen.
In 2004, Zogby was within 1.2% of the recorded vote.
His Election Day polling had Kerry by 50-47%.
Kerry’s True Vote was 53.2% - a 10 million margin.
The election was stolen.
In 2006, Zogby ranked #7.
The pre-election Generic Poll Trend Model forecast a 56.4% Democratic Landslide.
The unadjusted National Exit Poll had 56.4%.
The landslide was denied.
In 2008, Zogby was within 2.2% of the recorded vote.
He ranked # 4.
Obama had a 58% True Vote share and won by 22 million votes.
The landslide was denied.
So why is Zogby at the very bottom of your pollster rankings?
Since you rank pollsters based on how close their polls match the recorded vote, I assume that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky are ranked at the top, since their final state and national exit polls always seem to match the recorded vote. So why don’t they release the unadjusted exit polls as well? These may actually reflect the True Vote. As one who purports to be a Quant, you should be interested in the statistical rationale for matching the final exit polls to a rigged recorded vote .
Check with your new employer, the Grey Lady. The NYT is an important part of the National Exit Pool, the consortium that sponsors the exit polls. The NEP also includes the Washington Post, ABC, CNN, AP and Fox News. That’s plenty of MSM polling power. It is the height of hypocrisy to expect transparency from R2K and not releasing raw, unadjusted precinct exit poll data from 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008 that would prove election fraud. That information would be very useful. It might indicate which exit poll precincts show discrepancies to the recorded vote that are virtually impossible mathematically.
What are your thoughts about the 2010 primaries in MA, AR, SC and AL? Does the fact that Coakley won the hand-counts in MA indicate something to you? Does the fact that 40 AR precincts that favored Halter were closed down right before the election indicate something? What about the unknown, non-campaigner Greene winning in SC by 59-41% but losing the absentees by 84-16%? The DINOS on the state election commission refused to consider the recommendations of computer scientists to investigate the voting machines that were obviously rigged. In AL on June 8, the attorney general issued an opinion that an automatic recount does not apply in a primary election. Knowing all this, will you factor fraud into your 2010 projections – along with estimated turnout and final polling shares?
Do you want further confirmation that Kerry won in a landslide? As an “expert” analyst, you should have taken a close look at the 2004 National Exit Poll. If you had, you would have seen that the Final NEP as always, was forced to match the recorded vote by increasing the 2004 percentage mix of returning 2000 voters from 41% at 12:22am (13047 respondents) to an impossible 43% in the Final (13660) at 1:00am. Bush’s vote shares were also inflated to implausible levels.
According to the Final NEP, 43% (52.6 million) of 2004 voters were returning Bush 2000 voters. But this was impossible. Bush only had 50.46 million recorded votes. Based on voter mortality tables, 2.5 million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Therefore at most only 48 million returning Bush voters could have voted in 2004. But if an estimated 98% turned out, 47 million voted. Therefore, the number of returning Bush voters was inflated by at least 5 million. Kerry won the election by 10 million votes. You are welcome to try and refute the True Vote Model.
Do you want to see a proof that Obama won by nearly 22 million votes and not by the recorded 9.5 million? As an “expert” analyst, you should have taken a close look at the 2008 National Exit Poll. If you had, you would have seen that the Final NEP, as is always the case, was forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the number of returning 2004 voters to an impossible level. According to the NEP, 46% (60 million) of 2008 voters were returning Bush 2004 voters and 37% were returning Kerry voters. That means there were 12 million more returning Bush voters than Kerry voters – and that’s assuming the myth perpetuated by the mainstream media (who you are now going to work for) that Bush won by 3 million votes in 2004. Do you believe it? How could that be?
But it’s much worse than that. If Kerry won by 10 million votes as the True Vote Model indicates (you are welcome to try and refute it) then there were approximately 10 million more returning Kerry voters than Bush voters. Assuming the same NEP vote shares that were used to match the recorded vote, Obama wins by 22 million votes, not the 9.5 million recorded.
The 2008 NEP indicated that 4% (5 million) of the electorate consisted of returning third-party voters. That was clearly impossible; only 1.2 million third-party votes were recorded in 2004. In their zeal to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to create millions of phantom Bush and third-party voters.
In the eleven presidential elections from 1968 to 2008, the Republicans won the popular vote by 49-45%, (6% went to third parties). But the Democrats won the True Vote by 49-45%.
It’s all in my book: Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll.
As the first analyst to use Monte Carlo simulation in the 2004 Election Model (and the updated 2008 Election Model), I applied extensive exit poll analysis in developing a post-election True Vote Model. It proves that not only were the 2000 and 2004 elections stolen, it is likely that 1968 and 1988 were as well. There were at least 6 million uncounted votes in 1968, 11 million in 1988, 6 million in 2000 and 4 million in 2004 – and the clear majority were Democratic (minority) votes.
The Edison Mitofsky 2004 Evaluation Report provides the exit poll discrepancies (WPE) of 238 state presidential election exit polls from 1988-2004. Of the 66 that exceeded the 3% margin of error, 65 favored the Republican. Was it due to reluctant Bush responders and/or exuberant Democratic responders? No, it was the result of millions of uncounted votes (mostly Democratic) and millions of phantom Bush voters.
The Final 2004 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation) projected Kerry would win a 51.3% share and 337 electoral votes. This closely matched the unadjusted aggregate state exit polls (52%) and the 12:22am National Exit Poll (51.2%). The True Vote Model indicated that Kerry had a 53.2% share. Of course Bush won by a bogus 50.7-48.3% recorded vote margin. How did your projections pan out?
In the 2006 midterms, the pre-election Trend Model (based on 120 Generic polls) projected a 56.43% share for the Democrats. The unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a nearly identical 56.37%. The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the 52% recorded vote. Nate, which one do you believe was correct? You are surely aware of documented miscounts in quite a few congressional elections, virtually all favoring the GOP (see FL–13, FL-24, OH-1, etc.). How did your projections pan out?
The Final 2008 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation) exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2%(53.1%) of his 52.9% share. But it was wrong. Obama did much better than that.
The final state pre-election likely voter (LV) polls did not fully capture the late shift to Obama. Had they been registered voter (RV) polls, adjusted for undecided voters, Obama would have had a 57% share. He had 57% and 420 EV in the True Vote Model. As shown below, the final Gallup RV tracking poll gave Obama a 53-40% margin. After allocating undecided voters, he had 57% - matching the True Vote Model. How did your projections pan out?
As one versed in statistics, are you aware that the expected electoral vote is the simple summation:
EV = å Win probability (i) * EV (i), where i=1,51 states?
Do you see why only state win probabilities, based on the latest polling adjusted for undecided voters, are necessary to calculate the expected EV?
Do you now see why a simulation or “meta-analysis” is unnecessary overkill for calculating the expected (“theoretical”) electoral vote?
Do you understand that the only reason for running a Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation is to determine an EV probability distribution?
The 2008 Election Model Monte Carlo simulation required only 5000 election trials for the mean EV (365.8) to converge to the theoretical expected value (365.3) illustrating the Law of Large Numbers. Do you see why an electoral vote simulation of more than 5000 election trials is overkill?
So what does it all mean?
It means that any and all polling analysis that fails to consider voter mortality, uncounted votes and a feasible voter turnout is doomed to produce the wrong result. The correct result is the True Vote based on total votes cast. The wrong result is the recorded vote that ignores uncounted votes but includes phantom voters.
It means that the recorded vote, the basis for your rankings, never reflects the True Vote!
It exposes your ranking system, which places John Zogby (the only pollster to predict the True Vote in the last three presidential elections) at the bottom of a list of scores of obscure pollsters, as being fatally flawed.
It means that your comments disparaging exit polls, along with your failure to do post-election True Vote analyses, indicate that you are in sync with a moribund mainstream media that perpetuates endemic Election Fraud by withholding raw exit poll data. They accept the recorded vote as Gospel - just as you do in your rankings. You will fit in very well at the NY Times.
When will you incorporate the True Vote into your analysis? Why do you ignore the fact that the mainstream media (i.e. the National Election Pool, which includes the NY Times) is responsible for the impossible adjustments (made by the exit pollsters they employ) to the final 2004, 2006, 2008 state and national exit polls? They had to match the polls to corrupted recorded vote counts, come hell or high water - and will surely do so again in 2010.
[code]
Table 1 displays probabilities that the Democratic share of 18-29 age group woud exceed that of other age groups in all 20 races.
Table 2 displays R2K daily statistics.
The margin of error is 1.96 times the standard deviation (a measure of volatility) at the 95% confidence level.
The standard deviation of Obama’s daily poll shares was 1.83%. It was 1.59% for the 3-day moving average.
Table 3 is a comparison of Gallup vs. R2K.
Gallup was a registered voter (RV) poll. R2K was a likely voter (LV) poll.
The average shares and volatilities (standard deviation) closely match.
There was a strong 0.70 correlation between Obama’s Gallup and R2K shares.
There was a good 0.50 correlation between McCain’s Gallup and R2K shares.
Gallup Change Change R2K Change Change
Obama McCain Obama McCain Obama McCain Obama McCain
Avg 49.65 42.90 0.15 -0.15 50.29 42.21 0.06 -0.02
Stdev 2.02 1.74 0.94 0.89 1.59 1.86 0.70 0.73
Table 4 compares the R2K tracking poll and other polls (including standard, non-tracking polls) It includes projections based on the allocation of undecided voters (UVA).
Assumptions
1) 75% of the undecided vote is allocated to Obama, the de-facto challenger.
2) third parties have 1.5% (the actual recorded share).
The final Gallup Obama projection (57.1%) is a close match to the True Vote Model (57.5%).
Obama final projected shares:
Gallup: 53 + .75 * 5.5 = 53 + 4.13 = 57.1%
R2K: 51 + .75 * 3.5 = 51 + 2.63 = 53.6%
Table 1
Probabilities that Democratic share of 18-29 age group exceeds that of other age groups in all 20 races.
Poll 18-29 Prob 18-29> given group
18-29 46.30 2-party any race ALL races
30-44 41.95 52.46% 94.63% 33.17%
45-59 40.40 53.40% 98.69% 76.81%
60+ 36.10 56.19% 100.00% 99.95%
2-party 52.46% 47.54% 46.60%
Correl 1 0.88 0.73 0.71
Stdev 6.67 7.07 4.55 6.06
Avg 46.3 41.95 40.4 36.1
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+
1 44 42 41 38
2 59 58 50 48
3 61 49 42 50
4 48 45 39 34
5 39 27 36 26
6 44 42 44 37
7 37 30 35 29
8 54 46 42 33
9 48 45 38 34
10 38 35 31 29
11 38 36 34 33
12 39 32 37 33
13 48 47 43 42
14 47 44 41 37
15 52 45 43 29
16 46 45 40 37
17 48 44 44 40
18 46 42 40 37
19 42 41 40 36
20 48 44 48 40
TABLE 2
R2K DAILY POLL vs. 3-DAY MOVING AVERAGE
DAILY 3-DAY AVERAGE
Obama 3-day Moving avg
McCain Obama Margin Change McCain Obama
avg 42.45 50.21 7.77 1.02 42.32 50.26
stdev 2.12 1.83 3.68 0.71 1.90 1.59
1103 45 52 7 2 45.67 50.67
1102 46 50 4 0 45.00 50.67
1101 46 50 4 2 44.33 51.33
1031 43 52 9 0 44.00 51.33
1030 44 52 8 2 44.67 50.67
1029 45 50 5 0 44.67 50.00
1028 45 50 5 0 44.33 49.67
1027 44 50 6 1 43.00 49.67
1026 44 49 5 1 41.67 50.00
1025 41 50 9 1 40.00 51.33
1024 40 51 11 2 40.00 51.67
1023 39 53 14 2 40.00 52.00
1022 41 51 10 1 41.00 51.33
1021 40 52 12 1 41.33 51.00
1020 42 51 9 1 42.33 50.33
1019 42 50 8 0 42.33 49.67
1018 43 50 7 1 43.00 49.67
1017 42 49 7 1 42.67 50.33
1016 44 50 6 2 42.33 51.67
1015 42 52 10 1 41.33 52.00
1014 41 53 12 2 41.00 52.00
1013 41 51 10 1 40.67 52.00
1012 41 52 11 1 40.33 52.33
1011 40 53 13 1 39.67 52.67
1010 40 52 12 1 39.67 52.33
1009 39 53 14 1 40.33 51.67
1008 40 52 12 2 41.00 50.67
1007 42 50 8 0 41.33 50.67
1006 41 50 9 2 40.67 51.67
1005 41 52 11 1 40.00 52.33
1004 40 53 13 1 39.67 52.33
1003 39 52 13 0 39.67 51.67
1002 40 52 12 1 40.33 51.00
1001 40 51 11 1 40.33 50.67
930 41 50 9 1 40.67 51.00
929 40 51 11 1 41.00 51.33
928 41 52 11 1 42.00 51.00
927 42 51 9 1 42.67 49.67
926 43 50 7 2 42.67 49.00
925 43 48 5 1 43.00 48.33
924 42 49 7 1 43.00 48.67
923 44 48 4 1 43.67 48.33
922 43 49 6 1 43.33 48.67
921 44 48 4 1 43.00 48.67
920 43 49 6 0 42.33 49.33
919 42 49 7 1 42.00 49.67
918 42 50 8 0 42.33 49.33
917 42 50 8 2 43.00 48.67
916 43 48 5 0 44.00 48.00
915 44 48 4 0 44.67 48.00
914 45 48 3 0 45.67 47.33
913 45 48 3 2 46.00 46.67
912 47 46 -1 0 46.00 46.67
911 46 46 0 2 46.00 46.67
910 45 48 3 2 Na na
909 47 46 -1 Na Na na
TABLE 3
GALLUP vs. R2K TRACKING POLLS (3-DAY AVERAGE)
GALLUP RESEARCH 2000
Gallup Change Change R2K Change Change
Obama McCain Obama McCain Obama McCain Obama McCain
Avg 49.65 42.90 0.15 -0.15 50.29 42.21 0.06 -0.02
Stdev 2.02 1.74 0.94 0.89 1.59 1.86 0.70 0.73
Correl 0.70 0.50
1102 53 40 1 -1 51 44 0 0
1101 52 41 0 0 51 44 0 -1
1031 52 41 0 0 51 45 1 0
1030 52 41 2 -1 50 45 0 1
1029 50 42 -1 0 50 44 0 1
1028 51 42 1 -1 50 43 0 1
1027 50 43 -2 1 50 42 -1 2
1026 52 42 1 0 51 40 -1 0
1025 51 42 0 0 52 40 0 0
1024 51 42 1 0 52 40 1 -1
1023 50 42 0 -1 51 41 0 0
1022 50 43 -1 1 51 41 1 -1
1021 51 42 -1 1 50 42 0 0
1020 52 41 0 0 50 42 0 -1
1019 52 41 0 -1 50 43 0 0
1018 52 42 2 0 50 43 -2 1
1017 50 42 0 -1 52 42 0 1
1016 50 43 1 0 52 41 0 0
1015 49 43 -1 0 52 41 0 0
1014 50 43 -1 1 52 41 0 1
1013 51 42 0 1 52 40 -1 0
1012 51 41 1 -2 53 40 1 0
1011 50 43 -1 1 52 40 0 0
1010 51 42 0 1 52 40 1 -1
1009 51 41 -1 0 51 41 0 0
1008 52 41 0 0 51 41 -1 0
1007 52 41 1 -1 52 41 0 1
1006 51 42 1 0 52 40 0 0
1005 50 42 0 -1 52 40 0 0
1004 50 43 0 1 52 40 1 0
1003 50 42 1 0 51 40 0 0
1002 49 42 1 -1 51 40 0 -1
1001 48 43 0 -1 51 41 0 0
930 48 44 -1 1 51 41 0 -1
929 49 43 -1 1 51 42 1 -1
928 50 42 0 0 50 43 1 0
927 50 42 1 -2 49 43 1 0
926 49 44 1 -1 48 43 -1 0
925 48 45 2 -1 49 43 1 -1
924 46 46 -1 2 48 44 -1 1
923 47 44 0 0 49 43 0 0
922 47 44 -1 0 49 43 0 1
921 48 44 -1 -1 49 42 -1 0
920 49 45 -1 1 50 42 1 0
919 50 44 1 0 49 42 0 -1
918 49 44 1 0 49 43 1 -1
917 48 44 1 -1 48 44 0 -1
916 47 45 1 -2 48 45 1 -1
915 46 47 1 0 47 46 0 0
914 45 47 0 0 47 46 0 0
913 45 47 0 0 47 46 0 0
912 45 47 0 -1 47 46 -1 1
TABLE 4
ALL POLLS vs. R2K TRACKING
Projections based on Undecided Voter Allocation
Projected Vote
Undecided Voter Allocation
All POLLS 75% 25% Research 2000
Obama McCain Margin Obama McCain Margin Obama McCain Margin
Average 49.87 42.67 7.20 54.34 44.16 10.19 50.33 42.33 8.00
Stdev 2.434 2.426 3.74 2.022 2.022 4.04 1.53 1.93 3.23
Max 54.00 47.00 16.00 59.88 47.63 21.25 53.00 46.00 13.00
PollsterSample Min 44.00 36.00 0.00 50.88 38.63 3.25 47.00 40.00 1.00
Nov
Marist 804LV 11/03 - 11/03 52 43 9 54.6 43.9 10.8 4 51 46 5
FOX News971LV 11/02 - 11/03 50 43 7 54.1 44.4 9.8 3 51 45 6
Zogby 1201LV 11/01 - 11/03 54 43 11 55.1 43.4 11.8 2 51 44 7
NBC/WSJ 1011LV 11/01 - 11/02 51 43 8 54.4 44.1 10.3 1 51 44 7
Res2k 1100LV 10/31 - 11/02 51 44 7 53.6 44.9 8.8 3 51 45 6
Oct
Gallup 2847RV 10/31 - 11/02 53 40 13 57.1 41.4 15.8 30 50 45 5
Hotl/FD 882LV 10/31 - 11/02 50 45 5 52.6 45.9 6.8 29 50 44 6
Rasmus 3000LV 10/31 - 11/02 51 46 5 52.1 46.4 5.8 28 50 43 7
ABC/WP 2446RV 10/31 - 11/02 54 41 13 56.6 41.9 14.8 27 50 42 8
CNN 1017LV 10/30 - 11/01 51 43 8 54.4 44.1 10.3 26 51 40 11
Pew 2587LV 10/30 - 11/01 49 42 7 54.6 43.9 10.8 25 52 40 12
Marist 543LV 10/29 - 10/29 50 43 7 54.1 44.4 9.8 24 52 40 12
CBS 1005LV 10/28 - 10/31 54 41 13 56.6 41.9 14.8 23 51 41 10
FOX 924LV 10/28 - 10/29 47 44 3 52.6 45.9 6.8 22 51 41 10
Battg 1000LV 10/27 - 10/30 49 45 4 52.4 46.1 6.3 21 50 42 8
Ipsos 831LV 10/23 - 10/27 50 45 5 52.6 45.9 6.8 20 50 42 8
Pew 1325RV 10/23 - 10/26 52 36 16 59.9 38.6 21.3 19 50 43 7
Newswk 882LV 10/22 - 10/23 53 41 12 56.4 42.1 14.3 18 50 43 7
FOX 936LV 10/20 - 10/21 49 40 9 56.1 42.4 13.8 17 52 42 10
CBS/NYT 771LV 10/19 - 10/22 52 39 13 57.6 40.9 16.8 16 52 41 11
NBC/WSJ 1159RV 10/18 - 10/20 52 42 10 55.4 43.1 12.3 15 52 41 11
CNN 764LV 10/17 - 10/19 51 46 5 52.1 46.4 5.8 14 52 41 11
Ipsos 773LV 10/16 - 10/20 50 42 8 54.9 43.6 11.3 13 52 40 12
Pew 2382LV 10/16 - 10/19 53 39 14 57.9 40.6 17.3 12 53 40 13
Pew 1191LV 10/12 - 10/14 50 40 10 56.4 42.1 14.3 11 52 40 12
CBS/NYT 699LV 10/10 - 10/13 53 39 14 57.9 40.6 17.3 10 52 40 12
LAT 1030LV 10/10 - 10/13 50 41 9 55.6 42.9 12.8 9 51 41 10
Ipsos 1036RV 10/9 - 10/13 48 39 9 56.6 41.9 14.8 8 51 41 10
ABC/WP 766LV 10/09 - 10/11 53 43 10 54.9 43.6 11.3 7 52 41 11
Newswk 1035RV 10/08 - 10/09 52 41 11 56.1 42.4 13.8 6 52 40 12
FOX 900RV 10/08 - 10/09 46 39 7 56.1 42.4 13.8 5 52 40 12
NBC/WSJ 658RV 10/04 - 10/05 49 43 6 53.9 44.6 9.3 4 52 40 12
CBS/NYT 616LV 10/03 - 10/05 48 45 3 52.1 46.4 5.8 3 51 40 11
CNN 694LV 10/03 - 10/05 53 45 8 53.4 45.1 8.3 2 51 40 11
Ipsos 858RV 10/02 - 10/06 47 40 7 55.6 42.9 12.8 1 51 41 10
Sept
Marist 943LV 09/28 - 09/30 49 44 5 53.1 45.4 7.8 30 51 41 10
AP/GfK 808LV 09/27 - 09/30 48 41 7 55.1 43.4 11.8 29 51 42 9
CBS/NYT 769LV 09/27 - 09/30 50 41 9 55.6 42.9 12.8 28 50 43 7
Ipsos 1007RV 09/27 - 09/30 48 45 3 52.1 46.4 5.8 27 49 43 6
Time 1133LV 09/27 - 09/29 50 43 7 54.1 44.4 9.8 26 48 43 5
Pew 1181LV 09/27 - 09/29 49 43 6 53.9 44.6 9.3 25 49 43 6
ABC/WP 916LV 09/27 - 09/29 50 46 4 51.9 46.6 5.3 24 48 44 4
CBS/NYT 844RV 09/22 - 09/24 47 42 5 54.1 44.4 9.8 23 49 43 6
ABC/WP 780LV 09/20 - 09/22 52 43 9 54.6 43.9 10.8 22 49 43 6
FOX 900RV 09/20 - 09/22 45 39 6 55.9 42.6 13.3 21 49 42 7
Ipsos 923RV 09/20 - 09/22 44 43 1 52.6 45.9 6.8 20 50 42 8
NBC/WSJ 838LV 09/19 - 09/22 48 46 2 51.4 47.1 4.3 19 49 42 7
LAT 1085RV 09/19 - 09/22 49 45 4 52.4 46.1 6.3 18 49 43 6
CNN 697LV 09/19 - 09/21 51 47 4 51.4 47.1 4.3 17 48 44 4
Zogby 1008LV 09/13 - 09/15 47 45 2 51.9 46.6 5.3 16 48 45 3
Ipsos 1046RV 09/13 - 09/15 45 45 0 51.4 47.1 4.3 15 48 46 2
CBS/NYT 800LV 09/12 - 09/16 49 44 5 53.1 45.4 7.8 14 47 46 1
Quinpac 987LV 09/11 - 09/16 49 45 4 52.4 46.1 6.3 13 47 46 1
Newsw 1038RV 09/10 - 09/11 46 46 0 50.9 47.6 3.3 12 47 46 1